The CRTC, and Useage Based Billing.

[Battletoads]

Rocky Gaudrault, CEO of techsavvy has recently spoken out on the issue of Useage Based Billing

Read what he has to say here http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/02/07/internet-usage-debate-the-real-myths/

As some of you may know the CRTC recently approved Bell Canada's request to implement what Bell calls 'Usage based billing'.

Under the old system consumer and corporate resellers paid for access to a larger company’s network, such as in Ontario where a company like Techsavvy would pay Bell a fee for access to their network. With this fee paid the payee would get unfettered access to this network; however companies still held the right to disconnect those who abused their connection and caused network congestion. Under the new system a company like Bell would still charge the consumer or the coporate reseller the same flat rate for access, and then tack on an additional fee for every piece of data downloaded.

Now I hear some of you saying 'that seems perfectly fair'

Canadians already pay some of the highest costs in the world for broadband access, in fact on an international basis we rank nearly dead last in terms of costs per megabyte:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1152/consmq.png

That’s right we pay 2.6 times more than our American neighbours for the same service. With these new fees which will be imposed on Canadians that gap will likely grow even larger. Why is it that Canadians pay more? I couldn't tell you, as the actual costs to maintaining a network in Canada and in the States is nearly identical. What I can tell you is Canadian telecom companies regularly post far larger profits than their American counterparts.

If these companies already are earning record profits why are these fee's necessary?

Big Telecom companies sell access to cable and satellite TV as well as the internet. With services like Google TV, and Netflix entering the Canadian market companies like Bell are seeing their cable and satellite subscription rates plummet. Rather than adapting to the changing times they've decided to instead try and make their opponent’s product ludicrously expensive. For instance Shaw is charging $2 per gigabyte, if you go over their low monthly cap, So that 4gb Netflix video is now costs you 8 bucks to watch. Many saw this conflict of interest coming years in advance, but the CRTC has so far buried their head in the sand.

But surely competition amounst internet providers will ensure that rates dont skyrocket!

These new fees will lead to a stiffling of e-innovation in Canada, all while insurring higher costs to the consumer. Luckily as a Canadian you can voice your concern over this matter, call or write you local MP, or even sign an online petition. http://openmedia.ca/meter

Thus far the NDP and the Liberal have come out in opposition to this new policy, while the Conservative have said they are reviewing the decision.

Tony Clement has recently come out saying that if the CRTC does not back down, he will reverse this decision himself. Crisis averted, maybe...

Edited February 9, 2011 by Battletoads

[maple_leafs182]

It is just another way for big corporations to take money from the people.

These corporations need a new way to make money, too many TV stations are losing viewers to the internet. Internet Service Provides(ISP's) such as Shaw or Bell own TV Stations such as Global or CTV. They want their stations to remain profitable so they will limit the amount people can view on the internet so it makes their stations more relevant and therefore more profitable.

This is being under discussed. I have seen many topics about the unrest in Egypt on this forum, yet some like a hidden tax and our freedom being stolen gets nothing.

You guys should sign the petition at http://openmedia.ca/meter

Edited February 1, 2011 by maple_leafs182

[Topaz]

Let's remember when old Tony got one e-mail from someone against the long form census and he said he had to act because someone complained? What better time then to send Tony thousands of e-mails on this subject. IF he doesn't change things than we know the census was a scam on his part.

[madmax]

NDP MP Charlie Angus has been all over this issue.

I see the Liberals are slowly understanding the CRTC ruling, but that happened after some 200,000 people signed a petition with more and more coming.

The Conservatives...

Hmmm..

Still waiting....

[Scotty]

I note from various news reports that the cap used by the largest internet providers in the US is 250gb per month. In Canada it's 75gb per month.

[Evening Star]

What do you guys think of this piece? I don't have a clear opinion about the issue yet but he seems to make some reasonable points:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/CRTC+good+guys+Really/4182037/story.html

[Topaz]

The news is reporting that Tony has gotten 40,000 e-mails and a petition has 200,000 signatures on it. Think that is enough?

[nicky10013]

I note from various news reports that the cap used by the largest internet providers in the US is 250gb per month. In Canada it's 75gb per month.

The largest I've seen is 175. It's from Rogers but it's at least $100.

[GWiz]

NDP MP Charlie Angus has been all over this issue.

I see the Liberals are slowly understanding the CRTC ruling, but that happened after some 200,000 people signed a petition with more and more coming.

The Conservatives...

Hmmm..

Still waiting....

Where you been... It's the Cons that are behind this whole thing, they want to TAX in the way of a FEE on the service providers and "open up" Canada to U.S. providers... Problem is they've tried it before, (remember?) and the U.S. telecom providers didn't "buy in" and said NO THANKS...

