The CRTC, and Useage Based Billing.

Bonam · February 3, 2011

Private corperations don't always turn a profit every quater either.

And it comes out of their own (and their shareholders) pockets when they don't, not the taxpayers (bailouts aside, that's a whole other topic).

The public purse if is finite.

Indeed, which is why it should not be squandered providing services already adequately provided by private entities.

If the governments actions are to the detriment of Canadians said government will likely be removed from power by an election.

A government undertakes many actions on many issues. It is unlikely that their policies on this specific topic will be the determining factor in any election, as this issue is not among the top concerns of Canadians.

You absolute free market lot.

I do not advocate an absolute free market. I just don't think we need internet as a public utility.

fellowtraveller · February 3, 2011

Because the internet is the free flow of information, you may not always agree with the information and it may not always be true but it is still the free flow of information, in a democracy there is nothing more important.

Some of the information on the internet may be free, but to think that access via broadband should be free is just silly. The considerable infrastructure is expensive, and should be paid for by those who choose to consume it.

The issue here is not freedom of information, it is excessive regulation of the marketplace.

This is another nail in the CRTC coffin.

Edited February 3, 2011 by fellowtraveller

dre · February 3, 2011

I agree that bandwidth throttling and content blocking are bad. I just think that the best solution to such things is competition. If you have two ISPs in town, one which throttles bandwidth and one which does not, you get a free choice. If one starts to throttle, the other can capitalize on that by stealing customers away from it.

I think the distinction of our infrastructure and land is ultimately futile, since once regulations were in place, they would apply to all ISPs regardless of where their infrastructure came from. If they use some public infrastructure and build some of their own do they have to abide by part of the regulations? It just doesn't make sense. Either the regulations are a good idea or they are not. Who built what 20 years ago makes little difference.

I'll take technology that just works and is fast and doesn't need support over support any day, heh. For example, I have Comcast... I've heard terrible things about their customer support, but fortunately for me, I've never had to use it. Unlike when I lived in Vancouver and the internet (provided by Shaw) failed every few weeks or months, I've never had so much as a few second outage here. To me, that's better service right there.

I agree that bandwidth throttling and content blocking are bad. I just think that the best solution to such things is competition. If you have two ISPs in town, one which throttles bandwidth and one which does not, you get a free choice. If one starts to throttle, the other can capitalize on that by stealing customers away from it.

Funny but Im not seeing this correlation youre alluding to between deregulation and competition. Im seeing more and more services and market share being consolidated into fewer and fewer companies. If it wasnt for the CRTC there would actually be a LOT less providers, and you would probably have either regional monopolies or areas with maybe 2 or 3 choices.

And throttling and blocking ARE competition. Thats how these providers are talking about "competing" with each other and without regulatory bodies like the CRTC providers would be at the mercy of who owns the lines and switches.

I think the distinction of our infrastructure and land is ultimately futile, since once regulations were in place, they would apply to all ISPs regardless of where their infrastructure came from. If they use some public infrastructure and build some of their own do they have to abide by part of the regulations? It just doesn't make sense. Either the regulations are a good idea or they are not. Who built what 20 years ago makes little difference

You might think its futile but its pretty important. And pretty much all ISP's use public land and infrastructure. Although satellite providers use less.

If they use some public infrastructure and build some of their own do they have to abide by part of the regulations? It just doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Either the regulations are a good idea or they are not. Who built what 20 years ago makes little difference

Yeah it does make a difference. The reason zillions of tax dollars are spent on national infrastructure is so that we will benefit from it.

Battletoads · February 3, 2011

And it comes out of their own (and their shareholders) pockets when they don't, not the taxpayers (bailouts aside, that's a whole other topic).

I see, beside the billions of dollars in bailouts, it comes out of their own pockets.

Indeed, which is why it should not be squandered providing services already adequately provided by private entities.

Really? Canada has one of the slowest and most expensive internet systems in the world and Canadas falling behind the curve in every respect when it comes to the e-world. Seems to me your private buisnesses have failed.

A government undertakes many actions on many issues. It is unlikely that their policies on this specific topic will be the determining factor in any election, as this issue is not among the top concerns of Canadians.

Seems ~400K people are displeased with this issue, and have thus far managed to attract the attention of every single major politcal party. They've even gotten the anti-consumer Cons to speak out against UBB.

I do not advocate an absolute free market. I just don't think we need internet as a public utility.

Who is we? You live in the states, a country with a far better internet infastructure. How about you stop talking out your ass. Edited February 3, 2011 by Battletoads

dre · February 3, 2011

And it comes out of their own (and their shareholders) pockets when they don't, not the taxpayers (bailouts aside, that's a whole other topic).

