Canada Reverses Course on Usage-Based Internet Billing

[Andy Chalk]

Canada Reverses Course on Usage-Based Internet Billing

The Canadian government says it will overturn a decision by the CRTC that would impose usage-based billing charges on the country's small ISPs and eliminate unlimited internet packages for their customers.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Netflix [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107465-Canadians-React-With-Anger-to-New-Internet-Usage-Caps].

The furor that erupted seemed to catch everyone by surprise. A petition at stopthemeter.ca [http://www.stopthemeter.ca] quickly hit more than 250,000 signatures by February 1, both the federal Liberal and NDP parties called for the ruling to be examined or overturned and Minister of Industry Tony Clement issued a statement promising that the decision "will be studied carefully to ensure that competition, innovation and consumers were all fairly considered."

A Parliamentary committee is set to examine the matter today but the government has apparently already made its decision about how it will proceed. "The CRTC should be under no illusions," an anonymous senior government official told QMI agency. "The Prime Minster and Minister of Industry will reverse this decision unless they do it themselves."

Clement later confirmed the statement on Twitter [http://twitter.com/TonyClement_MP], writing, "True. CRTC must go back to the drawing board."

The CRTC now has the option of either reversing course on its own or holding position to see if the government will overrule it. It is an independent regulatory body but it does fall under the sway of Cabinet and there have been instances in the past when its decisions have been overturned.

The news is welcome but it remains largely a matter of optics. As Professor Michael Geist pointed out on wrote [http://www.michaelgeist.ca]. "Overturning the CRTC decision is necessary, but by no means sufficient to address the current problems."

According to the Financial Post [http://business.financialpost.com/2011/02/02/usage-based-internet-billing-a-global-comparison/], Canada is one of only two countries out of 30 in an OECD survey that does not offer its citizens internet subscription packages with unlimited downloads.

Sources: The Globe and Mail [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/tories-to-overturn-crtc-decision-on-bandwith-billing/article1892522/]


Permalink

 

[King Toasty]

Really? You couldn't find any related picture other than the flag?

OT: Hurray for Internet petitions!

 

[Delusibeta]

While I wouldn't declare UBB over, it's damn close. As ever, throw your name on this list [http://www.stopthemeter.ca/] and hopefully push UBB over the line (and off a cliff).

Do note that THIS IS NOT A GUARANTEE that UBB will be repealed.

 

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Really? You couldn't find any related picture other than the flag?

OT: Hurray for Internet petitions!

Seriously, I thought those things never worked! As a Canadian, I'm thrilled with the huge amount of attention this got very quickly. This is a universally terrible decision, and the CRTC should be ashamed of themselves. They're a fucking sham, appointed by politicians and made up mostly of former telecom employees. It's great to see this decision reverse course, but this is only one part of the larger issue. The bigger picture is that the telecom monopolies control about 96% of the market in Canada. The vast majority of the country doesn't even have access to any independent ISPs. I'm lucky Toronto is one of the few places that does, being the single largest city in the country and all.

Aside: If you're a Canadian and want better Internet access, I highly recommend checking if TekSavvy is available in your area. They have cable service now that's faster and better than the DSL service via Bell, and they fucking rule. I'm not affiliated with them in any way, I'm just an extremely satisfied customer. You can check your postal code on their site: http://teksavvy.com/

 

[Andy Chalk]

While I wouldn't declare UBB over, it's damn close. As ever, throw your name on this list [http://www.stopthemeter.ca/] and hopefully push UBB over the line (and off a cliff).

Do note that THIS IS NOT A GUARANTEE that UBB will be repealed.

This is a valid point. The government isn't ending the current practice of UBB, it's saying the decision to allow Bell to apply UBB to wholesale customers must be reviewed. The CRTC could stand its ground, forcing the government to act more directly, although that's unlikely under the circumstances. But UBB for the vast majority of the country, at this point at least, isn't going anywhere.

