Canada Reverses Course on Usage-Based Internet Billing

[kannibus]

I support this move by the gvmt. CRTC can go burn in hell.

 

[Twad]

Well duh, of course they overruled it. That way they make themselves look good.
And it wont solve the problem that places like where i live (far from the huge cities where there is a lot of competition) we have so-so service, very expensive, under a monopoly from one ISP (who will likely soon increase our bill for no other reason than they can, since they do it constantly)

 

[Baresark]

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.

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.

Also, you'll notice that in the by-line it says it was a bill that applied only to small ISP's. This is a real problem socio-economically because then you are on the verge to driving the small ISP's out of business and thus would begin the start of a government sponsored monopoly. This would adversely effect only people who live in smaller areas and would effectively punish them for living where they live. And it would help to crush small business such as the smaller ISP's. This would also flow out to affect other businesses that use those smaller ISP's.

 

[TPiddy]

Also, you'll notice that in the by-line it says it was a bill that applied only to small ISP's. This is a real problem socio-economically because then you are on the verge to driving the small ISP's out of business and thus would begin the start of a government sponsored monopoly. This would adversely effect only people who live in smaller areas and would effectively punish them for living where they live. And it would help to crush small business such as the smaller ISP's. This would also flow out to affect other businesses that use those smaller ISP's.

Exactly... a decision by a commission designed to ensure healthy marketplace competition that does exactly the opposite? No wonder the government had to step in and cave to public opinion.

 

[squid5580]

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?

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.

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.

That is bullshit. Oh boo hoo it would cost them a fortune and take time for them to build their own network. Guess they should have thought about that before they went into the internet business. I mean Bell and Rogers built that. To have some other company come in and try to steal their customers (which is what they do I mean I get flyers every other day for one of these companies) and the gov. ties their hands to boot? They don't give a rats ass about something like Hydro and allow it to be privatized which caused a huge jump in prices but oh no don't fuck with the internet providers that have nothing to do with the network they use. Yeah makes a lot of sense. Fuck you Harper. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

 

[Steve Fidler]

The news is welcome but it remains largely a matter of optics. As Professor Michael Geist pointed out on his blog, 96 percent of the Canadian internet market is controlled by major ISPs who already impose relatively restrictive caps on their retail customers, so even if the CRTC abandons its position entirely the actual impact on consumers will be negligible. "Politicians and policy makers must recognize that this particular decision is only a small part of the broader concern over an uncompetitive broadband marketplace that has led to near-universal use of bandwidth caps," he wrote. "Overturning the CRTC decision is necessary, but by no means sufficient to address the current problems."

This is because independents like TekSavvy only recently became popular. After this outrage, I assure you that anyone who knew what was going on is going to be jumping ship to unlimited dealers. I was already planning to change to TekSavvy from Rogers but was waiting until March (not really sure why.)

 

[Steve Fidler]

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?

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.

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.

That is bullshit. Oh boo hoo it would cost them a fortune and take time for them to build their own network. Guess they should have thought about that before they went into the internet business. I mean Bell and Rogers built that. To have some other company come in and try to steal their customers (which is what they do I mean I get flyers every other day for one of these companies) and the gov. ties their hands to boot? They don't give a rats ass about something like Hydro and allow it to be privatized which caused a huge jump in prices but oh no don't fuck with the internet providers that have nothing to do with the network they use. Yeah makes a lot of sense. Fuck you Harper. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

Just FYI on your point there, Rogers and Bell have taken ownership of rural areas such as Stouffville, ON, essentially barring any other company from putting in Cable/DSL/FiOp lines because they own the area. They won't get away with this in areas like the Greater Toronto Area or Ottawa, obviously, but in these rural areas they are stopping it. The same goes with Cellular towers. The phone carrier 'WIND' which offers unlimited plans for cheap has a very small coverage area because Rogers isn't allowing them to use their towers outside of certain areas, but also not allowing them to build their own.

 

[MaVeN1337]

That's pretty cool. Now all they have to do is follow through.

