I am convinced that no matter what the “issue” is, if it relates to CityWest, there is always going to be a bunch of people displacing their anger with the world towards it. Look, the basic premise here is that people ought to pay for what they use. Very simple in the minds of many and any argument otherwise holds little weight.
Fair enough. As per my math, it’s less than a cent per gig. Citywest wants to charge $2 per gig.
Selling something that costs less than a cent for $2 means that the actual cost of recovering the money (and monitoring software, and salary to maintain) is probably going to be more than the cost of the bandwidth.
Where is the point where you would put your hand up and disagree? $2? $10? $1000 per gig? Afterall, users should pay for what they use, right? What’s the point at which you’d accept that one should complain about a city-owned company?
i agree, the more you download and such the more you should pay
the less you use, the more you should pay
they should have packages ranging in different prices for the amount
of usage you want so the user can choose which package they want
i agree, the more you download and such the more you should pay
the less you use, the less you should pay
they should have packages ranging in different prices for the amount
of usage you want so the user can choose which package they want
Pay for what you use? I’m sure most if not all people have no problem doing so. 2.00/GB is not paying for what you use its paying for some mismanagers salary, new suits, and bragging rights on how much he raped his customers wallets for. Quite frankly its unacceptable especially from a company that also gets subsidized by its customers tax dollars.
I’ve voted with my wallet I will never give citywest another dime. Ever. I know of many more people who have/are making plans to ditch them as well. Citywests new slogan should be shit service for a premium price.
You’re nothing but ignorant if you cant see that citywest is gouging its customers and exercising its monopoly to do so. As for telus, well mobile data is expensive especially in other countries, exercise personal responsibility/buy a sim from the local country.
[quote=“smartypants2011”]
i agree, the more you download and such the more you should pay
the less you use, the less you should pay
they should have packages ranging in different prices for the amount
of usage you want so the user can choose which package they want[/quote]
They already have different packages: 1/2 Meg, 1Mb & 2Mb. Why should there be a further cap?
They have different plans but they tie throughput together with bandwidth cap. For instance, you couldn’t have high speed throughput (Lamen’s Terms: Speed Per Second) with a DSL light bandwidth cap (Lamen’s Terms: Total amount of data you download/send or receive).
As for identifying…how exactly did they identify these so-called offenders if there was and is no metered equipment / software in-place? Perhaps the CRTC should investigate CityWest’s internal proceedures to assure the company’s practices are not violating any ISP/Customer rights on data collection or identification without proper cause…
I’m rather sure the residential customers are bearing the brunt of the charge for the often over-utilized business connections and lack of a spending cap on salaries. I do admit, being snappy, rude and condescending for $22.00 an hr (CityWest CSR Wage) does sound like a good wage though. In all fairness, a couple of the new employees have been very, very polite, friendly and helpful though.
Why would you say they have no software or hardware to meter in place? It’s pretty simple and necessary for planning to know this stuff.
I don’t have caps at the moment, but except for a few down periods, I keep track of things.
Like I know at the moment the top 6 hogs are home users, #7 is a Band office, #11 is a school and not one business cracks the Top 25.
And as I posted #2 for a couple days were the piggies using my home router.
For years home users were riding on the backs of business. Businesses always had caps and much higher monthly fees. Now home users are consuming the bulk of the bandwidth and the flap is because it’s not a few hogs spoiling it for everyone. It’s ** a lot of people**.
The choke points just move around. Just like I explained to a motel it doesn’t matter what ISP you use or package you buy, you can’t have ‘good Internet’ with eight tree planters with laptops in one room all trying to watch NetFlix at the same time. You can’t service 1,000 without choking the feed to your whole town.
This whole thing is just a money grab. If they want to charge premium dollar then the customer should get some guaranteed level of service. want to charge me for my data transfer ok fine guarantee my transfer rate, I pay for 10 mbit you guarantee I get 95% of that rate 99.99% of the time, guarantee i get 99.99 % uptime, and ditch your fucking traffic shaping. For 2.00/ gb transferred that’s a reasonable request.
