I'll provide one data point of how this affects Canadian internet users.
I currently have no caps with TekSavvy and pay $39 a month. Starting from March 1st, I will pay $31.95/mo with a 25 GB cap. Any gigabyte over the limit will cost about 2 bucks.
Now, you can buy a block at discounted prices. According to TekSavvy, based on my internet usage, I will need to buy at least a 275 GB extra block. Believe it or not, I don't torrent. I simply like to watch NetFlix, HD movies from iTunes, lots of educational videos online, and backup data in the cloud.
That 275 GB block costs $55/mo. So I suddenly go from paying $39 for unlimited data to paying $86.95 per month, and having to be careful about what I download and what not.
Oh, and the first thing I need to do is stop backing up my data, videos, and photos in the cloud. That's pretty much out of the question with the risk of paying $2 per extra GB. I'm buying an additional external hard drive instead.
I actually agree with metering; I think it's the only fair measure. Granted, the metering you describe sounds atrocious, and there'll probably be a long messy transition to the point where our internet bill is more like our electric bill.
But imagine this: on mobile networks, instead of voice minutes, text messages, data caps, fees for tethering, and every other scheme the Telcos are concocting right now (with regard to charging for individual services), we instead have a single measure of our usage — data — and our bill starts at something reasonable like $5 or $10 a month.
The problem with "unlimited" in my view is that it conditions us to think that said resource really is unlimited, versus, say, electricity where we are incentivized to be aware of our usage. Now, if they're going to charge $2 per GB above some arbitrary cap — that's clearly absurd. But to start the bill very low (for the basic connection), and then charge, say, 10¢ or 15¢ per GB? Sign me up.
Metering only makes sense if the costs vary with usage. In the case of DSL, the vast majority of the cost is the cost of maintaining the copper pair to your house, and that cost largely doesn't change, regardless of usage.
Now, if the line from the CO (where the DSL terminates) to the internet was a significant bit of the cost, I'd agree with you. But my understanding is that the line from the CO to the 'net is a very small cost compared to the cost of all those copper pairs.
You also have a point when it comes to shared-loop technologies like cable. Metering is probably the most fair way to decide who gets what percentage of the limited fixed loop. (and probably the best way to get the telco to add more capacity when a loop becomes overloaded)
I'm just saying, the last-mile has many situations where running the connection, regardless of how much you use that connection, dominates the cost. And in those cases, "unlimited" (up to your port speed) billing makes a whole lot of sense.
> Metering only makes sense if the costs vary with usage ... in the case of DSL, the vast majority of the cost is the cost of maintaining the copper pair to your house, and that cost largely doesn't change, regardless of usage.
That's a somewhat naive view of things. It only works if all the upstream equipment has infinite capacity. If you (and others like you) use 275GB instead of 10GB then it absolutely does cause more equipment to have to be installed upstream, which I don't think is an insignificant cost.
I'm like the GP - I wish every connection was metered, the problem is not metering, but the rate which invariably seems to be way above what is reasonable. Metering seems to always just be a cynical strategy to exploit naive users who don't know how much bandwidth they consume (bill shock, etc) rather than a rational economic way of sharing a limited resource.
After the connection hits the DSLAM it goes onto fiber, which starts at 1 Gbps capacity and goes up to either 40Gbps or 100Gbps per port. Only in the smallest markets would they use a T3/DS3 connection.
Actual bandwidth costs for 200GB (which is about 1Mbps) over the course of a month are about $1 USD in almost any major US city.
Even assuming 4x the cost for Canada's smaller market size, we are talking about a ($4 into $55 upcharge) 13 times markup once the cost of the basic connection, tech support, marketing, etc. is covered by the initial $31.95.
I think this hits on the real, underlying issue: There is no free market competition in internet access. In the case of Canada it appears one state-owned company owns all the physical lines, and that company is starting to meter access.
So, a sensible approach by the government would be to review the actual access costs - whether it's $2 / 100GB or some other figure - then fix the price at that level. Review it every year. Fair for all. I am sure the guy using 275GB/month wouldn't mind paying $4 for it.
