- last edited on by
Taylarie
wingrider01 wrote:
Imbibe wrote:I am not a lawyer. That being said, this seems like clear breach of contract. It is also abuse of process and fraud.
I don't think one can charge or otherwise penalize someone without disclosure of what they have done wrong. In this case, AT&T must let us know exactly how they are calculating the 5%.
Given that 60%+ of their user base are iPhone users, we could estimate a large percentage are grandfathered in. Whatever their sales reports were up to the point they changed these bandwidth rules will tell us much more accurately.
What's crazy about this is the facts:
Wholesale bandwidth is pennies per GB, we are all being uncharged 1000's of percent on bandwidth from the cellco's, telco's and cableco's.
Text messaging costs the carrier an almost neutral fee, yet we pay 10,000's of percent more than we need be paying. Even including infrastructure costs, which are minimal, at literally a few servers to handle text messaging at their estimated volume.
AT&T stands to become everyone's main Internet access provider. They could put the cable companies out of business. Charge a flat rate of 45.00 a month for unlimited 4G and allow free tethering and I drop Comcast and use AT&T for everything.
AT&T was given hundreds of millions of dollars by the US government to upgrade their network. It was to supply broadband to the entire US by a certain date. Miles and miles of "dark fiber" optic cable was laid and goes unused. Google has bought much of it. AT&T ran off with the rest of the money and didn't put it into their network.
AT&T could supply their cellular repeater to everyone for free, decreasing this so called "network load" until they have time to upgrade more.
AT&T is simply used to making x percent of money per user through a pseudo-monopoly. New tech came along that is disrupting this and they don't like it. They are making up any lie they can to justify some way to continue making the same percentage per user. I suggest they get used to making a little less, or they will die. 100% of zero is still nothing. They could make out just fine if they were more ethical. Sprint will get better speeds, and they do offer unlimited that is almost truly unlimited. Though they lie a bit too.
New technology will replace cellular within 5 years. Play with the others and compete, or hold onto the ball as long as you can. If you hold the ball too long, eventually someone is going to save up enough to buy a newer, better ball, and be willing to share.
So, what do you think?[Per Guidelines: Keep it Relevant and Appropriate]
Again I see the claim that "wholesale bandwidth is pennies per GB" - where exactly is your documentation for this claim, I wish I was paying "pennies per GB" for the amount of bandwith I run to all my locations, would be able to hire a larger percentange of new employees and add those two remote locations with my cost savings on that alone - please give me a number where I can get this deal.
Is this what you were asking for?
michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5952/125/
What Does a Gigabyte Cost, Revisited
Earlier this year, I wrote a report and a blog post that attempted to estimate the cost for Canadian ISPs to transport a gigabyte of data. While there is nothing magical about a gigabyte, since overage charges typically levy by the gigabyte, it is useful to link actual costs with consumer costs that can reach as much as $10 per gigabyte. In fact, this data is likely to become increasingly important as the wholesale usage based billing battle has shifted toward a cost-based approach.
The more difficult calculation involves the internal ISP network leading to the public Internet. As CRTC Commissioner Candice Molnar noted during the usage based billing hearing, "we all, I think, can hopefully agree that there is no marginal cost to using the network when you are not causing augmentation." While there are no marginal costs, there is a capital cost of building the network and ongoing maintenance and augmentation costs when congestion arises due to traffic growth. My report used Bell's data in the deferral account case (one of the only ones to put information on the public record) to estimate that seven cents per gigabyte (for a total of eight cents) was a best guess among a range of possibilities.
Bell's response has been to target the study with claims that it is inaccurate. At the Canadian Telecom Summit, Bell's Mirko Bibic specifically focused on the study, saying he was the "happiest person in the country because we can finally get the facts on the table and deal with some of this nonsense that is out there. One particular piece of nonsense is this study that Michael Geist did for Netflix on costs." During the hearing, Bibic told the Wire Report my report was "very, very flawed."
