Canada Reverses Course on Usage-Based Internet Billing
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Hmmm, well my first thought here is that this might be a little deeper than many people think.
People having access to information is one of the big things that limits govermental power. Among other things it means that both polirical issues, and politicians themselves are under a constant microscope. Not to mention the issues involved in citizens with overall global views of what is going on, or simply issues of foreign ideas eroding nationalism and culture. Globalization doesn't quite fit the interests of a lot of politicians whose power is vested in national offices and people having a region-centric view of things.
Like it or not, politicians have been trying to find ways to limit the Internet for quite a while. Even civilized and enlightened nations have been trying to find excuses for censorship, or to put up "national firewalls" to prevent outside information and ideas from getting in. Australia was involved in an attempt at this for example. While it can be argued information always gets through such filters, such firewalls DO keep it out of the hands of Joe and Jane average who don't know much about alternative news sources, and whose Internet browsing is limited to checking E-mail, the occasional simple search, and maybe Facebook.
One thing goverments in free countries are famous for is trying to use control or leverage of private industry to do things they can't. The goverment can't engage in censorship, but a private company CAN do so, and the goverment can find ways of encouraging them to do so. I think a lot of the pro-business rulings on The Internet are based on this. I also think the current plan here was specifically to cause a price explosion, and usage caps, to pretty much force people off The Internet. Of course it didn't work, as it was a clumsy attempt, I think the goverment was too short sighted to see the initial outcry. It was kind of hoping that this would sneak in and then people would go "oh well, nothing we can do about it" and then either stop using the Internet, or see their usage greatly drop due to the cost.
Australia DID try something similar if I recall (and it seems other people are referancing it) seperate from their "national firewall", but it also failed there.
Agree or disagree, these are my thoughts. For the companies it's about money, for the goverment it's about power. I think they are hand in hand in this kind of thing, and honestly I think a lot of what you see on the business front is the goverment trying to reign in The Internet due to the "threat" it presents to the current status quo and information control.
People having access to information is one of the big things that limits govermental power. Among other things it means that both polirical issues, and politicians themselves are under a constant microscope. Not to mention the issues involved in citizens with overall global views of what is going on, or simply issues of foreign ideas eroding nationalism and culture. Globalization doesn't quite fit the interests of a lot of politicians whose power is vested in national offices and people having a region-centric view of things.
Like it or not, politicians have been trying to find ways to limit the Internet for quite a while. Even civilized and enlightened nations have been trying to find excuses for censorship, or to put up "national firewalls" to prevent outside information and ideas from getting in. Australia was involved in an attempt at this for example. While it can be argued information always gets through such filters, such firewalls DO keep it out of the hands of Joe and Jane average who don't know much about alternative news sources, and whose Internet browsing is limited to checking E-mail, the occasional simple search, and maybe Facebook.
One thing goverments in free countries are famous for is trying to use control or leverage of private industry to do things they can't. The goverment can't engage in censorship, but a private company CAN do so, and the goverment can find ways of encouraging them to do so. I think a lot of the pro-business rulings on The Internet are based on this. I also think the current plan here was specifically to cause a price explosion, and usage caps, to pretty much force people off The Internet. Of course it didn't work, as it was a clumsy attempt, I think the goverment was too short sighted to see the initial outcry. It was kind of hoping that this would sneak in and then people would go "oh well, nothing we can do about it" and then either stop using the Internet, or see their usage greatly drop due to the cost.
Australia DID try something similar if I recall (and it seems other people are referancing it) seperate from their "national firewall", but it also failed there.
Agree or disagree, these are my thoughts. For the companies it's about money, for the goverment it's about power. I think they are hand in hand in this kind of thing, and honestly I think a lot of what you see on the business front is the goverment trying to reign in The Internet due to the "threat" it presents to the current status quo and information control.
If this was implemented since the beggining it would sound logical (i actually does now) we just aren't used to it, but since it wasn't...
The problem is two-fold.Jordi said:
Firstly, the monthly limits on plans here are bizzarely low for today's network environment. (Particularly since Netflix just got rolling up here in the Great White North. I know that I ran *way* over what my cap would've been, had I had a capped plan, in my first month of Netflix.)
Secondly, the billing rate for bandwidth is absurdly high... estimated by some to be a 500% profit margin. (ie; the major ISPs are charging 6x what it costs them to provide the service.) As one protest-ad put it, it would be slightly cheaper to buy one 160GB solid-state drive every month and have it shipped to your door by air express delivery than it would be to use 160GB of bandwidth.
I wouldn't be opposed to usage-based billing if it actually reflected the costs of service, but this is far beyond that and venturing deeply into rent-seeking (aka "cash grab") territory.
-- Steve
PS: reCaptcha's being stupid again. Why is this on when I have to use an authenticated login to post anyway?
