Canada Reverses Course on Usage-Based Internet Billing

[Blind Sight]

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

OT: Hurray for Internet petitions!

Unless you could find some kind of editorial comic of Tom Clements punching a beaver with 'CRTC' written on its side then I don't really think anything fits.

 

[sleeky01]

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!

I'm curious, do you favor a monopoly then?

Do you think it was the correct decision to break up Bell in the US back in the mid-80's?

 

[Lonan]

Here's a good video on the debate, or what was the debate, before the government stopped its own branch.

 

[AlohaJo]

Sweet! Our government can actually do something! Maybe the Leafs will win the Cup now!

 

[Mad World]

Yes!

I'm wondering... would this have applied to Shaw? It says "country's small ISPs," so I wouldn't think so, but I was curious.

Anyway, this is awesome! I don't want to have to constantly regulate my internet usage like I do with my iPhone.

 

[sleeky01]

No it wouldn't have because Shaw is a TV Cable company and they provide internet access through their own TV cable lines.

 

[Mekado]

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.

Actually, it's not an anonymous source, it comes from Tony Clement, Canada's minister of industry.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/03/crtc-internet-clement.html

Also, an update to this, the CRTC said they will review their decision but they think they got it right the first time
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/03/crtc-committee.html

I guess they don't have much of a choice, when told "You either change your mind, or we overrule you completely" by the minister of industry.The CRTC can say it's their own decision all they want but in the end...

Edit: That's Mr. Von Finckenstein, the head of the CRTC, dosen't he look like "no internet for you!" scrooge?

Spoiler

 

[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!

I'm curious, do you favor a monopoly then?

Do you think it was the correct decision to break up Bell in the US back in the mid-80's?

What monopoly there is already 2 different companies competing. I am just not a fan of the idea of a company piggybacking off of another, trying to steal the original company's customers and the government intervening saying they can't charge the second company more. Especially when that means the first company then has to pass those increases onto their customers. If you wanna run with the big dogs you can't pee like a pup.

This would be a non issue if Bell and Rogers didn't already cap their customers. But this is putting the "mom and pops" at an advantage and the companies that maintain everything at a disadsvantage

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

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

OT: Hurray for Internet petitions!

well, what does Canada + Internet = ?

a cybernetic tron Beaver?

....

huh, that actualy sounds kinda cool. GO CANADA!

 

[King Toasty]

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

OT: Hurray for Internet petitions!

well, what does Canada + Internet = ?

a cybernetic tron Beaver?

....

huh, that actualy sounds kinda cool. GO CANADA!

It's lightcycle is actually a kayak. BADASS.

 

[Zer_]

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!

Most of our telecommunications infrastructure is funded by public tax dollars. These big telecoms ask the government for help in building their business, we oblige, then they blatantly spit it back into our faces by saying other telecoms can't use their networks? If anything, it's our network.

 

[sleeky01]

In reading this thread (and the one before it before today) I thought it might be of use to people to compare just what internet pricing is like in Canada. I went to the respective companies websites (and in one case talked to customer service for clarification) to see what they offered. They all offer different packages and provide discounts if you bundle it with your TV service for example.

Since they all cap their internet usage I tried to find something that offered 100GB cap. Just for an even number. Here's what I found:

Rodgers Communications

http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=HiSpeedBrowse_1_2&HiSpeedBrowse_1_2_actionOverride=%2Fportlets%2Fconsumer%2Finternet%2Fbrowse%2FhiSpeedCableBrowse%2Fcompare&HiSpeedBrowse_1_2productID=WAVE&_pageLabel=INTER_HISPEED

The best deal I see on this page is between two of their offers. What they call "Extreme" at 80GM and $60/month and "Extreme Plus" at 125GB and $70/month

Bell Canada

http://www.bell.ca/shopping/en_CA_ON.Bell-Internet-Fibe-16/DSLTIMONNewMassNCOMX04.details?promo=true

They offer 6 internet plans, however interestingly their two highest end plans both cap at 75GB. So I'll chose the plan with comparable speed with other companies which would be their "Fibe 16" plan at $47/month at 75GB cap. Note: It's a flash-heavy page so you will have to do alittle clicking around to check me on this post.

Those are the two telecom companies that offer internet across the country. I live in Alberta so I'll post two regional companies that operate here. Both of these companies are trying to expand to eastern Canada, but as mentioned afew posts above, Bell and Rodgers are currently blocking their expansion both for TV/Internet/and mobile phone service.

Shaw Cable

http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/

At first glance their "High Speed Extreme" package at $30/month for 100GB sounds good. But as you can see it's a promotional offer. After talking to customer service I found out that after 6-month it will be $57/month for 100GB. Call them yourself if you would like to check me on this. Finally...

