GreenTeaFrapp good point, equal access to the customer should be a given since creating new routes of equal access is difficult (though not impossible, there are wireless ISPs).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meelapo
I don't want to get into the politics of everything (even though I don't understand it) but this capping business is pretty dumb. I checked the Shaw page and it says High-Speed now has a 60GB cap. Wasn't it 80-90GB before or something?
|
It used to be 60GB before, then they raised it to 75GB and then put it back down to 60GB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meelapo
How is anyone going to get on board with cloud computing if it's going to cost us an arm and a leg?
|
The same way people get into cloud computing now, by having the appropriate connection. If you need a ton of bandwidth you get the connection that supports it. Are you saying there should be no limits at all? You do understand that's impossible let alone even sustainable.
It's a question of where those limits should be and how much people should pay to get more than what the average person needs. Businesses doing cloud computing have been under this model for ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meelapo
One thing I found interesting was a Netflix rep said it costs the telecos less than a cent to provide 1GB of bandwidth yet they are charging $2.50.
|
Incorrect in a few ways. First, it costs telcos less than a cent to GET 1GB of bandwidth, that's not how much it costs to deliver it. The cost of delivering it may be just as cheap, but without seeing actual info it's hard to say for sure.
Second, with Shaw, if you go over your limit then you pay $1 or $2 per GB depending on what plan you are on. If you know you are going to be a high user, you can either switch to a plan with more data, or you can pre-purchase buckets of bandwidth for much cheaper (down to 20 cents a GB). This is the part most people seem to miss or intentionally leave out because it doesn't help with the emotional rhetoric.
This is how cell phone plans work, you pay for a set of minutes, and if you go over you pay crazy fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meelapo
I understand it's a business and everyone has to make money but be fair about it.
|
Why do they have to be fair about it? Shouldn't companies be allowed to price themselves out of existence? Fairness comes out of competition, and if this market can't have competition, then fairness has to be imposed, but companies don't have to be fair, they have to maximize shareholder profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meelapo
I don't mind paying my $39.95 or $49.95 a month but I expect a big enough cap that I don't have to think about using the Internet.
|
Why should a company be obligated to provide what you expect?
How about natural gas? Do you expect to pay a flat rate and get as much as you want? What about your cell phone, do you pay $40 and expect a big enough minute pack that you don't have to think about it?
Lets look at cell phone plans for a minute.
Fido has their CityFido plan, 2,000 minutes for $35. That's 1.75 cents per minute. You have your base rate, $35, and you have your cap, 2,000 minutes. But what if you go over? Then you're charged 35 cents per minute! That's 20 times the base rate! With Shaw, you get 60GB for $37, that's 61 cents per GB. If you go over, you pay $2 per GB, that's only 3 times the base rate. So Shaw's cap is "less fair" but their overage rate is "more fair". And that's not counting that you can buy bandwidth in buckets at as low as 20 cents a GB, less than the per GB cost of the initial plan.
I agree with you that if it were me caps would be higher, I'm just trying to show that it's not quite off the charts of unreasonableness.