[kwlug-disc] Hitting Bell / Rogers where it hurts?

[Insurance Squared Inc.]

There's lots of ways to charge, none with any peculiar benefits over the 
others.  UBB probably makes the most sense for the most people.  Yet I 
do most of my heavy downloads at 3am in the morning (because I do 
automated nightly backups of my webserver).  UBB and RBB would screw me 
either way.  I'd like a hydro based scale, where it costs more during 
the day and cheaper at night when there's more pipe available.

The real answer is, let the market decide.  There's enough ISP's around 
(putting aside the wholesale issue with Bell) that if the gov't stays 
silent on this then someone's going to find the most profitable most 
efficient way to charge us.  If I can get my net tv for $40 and they can 
sustain that pricing, then let them. If not, let them charge $50.  Or 
use UBB, or whatever.  I really don't mind paying for internet - even 
paying a lot more than I am now.  I mind the gov't limiting my alternatives.

The real and final fix IMO is to nationalize the copper lines and lease 
out to everyone including Bell.  Internet infrastructure is too much a 
part of society these days to allow it to be held in the hands of one 
company.  It's like hydro and water and the roads.

g.

On 03/02/11 08:15 AM, Andrew Sullivan Cant wrote:
> Agreed Eric.
>
> I am sure that it will never happen because it would probably be 
> difficult to understand, but Rate Based Billing (RBB) :) seems like it 
> makes a lot more sense than usage.
>
> Maybe you could download all month long, but if you always less than 
> some reasonable Mbps, who cares? But if you want things fast, then you 
> can pay for it.
>
> Andrew
>
>