Attention all Canadians on the forum

[jdude]

The CRTC has announced that ISPs can legitimately charge for internet usage based on the amount of bandwidth you use, for example per month charges would be $5 per 20gb $15 for 60gb and so on with more than a dollar per GB you go over the limit. This includes all web browsing, downloading, games being played, videos streamed etc and the GB add up fast.

 

The ISPs already make a ton of money off of their subscriptions and this is blatant cash cowing and lobbying. The ISPs argue that people are using too much internet, but it's a lie, they should be investing into infrastructure to make their services more efficient instead their spending money on corporate expansions. They pay very little to supply each user with internet and they have plenty of profit and just want to line their pockets. For example, Shaw just purchased the Global television network, and now they're upping prices for all Canadian user's internet??? Bullshit. And they can do this without legitimate notice because 'there's no contracts'. What a bunch of snakes...

 

edit: Additional information on this scam:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/canada-gets-first-bitter-dose-of-metered-internet-billing.ars

 

For some basic information on UBB:

and

Sign the petition:

http://openmedia.ca/meter

[Komag]

I love one-price,unlimited-use data/internet plans, because I'm one of the folks using up the most bandwidth, thus all the other subscribers are actually subsidizing my use! I'm fully aware this is not really fair, but when I'm the benefactor, it's great.

 

But in reality, the only really FAIR way is to charge per usage (without any higher rate limit or anything, just a straight 1:1 scale). It seems overly heavy-handed for a governing body to dictate how or in what manner a private company may charge it's private customers in a free market agreement, so this development sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

 

So long as you have at least two or three viable competing options for internet service, simple market competition will control pricing and profits, no problem there. If one company is overcharging and blowing extra funds on "corporate gouging" or whatever, another company will be able to make a better offer to the customer and steal their sales. The only problem would be if they are actually colluding as a cartel in effect to control prices, which is possible but unlikely.

[OrbWeaver]

It always amuses me when I see people in other countries hyperventilating about bandwidth caps and charges, because here in the UK that is how things have been done since forever. You can pay a small amount for a minimal account with a 5 - 10 GB cap (with overuse charges), and increasingly larger monthly fees for higher caps up to "unlimited". My previous account had a monthly cap of 30 GB, so when I heard to story about the American ISP that was limiting users to only 250 GB, I just laughed.

 

Port blocking and censorship complaints I agree with, but as Komag said, charging differential rates for differing amounts of bandwidth usage sounds like a reasonable business model to me.

[Springheel]

[Tels]

It always amuses me when I see people in other countries hyperventilating about bandwidth caps and charges, because here in the UK that is how things have been done since forever.

 

Er, just because your country is crap doesn't mean that other people should not complain because their country steps down to your level

 

Anyway, in Germany we have almost unlimited bandwidth and telephone calls everywhere, except on the mobile networks. However:

 

Port blocking and censorship complaints I agree with, but as Komag said, charging differential rates for differing amounts of bandwidth usage sounds like a reasonable business model to me.

 

Except that a lot of the "bandwidth" is artificially limited and/or priced arbitrarily, because f.i. telecom germany users talking to telecom germany users is essentially free (minus a very tiny amount of power that the routers might need more if they transmit data opossed to not).

 

However, the customer isn't even given the choice to pay by "whatever it costs to build the line and move the bits", instead he pays some arbitrarily set limit per "bit". (which mostly stems from the fact that higher-ups in the food-chain of ISPs charge the ISP of the customer - per bit, not whatever it costs to build and maintain the line).

 

Basically, the carriers mix their high fixed costs (building the line) with almost-zero variable costs (moving the bits) and then charge you a vey low fixed cost and an arbitrarily high amount of variable costs...

 

You can see that if you f.i. compare data on mobile networks vs. fixed lines, or "mobile network 20 from border" vs. "mobile network in other country" or in "data accessed trough iphone via 3G" vs. "data accessed through laptop through iphone through 3g".

 

In all cases prices can vary between factor 1 and 100, depending on conditions, end-device, user group, tarif, or time of the day!

 

Basically the service is decoupled from the price, and that leads always to the customer paying way more than nec. (Same happens f.i. with power, where prices on the power exchage in Leipzig decrease each year, but customers pay more each year...)

[Tels]

So long as you have at least two or three viable competing options for internet service,

 

LOL People always seem to forget that their basis is unfounded, but still make predictions from there.

 

Even in high-developed, dense-populated areas like Germany you have basically zero competiton in a LOT of the areas.

 

I am not living far from a big city, and I live not in a small village. And yet, there is exactly ONE provider (german telekom) that owns the line to my house. All the other providers can just rent that line, then resell it to me. And the rent they pay is approximately 1/3..1/2 of what I pay for internet, in total!

 

So, either Telekom gets 100% of the money, or Telekom gets 30% and $other-provider gets 70%.

 

So tell me how can there be competition? And how can the "free market" correct this? It can't, and that is why all providers here provide basically the same service (heh, its same physical line, anyway!) and have all basically the same rates - the others can't afford to go lower, and the telekom doesn't need to go lower because they don't have any competition, anyway.

 

(Plus my line is restricted in speed "due to technical limits" and the techician told me flatly that "if I were with telekom, they might be able to do something about it. But since you are at $other-provider....".)