Oh right quality of service is expensive not data transfer. Citywest just wants to charge premium price for the same shit service with no guarantees on their behalf.
They want to charge like a bandwidth wholesaler but not provide the quality of service guarantees and keep overcharging the low usage users.
As far as I’m concerned citywest needs to be sold or forced to allow third parties to utilize their fibre/ last mile cabling so there can be some competition in rupert.
If you want that QOS pay for a data line. MiG just told you what they cost. Best price $1500 a month
I’m watching this thread with some amusement since everyone seems to be getting out of shape on the fact that CityWest is simply trying to charge the public in exactly the same fashion as the major telcos.
If there is no extreme price caps on bandwidth than the telcos that have invested in Cable / satellite TV are going to lose major revenue streams to Netflix and other new forms of media distribution. From the national public policy perspective, I’m concerned with this concentration of media control and support the aims of openmedia.ca.
From a local perspective the fact that CityWest is charging those who download over 40gb/75 gb per month in the same fashion as the major telco’s is a Meh issue. The statements that Brown and Cunningham have been making about the profitability of CityWest should be the cause of major concern to local taxpayers who have already seen a significant write off in the value of this company since CityTel was spun off from the City into it’s own fiefdom, bought Monarch Cablevision and avoided a public referendum on the purchase by sleight of hand tactics.
The Citywest Group of companies comprise CityWest Cable & Telephone Corp (the Holding Company) and the operating companies - CityWest Telephone Corp, CityWest Mobility Corp, CityWest Cable (North) Corp, CityWest Cable (Prince Rupert) Corp, CityWest Fibre Corp.
Who is to say whether the latest statement from Cunningham in the Northern News about declining profitablity is accurate or not. At the time Pond and Kumar put their schemes in place for CityTel to become a Northwest Telco the public was assured that this company would be fully transparent in it’s affairs and that there would be no impact on our taxes. **This lasted all of one year. **
Shortly thereafter, we found the expected dividends were not being paid, we’ve seen a major writedown in the value of the company and the last year that full financial statements for CityWest Cable & Telephone Corp and it’s subsidiaries were released was for the 2006 fiscal year. In 2007 the company started releasing only the top level view for CityWest Cable & Telephone and have refused FOI requests for the financial statements for it’s various subsidiaries. citywest.ca/company_info/fin … nformation. Are bandwidth hogs really the issue or is it losses in the cell division from being unable to compete or is it losses in the cable divisions due to being unable to compete with all of the major players vying for the cable/satellite market. We simply don’t know as we don’t have access to this information on a taxpayer owned company.
In short, this company and council refuses to divulge sufficient information about it’s financial affairs to the citizens of Prince Rupert so we can understand what the risks are by remaining in business in direct competition with Telus, Rogers, Bell and emerging technologies and delivery systems such as NetFlix. When Pond and Kumar started this company and bought Monarch Cable, there was a five year business plan that projected what the city could expect for it’s investment up to the end of 2010. It’s time that the citizens take a look at whether the original objectives have been met and whether the citizens will be facing another debacle that will be worse than the Skeena Pulp/Watson Island saga that we’re still trying to work out of.
The costs associated with the failure of Citywest to the taxpayers of Prince Rupert will make this whole discussion on UBB a non issue.
Whether a customer uses 40GB, or you use 150GB in a month, the real-world bandwidth cost to Citywest is pennies for each.
It’s not the bandwidth that costs money, it’s the equipment, salaries, software, etc. The bandwidth is a fixed cost, and Citywest pays a flat fee for its connection to Telus. It doesn’t pay more if you download 150GB verses 40GB. But they want to charge you $220 for something for which Citywest has incurred no additional charge.
Citywest is trying to spin this as being like a tollbooth, and that the public seems to accept that concept on roads, so they should also accept it on internet use. Well, this is a city-owned company.
How would you feel if you had to pay for each time you drove down 2nd avenue? Would those who think that users should pay their own fair share agree with that? What’s the difference in cost if you drive down 2nd Avenue 40 times a month, versus if you drive down 2nd avenue 150 times a month? How would you feel if you had to pay $220 per month for the “overusage”?