 

[TPiddy]

That is bullshit. Oh boo hoo it would cost them a fortune and take time for them to build their own network. Guess they should have thought about that before they went into the internet business. I mean Bell and Rogers built that. To have some other company come in and try to steal their customers (which is what they do I mean I get flyers every other day for one of these companies) and the gov. ties their hands to boot? They don't give a rats ass about something like Hydro and allow it to be privatized which caused a huge jump in prices but oh no don't fuck with the internet providers that have nothing to do with the network they use. Yeah makes a lot of sense. Fuck you Harper. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

It's in the government's, and the people's, best interest to have competition. Having the vast majority of the telecom market split between 3 companies could easily lead to price gouging, collusion and other unethical business practices. You always need to have an alternative, and unfortunately that was the only way. Besides, cable installers are limited to specific regions to prevent millions of miles of unnecessary cable line running through your house. Could you just imagine if you had 4-5 major cable providers in the same neighbourhood, all running their own lines? It's ridiculous, and it's ridiculous for you to think that the owners of the lines should be able to do whatever they want with them. You know where those lines are? On government property. It's a called a compromise.

As for hydro, hydro's been artificially low for years as the Harris government kept subsidizing it. This had lead to problems because the lines now need upgrading to keep up with demand, and future demand for things like electric cars. The Hydro pain we're feeling right now is 1 part catching up with the past (debt retirement charge), 1 part planning for the future (investing in renewable energy sources) and 1 part government price gouging (HST).

 

[TPiddy]

Just FYI on your point there, Rogers and Bell have taken ownership of rural areas such as Stouffville, ON, essentially barring any other company from putting in Cable/DSL/FiOp lines because they own the area. They won't get away with this in areas like the Greater Toronto Area or Ottawa, obviously, but in these rural areas they are stopping it. The same goes with Cellular towers. The phone carrier 'WIND' which offers unlimited plans for cheap has a very small coverage area because Rogers isn't allowing them to use their towers outside of certain areas, but also not allowing them to build their own.

Yeah, this is what they need to look into next. I know it's gonna take a while for companies like Wind and Public to build up a footprint and a network, but this kind of non-competition just needs to stop. If Bell and Rogers want to keep up, they should just lower their god-damned prices and stop spending so much money preventing other people from succeeding.

 

[squid5580]

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?

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.

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.

That is bullshit. Oh boo hoo it would cost them a fortune and take time for them to build their own network. Guess they should have thought about that before they went into the internet business. I mean Bell and Rogers built that. To have some other company come in and try to steal their customers (which is what they do I mean I get flyers every other day for one of these companies) and the gov. ties their hands to boot? They don't give a rats ass about something like Hydro and allow it to be privatized which caused a huge jump in prices but oh no don't fuck with the internet providers that have nothing to do with the network they use. Yeah makes a lot of sense. Fuck you Harper. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

Just FYI on your point there, Rogers and Bell have taken ownership of rural areas such as Stouffville, ON, essentially barring any other company from putting in Cable/DSL/FiOp lines because they own the area. They won't get away with this in areas like the Greater Toronto Area or Ottawa, obviously, but in these rural areas they are stopping it. The same goes with Cellular towers. The phone carrier 'WIND' which offers unlimited plans for cheap has a very small coverage area because Rogers isn't allowing them to use their towers outside of certain areas, but also not allowing them to build their own.

So I assume they own the land then. Which again is capitalism. I mean I am sure not a fan of capitolism in the first place but I don't think the government should have any say in it unless there is illegal activities going on. Especially when the gov is essentially asking them to slit their own throats

 

[Enigmers]

I hope they not only reverse this decision, but also see that other countries offer vastly cheaper internet services and maybe offer them to us. And maybe get Australia in on the action too, because those guys are getting screwed for their money.

 

[Steve Fidler]

They don't own the land. They claim rights over servicing the area, aka a monopoly. If WIND buys a field in Stoufville and wants to put a tower there, they can't.

 

[ayuri]

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

OT: Hurray for Internet petitions!