Unlimited access is unrealistic, as is gauging the public for 10x the fair value _when you're a monopolist_.
Indeed, but Canada has a long history of the government supporting business interests against the interests of its own population. I have a list somewhere that I prepared for an article that I intend to write about this, it's probably never going to happen because I can't get mad enough about it any more (since I've left Canada that sort of thing has gone on the back burner).
Sure, I'll dig it up and I'll mail it to you, it's on my todo list now.
It was made because I was planning on writing a book on immigrating to Canada from the perspective of someone that has gone through the whole process, and this was to become one article (a blog post) and / or a chapter in there.
The whole thing had as working title 'movingtoca'.
Canada is a fantastic country but some things there are just - how to say this without insulting Canadians - peculiar.
The system works for the most part but if you don't dig in to Canada's history and do your best to understand the way the various interests interlock there is no way you're going to understand how things got to be the way they are.
To an outsider they'd make no sense at all and to people living there that do not have the historical perspective they probably also do not.
Some of these things date back all the way to the prohibition days of Capone!
How do you explain to an American that the same bottle of wine costs 50% more in rural Canada than in New York City :) ?
> How do you explain to an American that the same bottle of wine costs 50% more in rural Canada than in New York City :) ?
Shipping cost? If anything, I'd have thought the LCBO, keeping prices uniform across the province, helps rural areas at the expense of higher density areas (though perhaps not strict downtowns where store lease cost might be significant).
I do not at the moment - I perhaps phrased it poorly - but the cost of the in-ground copper wire is but one part of the costs of an ISP - datacenters, call centres, exchanges + dslams, specialist staff, CEO's bonus pay, so on and so forth. To paint the cost of DSL as almost entirely maintenance of the in-ground copper is nonsense.
So you're claiming that the only part of managing throughput is the in-ground wires? That ISPs don't use network admins to manage load congestion? That ISPs don't have to purchase new hardware and other capacity to handle increased bandwidth consumption?
Do you think all ISPs are running off the ancient network equipment they were originally set up with back in the day?
I'm honestly surpised that on /Hacker News/ of all places, so many people thing that the only thing contributing to their bandwidth cost is in-ground copper.
Bandwidth costs money. Nobody says it doesn't. However, the amount of money 5Mbps of bandwidth costs is trivial compared to the cost of maintaining a separate copper pair to your house.
At /my scale/ I can buy bandwidth at around $1 per megabit/sec. 1Mbps is, uh, around 320 gigabytes of data. Even at half utilization that's less than a penny per gigabyte, and any but the smallest of local ISPs are going to dwarf my bandwidth usage. This is the sort of market where cost scales down quite a lot as you scale up, so I would bet quite a lot of money that comcast pays less than I do.
sure, if I wanted to double my usage, I'd have to buy some new network equipment, and spend some network admin time, but generally speaking the cost of your network equipment (at least at my scale) is fairly small compared to the cost of buying the transit in the first place. It certainly doesn't double the cost of bandwidth; and even if it did, bandwidth would still be cheaper than the local loop to your customer's home.
So yeah, uh, your average dsl is what five megabits/sec on a really good day? are you seriously trying to tell me that you can buy a copper loop for less than five bucks a month?
(Actually, I've been in the industry all my life and I've never been involved in buying copper loops; I guess it's possible they are that cheap; If they are, and I find out (oy, the costs of almost everything in this industry are guarded like state secrets. It's such a pain in the ass.) I'll start a DSL ISP. but I'd be very surprised if that were the case. )
Are you seriously trying to tell me that a company with a thousand users requiring 100kb/day versus a company with a thousand users requiring 10GB/day has exactly the same costs apart from just the upstream bandwidth?
That the latter company somehow gets 'cheaper' overalleven though it requires newer network equipment to handle the load?
That the light internet users cause as much support issues as the heavy internet users?
