Canadians React With Anger to New Internet Usage Caps

[I am Jack's profile]

I'm having trouble understanding this. can someone put this in easier terms. I am a canadian so i want to understand this

 

[Delusibeta]

I'm having trouble understanding this. can someone put this in easier terms. I am a canadian so i want to understand this

Bell own the cables. They are now enforcing bandwidth caps for anyone who uses them: even if they are signed up to a different ISP. Result: your 200Gb cap has been turned into a 25Gb cap. Go over that (e.g. by downloading this [http://store.steampowered.com/app/32430/?snr=1_5_9__13]), and you're paying through the nose.

 

[Bors Mistral]

Bell has been molesting Canadian internet users for years now. I'm shelling over $60 at those ba*ds each month for measly 115GB that get throttled down in the evenings, while my brother in Europe pays less than $30, has double the transfer speed and no download limit.

Accursed monopoly! And now this? Yeah...

 

[psijac]

I read the title and thought it meant Canadians ar upset over teh overuse of CAP Lock. Dem Canadians so polite, eh?

 

[Trogdor1138]

Reminds me of our Australian internet, we have it worse. My god it sucks...

 

[joshuaayt]

Now Canada can be like Australia! Well, faster than Australia, but with the annoying cap thing. Not sure if we pay extra if it goes over, here... I mean, I slow from (Measurements from Steam) a max of around 500kb/s to a dizzyness-inducing 5kb/s when I go over, but I think that any extra is free... Or, at least, we never go over around a few MB when it happens, so we don't notice.

Still, I don't agree with the whole "Haha, LOL, now you guys are in the stone age XDXDXD" shit being pulled over there... Seems you folk have very little time to react. I'd be happy to lobby for you, if someone wants to buy me a plane ticket over to your beautiful country.

 

[number2301]

snip

And this is where most of the arguments I've seen on here are going wrong. The greater population of the UK and the US brings economies of scale into effect. British Telecom (who own almost all of the physical telephone networks in the UK) are tasked with building and maintaining telephone and internet infrastructure for a country a mere 98,300 square miles. So taking your population figures, an average of 634 customers per square mile. In Canada you're talking about 8 customers per square mile.

When you're talking about internet infrastructure, it's the laying of the cables which is expensive, but putting in more cables at the same time is a much smaller cost, making an exchange bigger is a much smaller cost.

I really think the key here is that your country is ridiculously vast, and pretty inhospitable for large sections. Combine this with a very low population density and the telcos are facing much larger costs to provide services.

 

[I am Jack's profile]

I'm having trouble understanding this. can someone put this in easier terms. I am a canadian so i want to understand this

Bell own the cables. They are now enforcing bandwidth caps for anyone who uses them: even if they are signed up to a different ISP. Result: your 200Gb cap has been turned into a 25Gb cap. Go over that (e.g. by downloading this [http://store.steampowered.com/app/32430/?snr=1_5_9__13]), and you're paying through the nose.

So I don't do alot of downloading but i browse quite a bit, youtube(ALOT) escapist, facebook, and others like these. Could i go over if i did that every day?

are these restrictions through yet

Also If i am not in danger of going over i am still getting on board for this. I mean from what you say it seems like they Just cut out internet in 1/8ths and given us one piece.

Thats ridiculous

 

[HellsingerAngel]

snip

And this is where most of the arguments I've seen on here are going wrong. The greater population of the UK and the US brings economies of scale into effect. British Telecom (who own almost all of the physical telephone networks in the UK) are tasked with building and maintaining telephone and internet infrastructure for a country a mere 98,300 square miles. So taking your population figures, an average of 634 customers per square mile. In Canada you're talking about 8 customers per square mile.

When you're talking about internet infrastructure, it's the laying of the cables which is expensive, but putting in more cables at the same time is a much smaller cost, making an exchange bigger is a much smaller cost.

I really think the key here is that your country is ridiculously vast, and pretty inhospitable for large sections. Combine this with a very low population density and the telcos are facing much larger costs to provide services.

Except you forgot two things:

#1 A large portion of our land mass (about 1/3rd) is frozen wasteland where we couldn't get internet to anyway.

#2 Our population is condenced into cities. About 90% of Bell users in Ontario live within a two hour car drive.

Unfortunately, the arguments, again, are a bunch of BS propegated with "facts" that are skewed by misconception. Yes, Canada is huge, but more than half of it is unpopulated (aside from the random cottage). These arguments are not valid as we do not live that sparsely.

 

[number2301]

snip

And this is where most of the arguments I've seen on here are going wrong. The greater population of the UK and the US brings economies of scale into effect. British Telecom (who own almost all of the physical telephone networks in the UK) are tasked with building and maintaining telephone and internet infrastructure for a country a mere 98,300 square miles. So taking your population figures, an average of 634 customers per square mile. In Canada you're talking about 8 customers per square mile.

