With the flaws in the CRTC's arguments, it's hard to believe usage-based billing has made it this far.
I’ve been following the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) proceedings on usage-based billing (UBB) and aggregate-volume pricing (AVP) for a few years now, and I must say that I’m extremely disappointed that such a deceptive, and potentially fraudulent, concept for an internet billing scheme has survived for this long.
Despite not having made a presentation in front of the CRTC, I still feel the need to make a rebuttal for the current proceeding, and possibly help clarify a few of the many misconceptions that have been disseminated over the years, and which, I regret to say, the interveners opposed to “billing by the byte” have failed to thoroughly denounce during their many appearances in front of the commission.
First. Data doesn’t exist.
Unlike other products we buy every day, data is neither a manufactured product nor a consumable product. Data is nothing more than a series of electrical signals travelling through a bunch of wires over short and long distances. The presence or absence of these signals barely has an impact on the networking equipment.
The equipment’s operating environment, however, has a much greater impact on the operating costs than the data flowing through it, especially with outdoor equipment where the elements have a real impact on operating costs. But data volume has such a low impact on networking equipment that it can be considered non-existent.
Second. Congestion doesn’t exist.
What would happen if demand for internet services reached the maximum capacity of a provider’s network? The networking equipment would simply not go any faster.
This is why internet congestion doesn’t really exist. Congestion implies that the “pipes are dirty” and you need to “clean them up.” But computer networks don’t work this way. What happens to a network pushed to its limits is that it just keep pushing data through as fast as it can, with any extra data packets wanting to go through now required to wait their turn.
If the network’s speed-usage patterns are properly calculated and configured into the system, the network’s actual traffic degradation could be so small that very few people would ever notice that anything is wrong.
Third. Billing by the byte is unreliable.
It’s reasonable to believe that if independent internet service providers (ISPs) are charged AVP fees by the large telephone and cable companies, the ISPs will most likely pass those costs to their customers in the form of UBB fees.
At the beginning of each billing cycle, people overuse their internet connections to take advantage of their available monthly caps. Then the network maxes out, and everyone’s internet experience is severely degraded. Then, at the end of the billing cycle, people rush to consume what’s left of their monthly caps. The network maxes out once again, and, just as before, everyone’s internet experience is severely degraded.
Usage-based billing could make it next to impossible to properly configure and manage a data network due to these wild fluctuations in data usage. On a speed-based network, on the other hand, there is no need for anyone to binge on huge volumes of data during certain times of the month. People use the internet at their own pace, with no worries about caps, and this results in comprehensive usage patterns suitable for most network-management requirements.
In fact, speed-based measurements are so reliable that they can also be used for billing purposes, and for calculating the true operating costs of a networking service. Volume-based measurements are useless for these critical business objectives.
Fourth. Billing by the byte might be illegal.
I contacted Measurement Canada a couple of years ago about the use of bytes as a unit of measurement for the purpose of trade. I was informed that bytes aren’t on Measurement Canada’s list of approved units of measurement, and that the organization does not regulate the use of bytes for the purpose of trade.
But considering the huge revenue streams that would be generated through the implementation of faulty UBB or AVP schemes – on top of the existing subscription fees – it’s not impossible that this large-scale use of an unregulated and highly inaccurate unit of measurement could be considered fraud. The commission might want to look into this.
These are just a few examples of what’s wrong with usage-based billing of internet services. UBB is a highly deceptive and potentially destructive billing scheme that should never have been considered or taken seriously in the first place.
Origin
Source: The Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment