

Why the CRTC was right on Usage-Based Billing - nl
http://eaves.ca/2011/02/03/why-the-crtc-was-right-on-user-based-billing/

======
nl
I'm in Australia, where we have usage based billing, and I agree with this
analysis.

Here, the key to making it work has been competition at the ISP level. I think
regulators are better off chasing anti-competitive practices than trying to
outlaw business models.

For example, in Australia the incumbent telco has been forced to give access
to its copper-based network, and to its exchanges. That has allowed ISPs to
install their own equipment (which is how ADSL2 rolled out here), which
brought speed & price competition.

(Yes, Australia has a lot of problems with domestic internet policy wrt
Telstra. This policy had fairly good outcomes though - if a little slower than
could have been ideal)

~~~
veb
Agreed. Here in New Zealand, we've learned to deal with it. You can either pay
around $1 per GB if you go over, or get throttled to 64k or similar.

It's like driving your car, you only have so much petrol, and if that runs out
you need to put more in, so you use it wisely. (i.e. you drive when you need
to)

------
orangecat
Charging something per byte is reasonable. Charging 100 times cost is not.

~~~
rfugger
Cost isn't cost to transfer the next GB though, it's the cost to build an
infrastructure that can provide decent QoS to all the Netflix users. It's a
much different equation.