Yet Bell's recent comments about actual costs suggests that it relies on similar ranges to provide a best guess at cost per gigabyte. Over the span of one week, it effectively provided three different numbers. On July 13th, Bibic told the Wire Report that 19.5 cents per gigabyte, the original number in its AVP proposal, was close to its actual costs. Bibic claimed "they bear a fairly close relationship to the nineteen-and-a-half cents. The nineteen-and-a-half cents [per gigabyte] is justifiable based on the actual costs of a gigabyte on the network." A week later, Bibic told the CRTC that actual wholesale costs were $39.15 per Mbps, which works out to 12.4 cents per gigabyte at full capacity. A day or two later, it submitted that 17.5 cents per gigabyte reflected actual costs plus markup. The 17.5 cent number appears to be based on fairly low wholesale usage, however (roughly 63% usage). Increasing estimated usage would result in a significantly lower estimate on the cost per gigabyte, likely closer to 12.4 cent estimate.
Bell's inconsistency aside, the company submitted a response in April on my report after Telus conveniently asked about it during the interrogatory phase. It claims that my estimate is based on assuming maximum usage every month (900 GB), which obviously results in a lower cost per gigabyte. It notes that average users do not come close to using that maximum capacity, particularly since it is a shared network. My report included a pricing scenario based on theoretical maximum output (F) and it sets the lowest possible price per GB for each equipment configuration [$0.30 for a pure OC3 configuration; $0.08 for a pure OC12 configuration, and $0.02 for a pure OC48 configuration). Bell seems to assume that this is the OC12 F scenario that is the source of the eight cents per gigabyte figure.
Yet that is not how the report arrived at the figure. It identifies a range of pricing options based on different equipment configurations and usage patterns which range from as high as from $0.34 to as low as 0.019/GB (see Table 5 at page 34). The report notes how the pricing data relied on for the study was created for rural areas and for a complete buildout of the network (as opposed to simple network maintenance through provisioning for increased flows on an existing network). This suggests that actual prices will be at the lower end of the spectrum presented in table 5 (the costs for an urban network are likely far lower than a network that Bell itself says would not be built based solely on market considerations).
The report never suggested that the cost should be based on the assumption of maximum usage. Instead, it concluded:
So, in the long run, the low end of the range would again seem to be the better estimate as demand for peak bandwidth increases. Consequently, while there is a range of plausible values, a comparison of Tables 5 and 7 suggests a figure of $0.07/GB may be the best single estimate for the costs of the internal network.
In other words, there are a number of possibilities, but the seven cents/gigabyte figure appears to be the best guess based on Bell's own numbers. Bell's claims now cover a range as well, reflecting the reality that per gigabyte pricing is subject to many variables that result in a spectrum of possibilities (the most important variable is capacity/usage since the higher the assumed capacity and usage, the lower the cost per gigabyte - fixed costs to build divided by larger or smaller amounts of data depending on use). Arriving at a common metric for identifying per gigabyte pricing will be a crucial aspect to resolving the wholesale usage based billing issue since the issue is subject to considerable variation. It is hoped Bell will step up with public data for all to scrutinize, or at the least that the Commission treat Bell's proposed figures on cost with the skepticism it deserves.
Tx Rednek wrote:
wingrider01 wrote:
Imbibe wrote:
I am not a lawyer. That being said, this seems like clear breach of contract. It is also abuse of process and fraud.
I don't think one can charge or otherwise penalize someone without disclosure of what they have done wrong. In this case, AT&T must let us know exactly how they are calculating the 5%.
Given that 60%+ of their user base are iPhone users, we could estimate a large percentage are grandfathered in. Whatever their sales reports were up to the point they changed these bandwidth rules will tell us much more accurately.
What's crazy about this is the facts:
Wholesale bandwidth is pennies per GB, we are all being uncharged 1000's of percent on bandwidth from the cellco's, telco's and cableco's.
Text messaging costs the carrier an almost neutral fee, yet we pay 10,000's of percent more than we need be paying. Even including infrastructure costs, which are minimal, at literally a few servers to handle text messaging at their estimated volume.
AT&T stands to become everyone's main Internet access provider. They could put the cable companies out of business. Charge a flat rate of 45.00 a month for unlimited 4G and allow free tethering and I drop Comcast and use AT&T for everything.
AT&T was given hundreds of millions of dollars by the US government to upgrade their network. It was to supply broadband to the entire US by a certain date. Miles and miles of "dark fiber" optic cable was laid and goes unused. Google has bought much of it. AT&T ran off with the rest of the money and didn't put it into their network.
AT&T could supply their cellular repeater to everyone for free, decreasing this so called "network load" until they have time to upgrade more.
