Canadians React With Anger to New Internet Usage Caps

[karashata]

As a Canadian, I find this decision by the CRTC to be a huge mistake. Usage-based billing is going to screw over pretty much everyone but the major telecoms. Most of the points I would have made have already been made either here or elsewhere, so I'll just leave it at this: I for one won't stand for it, and I hope my fellow Canadians can help spread the word (and the site, StopTheMeter.ca) and get this decision reversed as soon as possible.

Just think, what would this mean for all those places that offer free Wi-Fi access, such as local libraries and coffee shops? They may have to stop offering those services because they may become too expensive.

 

[motyr]

I'm a Canadian customer of Bell Canada...and seriously people, it's been this way for a long time - I'm not sure when usage caps were first implemented but about 7 months ago, I was charged extra for internet usage and was told it was because I went over my monthly limit. Since then I've paid an extra few bucks a month to get an extra 60 GB of usage.

If you haven't come across this before, it's probably because you haven't had to worry about it.

 

[squid5580]

I dunno for me it has always been a choice. Either I go with the companies that have caps (Rogers and Bell) that yeah I have to pay like 15 bucks more to have my cap doubled. Or I go with the company that has unlimited but the internet is so fucking slow I couldn't use much more than the basic limit.

I personally enjoy not having to wait an hour to download a freakin small arcade game on my 360. Or being able to play online with the proper framerate.

I am a bell customer and thier packages I find are quite reasonable. If you are a heavy user I don't see the problem with paying more than one who just uses it to check their email.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

Hey guys, move to Atlantic Canada. Eastlink said in December that they have no plans whatsoever on implementing UBB.

Also, we could use the diversity.

 

[Phokal]

If the plan is "pay what you use" then if you use 100 megs for just email and browsing, that's what should be charged for. 1/60th of the current plan is how much?

Not that that is better, but at least it is fair.

This is just some jumble of charging for what you aren't using, but with a cap to charge more for anyone using it actively.

 

[Waif]

There is a lot of talk in my area of Canada about how this will affect our billing rates. I am concerned that my own ISP will mandate these cap changes, which will most certainly disappoint me. I, however, dislike usage based billing in general, and it can lead to a great deal many abuses to the customer.

I can only hope that my fellow Canadians will think in similar ways.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Glad I don't live in the inhabited woods above America

 

[killa_kid]

I'm a Canadian customer of Bell Canada...and seriously people, it's been this way for a long time - I'm not sure when usage caps were first implemented but about 7 months ago, I was charged extra for internet usage and was told it was because I went over my monthly limit. Since then I've paid an extra few bucks a month to get an extra 60 GB of usage.

If you haven't come across this before, it's probably because you haven't had to worry about it.

When I went to the University of Waterloo, Rogers had a cap for our internet there. We decided as a group to pay the maximum fee of $25/month. We also made sure we used the internet as much as possible. One day we left an open connection to a gentoo update server, just to see how much we could get. It was nice to give a big middle finger to a company

 

[Gindil]

so how much does it cost to get 200gb limit?

Right here:

 

[antipunt]

Wait really? A download limit? Is it even reasonable?

edit: after reading other posts, doesn't seem like it

 

[Citizen Snips]

Is that similar to cell phone usage limits in the US? I know when AT&T capped all new users it looked like world war 3 was going to begin around my campus. I don't believe I have internet caps on my plan, but they did cut my service down to 300 mbs after a 2TB downloading spree I had at Christmas. I don't think their is an actual limit on what I can download though. It just limited the speed at which it downloaded. On a side not... Damn you Steam Christmas Sale!

 

[TerranReaper]

WHAT????? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Seriously fuck Bell.... My internet is Via Cogeco, will I be affected? I hope to Christ my 200GB cap isn't affected.

Sorry to tell you this, but most of the lines are owned by Bell or Rogers, there is a very high chance that this bullshit usage will be thrown upon this. It's stupid I know.