Still, it's a start.

 

[Bon_Clay]

Damn straight. We don't just need wholesale customers protected, how about some more reasonable internet pricing models for people stuck with Rogers or Bell as well. Stopping this was a good start, but we need to now push it even further and let them know we won't stick with them if prices don't improve.

 

[GoddyofAus]

I wish our Government (Australian) took action against big bully corporations like this. Alas, they're gutless cowards.

 

[bombadilillo]

The news is welcome but it remains largely a matter of optics. As Professor Michael Geist pointed out on wrote [http://www.michaelgeist.ca]. "Overturning the CRTC decision is necessary, but by no means sufficient to address the current problems."

I dont like the arguement that "Well 96% of people are screwed so saving the other 4% doesnt matter." This is at least a small victory for poeple standing up to Gov't sanctioned copreration rape, that can perhaps pave the way to helping the other 96%.

 

[dncarolyn]

I'm a Canadian and I supported it on principle even though I'm with Rogers and already have a download cap of 90gb/month (something that my 4-person household regularly burns through). Stuff like this is only paving the way for mainstream companies to start shearing down package sizes even more. In my area, the only way to get unlimited bandwidth is to pay an additional $50 on top of the $70 we already pay per month which is ridiculous.

 

[Wolfram23]

I wish our Government (Australian) took action against big bully corporations like this. Alas, they're gutless cowards.

Start a petition?

OT: Yay! Not that I was affected here but it's great that it's getting eliminated, and hopefully this whole issue will also bring to the forefront how stupid and slow our internet is.

 

[Andy Powell]

I'm glad this happened. One step done. Now all we need is to pressure the major ISP's to raise their bandwidth caps, and to offer unlimited packages. (slightly off-topic)--Seriously, the CRTC needs to keep their noses OUT of subscriber-based technology too. Right now they're gearing up to get in the way of Sirius satelite radio Canada and XM Canada from merging. Umm.. That's 100% subscriber funded.. Do they even have a right to get in the way of that?

I'm personally ashamed that Canada is actually the most expensive country in the world to own a cellphone too. That, honestly is just plain stupid.

 

[dibblywibbles]

we shall wait and see what really happens with this. the Conservative government probably wanted this to happen but was worried about votes so they nixed the CRTC plan to put the screws to the canadian people. Whatever happened to keeping the interests of the public first? this is just one of many failures in the history of the CRTC.

 

[Veloxe]

The news is welcome but it remains largely a matter of optics. As Professor Michael Geist pointed out on wrote [http://www.michaelgeist.ca]. "Overturning the CRTC decision is necessary, but by no means sufficient to address the current problems."

I dont like the arguement that "Well 96% of people are screwed so saving the other 4% doesnt matter." This is at least a small victory for poeple standing up to Gov't sanctioned copreration rape, that can perhaps pave the way to helping the other 96%.

I don't think that's what he's saying. I read it as more of a "Ok, we've saved 4% of people, now you guys need to save the other 96%."

 

[SenseOfTumour]

So 96% of Canadian based ISPs are still going to have limits?

If I had money, I'd be investing a lot of money in the 4% who aren't complete dicks, given the publicity this will get, with customers having it slowly dawning on them that they're being screwed, and don't have to be.

Honestly, I don't regularly abuse my connection, but I've nearly always got streaming radio on, or I'm playing downloaded podcasts, which I'd assume uses the same bandwidth, I watch a fair bunch of youtube, I buy games on Steam at 5-15gb a pop, I play WOW with its regular massive patches, and I don't consider myself a heavy user.

I certainly don't think there should be a limit of less than 100gb a month, especially when ISPs are so desperate to push their speeds. At the moment, with some UK ISPs, with a combination of their limits and speeds, I could use up my monthly limit in a few hours.

That, is dumb and somehow seems horribly dishonest, like selling a Ferrari with a half litre capacity gas tank.