Telus

http://telus.com/content/internet/highspeed/compare.jsp Again more clicking needed

Their "High Speed Turbo" package at $50/month for 125GB (after their promotion) would meet my benchmark.

Like Shaw, Telus operates primarily in Alberta and BC. Telus is also trying to expand east, but.... well see above.


That's it. Sorry for the long post, but I thought people might be interested. I sure hope those links I put up work. :/

 

[sleeky01]

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!

I'm curious, do you favor a monopoly then?

Do you think it was the correct decision to break up Bell in the US back in the mid-80's?

What monopoly there is already 2 different companies competing. I am just not a fan of the idea of a company piggybacking off of another, trying to steal the original company's customers and the government intervening saying they can't charge the second company more. Especially when that means the first company then has to pass those increases onto their customers. If you wanna run with the big dogs you can't pee like a pup.

This would be a non issue if Bell and Rogers didn't already cap their customers. But this is putting the "mom and pops" at an advantage and the companies that maintain everything at a disadsvantage

Care to take a guess at how much it would cost to set up another network from scratch?

And you didn't answer my second question: Do you think it was the correct decision to break up Bell in the US back in the mid-80's?

 

[Drake_Dercon]

Gasp! Am I starting to respect Layton? The man with the charisma of a dead fish?

Nope, just his party, which I like anyway.

Anyway, go lefties for going left. It's good to see someone support the internet as the free, open network it was intended to be.

Edit: just read this:

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!

1. You do realize that this was largely a push from the left, right (and the people first)? Before you start cussing out harper, perhaps you should start with Mr. Layton, as he was the most outspoken leader on the matter. Or the people that signed those petitions.

2. Monopolies are shit. Do you remember history class? The HBC dominated the fur trade and ruined almost everyone else involved because they were the only people to trade with. Then monopolies were made illegal. The small people need to succeed so that the rest of the people can continue.

Perhaps the idea of a monopoly should be expanded, like no one organization can own more than 30% of the share in any given market. Of course, that would screw over everything we have established right now.

This problem is just the tip of the iceberg. The way that the internet is managed needs to change, the way monopolies are allowed to exist needs to change.

 

[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!

I'm curious, do you favor a monopoly then?

Do you think it was the correct decision to break up Bell in the US back in the mid-80's?

What monopoly there is already 2 different companies competing. I am just not a fan of the idea of a company piggybacking off of another, trying to steal the original company's customers and the government intervening saying they can't charge the second company more. Especially when that means the first company then has to pass those increases onto their customers. If you wanna run with the big dogs you can't pee like a pup.

This would be a non issue if Bell and Rogers didn't already cap their customers. But this is putting the "mom and pops" at an advantage and the companies that maintain everything at a disadsvantage

Care to take a guess at how much it would cost to set up another network from scratch?

And you didn't answer my second question: Do you think it was the correct decision to break up Bell in the US back in the mid-80's?

See we are back to the boo hooing. Of course it would cost a fortune. That is why I don't call it unfair if they want to charge more. I mean they are charging me more for using the same network. I have a 120gb cap. And my only other option is to go with a company that has a 1.5 - 2 mb download speed over 6-7mbs that they offer.

And I didn't answer your second question because I have no clue what you are talking about. I thought it was MS that got nailed.

 

[sleeky01]

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!

I'm curious, do you favor a monopoly then?

Do you think it was the correct decision to break up Bell in the US back in the mid-80's?

What monopoly there is already 2 different companies competing. I am just not a fan of the idea of a company piggybacking off of another, trying to steal the original company's customers and the government intervening saying they can't charge the second company more. Especially when that means the first company then has to pass those increases onto their customers. If you wanna run with the big dogs you can't pee like a pup.

This would be a non issue if Bell and Rogers didn't already cap their customers. But this is putting the "mom and pops" at an advantage and the companies that maintain everything at a disadsvantage

Care to take a guess at how much it would cost to set up another network from scratch?

And you didn't answer my second question: Do you think it was the correct decision to break up Bell in the US back in the mid-80's?

See we are back to the boo hooing. Of course it would cost a fortune. That is why I don't call it unfair if they want to charge more. I mean they are charging me more for using the same network. I have a 120gb cap. And my only other option is to go with a company that has a 1.5 - 2 mb download speed over 6-7mbs that they offer.

And I didn't answer your second question because I have no clue what you are talking about. I thought it was MS that got nailed.

I see. So if I understand you correctly, you want the smaller ISP's to be charged exactly what you are paying for internet access. If so then I'm curious to know what your solution is to get that fortune together to build another network from scratch.