Bottom line: A hidden tax proposal by the CONSERVATIVES... That would hit you and me folks...

[GWiz]

What do you guys think of this piece? I don't have a clear opinion about the issue yet but he seems to make some reasonable points:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/CRTC+good+guys+Really/4182037/story.html

Bottom line:

Fees and levys = taxes = increased costs to me and you in favour of Corps making mega millions...

[Battletoads]

The news is reporting that Tony has gotten 40,000 e-mails and a petition has 200,000 signatures on it. Think that is enough?

It'll be enough when the policy has been changed.

[Bonam]

It should be up to businesses to determine their own pricing models, these should not be dictated to them by government. If a business wants to charge more, or use a different pricing model, it has that option, and its competitors should jump on the opportunity to undercut them. That's how it should work.

Unfortunately, when it comes to internet providers in Canada, the situation is usually much closer to a monopoly than an efficient competitive market.

What the government should really be doing is ensuring that potential competitors in the field of providing internet service are not impeded in their business. That is what would most help to keep prices down and service good. Get rid of the red tape and the barriers to entry into the field so that more companies can compete for providing internet service and the prices will come down.

[Saipan]

Heads will roll.

Here's a chance for Harper to get rid of CRTC for good. Preferably CBC too.

[Evening Star]

This part of Pilieci's piece especially struck me:

Perhaps it's time for government to look at what other countries have done, especially in Europe.

In 2004, the French Parliament ordered local municipalities to take over funding of the last mile, taking it away from the incumbents.

Doing so made the last mile a public resource, allowing competitors to use those lines to offer new Internet services to consumers at competitive prices.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/CRTC+good+guys+Really/4182037/story.html#ixzz1Cm636RWk

If Internet access is crucial to so many of us and we don't think it should be left up to the corporations who own the lines, perhaps it's time to genuinely treat it like a public resource.

[Battletoads]

It should be up to businesses to determine their own pricing models, these should not be dictated to them by government. If a business wants to charge more, or use a different pricing model, it has that option, and its competitors should jump on the opportunity to undercut them. That's how it should work.

Unfortunately, when it comes to internet providers in Canada, the situation is usually much closer to a monopoly than an efficient competitive market.

What the government should really be doing is ensuring that potential competitors in the field of providing internet service are not impeded in their business. That is what would most help to keep prices down and service good. Get rid of the red tape and the barriers to entry into the field so that more companies can compete for providing internet service and the prices will come down.

Well the government/crtc had insured competition by mandating that larger telecom companies must allow smaller isps access to their publicly funded networks.

Unfortunately with this decision, and with recent past decisions, the CRTC has essentially mandated that smaller isps cannot offer faster speeds, higher bandwidth caps, or cheaper (reasonable) overage charged.

In the long run I think it’s a good goal to open the Canadian internet market, but in the short term the government should step in and stop this price gouging by reversing the CRTC decision. To put into prospective of just how much gouging is going on, Shaw and bell are charging 2 bucks per gig of download, and it costs them maybe half a cent to actually transfer that data (data transfer cost includes cost to setup and maintain the network), that means their charging neatly 400 times the actual cost. Even a reasonable rate of say 10 cents per gig is still a mark-up of 20 times the actual cost.

Another long term plan should be to create a public network. The internet is the future of commerce and information exchange, a neutral network would insure innovation, and cost effective access to the internet.

[Bonam]

Well the government/crtc had insured competition by mandating that larger telecom companies must allow smaller isps access to their publicly funded networks.

Unfortunately with this decision, and with recent past decisions, the CRTC has essentially mandated that smaller isps cannot offer faster speeds, higher bandwidth caps, or cheaper (reasonable) overage charged.

Why can't they? Just because they can access the infrastructure doesn't mean anyone is stopping them from building their own should they want to.

In the long run I think it’s a good goal to open the Canadian internet market, but in the short term the government should step in and stop this price gouging by reversing the CRTC decision. To put into prospective of just how much gouging is going on, Shaw and bell are charging 2 bucks per gig of download, and it costs them maybe half a cent to actually transfer that data (data transfer cost includes cost to setup and maintain the network), that means their charging neatly 400 times the actual cost. Even a reasonable rate of say 10 cents per gig is still a mark-up of 20 times the actual cost.

The cost of "data transfer" is negligible. Far greater costs go into paying their employees, upkeep on their business facilities, etc. Oh, and development and deployment of new infrastructure.