When you're talking about internet infrastructure, it's the laying of the cables which is expensive, but putting in more cables at the same time is a much smaller cost, making an exchange bigger is a much smaller cost.

I really think the key here is that your country is ridiculously vast, and pretty inhospitable for large sections. Combine this with a very low population density and the telcos are facing much larger costs to provide services.

Except you forgot two things:

#1 A large portion of our land mass (about 1/3rd) is frozen wasteland where we couldn't get internet to anyway.

#2 Our population is condenced into cities. About 90% of Bell users in Ontario live within a two hour car drive.

Unfortunately, the arguments, again, are a bunch of BS propegated with "facts" that are skewed by misconception. Yes, Canada is huge, but more than half of it is unpopulated (aside from the random cottage). These arguments are not valid as we do not live that sparsely.

Ok, reduce your landmass by a third and you've still got a population density about 1/80 that of the UK. And although the majority of your population lives in particular areas, the internet doesn't. Connections need to be made between those cities (Vancouver to Quebec springs to mind) and further outside of Canada.

I'm afraid you're being naive if you think the cost of providing the internet in a country like Canada is even slightly comparable to that of the UK.

 

[Romidude]

Oh fuck me. My sister can't stop downloading.

 

[Delusibeta]

I'm having trouble understanding this. can someone put this in easier terms. I am a canadian so i want to understand this

Bell own the cables. They are now enforcing bandwidth caps for anyone who uses them: even if they are signed up to a different ISP. Result: your 200Gb cap has been turned into a 25Gb cap. Go over that (e.g. by downloading this [http://store.steampowered.com/app/32430/?snr=1_5_9__13]), and you're paying through the nose.

So I don't do alot of downloading but i browse quite a bit, youtube(ALOT) escapist, facebook, and others like these. Could i go over if i did that every day?

are these restrictions through yet

Also If i am not in danger of going over i am still getting on board for this. I mean from what you say it seems like they Just cut out internet in 1/8ths and given us one piece.

Thats ridiculous

Depends on the specific ISP and package you're on, but "probably" would be my answer, especially if you're a heavy YouTube user and downloader. The restrictions AFAIK are being rolled out as we speak, although I think the bulk are happening next month. Contact the bill payer (or ISP) for more information.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

snip

*snip snip horray!*

Ok, reduce your landmass by a third and you've still got a population density about 1/80 that of the UK. And although the majority of your population lives in particular areas, the internet doesn't. Connections need to be made between those cities (Vancouver to Quebec springs to mind) and further outside of Canada.

I'm afraid you're being naive if you think the cost of providing the internet in a country like Canada is even slightly comparable to that of the UK.

Which is pointless to argue because the United States did the same thing, yet their costs and regulations aren't as rediculous. Their population is even denser, meaning that they'd need to cover the same stretch of land with more equipment (D-Slams aren't cheap, y'know) so that really doesn't explain a whole lot. Still further, the U.S. actually has better DSL/Cable coverage than Canada, with the majority of Canadians about an hour or two out of any major city unable to get anything but dial-up. So again, why does it cost so much if we've been stagnating this badly where others have not?

I've stated earlier that I'd like to see some numbers where revenue meets and exceeds cost of upkeep and expansion and I think it's the only way we'll ever get this out in the open. Of course, Bell doesn't want to do that because their profit margin will be slashed when the CRTC's hand is forced.

 

[gl1koz3]

I don't get it. Most ISPs seem to be doing really good. Just install better routers and provide new high price tariffs with higher caps. Otherwise this seems like one of those government BS moves.

 

[Pilkingtube]

Wall of Text

With almost all UK ISPs, they use Unlimited* which isn't actual Unlimited internet.
They have a "Fair use" clause in the contract, but don't give an actual figure for fair use in their contract. We were hit by it once in October last year, we used 190GB in a month, pushing us over the "Fair use" of the Unlimited* internet.

They did not charge us, instead they throttled out internet down to 40Kb/s from 20Mb/s. Permenantly. We had to change our ISP provider in order to get speeds that allowed us to watch Youtube videos in 360p..

 

[Delusibeta]

Even without TV, it's SIXTEEN F-ING DOLLARS TO GET UNLIMITED BROADBAND WITH A POSSIBLE 20MEG DOWNLOAD!!!

You forgot the £11.25/month line rental.

 

[Dana22]

That Is all I have to add.

 

[Diligent]

I'm afraid you're being naive if you think the cost of providing the internet in a country like Canada is even slightly comparable to that of the UK.

That is completely true, but back in the day when these lines were being put in, they were put in by Bell but heavily subsidized by the Canadian government. That is to say, taxpayers, and that is to say, that the lines ought to belong to "the people".
What gets me riled up is that nobody seems to see a conflict of interest in the fact that Bell can now claim full ownership of these lines, and thanks to a government body made up of ex-Bell CEOs, can now hose the shit out of people for the modern necessity of using them.