
Some perspective on exactly how badly ISPs in Canada are overcharging for data - niyazpk
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/fcut7/i_wanted_to_put_some_perspective_on_exactly_how/c1f00jt
======
duke_sam
Is it me or is the ISP business getting steadily more anti-customer? Between
trying to double charge for bandwidth (charge me a monthly fee and then charge
company X for access to me) and attempting to push through lower and lower
caps. I understand the increasing costs of infrastructure to provide for users
streaming content but would this not be part of their business plans and
budgeted for? Or did they expect everybody to continue using the internet like
it was 2000? I know the service was always sold on the assumption that the
majority of people are low bandwidth users but can ISPs really get this
defensive when people start trying to get what they pay for?

Also SMS still takes the cake for most crazily overpriced communication
medium, over $1000 per Mb.

~~~
natnat
I think a big part of this, in the US at least, is that ISPs are monopolies
that can do whatever they want to their customers. We granted telecoms
monopoly power back before deregulation became popular, and those monopolies
have carried over to the internet. But since the general trend over the past
20-30 years has been to remove existing regulations and not add new ones,
there are few laws on the books to protect consumers in the realm of new
technology. This is, I think, often a good thing in competitive markets, but
when the service providers have monopolies, deregulation may not be the
greatest.

~~~
tomrod
Another part of it is that cable companies/telcos already provide content for
a fee that many content providers provide on the internets for free. Hence,
content providers cut into their supposed bottom-line.

Content providers piggy-back on the ISPs in markets within which the ISP has
already entered: one would expect the ISP, as a local monopoly, to exercise
market power to force exit of the content providers.

~~~
roc
That's precisely the catalyst. The ISPs have finally figured out that their
high-profit communications and video 'features' are going to be destroyed by
IP alternatives and they'll become dumb commodity pipes. So they're trying to
jack up the price of bits to compensate.

~~~
tomrod
Time for the content providers (Google, HN) to invest in ISPs?

~~~
roc
As an Internet user I've never felt Net Neutrality was about the current
content providers. For me it's always been about the _next_
Google/Netflix/Youtube. i.e. The companies that can't possibly afford to
strike those deals.

And Google itself has shown that it's perfectly willing to strike deals to
protect its own traffic _and_ throw everyone else under the bus along the way.
(What do we really think that Verizon deal was about?) If they bought into
several major ISPs, I'm not sure the situation would be much improved.

------
latch
Shipping data is common, both to save money and for greater speed.

AWS has their import/export tool that does just this:
<http://aws.amazon.com/importexport/>

There's also the story of the carrier pigeon which was faster than broadband
in South Africa <http://www.physorg.com/news171883994.html>

Fill a 737 with bluray, fly it from NY to LA, and you'll reach 37,000 Gbit/s.

It's called Sneakernet: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet>

~~~
sid0
My networks prof said in his first lecture that if you don't care about
latency, shipping a hard drive is always cheaper.

~~~
Lagged2Death
It is likely that this will be true _for some given quantity of data_ for a
long time.

But in Canada, the quantity of data required to make the mail look like a good
option has just plummeted. It may be cheaper to mail a DVD+R for as little as
1GB of data. That's just not very much data anymore. Google offers Gmail users
more storage than that _for free_.

------
SeanDav
In the old days of computing people used to talk about "tackie" or "sneaker"
networks. Meaning put the data onto a disk and physically move it to another
machine. Looks like we are back to that again!

~~~
sophacles
Thats progress baby! See what Bell knows, and what you should know, is that
tech is like fashion, everything old is new again. Look for UUCP and VAX to
pick up steam again in the next 6-9 months, and brush op on your z/OS skills
for 2012.

------
kgermino
"never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes"

------
pasbesoin
Somewhat OT. What does a Netflix streamed movie consume, these days? I recall
looking some months ago on their site, but I couldn't find any hard numbers
(leaving the impression on me that this was on purpose).

I guess next time I watch one, I can fire up a monitor.

\--

EDIT: Answering myself, partially. My Google-fu is apparently a bit better,
today.

This is a bit dated, but provides some figures (bless dslreports):

[http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22164481-Netflix-
bandwidth-...](http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22164481-Netflix-bandwidth-
Is-1GBhr-at-HD-accurate)

It also cites this link:

<http://blog.netflix.com/2008/11/encoding-for-streaming.html>

There's probably better information, but this seems to provide enough of a
ballpark for my current interest, the one caveat being any changes in the year
or two since.

