Canada Reverses Course on Usage-Based Internet Billing

[Jaeger_CDN]

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!

I'm betting Bell and Rogers are extra sweetening the pot for people not to switch after their dirty laundry got blasted all over the main stream media .. hee hee

 

[Antitonic]

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.

How did I know when I read this the other of the two would be Australia?

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.

Anyway, so it sounds like good news for Canadians. Now can Australia get some love?

 

[RandV80]

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.

Well it's not quite like that, rather it's kind of region base. In Eastern Canada you have Bell and Rogers, who are the internet assholes with tight caps, but also a handfull of better small companies like Techsavvy if you live in the right area. Western Canada the monopoly is run by Telus and Shaw, while they contribute to that 96% number they don't strangle us for bandwidth cap the same way they do in the east. So competition pricing really isn't much different.

Anyways, this is one of the reasons I'm proud of being Canadian. I don't know about other countries, but compared to our big neighbour in the south when big corp tries to push through a fast one on the consumer, we the voting population can still kick up enough of a fuss and convince the government to think twice about it. Otherwise we would have had a "Made in USA" entertainment lobby crafted DMCA drafted years ago. I'm not sure where it's at now but they've tried to push it in like 5 times now.

 

[Akalistos]

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.

He's a troll.

Anyways, I don't think that this is boding well. Like Hydro-Quebec and their "If you use alternative to us, even for a small percentage, you'll get unplug" policy... I still think this gonna go through. I'll fight as all hell, but seeing the Bell and Hydro-Quebec are both pets of the government here i won't get my hope up.

 

[Akalistos]

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.

Well it's not quite like that, rather it's kind of region base. In Eastern Canada you have Bell and Rogers, who are the internet assholes with tight caps, but also a handfull of better small companies like Techsavvy if you live in the right area. Western Canada the monopoly is run by Telus and Shaw, while they contribute to that 96% number they don't strangle us for bandwidth cap the same way they do in the east. So competition pricing really isn't much different.

Anyways, this is one of the reasons I'm proud of being Canadian. I don't know about other countries, but compared to our big neighbour in the south when big corp tries to push through a fast one on the consumer, we the voting population can still kick up enough of a fuss and convince the government to think twice about it. Otherwise we would have had a "Made in USA" entertainment lobby crafted DMCA drafted years ago. I'm not sure where it's at now but they've tried to push it in like 5 times now.

Easter-Canadian Speaking here and i'll say you are wrong. No... really. No matter how we fought Hydro-Quebec policy of unplugging anyone that tried to cut down energy cost with alternative or simply asking the government to issue a ultimatum to them, it's still on today. It's sick but hey... monopoly and all that shit.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Still don't know what the fuss is.

 

[Therumancer]

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.

What laws EXACTLY did Australia enact? [none]

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

Now read EXACTLY what I said about an "attempt". I never said it succeeded and there was plenty of bellyaching going on here and on other sites when this was going on. It was also part of what prompted the attacks by Anonymous on the Australian goverment. Do some research on "Operation Titstorm" they made a big deal about the ban on porn with small breasted women but there was more to it than that at the time.

As far as the crackdown in the US goes, there is a lot behind that. General tendencies are by their nature not universal. What's more you have to remember that there are big companies and then there are bigger companies. Disney is huge, but umbrella companies like Viacom tend to be bigger.

There has also been a back and forth issue over "Cybersquatting" which is when someone registers a domain name and then waits for a big company to want to set up a website with that name, and then demands a huge amount of money for it. The goverment has gone back and forth on that one, both seizing domain names and turning them over to the organization in question, and supporting the cybersquatters at various times. I'd imagine that's involved on the fringes here no matter what they say.

There have also been conflicts over things like the acronym "WWF" where the World Wrestling Federation had to change it's name because the World Wildlife Fund had technically been using it longer, despite "WWF" having been in business for many years at that point. Things coming to a head because people searching for WWF would find tons of Pro-Wrestling sites before they found the charity they were looking for. There is still some bad blood over this one, and it's a case where a charity pretty much trumped a pretty substantial business.

Then there were conflicts between Madonna and The Church Of The Madonna or something like that over the usage of the name "Madonna.com".

Of course it also works in reverse as well, and as I said there are cases of outright squatting without any real justification like when someone registered Imusranch.com, and then tried to charge Imus (the Radio personality who runs a Ranch/Charity for delinquent children) for the right to use the name and variations thereof.

