Usage Based Billing - Why you're wrong

So this is all about UBB and the ISP's in Canada. The idea to throw this out on this blog comes from debating the issue with my brother. We get heated at times, but he's one of the only people I find who can hold his own in a debate and be smart about it the entire time. (please see "one of the smartest people I know").

This is going to go over some of the common misconceptions that exist with peoples main arguments as to why they dont agree with UBB.

1) But it's only 3 cents/GB!
Incorrect. That number is only accurate transmitting on the current network. The issue is that usage is increasing rapidly to the point that the network can't sustain the throughput. This is already becoming an issue with Shaw. TELUS is constantly upgrading their infrastructure. They literally spend BILLIONS each year on their wireline infrastructures.

2) They're just doing this because of Netflix.
This argument is only for people who want to ignore the relevant points and just say they dont want to pay more for an upgraded service (and yes, it's upgraded, just look at the speeds 2 years ago as opposed to today).

3) They just use the phone lines it's not that expensive.
This might not be common, but there are people that think this surprisingly enough. The only thing that internet uses is the copper pair path going from our equipment to your house. It doesn't include the Fibre Optics going to the facilities near your home, or the ADSL ports, or the ADSL servers, or the extra cost to maintain all this.

4) Most of the network exists it shouldn't cost this much!
Simular answer to the one above. The only network that exists is the final bit to your house, everything else has to be built in with hundreds of kilometeres of Fibre Optic cable. This is no exageration either, HUNDREDS of kilometers of Fibre Optic cables (and we're probably looking at quadruple digits in the big cities).
Also. Part of the new network we're implementing is Fibre directly to the house, meaning that the Copper pair network isn't used anyone at all. The only copper in this network is the internal stuff in your house. And yes this network is already active in the major cities for TELUS.

5) Why is it so slow and expencive here? AND we pay UBB? That's not fair!
Canda is the 11th least populated country in the world per land mass (or the 229th most dense country, 8.8 people per square km). Compare it to Japan which is listed as the 38th most dense country (873 people per squake km). Basically this means that if 1km of fibre cable can be run to 100 people in canada, the same amount of fibre can be run to 10,000 people in Japan. (if you look at a city level, Calgary Vs Tokyo, it's about 4 times the density in tokyo, so 400 customers in Tokyo vs 100 in Calgary). Mixing into about the way we build the infrastructure (countries like Japan build above ground which saves an enormous amount of money to build out the network). Basically to provide fibre-level services to everyone in canada Vs everyone in japan you'd need 1000 times the cabling alone, not to mention repeaters, extra servers, etc.
This is the same concept for cell phones. Here in Canada because we're so spread out we need more towers, which means higher infrastructure costs, which means more expensive.

6) Access to the internet is a Right and a Civil Liberty.
No it's not. Yes you're stupid. Go read a book.
People that use this argument SHOCK me. Finland is currently the only country to say that internet is a civil right. And they list it as 1GB. Even if internet does become a Right, the Right would be access to information, not a Right to cheaply (or freely depending on how you do it) download every episode of Battlestar Galactica for a weekend marathon. Lets get something VERY clear here. The only reason this is an issue is because of people downloading TV shows and Movies. Since when are these rights?
Also, if these are rights, what about people that cant afford the internet like some seniors or people on social assistance? What about people who can't afford computers? If it's a right why isn't Internet access subsidized by the government? This argument is not even close to a good one, please stop using it, you just sound dumb.

7) Ok fine Kris, I conceed to your awesomeness. But it's really way too expensive per GB.
This is the ONLY argument I will agree with. And even then I'd like to see some better numbers of data cost that takes into consideration stuff like major infrastructure upgrades, which I was unable to find. If it does turn out that it's enormous then yeah they should make the charges more fair, but saying they shouldn't be allowed period is ridiculous.

I also wanted to bring up another quick point, just a "something to think of" thing. A show like 2 and a half men costs the network about $4million per episode, just in casting fees, let alone studio, rental, cameras, processing, blah blah blah. Networks rely of licensing fees from TV networks, and advertising revenues from commercials to pay for tv shows, neither of which netflix can cover. You really think that content will continue if network revenues drop from mass netflix usage?

In the end companies like TELUS and SHAW and BELL are private companies free to do what they want. There's one of two things that will come of this.
1) Internet companies will charge overusage, and the relatively small numbers of users that overuse will pay overage charges.
2) Internet companies will not be allowed to charge overusage, so they'll instead either increase their monthly charges, or sell Tier'd internet, and when you hit your limit, no more internet for the month.


I'm also going to ask something of anyone commenting.
Dont comment with useless posts like "common knowledge says" or "everyone knows" as every conversation i've had, except the one with my brother, that i've asked for info that comes from the provide itself, has turned up no information. Atleast substantiate your arguments please. That's all I want to see.

Lros