![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes | |
|
|
||||
|
|
#16 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Dandelion City
Posts: 7,133
|
Quote:
Accurate measurements are a huge issue, especially considering the way that customers are billed for excess usage. After being a Bell subscriber for 40 years, I am convinced that Bell will never get their billing system right. They can't be trusted to bill POTS correctly, so how can they be trusted with something as complex as UBB? My experiences with Rogers are better but I've seen some huge billing mistakes from them as well. Now they want to be trusted when even small errors in complex measurement systems can result in millions of dollars a month in consumer over-billing. I wouldn't be as concerned if the UBB billing rate was something realistic, like $0.02/GB/mo instead of $2.00/GB/mo, especially when the real wholesale cost is close to $0.005/GB.
__________________
At 20 I had a good mind. At 40 I had money. At 60 I've lost my mind and my money. Oh, to be 20 again. --Scary |
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement | |||
|
|
#17 | |
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 302
|
Quote:
If they are so keen on Usage Based Billing, then they are expected to go through the costs associated with making sure it's all done ACCURATELY and verified by an independent party. And my feeling is that won't be a cheap (or quick) undertaking. I've been floored how often Bell's usage numbers have used in statements by the CRTC or even in news media coverage. Further, it's terrible when those numbers aren't prefaced as being supplied by Bell. And lastly, could we not at least get some comparison numbers from Shaw and Rogers? Even if they are similar numbers, at least you have a benchmark - validity aside that is. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Posts: 355
|
Check and see if your router can count it's own bandwidth. I use DD-WRT and it counts data both up and down. I add it up and compare with what Rogers has...normally it's very close.
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 142
|
I already checked: mine is the Netgear WGR614v7. It won't support DD-WRT or Tomato.
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | |
|
Member #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,492
|
Quote:
__________________
As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 2,524
|
Quote:
The whole UBB fiasco is getting deeper and deeper.... And please don't ask me how deep, because as far as I know Measurement Canada does not inspect calibration/certification records for third party Fiasco Depthfinders. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Member #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,492
|
To me the answer lies in building the functionality to record usage into the firmware of modems.
The functionality would be built into the modem's firmware by the manufacturer and could not be altered by the seller (Rogers) or the buyer (homeowner). The modem is preferable because it is accessible by the Cable company (if its not available then the user isn't using any bandwidth!) Like a meter reader, Rogers would query the modem every day or every month for usage and the consumer could independently verify through a local webpage. (192.168.xx.xx kind of thing) This would dramatically lower costs since it would be built into every modem and the ISP's would not have to program Usage meters for their customers.
__________________
As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website. |
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,712
|
Since the CRTC and Bell wants the internet treat like utilities, then it should be measured like utilities, and accurately. The method that Hugh suggested would work the best. IMO, the ISP's should be responsible for supplying the necessary hardware (Router or Modem) to each of their subscribers, so they can accurately read the usage. They should also charge something a little more reasonable for any overages, like maybe triple the actual bandwidth cost.
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 302
|
While most people have caught on, there are still those who don't lock down their wireless network.
UBB would encourage more WiFi stealing. Why use my bandwidth when my neighbor's is wide open for all my torrenting, NetFlix, iTunes, Xbox Live, PSN needs. And I wonder how popular WiFi hotspots like Starbucks would fare with Canadian data priced as reasonably as ink for inkjet printers. Talk about a sudden influx of usage! Suddenly lots of vehicles parked outside Starbucks locations, engines idling away... |
|
|
|
|
#25 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 2,524
|
I am currently with Rogers, yet oddly enough I have yet to ever check my consumption on line. I have always gone by what my own verification has shown, which is rarely > 10 GB/month. That will change as my kids get older.
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | ||
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 302
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 419
|
I am no fan of UBB, or even the overage charges, but that being said, I have never had an issue. Those worrying about spam emails being counted and other minor and small traffic have a point, but a rather moot one. That is small amounts of data, KB's, not megs or gigs. In the bigger picture, its most likely not even a trickle on your monthly usage.
I would rather see Rogers spend the money instead, getting people to secure their networks. Its pathetic to see how many networks are open, unencrypted, and just sitting there. Even the password protected ones are crazy. I have seen some where the password is the network name!!! If your usage is of such concern, spend the money and buy a better router which has these reporting abilities, or one that can upgrade the software to something better. All big business monitor their own networks usage. While I agree Rogers etc need to be accurate, I don't think the buck sits completely with them. Too many people have bad computing habits and do not realize the ramifications of such ignorance. People need to lock down their systems, networks, and change their habits. People generally lose their mind if their wallet goes missing. They would never leave their front door to the house unlocked, yet, most don't even employ a free program to encrypt their hard drives. Proper anti virus and malware programs to stop viruses, trojans etc. I am more concerned about my data being stolen from a break in, or my laptop being stolen while working, then Rogers being a little off on my monthly usage. I think the whole issue is much larger than just a simple UBB. |
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6
|
In regard to measurment of internet usage, I have been using a freeware Windows program called NetMeter which keeps good stats on download & upload usage on a daily, weekly, monthly and continuing basis. I don't have a Rogers wireless connection yet but am wondering if such a program would be useful for comparison with Roger's usage numbers?
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nepean, ON
Posts: 304
|
Do keep in mind that if you stream to a PS3, or another console, then Netmeter is useless since it will count whatever you are streaming within your own network (that's why I stopped using it).
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Airdrie, AB
Posts: 3,812
|
That doesn't even measure the overhead of TCP/IP. You're missing a large chunk of what you should be measuring. And that's not even counting the junk packets that your router is filtering, but are still measured as usage by Rogers.
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|