Of course they don't - for the same number of users, heavy internet use increases backend costs. Those 100k users aren't causing congestion with torrents or video, for example. And just like in-ground copper, exchanges, datacentres and the like aren't cheap to install or maintain. Sure they get a bit 'cheaper' with scale, but they're still not 'cheap' - especially if you've got to keep upgrading your equipment to handle load.
Costs in a business rise in things other than directly-related items. Take an example: I've spent the morning doing an emergency repair on an RMA'd item that the service boys don't have the time to do. This has meant that the other critical tasks I've had to do have been pushed back. Sure, you can say that the repair of the RMA'd item is just my wages + spare parts, but you'd be wrong. It's had knock-on costs elsewhere in the system.
>Are you seriously trying to tell me that a company with a thousand users requiring 100kb/day versus a company with a thousand users requiring 10GB/day has exactly the same costs apart from just the upstream bandwidth?
Assuming the same customer port speed for both? actually, yeah. costs would be almost the same, ignoring upstream bandwidth costs (really, costs would be pretty similar including upstream bandwidth.)
1000 customers, 10Gigabytes a day, you are looking at something like 1 gigabit, if that 10gigabit is even, and anymore, all modern networking gear does at least one gigabit.
edit: I'm assuming a smooth distribution and that you are willing to run the thing full on, both of which are bad ideas. give yourself 50% headroom, and buy two. Gigabit hardware is so cheap, you might as well.
You seem to imply that older networking equipment is cheaper. It's not. Sure, if you come by the office, I'll offload some crap on to you for free. This doesn't mean that it's cheaper than new stuff in production. There are many places in my network where a 10mbps switch would be plenty fast, hell, I even sell 10Mbps ports to some people. but I don't want the headache of dealing with ancient crap. I'd rather pay the up-front costs to get new(er) stuff than deal with the operating expence inherent to using old hardware. If I sell someone a 10Mbps port, I'll take a gig switch and step down the port speed.
Anyhow, I guess at this point we're just arguing to personal authority, and I don't even know who you are or what you do. If you have knowledge of what the cost of a copper pair is, let me know.
I agree that we're at cross purposes, and you're closer to the nitty gritty than I am. I do admit to surprise that you find it more expensive to maintain old equipment than it is to purchase and maintain new equipment though. That's startling, and goes against the behaviours in the tech companies I've worked in.
>I do admit to surprise that you find it more expensive to maintain old equipment than it is to purchase and maintain new equipment though. That's startling, and goes against the behaviours in the tech companies I've worked in.
Really, running off old kit is the sysadmin equivalent to the "technical debt" talked about here in the context of messy spaghetti code. It's cheaper now, but will have to pay later. Usually with usurious interest.
You should keep servers closer to 3-5 years Your SysAdmin will say 3, the IRS says 5. It's generally agreed that after 5 you should give it to your little sister or use it in the test lab. I mean, I know people who run old servers for fun; a good friend of mine runs his website off a .com era 10 CPU sun enterprise. but that's hobby work, and even so his co-lo provider is loosing money on the deal he's getting. If he was paying for his own power, he'd probably step down to a single-socked 12 core opteron which would have more compute power and more ram, and use approximately 1/10th the power.
At my company, I estimate a reboot to cost me about a thousand dollars, that is, if everything comes up cleanly afterwards. Right now, we're debating if we should extend the servers out to four years rather than throwing them out after three. But in this case, I own the whole thing, rather than one department, so I feel it on both ends; both the problems caused by old garbage and the cost of buying new stuff.
Network hardware, generally speaking, lasts longer than server hardware, but depending on the badness of downtime on that particular network, a 5 year cycle still isn't bad, and running 10 year old kit is kind of crazy. (and if we are talking 100Mbps stuff, you are starting to talk about 10 year old kit.)
I remember at another contract gig, I was getting paid around seventy five bucks an hour (this was really a full time job in all but name, so they paid closer to full time job rates than short-term contract rates)
A lot of my time was spent repairing or cleaning up after 10 year old servers. Most of the time when I touched something? for what they were paying me alone, not counting downtime costs, they could usually have bought new kit. And half the time, these were critical dev servers; one of the hard drives failed years ago, and now the second was returning read errors. It was absolutely crazy that they didn't just replace all of this garbage at once.
I mean, they eventually did, I was actually hired on to help virtualize all these tiny 10 year old servers on to much larger, newer servers. But the job would have been quite a lot easier if they had replaced these servers after 5 years rather than 10. I suspect that the downtime and cleanup ended up being more expensive than the capital cost of new servers would have been.
A basic 20 Mbit connection goes for about $75 in Europe, that's 1.1 ct / Gigabyte (if my back-of-the-envelope math is correct). 40 Mbit goes for about $100 / month.
Metered is out, flat-rate is the future. The only hold-outs will be the mobile carriers and even there I already see flat-rate offerings.
$5 or $10 / month would not work due to fixed costs and write-off on equipment higher than that. But once the equipment is paid for you might as well use it to its full ability without being penalized further.
I have 110/10M (cable-tv network) in Finland for $53.
More widely available 24/1M DSL goes for $46. Usage caps are unheard of in cabled internet.
Cheap, non-capped mobile internet has recently exploded - caps will be introduced. Our biggest telco TeliaSonera has only capped versions since the launch of iPhone (they were were forced and willing to pay extra).
Other companies haven't introduced restrictions, but since Android-based smartphones became popular in 2010 and currently log the most data usage per unit, this will soon change.
Mobile internet is also very popular with plain computers by using 3G usb-dongles, which telcos give free of charge when you sign up for 12/24 months. Typical offer is uncapped 384k for $6.7 or 1M for $12 (actual rates vary often due to congestion - p2p users are a major pain in the butt with 3G networks). These are available nationwide with no geological price differentiation.
Your intentions are good, but I would not put that much faith int telcos. Almost every high-speed line is one of many that are oversold. The traffic that people have been paying for in past years, is just starting to be utilized. There are many years of pure profit in Bell's coffers.
The piece of pie in Canadian market didn't shrink, it evolved slightly out of bounds of Bell and Rogers oligopoly, and UBB attempts to push you back into that fold.
What's even worse, there can't be any competition as firms are not allowed to lay competing cable infrastructure.
The telecoms will be as rapacious as the rules of the game allow them to be. As with all metered utilities the price needs to be regulated so that the consumer avoids abusive pricing. The question to be answered periodically will be how much does a GB cost for the telecom to provide a customer and what is a fair profit to sustain infrastructure development.
Without a meter system in place the flat rate will penalize small bandwidth users and let high bandwidth users get the bargain.
I agree that if the pricing were completely up to the telecoms they would ravage our wallets until we are eating ramen noodles 7 days a week. However, given their position of power they will have to openly defend their claims to raising unit prices in court.
The problem with "just pay for data" is that mobile voice calls use such a tiny amount of data that either the cost of voice would have to drop by several orders of magnitude, or the price of data would have to be so astronomical as to make web browsing unaffordable.
This is the problem that telcos have been struggling with in terms of mobile data for years - they don't want to give up their fat margins on voice, but the actual bytes used by voice calls is trivial.
It seems that you are paying for two things with your bill, the ubiquity of the network, and the marginal amount of data you use. It seems reasonable that the capital build out be paid for with a fixed monthly bill, while the marginal amount of data usage be metered on top. They don't necessarily have to lose their margins on voice, just build that into the fixed monthly cost.
It's tricky though, because they have built out, and have to maintain, quite a large infrastructure to cope with voice alone. It extends from billing, through to terminating calls on other networks, running voice mail systems, etc.
There's arguably a lot of room for MVNOs only offering data. (In Australia DoDo offered such for the lowest price per GB).
Universal bandwidth metering would certainly incentivize moderation. For starters, it would immediately kill the Internet advertising industry, as just about every Internet user would moderate the bandwidth they spend on ads by installing Adblock Plus.