AT&T is simply used to making x percent of money per user through a pseudo-monopoly. New tech came along that is disrupting this and they don't like it. They are making up any lie they can to justify some way to continue making the same percentage per user. I suggest they get used to making a little less, or they will die. 100% of zero is still nothing. They could make out just fine if they were more ethical. Sprint will get better speeds, and they do offer unlimited that is almost truly unlimited. Though they lie a bit too.
New technology will replace cellular within 5 years. Play with the others and compete, or hold onto the ball as long as you can. If you hold the ball too long, eventually someone is going to save up enough to buy a newer, better ball, and be willing to share.
So, what do you think?[Per Guidelines: Keep it Relevant and Appropriate]
Again I see the claim that "wholesale bandwidth is pennies per GB" - where exactly is your documentation for this claim, I wish I was paying "pennies per GB" for the amount of bandwith I run to all my locations, would be able to hire a larger percentange of new employees and add those two remote locations with my cost savings on that alone - please give me a number where I can get this deal.
Is this what you were asking for?michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5952/125/What Does a Gigabyte Cost, Revisited
Earlier this year, I wrote a report and a blog post that attempted to estimate the cost for Canadian ISPs to transport a gigabyte of data. While there is nothing magical about a gigabyte, since overage charges typically levy by the gigabyte, it is useful to link actual costs with consumer costs that can reach as much as $10 per gigabyte. In fact, this data is likely to become increasingly important as the wholesale usage based billing battle has shifted toward a cost-based approach.
The more difficult calculation involves the internal ISP network leading to the public Internet. As CRTC Commissioner Candice Molnar noted during the usage based billing hearing, "we all, I think, can hopefully agree that there is no marginal cost to using the network when you are not causing augmentation." While there are no marginal costs, there is a capital cost of building the network and ongoing maintenance and augmentation costs when congestion arises due to traffic growth. My report used Bell's data in the deferral account case (one of the only ones to put information on the public record) to estimate that seven cents per gigabyte (for a total of eight cents) was a best guess among a range of possibilities.
Bell's response has been to target the study with claims that it is inaccurate. At the Canadian Telecom Summit, Bell's Mirko Bibic specifically focused on the study, saying he was the "happiest person in the country because we can finally get the facts on the table and deal with some of this nonsense that is out there. One particular piece of nonsense is this study that Michael Geist did for Netflix on costs." During the hearing, Bibic told the Wire Report my report was "very, very flawed."
Yet Bell's recent comments about actual costs suggests that it relies on similar ranges to provide a best guess at cost per gigabyte. Over the span of one week, it effectively provided three different numbers. On July 13th, Bibic told the Wire Report that 19.5 cents per gigabyte, the original number in its AVP proposal, was close to its actual costs. Bibic claimed "they bear a fairly close relationship to the nineteen-and-a-half cents. The nineteen-and-a-half cents [per gigabyte] is justifiable based on the actual costs of a gigabyte on the network." A week later, Bibic told the CRTC that actual wholesale costs were $39.15 per Mbps, which works out to 12.4 cents per gigabyte at full capacity. A day or two later, it submitted that 17.5 cents per gigabyte reflected actual costs plus markup. The 17.5 cent number appears to be based on fairly low wholesale usage, however (roughly 63% usage). Increasing estimated usage would result in a significantly lower estimate on the cost per gigabyte, likely closer to 12.4 cent estimate.
Bell's inconsistency aside, the company submitted a response in April on my report after Telus conveniently asked about it during the interrogatory phase. It claims that my estimate is based on assuming maximum usage every month (900 GB), which obviously results in a lower cost per gigabyte. It notes that average users do not come close to using that maximum capacity, particularly since it is a shared network. My report included a pricing scenario based on theoretical maximum output (F) and it sets the lowest possible price per GB for each equipment configuration [$0.30 for a pure OC3 configuration; $0.08 for a pure OC12 configuration, and $0.02 for a pure OC48 configuration). Bell seems to assume that this is the OC12 F scenario that is the source of the eight cents per gigabyte figure.
Yet that is not how the report arrived at the figure. It identifies a range of pricing options based on different equipment configurations and usage patterns which range from as high as from $0.34 to as low as 0.019/GB (see Table 5 at page 34). The report notes how the pricing data relied on for the study was created for rural areas and for a complete buildout of the network (as opposed to simple network maintenance through provisioning for increased flows on an existing network). This suggests that actual prices will be at the lower end of the spectrum presented in table 5 (the costs for an urban network are likely far lower than a network that Bell itself says would not be built based solely on market considerations).