 

[TPiddy]

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.

Bell and Rogers profit margins are extremely high. Have you looked at their books or their stock returns lately? Trust me... they can lower their prices easily. They engage in price gouging because they're the only game in town. If you don't like the little guy, stick with your big name, that's fine. I personally have Bell because their ping times are the best in my neighbourhood. But, I can defend the right for the little guy to exist to provide a meaningful alternative and try to keep the big boys in check.

 

[RandV80]

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.

Well it's not quite like that, rather it's kind of region base. In Eastern Canada you have Bell and Rogers, who are the internet assholes with tight caps, but also a handfull of better small companies like Techsavvy if you live in the right area. Western Canada the monopoly is run by Telus and Shaw, while they contribute to that 96% number they don't strangle us for bandwidth cap the same way they do in the east. So competition pricing really isn't much different.

Anyways, this is one of the reasons I'm proud of being Canadian. I don't know about other countries, but compared to our big neighbour in the south when big corp tries to push through a fast one on the consumer, we the voting population can still kick up enough of a fuss and convince the government to think twice about it. Otherwise we would have had a "Made in USA" entertainment lobby crafted DMCA drafted years ago. I'm not sure where it's at now but they've tried to push it in like 5 times now.

Easter-Canadian Speaking here and i'll say you are wrong. No... really. No matter how we fought Hydro-Quebec policy of unplugging anyone that tried to cut down energy cost with alternative or simply asking the government to issue a ultimatum to them, it's still on today. It's sick but hey... monopoly and all that shit.

It depends then I guess. Here in BC for example while we couldn't stop the HST from being implemented as it was more or less snuck passed us, we've made enough of a fuss that it's on schedule to be overturned. I guess you win some and you lose some, but the fact is we do win some. I'm more putting it in comparison to the US where it seems the politicians play some "hate the other guy, vote for me!" game with the voter guys then when in office only listen to corporate interests and lobby group. Or that's my own impression at least.

 

[squid5580]

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.

Bell and Rogers profit margins are extremely high. Have you looked at their books or their stock returns lately? Trust me... they can lower their prices easily. They engage in price gouging because they're the only game in town. If you don't like the little guy, stick with your big name, that's fine. I personally have Bell because their ping times are the best in my neighbourhood. But, I can defend the right for the little guy to exist to provide a meaningful alternative and try to keep the big boys in check.

See this is where the arguement. Rogers and Bell have caps and they are profitable. So when they tell the mom and pop that hey it looks like you are gonna have to charge your customers the same way because in a nutshell that is how we are going to charge you that is not going to put them out of business. Well at least theoretically it shouldn't. If Bell goes hog wild on the prices sure. But if they charge mom & pop a fair price to where it is still profitable to them without them gouging their customers I still fail to see a problem. Sure it means a price increase for their customers but like I said if the increase is reasonable from Bell than the only way it will put Mom & Pop out of business is if they start gouging us the consumer.

Unless your arguement hinges on the fact a Mom & Pop type company would never dream of gouging their customers.

 

[Atmos Duality]

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

Gutless cowards, or partners in bed?
The relationship can be difficult to distinguish at times.
Over here, it's Comcast vs the FCC. I've heard the FCC threaten Comcast with the anti-trust/monopoly stick, but nothing has come of it yet.

 

[TPiddy]

See this is where the arguement. Rogers and Bell have caps and they are profitable. So when they tell the mom and pop that hey it looks like you are gonna have to charge your customers the same way because in a nutshell that is how we are going to charge you that is not going to put them out of business. Well at least theoretically it shouldn't. If Bell goes hog wild on the prices sure. But if they charge mom & pop a fair price to where it is still profitable to them without them gouging their customers I still fail to see a problem. Sure it means a price increase for their customers but like I said if the increase is reasonable from Bell than the only way it will put Mom & Pop out of business is if they start gouging us the consumer.

Unless your arguement hinges on the fact a Mom & Pop type company would never dream of gouging their customers.

Bell and Rogers have caps in place for no reason though. The cap is there to allow them to charge overages. But why can't that work the other way? If you don't use up to your cap, why don't you get refunded? It's all greed. The reason why independents need to be able to offer unlimited or higher cap service is to have a competitive edge. They also need to lower their pricing to attract customers. With no advantage over the big players why would anyone switch? The idea behind the whole thing is to encourage market competition and provide people an alternative. If everyone had no choice but to use one of Bell or Rogers, and both decided to jack their rates (hmm, sounds like what they are doing now), what recourse do you have as a customer?