Actually, the problem is that Bell and Rogers are also the providers of television content. If you watch Netflix on the internet or through your gaming console, you're not watching THEIR content or using THEIR on-demand services any longer. This is protectionism and it's why the have introduced the bandwidth caps in the first place, to discourage people from getting their entertainment online. When you are both the creator and supplier of content, you control the entire stream. This is the monopolistic approach these companies are taking and I'm glad the government stepped in to provide an alternative. The government also recently opened up investigations into other business practices aimed at shutting out the new mobile providers up here. We don't have any unlimited text, phone or data plans on our cell phones either, and guess who the two biggest cell phone providers in the country are? Bell and Rogers.Jordi said:
This is a good point as well. Not to mention, producing 1 L of ice cream and producing 10 L of ice cream cost the company on a standard scale. If 1 L costs $2.00, 10 L will cost $20.00. This is not the case with bandwidth usage. 1 GB costs the same in maintenance as 100 GB.Zer_ said:
Really, the best way to look at this, and the take I had over the last few days, is this got all the major parties on the same side of the issue. You know there's a valid point to be made when that happens.
So wait, me signing a petition worked?
O_O
I'm stunned.
PS. My captcha is very close to "necktie himself"... it's a bad omen...
O_O
I'm stunned.
PS. My captcha is very close to "necktie himself"... it's a bad omen...
Well, I think the internet is just as much a communication tool as it is "media", so I don't see why the TV metaphor works so much better than the phone one. Having said that, with a little imagination, I think you could actually view your TV plan as a specific form of UBB. Namely one with a fairly low flat rate, and a usage cap above 24 hours a day. Even if you watch this absolute maximum amount of TV, it is easily sustainable for your provider (in fact, I'm not sure it matters to them, because broadcasts are happening anyway). I think it is not sustainable for ISPs to provide everyone with literally unlimited internet, so they might have a cap that is more noticeable.Zer_ said:
From the answers I've gotten though, it seems that that is exactly the problem. If I understand correctly now, the problem is not with the idea of UBB itself, but with the way it is/was being executed (i.e. with too high prices and too low caps). This also seems to be what GrandmaFunk and Anton P. Nym are getting at. Like I said, I probably just misunderstood the problem at first (and hopefully I'm not anymore).
GrandmaFunk said:
Anton P. Nym said:
(really well explained by the way)
Wow! That is absolutely terrible! I'm glad your government is doing something about this now that you've told me.TPiddy said:
Don't get me wrong: even without this, I think that it might have been good for the government to interfere after I heard that UBB meant the internet would be getting a lot more expensive. I think the internet should be considered on par with telephone connections and television in terms of how essential it is to our lives nowadays, and they should do their best to ensure that their citizens have as much access to it as possible/practical (which is not to say that the providers cannot profit from it a little, but it should not get ridiculous).
Wait a second I am not sure I understand this. Bell offers a capped service but they aren't allowed to charge a company they supply internets to the same thing? Saying in a nutshell if your customers use more GB we will charge you more and then you can decide whether you or your customer will eat said costs? And the government might say that is not allowed? So what is stopping Bell from just hiking up the wholesale costs to cover it? That way everyone has to pay more instead of just the ones who use more?Andy Chalk said:
Damn really, I thought everyone had strict download caps. I had to utterly change my habits when I ran out the 60 or 80 gig cap in a week just from netflix, steam, xbl, and internet use. I mean really 1 gig an hour for standard streaming, 6gig games, gig and a half demos, and that's just me. Something needs to be done about this, but unfortunately all the old rich dinosaurs, want to cling onto their obsolete media outlets and crush our wants under their boot heel so they can get richer.
Honestly when I move into my new place I will probably just see what kind of internet only package I can get. I mean all cable has is new shows, But for the cost of commercials and having to be tuned in at that very specific part there isn't much worth. My only issue is that netflix hasnt caught up here so the movie network still have the best on demand newerish movies.
Honestly when I move into my new place I will probably just see what kind of internet only package I can get. I mean all cable has is new shows, But for the cost of commercials and having to be tuned in at that very specific part there isn't much worth. My only issue is that netflix hasnt caught up here so the movie network still have the best on demand newerish movies.
Yeah, the government opened up a few more wireless spectrums to allow competitors into the market, and forced companies like Bell and Rogers to rent their towers while these companies build up their own infrastructure. The companies come in with unlimited plans, lower fees, no contracts... so Bell and Rogers just start discount 'brands' of their own that offer the same thing.Jordi said:
Rogers is actually the worse of the two, as they own several television stations and are looking to acquire more. They charge you for both the regular and HD version of the same channel, but get this.... using their on-demand service or their PVR service, which uses bandwidth, does not count against your bandwidth limit, but services like Hulu and Netflix, which was just introduced in Canada, do. That's what this is about...
Just like Apple not allowing Flash on their platform is about them protecting iTunes, but that's another can of worms entirely.
Because Bell doesn't set the wholesale prices, the government does. It's about creating competition. Bell and Rogers have the largest networks, and it would take a lot of time and money for any competitor to come in and build up their own network, so the government says since you guys own the network you have to lease it out to wholesalers at x rate.squid5580 said:
Bell and Rogers know they have the majority of the customer base, so they just put bandwidth caps on arbitrarily to make more money on overusage fees. It's not true UBB, as you pay a minimum amount every month, regardless of how many GB you use. So it's a one way street. Your cost never goes down, it only goes up. And unused bandwidth doesn't carry over either.