I agree that this is just an attempt by Citywest to abuse its monopoly to squeeze more money to compensate for clear losses in other sectors.
This is what happens when a publicly-owned company tries to compete with the private sector. It loses miserably, then comes back to the monopoly or government to help subsidize its forays into the private space.
Citywest is now competing against Shaw, Rogers, Bell and Telus – markets it shouldn’t be involved with in the first place – and now it’s asking its internet users, who have no choice, to pay more for their service.
Why the supposed right-wing fiscal conservatives in Prince Rupert still support a government company competing with the private sector (and apparently losing) is beyond me.
UBB is a dead issue on the national stage thanks to the national petition, and let’s hope that it’s a dead issue locally. I just signed the petition this morning, and I see that it’s at almost 400 users. Is there a non-facebook petition that non-facebook users can sign?
[quote=“sandimas”]Whether a customer uses 40GB, or you use 150GB in a month, the real-world bandwidth cost to Citywest is pennies for each.
It’s not the bandwidth that costs money, it’s the equipment, salaries, software, etc. The bandwidth is a fixed cost, and Citywest pays a flat fee for its connection to Telus. It doesn’t pay more if you download 150GB verses 40GB. But they want to charge you $220 for something for which Citywest has incurred no additional charge.
[/quote]
So the extra billing for going over the cap is a pure cash grab that is not related to CityWest’s bottom line. Nice.
This issue can be discussed until the end of time but until there is competition in the home internet market we are stuck with what we have…
I just wish for what we pay the speed would increase. The metering does not affect me I am far below the 75 gig cap.
That’s cheaper than fully utilizing a 10 mbit citywest connection 24x7 do the math 3240 gbyte possible in one month -75 gb included x 2.00 works out to about 1580.00 plus of course your 60.00/ month. This is theoretically of course. In reality citywest provides nowhere near that throughput nor reliability. They just want to charge that way.
[quote=“herbie_popnecker”]Why would you say they have no software or hardware to meter in place? It’s pretty simple and necessary for planning to know this stuff.
I don’t have caps at the moment, but except for a few down periods, I keep track of things.
Like I know at the moment the top 6 hogs are home users, #7 is a Band office, #11 is a school and not one business cracks the Top 25.
And as I posted #2 for a couple days were the piggies using my home router.
For years home users were riding on the backs of business. Businesses always had caps and much higher monthly fees. Now home users are consuming the bulk of the bandwidth and the flap is because it’s not a few hogs spoiling it for everyone. It’s ** a lot of people**.
The choke points just move around. Just like I explained to a motel it doesn’t matter what ISP you use or package you buy, you can’t have ‘good Internet’ with eight tree planters with laptops in one room all trying to watch NetFlix at the same time. You can’t service 1,000 without choking the feed to your whole town.[/quote]
So your solution to running an internet resellers business in 2011 is: “Tell your customers that to watch Netflix they’re going to have to pay $1500.00 a month?” I wonder how much that is per Gb? Better yet: I wonder under which business model this kind of surcharge becomes viable in? Your solution is “Deal with the slow speed” or “Pay through the nose.” It’s 2011 and Canada is ranked 24th in cost efficiency for our internet access while internet access is still comparitively slow. Probably because there are companies that are still trying to MILK IT for anything they can squeeze out of it.
Yeah an MRTG installation to track I know it’s simple. A simple Linux box with MRTG or [insert acronnym’d bandwidth monitor here]…
So what you’re saying is, internet is a priviledge? Not a right. Right? And should be duly charged as such. Have you ever operated on a CityWest ADSL Light Line? It’s basically 56Kb Dialup speed while the charge is what? $34.95 I believe.
This is truly about much more than just price and caps. This is about access and freedom of access as well as cost. CityWest is actually exercising their monopoly and you can make faces at all sides of the argument the simple fact is CityWest already receives two-fold the revenue they should be receiving for the service they provide and the taxpayers of Prince Rupert have already paid enough. Access, as the prices SOAR out of control, is also been diminished. People just can’t afford it on the heels of economic decline, HST and rising food costs.