Another long term plan should be to create a public network. The internet is the future of commerce and information exchange, a neutral network would insure innovation, and cost effective access to the internet.

A public network isn't necessarily any more cost effective, in fact it's quite likely to be less cost effective given the way governments tend to do things. Just because the cost would be hidden in your tax bill doesn't mean its free.

[Battletoads]

Why can't they? Just because they can access the infrastructure doesn't mean anyone is stopping them from building their own should they want to.

Would you be willing to chip in the same substantial public funding that the current network owners received to build their networks? The smaller isps are allowed access because of that funding.

The cost of "data transfer" is negligible. Far greater costs go into paying their employees, upkeep on their business facilities, etc. Oh, and development and deployment of new infrastructure.

Thats included in that cost, my mistake for not mentioning it. You have to understand these networks are capable of the transfer of hundreds of thousands of gigabytes per day. Not to mention any and all costs incured by the company are alreayd covered by the access fee everyone pays.

A public network isn't necessarily any more cost effective, in fact it's quite likely to be less cost effective given the way governments tend to do things. Just because the cost would be hidden in your tax bill doesn't mean its free.

Run it as a crown corp.

And Government telecomunication corps can do just fine, in fact Sasktel actually kicks back into the tax system.

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

Edited February 2, 2011 by Battletoads

[scribblet]

Heads will roll.

Here's a chance for Harper to get rid of CRTC for good. Preferably CBC too.

Right on LOL

Actually, the gov't has allready said it will look into the decision.

[scribblet]

Actually I'm not clear on this whole thing but after reading a bit more it seems that this is really not as bad as it seems.

I just checked with my cable provider and so far no changes for me or their customers, I also checked my usage finding it to be way below the maximum allowed.

Maybe there are other explanations I could read up on !

The decision that Mr. Clement says he now wants to review actually applies to very few Canadians. One telecom company official put the number at about 30,000. These are relatively small number of Internet users who access the broadband network through third-party service providers such as TekSavvy Solutions Inc. TekSavvy essentially rents capacity on Bell Canada’s network, and pays a flat fee to Bell.

TekSavvy then re-sells its access to individual retail customers, and allows those customers to run as much through the system as they want. If TekSavvy customers download 20 gigabytes or 200 gigabytes (GB) a month, it matters not to TekSavvy.

Meanwhile, Bell’s direct retail customers — under industry practice that dates back years — have to pay more for using 200 GB. In effect, Bell’s regular Internet customers have been subsidizing TekSavvy’s Internet customers. Last week, the CRTC decided that it was time for TekSavvy to also pay for high-volume Internet use, although it still left TekSavvy with a benefit: Bell would be forced to give TekSavvy a 15% discount.

That’s the decision that Mr. Clement is now committed to reviewing. Since firms like TekSavvy account for a small portion of the market— maybe 3% — the decision has little impact beyond the small number of people who get their Internet service through a third-party provider.

Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/02/01/terence-corcoran-billing-reversal-would-be-bad-policy/#ixzz1CoRmJxML

[maple_leafs182]

Why can't they? Just because they can access the infrastructure doesn't mean anyone is stopping them from building their own should they want to.

I think I would normally agree with you but not here. The reason I am a libertarian is because I find that governments tend to limit freedoms. This may not be the government but it is corporations limiting our freedoms which I see as being equally as bad.

I understand the ways of the free market but something as important as internet should remain affordable and accessible to all users.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I understand the ways of the free market but something as important as internet should remain affordable and accessible to all users.

Without government and corporations, there would be no "internet".

[Evening Star]

One can recognize that and still believe that the Internet should remain affordable and accessible.

[bush_cheney2004]

One can recognize that and still believe that the Internet should remain affordable and accessible.

....then pay for it without complaint. I do believe that Canada Post is still available too.

Edited February 2, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

I think I would normally agree with you but not here. The reason I am a libertarian is because I find that governments tend to limit freedoms. This may not be the government but it is corporations limiting our freedoms which I see as being equally as bad.

The corporation is the one providing you with the option to purchase internet access from it. How is it limiting your freedoms? The fact that you think the price of a certain service is too high is not an infringement of your freedoms.

[Evening Star]

....then pay for it without complaint. I do believe that Canada Post is still available too.

The "government" part of your comment is important. The government represents and is funded by the public and is expected to act in the public interest. These telecommunications phone/cable networks were partly government-funded. It is not thus unreasonable to want the government to intervene to an extent.

As I said before, though, I'm not clear where I stand on this particular issue and haven't signed the petition. I tend to find the Citizen column convincing. If anything, I would lean towards actual socialization of the ownership of the 'last mile'.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Evening Star