[kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy

unsolicited at swiz.ca unsolicited at swiz.ca
Sun Jan 30 21:34:18 EST 2011


On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:15:24 -0800 (PST), Raul Suarez <rarsa at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Of course UBB is not stupid, just devious.
> 
> As Brent says, it was just lobbying to limit what the users do with
their 
> connection.

Huh?

You use bandwidth, you pay more. How you use it, is your decision. Don't
use it, don't pay more.

> Think about equipment, service and all, including all the customers. $40
-
> $60 / 
> month should be enough to cover much more than the "Cap" bandwidth.
> 
> Do you really think that it costs them $2 to have the infrastructure to
> provide 
> 1 GB?

No, I think, cumulatively, it costs Billions.

> The argument comparing the Internet with electricity would be valid if
we
> were 
> paying the real price of the bandwith. I really doubt we do.

I doubt we pay enough for the real cost of the bandwidth either.

I suppose it depends upon what payback period is reasonable.

However, I'll be right there with you when Bell is turned into a public
non-profit company. Along with banks, investment and insurance firms and
...
(That's not entirely tongue in cheek, but somewhat.)

> So lets keep using that analogy. There is no reason for high speed to be
3
> or 4 
> times more expensive than dial-up. In reality, it should be less
expensive
> (but 
> it isn't) as they can serve more users with less infrastructure.

How's that? You have a physical piece of copper to each 'residence' ...

> Think about your home network. Would you prefer having a modem in each
> computer 

We do, they're called network cards.

> connected to a switch that allows you to call from computer to computer?
> or have 
> a router or switch for all of them? which one you think is less
expensive?

And what do you think the routers and switches and infrastructure on Bell
premises cost?
(This is not retail, where you have the associated price pressures.)

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "rbclemen at gmail.com" <rbclemen at gmail.com>
> To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Sent: Sun, January 30, 2011 7:36:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy
> 
> Sorry, meant to elaborate on that one but my Blackberry sent by
accident.
> UBB is 
> a vicious attempt to use one monopoly to leverage oneself into another.
Or 
> looked at another way, Bell is leveraging additional profit from every
> single 
> service offered on the internet. It is absolutely the equivalent of
Canada
> Post 
> demanding a cut of every payment made on a bill that is mailed to a
> customer. 
> 
> 
> To give one potent example, every Netflix.ca customer will be paying
> Netflix 
> about 9 dollars a month, and Bell about a dollar per movie.
> 
> Brent
> Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
> Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de
Bell.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Unsolicited" <unsolicited at swiz.ca>
> Sender: kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:27:00 
> To: KWLUG discussion<kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Reply-To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy
> 
> On Sun, January 30, 2011 2:27 pm, rbclemen at gmail.com wrote:
>> Co-location doesn't matter from what I hear. The charge will be for
>> anyone
>> using bell's copper. Yes it is unbelievably stupid.
> 
> Don't mean to be provocative here - guess I'm just uninformed.
> 
> Why is UBB "unbelievably stupid"?



More information about the kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list