Enough is enough on those premises alone. Time for CityWest to tighten THEIR belt for once, fire a couple staff or reduce their per hr wages and knock a couple executives salaries down a bit. Compare the service you get at the counter when you have a problem, with the wages those workers make. They’ve jsut gone too far on all fronts and this city I believe, is sick of it. Hence the hubub about everything CityWest.
[quote=“sandimas”]I agree that this is just an attempt by Citywest to abuse its monopoly to squeeze more money to compensate for clear losses in other sectors.
This is what happens when a publicly-owned company tries to compete with the private sector. It loses miserably, then comes back to the monopoly or government to help subsidize its forays into the private space.
Citywest is now competing against Shaw, Rogers, Bell and Telus – markets it shouldn’t be involved with in the first place – and now it’s asking its internet users, who have no choice, to pay more for their service.
Why the supposed right-wing fiscal conservatives in Prince Rupert still support a government company competing with the private sector (and apparently losing) is beyond me. [/quote]
Exactly, CityWest is attempting to compete in one of the most competitive industries using taxpayer assets with insufficient oversight by the taxpayer. Take a look at each individual councillor and mayor at city hall and ask yourself if any of them have the depth of business experience to be providing oversight to a Telecommunications company. The fact that they have a board comprised of local talent with Mr. “I asked around and no one seems to want it” as their CEO frankly gives me scant comfort.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that they are losing money on one or more of their divisions and using UBB as an opportunity to bolster sagging profits. However, the fact is the taxpayers don’t know and seemingly won’t know until we are asked to do a further write off of a City owned asset.
We have no idea if the original strategy of spinning CityTel off to purchase Monarch cable is succeeding or failing. The only thing we know for certain is that the taxpayers are going to be the ones holding the bag if CityWest fails. It’s time for the city to publish the orginal five year plan and show us whether or not the board and management they put in charge have met the plan.
Does Citywest pay municipal taxes? Or are we still subsidizing a city-owned company to go out and compete with private business?
How would you like Citywest to come to your neck of the woods, Herbie? How would you like to face some competition from a company that has a monopoly and a municipality to back it up to compete with you? Sure, you’d probably kick its butt 
But that’s not the point.
I’ve already pointed out way back at the beginning of this thread that business in the local telephone sector has dropped off so much that Citywest wrote and begged the CRTC to reclassify its size so that it would qualify for a federal subsidy. That should make the Northwest BC Conservatives’ heads explode. The Harper Government (heh) is subsidizing Citywest, a city-owned company, meanwhile it is going out and competing with private corporations!
[quote=“sandimas”]Does Citywest pay municipal taxes? Or are we still subsidizing a city-owned company to go out and compete with private business?
How would you like Citywest to come to your neck of the woods, Herbie? How would you like to face some competition from a company that has a monopoly and a municipality to back it up to compete with you? Sure, you’d probably kick its butt But that’s not the point.
I’ve already pointed out way back at the beginning of this thread that business in the local telephone sector has dropped off so much that Citywest wrote and begged the CRTC to reclassify its size so that it would qualify for a federal subsidy. That should make the Northwest BC Conservatives’ heads explode. The Harper Government (heh) is subsidizing Citywest, a city-owned company, meanwhile it is going out and competing with private corporations![/quote]
If my memory serves me correctly, at the time CityWest entered the internet business there were two private providers that subsequently exited the business.
CityWest actually pays a dividend to the City. The question is whether the amount of dividend that has been paid is sufficient to compensate the City for the risk it assumes by competing in this industry. The original business plan would have projected the amount of dividends the City could expect to receive over the first five years of operation. This is the type of information that shareholders normally use to whether their board and managment is competent.
Citizens of Prince Rupert don’t get to see this type of accountability as CityWest and the City have refused to provide the public with this information. Whether one of the highest taxed and financially weakest municipalities in BC should be engaged in an inherently risky industry is a question taxpayers should be asking themselves.
Thanks for the heads up on the CRTC decision. I’m comforted to know that my federal taxes are being used to subsidize CityWest even though it’s a paltry sum compared to Harpers billion dollar G20 boondoggle.