OT: As a gamer and person that uses the internet a crapload, I've been experiencing this for almost a year now (Using Rogers). I can no longer use Steam as much as I can or freely download updates for my PS3 for this exact reason, I always had to watch how much I was using. Hell, going to this site alone, uses quite a bit more than you think. Seriously, you should see what the telecom companies throw at you to try and justify their decisions. They treat it as if it was a limited resource or that they try to make you think that it costs a shitload to maintain, it's actually quite the opposite of what they say. These are people that still think the internet is only used for email or some shit like that, when really, the internet has changed so much throughout the years. This is a prime example of corporate greed at its worst.

To anyone that will be affected, I ask you to go to this site: http://www.antiubb.com/why-should-we-oppose-ubb/

 

[Vivace-Vivian]

Instead of bitching about it on here people in Canada should be going to their MPs about it. Getting angry on forums won't solve a thing... A quick email will help flood their inboxes. At least, that's what I did.

 

[frago roc]

If the plan is "pay what you use" then if you use 100 megs for just email and browsing, that's what should be charged for. 1/60th of the current plan is how much?

Not that that is better, but at least it is fair.

This is just some jumble of charging for what you aren't using, but with a cap to charge more for anyone using it actively.

You honestly think this work both ways? No, only when you're over, not under.

We pay over $100 a month, every month through rogers due to overage fees.

 

[Imikulate]

Anyway, I ask every Canadian who reads this to write a letter to their local MP asking them to do something about this. (This issue is only as important to Parliament as you make it!)

I already did this and encourage others to do the same, glad to see someone else who is thinking the same thing.

Luckily enough my local MP in the NDP's industry critic, that's convenient.

Also, don't forget to include the ridiculously high prices on the internet in the first place when you write your MP. There is a lot of change that needs to be forced upon these greedy companies...

Instead of bitching about it on here people in Canada should be going to their MPs about it. Getting angry on forums won't solve a thing... A quick email will help flood their inboxes. At least, that's what I did.

I agree!

 

[theriddlen]

I'm not a canadian (and thanks god for that!), but let me ask one question:

What's the reason of this?

I just can't see how limiting access to internet has anything to do with the public interest. It's not like internet is non-renewable resource - it's unlimited.

 

[lvl9000_woot]

If there would ever be one thing preventing me from wanting to live in Canada, It would be this.

This.

It seemed like a cool place to live...until now.

If I lived there, I'd shit a brick then throw that brick through a window at Bell.

Hey Bell,

Spoiler: WARNING: Offensive

[HEADING=1]GO.FUCK.YOURSELF[/HEADING]

 

[BinaryCrystal]

Greed about sums this one up.

Net neutrality is taking flak and nobody is sure how long it's going to last. To be honest I think it's astounding they are even considering this option.

I have MTS and Shaw , neither of which currently use this system. I didn't find any information regarding if they would begin to, either way I don't want to have to worry about how much I'm downloading.

If it's piracy they are worried about, you already monitor/limit upload rates, so limiting download rates won't help. It will just take people longer to pirate stuff (I don't condone this kind of activity).

Anyway, that's my bit.
Have a good day.
See you when the bomb drops.

 

[icame]

Thats pretty BS for the smaller companies, not to mention the consumer.

 

[squid5580]

There is a lot of talk in my area of Canada about how this will affect our billing rates. I am concerned that my own ISP will mandate these cap changes, which will most certainly disappoint me. I, however, dislike usage based billing in general, and it can lead to a great deal many abuses to the customer.

I can only hope that my fellow Canadians will think in similar ways.

When I first heard about it I was pissed but misinformed. I was under the impression they were going to charge you for the GB. But if they are just capping us and charging us for overages I don't see the problem (especially since I have been capped like that for quite a while now). It shouldn't be that hard for anyone to check their usage. I do it daily and it takes me a few seconds. I also am notified when I reach a certain % of my limit so I shouldn't get a surprise with my bill.