------
jasonlotito
This is Bell.

While I'm not claiming Canadian rates are cheap, this is what Videotron
charges:

Download speed: 60 Mbps Upload speed: 3 Mbps Total data transfer combined: 150
GB $82.95*

Which is 0.55$

You can also get additional data in 30 Gig blocks for 12.50$ (up to 3 a
month), which is 0.44$, if you need it. And there are additional services as
well.

I've been a subscriber to Videotron since 2002, and while they aren't the
cheapest, I've found their support fairly good, never having a major problems.

Edit: I should note, I'm just providing these prices as a perspective to
what's being presented other places. My wife and I also never go over the cap,
so we haven't worried about overage charges. However, if we did exceed the
cap, apparently it's $4.50/G!

~~~
masklinn
> This is Bell.

No, that's been Bell forever, but following the CRTC's last decision _any
carrier using Bell's network will be forced into those prices_ , because Bell
can now apply usage-based billing on their wholesale customers.

~~~
jasonlotito
That's what I mean. The prices linked only affects people using Bell's
systems.

~~~
masklinn
> That's what I mean.

But not what you said. End-point customers to Bell's wholesale customers
(virtual providers) used not to have these issues. They may not even be aware
their provider uses Bell's network under the hood.

Hell, if I read TekSavvy's news correctly they don't even use Bell's network
everywhere (only in Ontario and Quebec).

~~~
sedachv
It's not even Bell's network, just the last mile (telephone wires).

------
sbierwagen
Daniel Rutter did some similar math, using MicroSD cards, since they're
smaller and lighter per gigabyte.

<http://dansdata.com/gz105.htm>

If you fill a station wagon with them, and drive for 5 days, you'll do about
477 gibibytes per second, using 19.4 million cards, costing something like 750
million dollars.

In the real world, (he said, laughing uproariously) you'd only use a couple
dozen three terabyte drives, or something, but still. For certain
applications, sneakernetting can be much cheaper than internet transit.

------
afhof
I still find the price per text message (my cell carrier still charges 5 cents
per) enormous. To send 160GB via 160 char text messages would cost 50 million
dollars.

~~~
ianl
We pay 0.15/msg in Canada unless you pay for the unlimited plan which is
generally $15/mo.

The CRTC must be really bought by the telecommunications industry :(

------
cal5k
FYI, Teksavvy's cable plans still offer 200GB and unlimited options, since
they're running on Rogers' lines (I'm a cable customer and have confirmed this
with them). This may change, but in the meantime it's the best thing going if
you can get it!

------
absconditus
Why is this being upvoted? Who does not overcharge based on this idiotic
logic? It may have made for a humorous joke on reddit, but I expect better
here.

~~~
marquis
This is 2011. We have Netflix, gigagbytes of free online storage, dropbox..
Try living in New Zealand or Australia for a while. You start spending time
checking your services are not downloading updates automatically, or disabling
dropbox except a few days of the month so you don't blow your limit. You wait
2 days for a DVD to arrive in the mail from the local Netflix equivalent. You
don't watch local news videos, or upload HD to Vimeo. You get upset at your US
friends who email you a 5gb mp3. You're careful about where you hit play. You
install AdBlock and worry about not supporting communities that rely on ads.
It goes on and on and on - the fact is, our internet culture has grown to
where downloading and uploading is a necessity, especially for the youth.
Limits are serving to put media control back in the hands of those who control
the method of transmission. The entire topic infuriates me as I've experienced
limited and unlimited connections, and I certainly can attest to the greater
production output I have when on an unlimited connection.

The reddit post points how exactly how ridiculous it is to be charged for
something in this manner, the sheer unfairness of it. ISPs need to be
reproached by their customers, and that will only happen by making it an
emotional issue.

~~~
snsr
Customers' only effective paths to reproach would be to either cut themselves
off from culture and communications, or to switch to a competing ISP with more
favorable terms. Conveniently for most ISPs, there is no competition.

~~~
marquis
This is where web companies and consumers come together, and large companies
like Amazon can have a conversation that means something with the government.
It's in Amazon's benefit (or Apple/iTunes, whatever large company makes money
from media downloads) to work with the consumer here.