The report never suggested that the cost should be based on the assumption of maximum usage. Instead, it concluded:
So, in the long run, the low end of the range would again seem to be the better estimate as demand for peak bandwidth increases. Consequently, while there is a range of plausible values, a comparison of Tables 5 and 7 suggests a figure of $0.07/GB may be the best single estimate for the costs of the internal network.
In other words, there are a number of possibilities, but the seven cents/gigabyte figure appears to be the best guess based on Bell's own numbers. Bell's claims now cover a range as well, reflecting the reality that per gigabyte pricing is subject to many variables that result in a spectrum of possibilities (the most important variable is capacity/usage since the higher the assumed capacity and usage, the lower the cost per gigabyte - fixed costs to build divided by larger or smaller amounts of data depending on use). Arriving at a common metric for identifying per gigabyte pricing will be a crucial aspect to resolving the wholesale usage based billing issue since the issue is subject to considerable variation. It is hoped Bell will step up with public data for all to scrutinize, or at the least that the Commission treat Bell's proposed figures on cost with the skepticism it deserves.
could care less what the "expert" states, give me a vendor that will actually sell it to me and I will believe them. Talk is cheap now back it up in reality
wingrider01 wrote:
Tx Rednek wrote:
wingrider01 wrote:
Imbibe wrote:I am not a lawyer. That being said, this seems like clear breach of contract. It is also abuse of process and fraud.
I don't think one can charge or otherwise penalize someone without disclosure of what they have done wrong. In this case, AT&T must let us know exactly how they are calculating the 5%.
Given that 60%+ of their user base are iPhone users, we could estimate a large percentage are grandfathered in. Whatever their sales reports were up to the point they changed these bandwidth rules will tell us much more accurately.
What's crazy about this is the facts:
Wholesale bandwidth is pennies per GB, we are all being uncharged 1000's of percent on bandwidth from the cellco's, telco's and cableco's.
Text messaging costs the carrier an almost neutral fee, yet we pay 10,000's of percent more than we need be paying. Even including infrastructure costs, which are minimal, at literally a few servers to handle text messaging at their estimated volume.
AT&T stands to become everyone's main Internet access provider. They could put the cable companies out of business. Charge a flat rate of 45.00 a month for unlimited 4G and allow free tethering and I drop Comcast and use AT&T for everything.
AT&T was given hundreds of millions of dollars by the US government to upgrade their network. It was to supply broadband to the entire US by a certain date. Miles and miles of "dark fiber" optic cable was laid and goes unused. Google has bought much of it. AT&T ran off with the rest of the money and didn't put it into their network.
AT&T could supply their cellular repeater to everyone for free, decreasing this so called "network load" until they have time to upgrade more.
AT&T is simply used to making x percent of money per user through a pseudo-monopoly. New tech came along that is disrupting this and they don't like it. They are making up any lie they can to justify some way to continue making the same percentage per user. I suggest they get used to making a little less, or they will die. 100% of zero is still nothing. They could make out just fine if they were more ethical. Sprint will get better speeds, and they do offer unlimited that is almost truly unlimited. Though they lie a bit too.
New technology will replace cellular within 5 years. Play with the others and compete, or hold onto the ball as long as you can. If you hold the ball too long, eventually someone is going to save up enough to buy a newer, better ball, and be willing to share.
So, what do you think?[Per Guidelines: Keep it Relevant and Appropriate]
Again I see the claim that "wholesale bandwidth is pennies per GB" - where exactly is your documentation for this claim, I wish I was paying "pennies per GB" for the amount of bandwith I run to all my locations, would be able to hire a larger percentange of new employees and add those two remote locations with my cost savings on that alone - please give me a number where I can get this deal.
Is this what you were asking for?michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5952/125/What Does a Gigabyte Cost, Revisited
Earlier this year, I wrote a report and a blog post that attempted to estimate the cost for Canadian ISPs to transport a gigabyte of data. While there is nothing magical about a gigabyte, since overage charges typically levy by the gigabyte, it is useful to link actual costs with consumer costs that can reach as much as $10 per gigabyte. In fact, this data is likely to become increasingly important as the wholesale usage based billing battle has shifted toward a cost-based approach.