To 'not use the internet'?? Is that your solution? How does that help the government? EVERYONE in the country should have high speed internet access and it should be affordable for most homes and subsidized for people with low-incomes. At least, it should if Canada wants to compete on a global scale.

 

[squid5580]

See this is where the arguement. Rogers and Bell have caps and they are profitable. So when they tell the mom and pop that hey it looks like you are gonna have to charge your customers the same way because in a nutshell that is how we are going to charge you that is not going to put them out of business. Well at least theoretically it shouldn't. If Bell goes hog wild on the prices sure. But if they charge mom & pop a fair price to where it is still profitable to them without them gouging their customers I still fail to see a problem. Sure it means a price increase for their customers but like I said if the increase is reasonable from Bell than the only way it will put Mom & Pop out of business is if they start gouging us the consumer.

Unless your arguement hinges on the fact a Mom & Pop type company would never dream of gouging their customers.

Bell and Rogers have caps in place for no reason though. The cap is there to allow them to charge overages. But why can't that work the other way? If you don't use up to your cap, why don't you get refunded? It's all greed. The reason why independents need to be able to offer unlimited or higher cap service is to have a competitive edge. They also need to lower their pricing to attract customers. With no advantage over the big players why would anyone switch? The idea behind the whole thing is to encourage market competition and provide people an alternative. If everyone had no choice but to use one of Bell or Rogers, and both decided to jack their rates (hmm, sounds like what they are doing now), what recourse do you have as a customer?

To 'not use the internet'?? Is that your solution? How does that help the government? EVERYONE in the country should have high speed internet access and it should be affordable for most homes and subsidized for people with low-incomes. At least, it should if Canada wants to compete on a global scale.

Sorry but like I said in a previous post the whole "there is no need for capping the bandwidth" sounds to much like a conspiracy theory to me. Not saying that they aren't truly out to get us. I have just not seen enough actual proof from a side that doesn't have something to gain or lose to be swayed either way. And since I don't know all the ins and outs of how the internet gets delivered i am not going to pick a side. I just know that for the whole theory to make any kind of sense that they are just not just greedy also but they are stupid as well. Since their competitors are offering unlimited. And I have been capped by them for longer than this debate came to light.

And internet is a luxury. We aren't talking about Hydro or natural gas. You don't see the government subsidizing low income people for cable tv.

I am sure the government will do just fine whether or not I am playing my 360 online or posting on the "Escapist." And if I have something so important to say to them well I can go to the library or unemployment help offices and use their free internet.

 

[TPiddy]

Sorry but like I said in a previous post the whole "there is no need for capping the bandwidth" sounds to much like a conspiracy theory to me. Not saying that they aren't truly out to get us. I have just not seen enough actual proof from a side that doesn't have something to gain or lose to be swayed either way. And since I don't know all the ins and outs of how the internet gets delivered i am not going to pick a side. I just know that for the whole theory to make any kind of sense that they are just not just greedy also but they are stupid as well. Since their competitors are offering unlimited. And I have been capped by them for longer than this debate came to light.

And internet is a luxury. We aren't talking about Hydro or natural gas. You don't see the government subsidizing low income people for cable tv.

Ok, well, let's just agree that the caps are too low then. How can online service companies like Hulu, Netflix and the like function under such restrictive caps? How can digital distribution thrive in Canada if we're going to get charged out the ass for it? How can we make the gradual shift to working from home if it's going to cost us a fortune to do so? Bandwidth caps under 200 GB a month are just suppressing the inevitable and the only reason Bell and Rogers do it is to dissuade people from getting their content online and not through their services.

 

[squid5580]

Sorry but like I said in a previous post the whole "there is no need for capping the bandwidth" sounds to much like a conspiracy theory to me. Not saying that they aren't truly out to get us. I have just not seen enough actual proof from a side that doesn't have something to gain or lose to be swayed either way. And since I don't know all the ins and outs of how the internet gets delivered i am not going to pick a side. I just know that for the whole theory to make any kind of sense that they are just not just greedy also but they are stupid as well. Since their competitors are offering unlimited. And I have been capped by them for longer than this debate came to light.