Build the new network the same way the old one was by way of huge government subsidies?

Somehow I'm expecting your answer to be "Not my problem".

I'd explain the second question about the break-up of Bell in the mid-80's to you, but it's getting late here and I can't be bothered to type out a long explanation that I get the feeling you won't even bother to read.

You can content yourself with acouple of Wiki entries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT%26T

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_Divestiture

 

[PlasmaSnake13]

Thank the igloo god. And St. Polar Bear. Let's all shower in Maple Syrup!

But seriously, Ha HA! The internet fights back! Good job us! I don't have to worry about monitoring internet services. Phew.

 

[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!

I'm curious, do you favor a monopoly then?

Do you think it was the correct decision to break up Bell in the US back in the mid-80's?

What monopoly there is already 2 different companies competing. I am just not a fan of the idea of a company piggybacking off of another, trying to steal the original company's customers and the government intervening saying they can't charge the second company more. Especially when that means the first company then has to pass those increases onto their customers. If you wanna run with the big dogs you can't pee like a pup.

This would be a non issue if Bell and Rogers didn't already cap their customers. But this is putting the "mom and pops" at an advantage and the companies that maintain everything at a disadsvantage

Care to take a guess at how much it would cost to set up another network from scratch?

And you didn't answer my second question: Do you think it was the correct decision to break up Bell in the US back in the mid-80's?

See we are back to the boo hooing. Of course it would cost a fortune. That is why I don't call it unfair if they want to charge more. I mean they are charging me more for using the same network. I have a 120gb cap. And my only other option is to go with a company that has a 1.5 - 2 mb download speed over 6-7mbs that they offer.

And I didn't answer your second question because I have no clue what you are talking about. I thought it was MS that got nailed.

I see. So if I understand you correctly, you want the smaller ISP's to be charged exactly what you are paying for internet access. If so then I'm curious to know what your solution is to get that fortune together to build another network from scratch.

Build the new network the same way the old one was by way of huge government subsidies?

Somehow I'm expecting your answer to be "Not my problem".

I'd explain the second question about the break-up of Bell in the mid-80's to you, but it's getting late here and I can't be bothered to type out a long explanation that I get the feeling you won't even bother to read.

You can content yourself with acouple of Wiki entries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT%26T

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_Divestiture

No you aren't understanding what I am saying. Ok Bell has decided it needs to cap the bandwidth of their customers. For greed or because it requires more whatever to give a customer more bandwidth. I don't know. People are theorizing it is greed but these people seem to know about as much as I do when it comes to delivering the internet. Which is nothing. Whatever. So lets assume for just a second that the second theory is right. The more that is used the more it costs. Now bell isn't allowed to charge Shaw more even though Shaw customers with unlimited BW are using twice as much internets that they (Bell) feel it is to be profitable. In other words the government is forcing Bell to sell their internets at a loss. All the while Bell is losing it's non wholesale customers because they can't sell their product at a loss to the average people as well. Then the other companies get to brag about unlimited so people go with them. This is my understanding.

Now it may very well be that the conspiracy theorists are right and Bell and Rogers are being greedy. Which if it is the case well then yes there should be some type of intervention. I personally will stick with Bell because the other company (Wightman's) internet is so slow I couldn't use 120gb in a month. Even if it is unlimited.

 

[TechNoFear]

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.

Try actually researching the issue.

You would find that one Australian politician talked about a ISP level filter but found no support (and that there is now no chance of the ISP level filter actually being implemented).

Australia did create a browser level filter that was cracked by a 16 yr old in a few hours.

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 suggest you read how the US ICE department is seizing domain names without any due process and even if the domains are outside the US (and the sites comply with local laws).

Guess what type of sites ahve been taken down?

Here is a clue....
ICE announced the first round of domain seizures at Disney headquaters.

The second round was just completed (mainly sporting sites) ready for the SUper Bowl...

That is ACTUALLY censorship aimed at supporting powerful US media companies and in disregard of other countries laws (including US law).

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.

In Australia we have ALWAYS had usage caps.

I pay Au$50 for 100Gb + 100Gb (2am - noon). I pay no extra use charges, but I am shaped to dial-up (64Kbit/sec) after reaching the cap.

My mother pays Au$25 (in the 'outback') as she only uses Skype, email and browsers.

Minimum wage is Au$14.51/hr, so those accounts are not unaffordable.

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.

What laws EXACTLY did Australia enact? [none]

When did Australia get their "national firewall"? [there is no "national firewall"]

 

[Havzad]

as a Canadian, i am extremely proud of my country right now. i just switched to an unlimited provider,now i can actually use it for a few safe minutes!