Not when the ads come from different domains (which is the case for 99% of the annoying flash ads). Adblock stops all requests to these domains. Incidentally, this is also why Adblock is a hit with privacy-conscious people - it mitigates tracking through log file analysis.
no. picture and flash ads are separate HTTP requests. AdBlock/FlashBlock work by not making those requests. You will save bandwidth, but as you have pointed out, it's a drop in the ocean compared to watching a HD movie or even a 10min youtube clip.
Fixed prices for fixed sizes of data isn't efficient, economically speaking, because marginal costs are not proportional to marginal data transit; either the price is too low to prevent congestion at peak times, or it's too high and leaves pipes underutilized at off-peak times - and the times don't lend themselves to simplistic on-off peak analysis.
What you want is spot prices dependent on congestion, but that creates a different problem, opacity in pricing, where people will be fearful to use owing to uncertainty in how much it will cost.
I think the fairest mechanism is probably some kind of QoS by inverse usage: where congestion occurs, drop packets belonging to users who transfer the most. Unfortunately, I'd expect that to be computationally infeasible, as it would require fairly complex dynamic and stateful logic in routers to process the accounting and make decisions on a packet by packed basis fast enough.
I also agree with metering if we're charged prices that we consider reasonable (defined by the prices that most people are paying elsewhere in the world).
I'd like to pay for internet like I pay for electricity. We pay by the kW*h and that's it. I think it'd be nice to pay a higher rate for electricity / internet during the day if it meant that we'd pay a lower rate during the night.
I keep hearing about how europeans get the mobile phone services waaaay cheaper than we do here. Some guy in a TED Talk said that cell phones were common in poor regions of Africa. There's no way that these poor people are paying what I pay for texting on a mobile phone. :P
I came to Canada from the UK and I reckon it's about 50% more expensive for DSL/cable data over here, but faster speeds are more common (in the cities at least). Usage caps are not unusual with the larger ISPs in the UK, nor is traffic shaping/blocking, but at least the carriers are obliged by law to resell to other ISPs at a reasonable rate.
Mobile phones are, IMO, in a completely different ballpark though. Canada is literally years behind Europe and the same companies that are monopolising the landline networks have been abusing their mobile monopoly for years. For the end user, the phones are old, the networks creaky, the contracts long and the cost astronomical.
A mobile contract costs 2-3 times what it would in the UK for less: Caller ID, voicemail etc. all come as standard in the UK, I don't know of any exceptions. Not only that, but a contract locks you in for 2-3 times as long and the phones still cost more.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Bell hasn't upgraded its service, just the price. It's been pretending it's the users fault that things are slow but it keeps putting more users on the same network. They have no incentive to improve service, especially if the government agrees they can charge whatever they want.
Yep. Most online services that have a presence in Canadian market will start to see cuts in their revenue. I was using NetFlix, but no longer. Many of my friends and co-workers are not using Dropbox for backup anymore. It makes no sense. Many went back to good old fashioned portable drives.
In addition to purchasing less of online services, many people that I know refuse to buy anything from Bell and Rogers. No cable, no landline phone, no satellite tv. In fact, with the new mobile companies popping up in the last 12 months, you can save quite a bundle.
There is an angst growing amongst customers that spreads like wildfire. In past few years, I converted almost every one of my friends and relatives to Teksavvy internet. At that moment in time, it made sense. It no longer does and I wish that this turns up the heat enough to make it an election issue. It is, pardon my french, a fucking racket.
I'm French Canadian (well, half) and I've often heard other French Canadians use the same expression in French - "excuse mon français". I consider myself relatively plugged in to French politics here and I've never heard of it being an issue.
I'm a French Canadian guy working in an English workplace and I feel a bit insulted whenever I hear this expression. I never hear anyone complain about it, but it makes me want to start saying "pardon my English" right after belching loudly (on purpose for that occasion).
The only thing keeping me from doing that is that I don't think people would make the connection and understand the reference.
I don't know how Jews feel when they hear someone say that they've been "jewed" by their ISP or some other company ripping them off. Probably something like that.