Indeed, which is why it should not be squandered providing services already adequately provided by private entities.

A government undertakes many actions on many issues. It is unlikely that their policies on this specific topic will be the determining factor in any election, as this issue is not among the top concerns of Canadians.

I do not advocate an absolute free market. I just don't think we need internet as a public utility.

I do not advocate an absolute free market. I just don't think we need internet as a public utility.

Me neither. I think that the system of regulated private providers is fine.

dre · February 3, 2011

I see, beside the billions of dollars in bailouts, it comes out of their own pockets.

Really? Canada has one of the slowest and most expensive internet systems in the world and Canadas falling behind the curve in every respect when it comes to the e-world. Seems to me your private buisnesses have failed.

Seems ~400K people are displeased with this issue, and have thus far managed to attract the attention of every single major politcal party. They've even gotten the anti-consumer Cons to speak out against UBB.

Who is we? You live in the states, a country with a far better internet infastructure. How about you stop talking out your ass.

Who is we? You live in the states, a country with a far better internet infastructure. How about you stop talking out your ass.

Actually my connection in the US is slower than my connection up here. The US and Canada both actually have pretty crappy telecomm infrastructure... yesterdays tech. In any case the rules in the US are similar in fact theres less competition in most cases. The entire backbone is owned by a tiny handfull of companies and they are granted regional monopolies by the government.

August1991 · February 3, 2011

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

This is a good article, Evening Star.

Everyone seems to think that there's a free lunch. They believe that they can have unlimited downloading for free, as if it doesn't cost anything. Well, it does cost something. There are infrastructure costs and increasingly, congestion costs.

Clement's decision is pure populism, combined with a put-down of the CRTC. IOW, it's political.

August1991 · February 3, 2011

I agree that bandwidth throttling and content blocking are bad. I just think that the best solution to such things is competition. If you have two ISPs in town, one which throttles bandwidth and one which does not, you get a free choice. If one starts to throttle, the other can capitalize on that by stealing customers away from it.

Bonam, your idea sounds good in theory but in practice, Canadians only have two possible Internet wires coming into their homes: cable and telephone. It's a natural duopoly.

There are no independent ISPs and hence no real competition. Smaller ISPs merely provide billing services.

bloodyminded · February 3, 2011

The issue here is not freedom of information, it is excessive regulation of the marketplace.

This is another nail in the CRTC coffin.

No, it is certainly about freedom of information. If large private entities are allowed to control speed and access--in favour of their own profits, in direct opposition to freedom of information--then "the marketplace" becomes nothing more than an autocratic system under control by a few special interests. And unlike the government, we have no power to throw the bums out.

I'm not sure why those concerned about "Big Government" will side with the notion of unelected, unaccountable private tyrannies.

scribblet · February 3, 2011

I have to admit I don't fully understand the issue, I do understand that a company has a right to set fees for usage and set limits etc. I don't agree with the CRTC getting heavy handed, and do we really need the CRTC ?

As far as I know companies have always limited the usage and charged for overages, I checked mine yesterday to be sure, my limit is 60 g, which I never go anywhere near.

OTTAWA — The Harper government will overrule a recent decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that effectively kills unlimited Internet-pricing packages — unless the telecommunications regulator backs down first, Postmedia News has learned.
“The CRTC should be under no illusion. The prime minister and the minister of industry will reverse this decision unless the CRTC does it itself,” a senior government source, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said Wednesday evening.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/Tories+overrule+CRTC+Internet+data+caps/4214162/story.html#ixzz1Cu1rmrF7

Shwa · February 3, 2011

I'm not sure why those concerned about "Big Government" will side with the notion of unelected, unaccountable private tyrannies.

That is indeed a curious phenomenon. Almost an unthinking one.

Esq · February 3, 2011

I support free market capitalism. If the government wants to provide cheap broadband they should invest in a public backbone. The lines were paid for by these companies, and it should be those companies that regulate the costs. Of course where these cables go may be through public land, and in that case the government may be more prudent to create a leasing fee for the land that the cables go through, then rebating "all" canadians for the use of public lands or paying down the debt or reducing taxes with this line property lease fee. (this would spur comms to more satalite and wireless technologies perhaps)

I really disagree with the federal government overruling the "independent CRTC" this is to me like overruling the RCMP or courts or military. Outside of an emergency I don't think this should occur - example the emergencies act. It is the government interceeding in private business, a big no no.

The approach is what bothers me. I don't like cabinet to rule on their own discretion - I think that parliament has the capacity to make laws.. but cabinet should not be exercising orders in council if it isn't an emergency. They should consult with parliament. Cabinet should only be there to execute the will of parliament, not create rule. They are suppose to be enforcers not creators. There is a certain amount of unwritten grey areas, but this isn't one of them.

