Stop The Meter On Your Internet Use

[lastlight]

Originally Posted by MitchM

If the ISP's don't charge more for city internet usage (especially heavy users), how are they supposed to fund expansion of reasonable rural broadband service?

No LFS and no high-speed. Sort it out Mitch!

[Lampshade]

I don't want to be the big negative on this one.. but i think it's be good. Why am i paying for other people to download movies? It's like your electrical bill, if we all paid an average rate i'd be ****ed that my house is heated with gas. My theory is that most people only use a fraction of their internet, others download 60GB+ a month(max on shaw). I download some movies, but no where near the amount some other people run, so why do i pay the same as them?

Anyways, my 2 cents, there's always 2 sides to an argument.

[lastlight]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

Anyways, my 2 cents, there's always 2 sides to an argument.

Yeah the side of me that wants to download movies still signed the petition as a gut reaction. If this change actually meant users who download less would pay less than their CURRENT amount (I doubt that will happen) I'd sorta support it because I still don't use all that much bandwidth with a movie here and there.

[Parker]

I agree with Lampshade,

I don't see a problem with paying for a service as used.

[lastlight]

Originally Posted by TheDogFather

Please, this is a serious issue and insinuating that the petition will sign you up for telemarketing calls does not help the issue.

That being said, thanks for taking the time to sign it and please forward the link to anyone who cares about fair competition for ISP's in Canada!

-TDF

I was the one that made the joke you can be serious with me if you'd like lol.

[globaldesigns]

I have a different take on this, and do agree with the ISP's in many ways.

Here is an article about it on CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/...canadians.html

I think the problem is that the ISP's will make it a cash grab and screw everyone, but in reality they should apply the fees to the abusers only.

If the ISP's were smart they would provide packages. If you are a small user, surfing the occasional website and doing email... Then no change or even better a lower price, but if you use Netflix for 5 hours a night, download tonnes of music or whatever, then you pick a higher usage package, if you need more bandwidth then again you pay more. I see no problem with that, based on that is the major cost to all ISP's, Hosting companies and so on...

Lets see what happens, but most likely as I already stated, the ISP will take advantage of the basic usage and gouge them some extra cash.

[DiverDude]

Originally Posted by globaldesigns

I think the problem is that the ISP's will make it a cash grab and screw everyone, but in reality they should apply the fees to the abusers only.

I'm with Rick on this one. Why should my mother who uses maybe a couple of Gig a month suddenly pay more for internet because somebody sits on their couch all day watching movies on Netflix ?

I think Rick's got it nailed -the big companies are looking to apply moderate rate increases across the board -and this will bring them MUCH more cash than simply billing the abusers. Of course, that detail will never see the light of day; they'll just point out that bandwidth usage is increasing all the time (and it is) and that everyone has to pay more.

I'll sign the petition because I know that's what going to happen and that's not right. However, I approve of (and would support) a proper initiative to see them cover their additional costs on abusers.

[TheDogFather]

Originally Posted by globaldesigns

I have a different take on this, and do agree with the ISP's in many ways.

Here is an article about it on CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/...canadians.html

I think the problem is that the ISP's will make it a cash grab and screw everyone, but in reality they should apply the fees to the abusers only.

If the ISP's were smart they would provide packages. If you are a small user, surfing the occasional website and doing email... Then no change or even better a lower price, but if you use Netflix for 5 hours a night, download tonnes of music or whatever, then you pick a higher usage package, if you need more bandwidth then again you pay more. I see no problem with that, based on that is the major cost to all ISP's, Hosting companies and so on...

Lets see what happens, but most likely as I already stated, the ISP will take advantage of the basic usage and gouge them some extra cash.

The problem is that small ISP's that resell DSL cannot compete on a level playing field. Bell set's the wholesale pricing and is free to under cut the little guy with individual promotions. This effectively wipes out the small players leaving you no other option but Bell or Rogers who are then free to impose tiny caps so you can't enjoy services such as Netflix without paying exorbitant band width charges. The actual cost of 1GB data transfer is about $0.02. Bell and Rogers will charge you $1-$2 per GB raking in huge profits and stifling innovation.

[corpusse]

I can't remember a time when I didn't have a cap. I have no idea what unlimited use feels like anymore.

In the old days sympatico used to cap at 5 gigs up 5 gigs down!! I'd be done in a couple of days.

I'm now capped at 125 gigs which is pretty reasonable on rogers. The only problem is I can't use the bandwidth for what I want. My primary bandwidth use was sharing live (not copywritten) music on Bit Torrent. I realize the majority of BT traffic is for pirated stuff but there are plenty of legit uses for it too.

[lastlight]

I was young and living at home and we had cadvision dial-up. I downloaded my first 2 gigs of mp3s...some were actually mp2s lol by secretly leaving the computer ON at night. My dad had this thing about us shutting it off at night. Anyways we all found out about the limits on the account that month and the next month I was the first of my friends to have their own dedicated high speed connections haha. My folks had dial-up upstairs for a couple more years.