"What's wrong with the car? It's capable of 240mph in ideal conditions!"
"Yes, for 2 and a half minutes then it's outta fuel."
"well, that's because you use it, we can't be blamed for that, you're supposed to just look at how pretty it is, not USE it."

Would anyone take that BS from a car salesman?

 

[Jordi]

I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me what is so strange about usage-based billing? It looks like they will just be looking at how much of their service you are using and then billing you accordingly. If you eat more ice cream, you have to pay more. If you call someone on the phone, you pay by the minute. I don't understand the big problem.

Now, if they would look at what you're doing and then deciding to bill you more for watching YouTube than for downloading something from Netflix, even though they might potentially cause the same amount of traffic, I can definitely see the problem with that. But it looks like they just look at the amount of bytes you up/downloaded. I don't know exactly how these things work, but if you download more stuff, aren't you also costing the ISP more?

I probably just don't understand it properly though, so I would really appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me what is so strange about usage-based billing? It looks like they will just be looking at how much of their service you are using and then billing you accordingly. If you eat more ice cream, you have to pay more. If you call someone on the phone, you pay by the minute. I don't understand the big problem.

the issue is that it's only applied one way:

if you use more than the cap, you pay more.
if you use less than the cap...you pay the same thing, regardless of how little of it you actually used.

the main problem is that the caps are extremely low in most cases and that their overcharge fees are ridiculous.

with their current price structures it's cheaper to buy a hard drive, put the data on it and ship it express than it is to download the same data.

 

[icyneesan]

Oh well, guess I'll have to find another way to stir up the Canadian public into a rebellion so I can take over government and create something similar to Britannia from Code Geass...

ALL HAIL CANADANNIA!

Really? You couldn't find any related picture other than the flag?

OT: Hurray for Internet petitions!

I gotta agree, its like Andy didn't even try D:

 

[hansari]

"What's wrong with the car? It's capable of 240mph in ideal conditions!"
"Yes, for 2 and a half minutes then it's outta fuel."
"well, that's because you use it, we can't be blamed for that, you're supposed to just look at how pretty it is, not USE it."

Would anyone take that BS from a car salesman?

Yes.

I'd explain it more thoroughly but everyone wants more of my Kool-aid and it won't serve itself...

 

[SenseOfTumour]

"What's wrong with the car? It's capable of 240mph in ideal conditions!"
"Yes, for 2 and a half minutes then it's outta fuel."
"well, that's because you use it, we can't be blamed for that, you're supposed to just look at how pretty it is, not USE it."

Would anyone take that BS from a car salesman?

Yes.

as it's right above me!

Well played good Sir... A perfect example of marketing selling stuff less useful, with less features for more money, purely cos it looks shiny.

A fairer analogy however would be buying a 640gb ipod with a 30 minute battery life...and the batteries are not rechargable, only getting one a month by subscrition from Apple.

(anyone surprised Jobs hasn't tried this?)

would you rather not have an 8gb player that you can use all the time as much as you like?

 

[Zer_]

I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me what is so strange about usage-based billing? It looks like they will just be looking at how much of their service you are using and then billing you accordingly. If you eat more ice cream, you have to pay more. If you call someone on the phone, you pay by the minute. I don't understand the big problem.

Now, if they would look at what you're doing and then deciding to bill you more for watching YouTube than for downloading something from Netflix, even though they might potentially cause the same amount of traffic, I can definitely see the problem with that. But it looks like they just look at the amount of bytes you up/downloaded. I don't know exactly how these things work, but if you download more stuff, aren't you also costing the ISP more?

I probably just don't understand it properly though, so I would really appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

In media, usage based billing isn't the norm. You don't pay per hour when watching TV, do you? Your analogies fall apart, because UBB is used in some places, others not. Either way, UBB is foolish. Especially when it's cheaper to literally fill a Solid State Drive, and mail it to someone than it would be to upload it.