And internet is a luxury. We aren't talking about Hydro or natural gas. You don't see the government subsidizing low income people for cable tv.

Ok, well, let's just agree that the caps are too low then. How can online service companies like Hulu, Netflix and the like function under such restrictive caps? How can digital distribution thrive in Canada if we're going to get charged out the ass for it? How can we make the gradual shift to working from home if it's going to cost us a fortune to do so? Bandwidth caps under 200 GB a month are just suppressing the inevitable and the only reason Bell and Rogers do it is to dissuade people from getting their content online and not through their services.

Those are kinks that will need to be worked out. And since real DD is fairly new in Canada (I mean we just got Netflix and last I heard still no Hulu) we may need higher bandwidth. Netflix may have to find a way to stream without eating our bandwidth. And the company you work for from home may have to pay you for your bandwidth which is still a cheaper alternative than paying for a plane ticket to fly you across the world.

Although Netflix is putting mom & pop video rental stores out of business but no one is crying foul there.

 

[TPiddy]

Those are kinks that will need to be worked out. And since real DD is fairly new in Canada (I mean we just got Netflix and last I heard still no Hulu) we may need higher bandwidth. Netflix may have to find a way to stream without eating our bandwidth. And the company you work for from home may have to pay you for your bandwidth which is still a cheaper alternative than paying for a plane ticket to fly you across the world.

Although Netflix is putting mom & pop video rental stores out of business but no one is crying foul there.

Actually, Blockbuster put mom & pop video stores out of business a long time ago, and their aggressive late fees and antiquated delivery system deserve to be overhauled, not to mention their archaic pricing structures. Anyhow, these aren't kinks... these are roadblocks. You ever think maybe the reason WHY it took Netflix so long to get here was because of the crap they have to go through involving the CRTC and big companies like Bell and Rogers monopolizing things?

 

[squid5580]

Those are kinks that will need to be worked out. And since real DD is fairly new in Canada (I mean we just got Netflix and last I heard still no Hulu) we may need higher bandwidth. Netflix may have to find a way to stream without eating our bandwidth. And the company you work for from home may have to pay you for your bandwidth which is still a cheaper alternative than paying for a plane ticket to fly you across the world.

Although Netflix is putting mom & pop video rental stores out of business but no one is crying foul there.

Actually, Blockbuster put mom & pop video stores out of business a long time ago, and their aggressive late fees and antiquated delivery system deserve to be overhauled, not to mention their archaic pricing structures. Anyhow, these aren't kinks... these are roadblocks. You ever think maybe the reason WHY it took Netflix so long to get here was because of the crap they have to go through involving the CRTC and big companies like Bell and Rogers monopolizing things?

Well it just seems to me we are trading one monopoly for another. Or as I like to think about it as the best one wins. If you wanna run with the big dogs you can't pee like a pup. Afterall Hulu and Netflix will have a huge impact on Bell and Rogers, they shouldn't have to take it dry.

 

[TPiddy]

Well it just seems to me we are trading one monopoly for another. Or as I like to think about it as the best one wins. If you wanna run with the big dogs you can't pee like a pup. Afterall Hulu and Netflix will have a huge impact on Bell and Rogers, they shouldn't have to take it dry.

Of course not... there are several competitors to netflix already, and Rogers and Bell have moved their on-demand services online.... but considering that they control the pipeline, allowing them to cut off competition is just not an ethical business practice.

 

[squid5580]

Well it just seems to me we are trading one monopoly for another. Or as I like to think about it as the best one wins. If you wanna run with the big dogs you can't pee like a pup. Afterall Hulu and Netflix will have a huge impact on Bell and Rogers, they shouldn't have to take it dry.

Of course not... there are several competitors to netflix already, and Rogers and Bell have moved their on-demand services online.... but considering that they control the pipeline, allowing them to cut off competition is just not an ethical business practice.

Which goes back to the illogical nature of this whole thing. If they are doing it to be greedy then why are they shooting themselves in the foot?

 

[Jaeger_CDN]

I was right ... the primary ISP's are taking a big hit right now since the light was shone on their billing practices. Shaw has come out and said that they'll be relooking at their UBB system.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Shaw+backs+away+from+usage+based+Internet+billing/4246226/story.html

I'd hate to be in Rogers and Bell's call centers right now, probably alot of frantic people in there promising all sorts of goods to people wanting to cancel their plans.