It's not supposed to be a slight at the French. It's a "polite fiction" - the user of the phrase is pretending that the swear word was a (non-offensive) word in another language, and the other party is pretending to believe this (since of course they are so pure that they have never heard the word in question before). Both parties of course know exactly what is going on, but the device allows the first person to apologise without implying that the second person is so uncouth as to know the word in question.
I thought it was always a part of the (possibly true, but I'm no francophone) mythos that French just has a much better swearing vocabulary. A statement like that, I'd think at least certain parts of French culture should get behind.
I haven't given it much thought, really. On a deeper level, it probably stems from communication roots of English and French languages colliding, where a foreign phrase would be mentioned, but you would apologize for saying it, just to be polite.
This situation really sucks, but remember that those of us with Telus or Shaw don't have anything to complain about at the moment so you aren't hearing about all of us on 10-25 mbps lines, with 50-200 GB soft caps that aren't enforced. I'm torrenting up a storm 24/7, and regularly download shows and movies on iTunes and Netflix, stream Grooveshark at home and on my phone. I don't even hear anything if I use 2x my monthly data transfer. Our upstream bandwidth is still terrible though :/
I don't envy the US at all, I envy Sweden, Japan, South Korea. No offence but I'd sooner move to many places before the USA.
Don't get me wrong, the CRTC is worse than useless actively harming the tech landscape. We have zero competition with Internet and phone pricing at all, the big guys basically just fix prices because it's more profitable for them to collude than compete. We have a lot of major problems.
Canadian expat working in the US here. The situation in Canada continues to get worse, and was always behind even the relatively pokey US internet providers.
It isn't necessarily about the size of the pipe, but rather unnecessary restrictions that negatively impact the way people use the internet. Here I'm on Comcast and have a fairy generous cap (250GB). If people start penny-pinching what they do with their bandwidth it will be the end of web-based industries as we know it.
More accurately for Canada - it never began. Folks like myself who specialize in web-related development, either frontend or backend, basically have no future in our home countries.
I hate to be so down about my own country, but it's the damned truth, though many Canadian developers are too proud to admit it. The software industry in Canada is anemic, grossly underpaid, and that goes doubly for anything web-related.
I'll provide another data point (as someone who isn't as heavy a user as acangiano.
I'm with Teksavvy as well and currently pay $31.95 + tax for a 200GB cap. I'm using less than half of that, or about ~80GB/month. Under the new rules I will have to pay $40.45 + tax for 105GB cap. In the rare (for me) case that might exceed this cap I'll pay $2/GB for additional traffic.
If I cancelled Netflix I'd probably come in just under the 25GB cap. Bell has effectively doubled the price of Netflix for me.
So much for 'the cloud' and ubiquitous broadband. Next time I see someone mention that such and such iPhone app can be made as a web app I'll point them here. Web apps are at the mercy of so many third parties...
That really depends on where you are - I live in a semi-rural area, 40kms out of Perth, and right on the border of 2 ADSL exchanges. We're not in range for either of them, so we have to resort to wireless internet: $80/month for 3GB on peak, 5GB off peak. There is nothing else available here (including 4G wireless).
Where do you live? I've lived in Quebec for three years and before that Alberta. In both places my internet service had a bandwidth cap and above a certain amount you paid an extra fee per GB. This is absolutely not new!
What really sticks out to me here is that the various ISP's have much less to compete with. The only real motivation for me in Montreal to switch to one of the smaller ISPs was the unlimited bandwidth option.
I'm in no way trying to hijack the thread, but where I live, I pay $45/month for a 4 GB cap and 2$ per extra gigabyte. Theoretically, I should get 512kbits per second. Practically, however, I'm getting an average of 300kb and a 200ms latency to US and EU servers. You want to know the cool part? I'm doing just fine. That is to say, if you take a step back and think about it, you could probably live off 25 GBs per months. Think of the poor souls half way around the world, that could probably help!