Do you have a problem with my picture too?
but I am happy it is still unlimited.

 

[NullMad]

So I assume they own the land then. Which again is capitalism. I mean I am sure not a fan of capitolism in the first place but I don't think the government should have any say in it unless there is illegal activities going on. Especially when the gov is essentially asking them to slit their own throats

Well in case of Bell their telephone lines were build with massive taxpayer subsidies so government pushing them around makes perfect sense.
Another issue is monopoly or oligopoly. In our case there are something like 6 major ISPs in the country, but in any given region the choice is local DSL provider or local Cable, as ISPs are regional. The ISP also own wireless communication, television and television stations and even land lines. They control the market segment, at which point government once again is allowed to step in and regulate. Which is why guys like TekSavvy were born. Of course TekSavvy can be regarded as failure(full disclosure: i am their happy customer). The government stepped in to create competition, but it's been many years and the resellers are still just that: 100% unnatural entity created by the government. Their business is reselling the bandwidth of the big boys. They aren't building their own infrastructure. That is why UBB affects them at all.

The big boys should learn a lesson. Underhandedness is one thing but you have to be tricky about it. They just wanted too much shafting of the general populace too fast and will probably get smacked around for it. If they decided to turn the faucet slowly they probably would've succeeded in the long run.

p.s. Those sneaky bastards offer their own TV over IP, but don't count that towards the bandwidth use by their customers. How is that not anti competitive? Apparently the big boys can allow you to stream HD 24/7 (something around 6Mbps) and won't even bother counting the bits. How are other content provider suppose to compete with that? And how come their argument of "limited bandwidth" even has a leg to stand on?

 

[squid5580]

Just FYI on your point there, Rogers and Bell have taken ownership of rural areas such as Stouffville, ON, essentially barring any other company from putting in Cable/DSL/FiOp lines because they own the area. They won't get away with this in areas like the Greater Toronto Area or Ottawa, obviously, but in these rural areas they are stopping it. The same goes with Cellular towers. The phone carrier 'WIND' which offers unlimited plans for cheap has a very small coverage area because Rogers isn't allowing them to use their towers outside of certain areas, but also not allowing them to build their own.

Yeah, this is what they need to look into next. I know it's gonna take a while for companies like Wind and Public to build up a footprint and a network, but this kind of non-competition just needs to stop. If Bell and Rogers want to keep up, they should just lower their god-damned prices and stop spending so much money preventing other people from succeeding.

How can Bell or Rogers afford to lower their prices? They are the ones paying for everything. If a telephone wire goes down it isn't Shaw who pays to fix it. Rogers just started installing fibre optic wires in my area. And one of these mom & pop places claim to have it on their flyers. They have the fastest speeds it says (which is BS). I am all for competition but this is piggybacking.

And the worst part (from my experience anyways) was the little guys internet was so slow you wouldn't be able to break Bells or Roger's cap with it if you tried. I am talking minutes to download a simple patch for an XBL game. And I could forget about playing online.

 

[Jaeger_CDN]

While this whole UBB mess is sort of over now (until the Bell/Rogers find a new angle to hit the small ISP's on) maybe this has shone enough of a light on their billing practices that it may make them rethink their packages once a pile of people abandon them?

 

[Valanthe]

Score one for Canada. Here's hoping our government follows through.

What Country do you live in?

There are almost NONE that mandate usage caps.

I am Canadian, I perhaps should have been clearer about that in my initial post but as it stands the only confirmation that this bill will be reversed is a solitary 'anonymous source,' which by nature I put very little faith in.

As such, my statement was me getting my hopes up that this might be the first stepping stone into getting usage based billing in our country if not reversed, then at least bumped to a much fairer level.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

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

OT: Hurray for Internet petitions!

They shoulda posted a pic of Canada's favorite son, a man amongst boys. I of course speak of Rowsdower!!!!

 

[Cavouku]

I'm glad that it's unlikely this limit-charging thing won't pass...

...Man, it sucks how I love hearing good news, and then I don't have much to say about it other than "that's great!"