![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 3rd, 2011 12:56 pmThere is something about the latest CRTC ruling that is escaping me. It amounts to (simplified) rates would charge a specific base rate, and then a rate/GB of traffic.
Broadly speaking...that's just a rewording of what already happens. I pay a rate of $X and I get a limit of YGB, and beyond that I pay a rate of $Z per GB. They may be talking about changing X, Y, and Z, but how is the new ruling any different in a real sense than what we had previously?
To be sure, I want X, Y, and Z to be set to fair and competitive values, and of course I would like X and Z to be low, and Y to be high, but the exact numbers is just semantics. I am not sure what the ruling actually changes in terms of the mechanical approach to ISP billing.
More to the point...it's a pretty logical model. I'd like to pay a low rate for what I use, but ultimately, it makes sense that I pay for what I use. The whole furor lately came about in no small part from Netflix coming to Canada, but again, I don't see what that changes. If I use Netflix a lot, then my bandwidth goes up. If I go past my plan limit, then I pay for the overage. I may argue about the specific rates I am being charged, but I can't argue with the principle of having a limit, and of having to pay if I go over the limit.
I am missing something in these recent happenings. The articles in question seemed to surround plans with unlimited access...but I have never heard of such a beast. Every internet plan I have seen, from every provider I have seen, has had specific limits. Sometimes those limits are very high, sometimes low, but I've never seen unlimited. Maybe other parts of Canada have unlimited plans.
Broadly speaking...that's just a rewording of what already happens. I pay a rate of $X and I get a limit of YGB, and beyond that I pay a rate of $Z per GB. They may be talking about changing X, Y, and Z, but how is the new ruling any different in a real sense than what we had previously?
To be sure, I want X, Y, and Z to be set to fair and competitive values, and of course I would like X and Z to be low, and Y to be high, but the exact numbers is just semantics. I am not sure what the ruling actually changes in terms of the mechanical approach to ISP billing.
More to the point...it's a pretty logical model. I'd like to pay a low rate for what I use, but ultimately, it makes sense that I pay for what I use. The whole furor lately came about in no small part from Netflix coming to Canada, but again, I don't see what that changes. If I use Netflix a lot, then my bandwidth goes up. If I go past my plan limit, then I pay for the overage. I may argue about the specific rates I am being charged, but I can't argue with the principle of having a limit, and of having to pay if I go over the limit.
I am missing something in these recent happenings. The articles in question seemed to surround plans with unlimited access...but I have never heard of such a beast. Every internet plan I have seen, from every provider I have seen, has had specific limits. Sometimes those limits are very high, sometimes low, but I've never seen unlimited. Maybe other parts of Canada have unlimited plans.