Where I live in the States, I pay $65 USD for 7MBit DSL with a 250GB softcap. I've only gone over the cap about 3 times in the 4 years I've been with my ISP, and it is never more than 300GB total that month, with the exception of this winter. I've also never had to pay for additional usage beyond my standard monthly bill. My average per month is about 80GB for last year, which is mostly consumed by a full level 0 dump once per month and weekly level 1 dumps of 3 remote BSD VPSes to a home server once a month, yet I still only consume about 1/3rd of my allotted bandwidth.
My fiancé was between semesters at school this winter, and decided to finish watching Battlestar Galactica, among a couple dozen other movies to occupy her time through Netflix. My router's bandwidth logs show that she consumed about 35GB a day for 12 of her 15 days off. We hit somewhere under 500GB of data that month. Using TekSavvy's upcoming rates listed in this thread at $32.00 per month for 25GB with $2.00 per additional GB, we would have had a bill approaching $1,000.00. How the fuck is that justifiable?
Our current model takes in account that occasionally, users will blow through their caps with no regard for the sky, but most other months are way below the cap. My current plan, of which was negotiated over 4 years ago and has not changed since, still serves my needs perfectly. I could cut out Netflix and my VPS backups and use 4GB a month, but why should I move to a service plan that is lesser than my 4 year old contract? Did I mention my current ISP service plan was negotiated 4 years ago? ISPs have had 4 years, in my case, to upgrade their equipment to accommodate an increase in users, of which they have been pushing, because as a company, they like having an increase in subscribers. Realizing now that they are at the peak and want more money for the increased traffic is entirely out of line since they have had years of growth in their subscriber base and years of blind profit, but none of that was spent ensuring that they would have additional room to grow.
I would gladly pay a flat fee per GB of data, since theoretically it is more fair. I will not pay a flat fee that is approaching a 15 times increase profit for my ISP from what they paid for that GB. They gave me and every single other subscriber 250GB to use per month, and for the past 4 years, my habits have evolved to be aware and use 250GB of data per month. Cutting it back to 25GB and additional at $2/GB is entirely ridiculous. Moving backwards is not a solution.
How many alternative providers do you have access to? If providers can actually make a decent profit from charging you $39 for that bandwidth, TekSavvy's competitors should be knocking down your door to split the difference. In theory.
EDIT: I just read in another comment that it's Bell Canada metering charges for bandwidth resellers. That's a bit more complicated. Hm.
Not really, from the other comments it appears that Bell Ca is not the only back-haul provider.
But as I said in another comment, ISPs got a whole 90 days to deal with this, which runs out about today. That's a pathetic amount of time to tender for alternative suppliers, especially over the holiday season, in Canada. (I hear it gets cold there???)
Cheap hard disks have grown faster than the last mile of internet connections over the years, creating a bottleneck. I think people's expectations are tied to the large disks and the files that they hold.
Netflix, iTunes, Hulu, and YouTube are redefining heavy internet usage. My brother-in-law (who lives with us for the moment) recently got Netflix hooked up on his Xbox and he uses 10-11 GB if he watches all day or 5-6 if he watches for a few hours.
My normal usage, downloading updates for my PCs (Arch Linux, so heavy ones come often), browsing, watching a handful of videos, doing git pulls, lots of text-heavy sites like HN and docs, etc. plus my wife's normal usage, which is YouTube and Facebook, usually ends up somewhere around 700MB-1GB of usage per day. When I torrented from home, the average consumption was maybe 2GB-4GB per day, so Netflix is even more taxing than that for me.
As the web becomes increasingly media intensive, the "normal user" threshold of <100 MB per day is going to shoot up to something around <10-15 GB per day, especially once everyone in the house gets TV and movies over web-based services instead of cable/air/DVD.
The cable companies, which incidentally are usually the only good residential ISPs, are going to lose cable subscriptions to Netflix subscriptions and on-demand rentals to iTunes rentals, and consequently we'll see moves like this one seeking to penalize net-based media providers since they take customers away from their TV offerings.