The more difficult calculation involves the internal ISP network leading to the public Internet. As CRTC Commissioner Candice Molnar noted during the usage based billing hearing, "we all, I think, can hopefully agree that there is no marginal cost to using the network when you are not causing augmentation." While there are no marginal costs, there is a capital cost of building the network and ongoing maintenance and augmentation costs when congestion arises due to traffic growth. My report used Bell's data in the deferral account case (one of the only ones to put information on the public record) to estimate that seven cents per gigabyte (for a total of eight cents) was a best guess among a range of possibilities.
Bell's response has been to target the study with claims that it is inaccurate. At the Canadian Telecom Summit, Bell's Mirko Bibic specifically focused on the study, saying he was the "happiest person in the country because we can finally get the facts on the table and deal with some of this nonsense that is out there. One particular piece of nonsense is this study that Michael Geist did for Netflix on costs." During the hearing, Bibic told the Wire Report my report was "very, very flawed."
Yet Bell's recent comments about actual costs suggests that it relies on similar ranges to provide a best guess at cost per gigabyte. Over the span of one week, it effectively provided three different numbers. On July 13th, Bibic told the Wire Report that 19.5 cents per gigabyte, the original number in its AVP proposal, was close to its actual costs. Bibic claimed "they bear a fairly close relationship to the nineteen-and-a-half cents. The nineteen-and-a-half cents [per gigabyte] is justifiable based on the actual costs of a gigabyte on the network." A week later, Bibic told the CRTC that actual wholesale costs were $39.15 per Mbps, which works out to 12.4 cents per gigabyte at full capacity. A day or two later, it submitted that 17.5 cents per gigabyte reflected actual costs plus markup. The 17.5 cent number appears to be based on fairly low wholesale usage, however (roughly 63% usage). Increasing estimated usage would result in a significantly lower estimate on the cost per gigabyte, likely closer to 12.4 cent estimate.
Bell's inconsistency aside, the company submitted a response in April on my report after Telus conveniently asked about it during the interrogatory phase. It claims that my estimate is based on assuming maximum usage every month (900 GB), which obviously results in a lower cost per gigabyte. It notes that average users do not come close to using that maximum capacity, particularly since it is a shared network. My report included a pricing scenario based on theoretical maximum output (F) and it sets the lowest possible price per GB for each equipment configuration [$0.30 for a pure OC3 configuration; $0.08 for a pure OC12 configuration, and $0.02 for a pure OC48 configuration). Bell seems to assume that this is the OC12 F scenario that is the source of the eight cents per gigabyte figure.
Yet that is not how the report arrived at the figure. It identifies a range of pricing options based on different equipment configurations and usage patterns which range from as high as from $0.34 to as low as 0.019/GB (see Table 5 at page 34). The report notes how the pricing data relied on for the study was created for rural areas and for a complete buildout of the network (as opposed to simple network maintenance through provisioning for increased flows on an existing network). This suggests that actual prices will be at the lower end of the spectrum presented in table 5 (the costs for an urban network are likely far lower than a network that Bell itself says would not be built based solely on market considerations).
The report never suggested that the cost should be based on the assumption of maximum usage. Instead, it concluded:
So, in the long run, the low end of the range would again seem to be the better estimate as demand for peak bandwidth increases. Consequently, while there is a range of plausible values, a comparison of Tables 5 and 7 suggests a figure of $0.07/GB may be the best single estimate for the costs of the internal network.
In other words, there are a number of possibilities, but the seven cents/gigabyte figure appears to be the best guess based on Bell's own numbers. Bell's claims now cover a range as well, reflecting the reality that per gigabyte pricing is subject to many variables that result in a spectrum of possibilities (the most important variable is capacity/usage since the higher the assumed capacity and usage, the lower the cost per gigabyte - fixed costs to build divided by larger or smaller amounts of data depending on use). Arriving at a common metric for identifying per gigabyte pricing will be a crucial aspect to resolving the wholesale usage based billing issue since the issue is subject to considerable variation. It is hoped Bell will step up with public data for all to scrutinize, or at the least that the Commission treat Bell's proposed figures on cost with the skepticism it deserves.
could care less what the "expert" states, give me a vendor that will actually sell it to me and I will believe them. Talk is cheap now back it up in reality
Weetee off wingman. Not my fault you can't find a decent provider,