 

Free market my ass...

 

(And before you object that the other providers could build their own lines: Yeah, but: They do it, but it costs a lot, it duplicates needlessly an infrastructure, and the Telekom got their lines paid by the tax payers back then. So that won't work for anybody (and the customers would pay for it, anyway). Just think what madness would ensure if you had two or more providers for trinking water trying to duplicate the water pipe infrastructure...)

 

The only problem would be if they are actually colluding as a cartel in effect to control prices, which is possible but unlikely.

 

Er, that is not unlikely, but common. See how often fines are handed out in the EU (maybe the US is different?) colluding like computer memory, LCDs, power, railroads etc etc. Or they side-step the issue with constructs like the one lined out above.

[Briareos H]

It is possible to raise the money to develop your own infrastructures. That's what the operator Iliad/Free did here in France as it launched its first product in 2002 (world first for 'triple play' if I remember correctly) they built a network parallel to the one owned by France Télécom - today covering most of the territory.

In January they launched a new service including unlimited internet traffic (30Mbps ADSL or 100Mbps FTTH where available), ~100 TV stations incl. full HD and free calls to fixed lines and mobile phones for 36€/month. They are driving the price down and the technology up. Now that they have a 3G licence, they also intend to add mobile phone capability to their terminal and include full mobile VoIP in their service next year.

 

The only reason why this doesn't happen everywhere else is because of the telecom companies colluding, as unlikely as it seems. There is just no competition and no balls to try something different and drive the infrastructures and technology. That's basically today's free market.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Briareos H

[OrbWeaver]

Er, just because your country is crap doesn't mean that other people should not complain because their country steps down to your level

 

Of course they're free to complain, but it puts the complaints into perspective when what they're 'losing' is something the rest of the world never had. It's like people in the US complaining about their "high gas prices" which are still about 50% of what they are everywhere else.

 

Except that a lot of the "bandwidth" is artificially limited and/or priced arbitrarily, because f.i. telecom germany users talking to telecom germany users is essentially free (minus a very tiny amount of power that the routers might need more if they transmit data opossed to not).

 

It may be cheap to run, but bandwidth is still a very limited resource and is subject to the laws of supply and demand like any other scarce good. Therefore it makes perfect sense (to my mind) that people who want to use more of it should pay more than people who use very little.

 

Regarding Springheel's image: the bandwidth of a truck full of physical media has always been much greater than networks (and probably cheaper). With networks you're paying for convenience and low latency, not just raw bandwidth.

[Tels]

Of course they're free to complain, but it puts the complaints into perspective when what they're 'losing' is something the rest of the world never had. It's like people in the US complaining about their "high gas prices" which are still about 50% of what they are everywhere else.

 

Yeah, that is true, tho.

 

It may be cheap to run, but bandwidth is still a very limited resource and is subject to the laws of supply and demand like any other scarce good. Therefore it makes perfect sense (to my mind) that people who want to use more of it should pay more than people who use very little.

 

The last thing I heard is that there a lot of dark fiber, and bandwidth is only really scarce because of artificial limits (and/or if you go transatlantic or so, but then, most traffic is highly local).

 

Of course both of us can't prove anything

[jdude]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/932571--ottawa-threatens-to-reverse-crtc-decision-on-internet-billing

[jaxa]

Congratulations you won:

 

Usage Based Billing In Canada To Be Rescinded

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/03/0427210/Usage-Based-Billing-In-Canada-To-Be-Rescinded

 

"The Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Industry are set to reverse a ruling by the CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) allowing big Cable and Telecom companies to charge based on bandwidth usage. The ruling applied to both retail customers and smaller ISPs buying bandwidth wholesale from the major companies. The head of the CRTC has been called to testify before cabinet on why they want to allow the big internet providers to do this. In this case the elected government agrees with the very large number of angry Canadians that this was bad for competition. Most Canadians see this as a bureaucracy aided cash grab with very suspect timing since companies like Netflix are starting to move into the Canadian market (big cable companies lowered caps and increased usage fees a week before Netflix started Canadian operations). The CRTC has a fair number of ex-industry executives on the board."

[jdude]

I'm so happy, this decision, (if it goes through) makes me feel like we have a competent government

[stumpy]

is this the government that bans sci-fi from a countries population.

[jdude]

Not that I'm aware. Care to elaborate if this is true?

[New Horizon]

is this the government that bans sci-fi from a countries population.

 

Say what?

[stumpy]

acording to someone who lives in vancouver, although they make or made tv series like superman, stargate, stargate atlantis, these tv shows are banned from canadian tv just like any other type of sci-fi tv, film, book.

[Springheel]

acording to someone who lives in vancouver, although they make or made tv series like superman, stargate, stargate atlantis, these tv shows are banned from canadian tv just like any other type of sci-fi tv, film, book.

 

Either that person is trying to pull your leg or they have no idea what they're talking about.

[OrbWeaver]

Well I heard from this guy who knew a guy whose brother lived in America that it's illegal to wear green pants or leave your house without a Bible.

[jdude]

LOL channel 39 is the 'sci fi' channel.

I think your friend in Vancouver is likely smoking too much BC Bud

[stumpy]

I though it was a bit odd at the time.