If the costs are too high, leave it to the market - we don't need state socialism perpetuated by the likes of the conservative party of Canada. Let the market regulate if costs are too high, there must be room for a new player providing lower cost services.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Esq

Saipan · February 3, 2011

I support free market capitalism. If the government wants to provide cheap broadband they should invest in a public backbone. The lines were paid for by these companies, and it should be those companies that regulate the costs. Of course where these cables go may be through public land, and in that case the government may be more prudent to create a leasing fee

Of course, what we need are few Commissions and Study groups to study this. And then report back to Ministry of Redundant Affairs to see how many more offices filled with paper pushers we need. Just like in real Socialism.

Topaz · February 3, 2011

As of last week, I was told through the political grapevine, that Harper was told that if he allows Bell to have their way, he will lose the election. So, apparently, he has send memos to his members telling them this and for Tony to stop it from happening.

scribblet · February 3, 2011

What grapevine, so far I've heard noting - must be on a different grapevine LOL

If the gov't overrides the CRTC, what is the point in keeping it, we don't need it.

I'm conflicted I tell ya, who's right and can anyone explain it in a concise non partisan manner .

Andrew Coyne twittered, and it makes sense

“So yet AGAIN govt caves to loudest squawks. We'll all wind up paying more, for slower service, so a few bandwidth hogs can pay less.”

Clement tweeted: “This is about forcing a single business model on all competitors. I'm for market choice. I guess you're not.”

What do people do to use 95 GB a month ?

Shwa · February 3, 2011

What do people do to use 95 GB a month ?

Full length porn movies instead of the crappy .FLA clips from years ago. The Internet has progressed ya know...

PIK · February 3, 2011

I love it , the people ripping harper for overturning it would be the same people ripping harper if he did'nt.

scribblet · February 3, 2011

Of course, it wouldn't matter what he did some wouldn't like it ( even if they really did LOL )

Have to say, even tho it's a bit off topic, I read another far left site now and then (not rabble) and sometimes I think I'm on another planet :lol:

ETA: saw this which explains some of the hysteria, there is no truth to the rumour put out by Liberal MP Dan McTeague re: 25 gb limit

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/news/gigabyte+Internet+myth/4214605/story.html#ixzz1CuOjME5v

Edited February 3, 2011 by scribblet

bloodyminded · February 3, 2011

I love it , the people ripping harper for overturning it would be the same people ripping harper if he did'nt.

In some cases.

But is there no room for principled opposition in your philosophy, Horatio?

punked · February 3, 2011

Of course, it wouldn't matter what he did some wouldn't like it ( even if they really did LOL )

Have to say, even tho it's a bit off topic, I read another far left site now and then (not rabble) and sometimes I think I'm on another planet

ETA: saw this which explains some of the hysteria, there is no truth to the rumour put out by Liberal MP Dan McTeague re: 25 gb limit

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/news/gigabyte+Internet+myth/4214605/story.html#ixzz1CuOjME5v

Well there is some truth to the rumor because it is happening to Canadians now. Not Canadians with Bell or Rodgers but those with indie ISPs which use the Bell or Rodgers network.

August1991 · February 3, 2011

Andrew Coyne twittered, and it makes sense
“So yet AGAIN govt caves to loudest squawks. We'll all wind up paying more, for slower service, so a few bandwidth hogs can pay less.”

Clement tweeted: “This is about forcing a single business model on all competitors. I'm for market choice. I guess you're not.” What do people do to use 95 GB a month ?

I think Coyne is largely right and Clement is playing politics.

Most Canadians have ultimately two choices to connect to the Internet: they can use their telephone line or they can use their cable TV line. The owners of those two lines in effect are a duopoly and the government has reason to provide oversight of their pricing policies. Hence, the logic of the CRTC. (It is disingenuous for Clement to describe a duopoly as "market choice".)

What should the pricing policies be? Dunno. But you can be certain that if the phone/cable owners charge a lower price to one group of customers, then another group of customers will pay more. Coyne's point is that previously, bandwidth hogs were getting a free ride (imposing congestion costs) on other users.

I tend to think that the CRTC (or some other board) should regulate pricing of "the last mile", ie. the owners of the cable/phone wire going into your home. Free competition in the marketplace will take care of the rest of the Internet network. But I dunno.

----

I can understand Harper's (and Clement's) predicament. They don't want to have an arcane debate about Internet pricing right now particularly when rank populists like Layton can portray the debate as Evul Corporations ripping off the little people and controlling our freedoms. You gotta pick your fights right.

----

Who uses 95 GB per month? People who (legally) stream TV/movies. This will increase in the future.

Edited February 3, 2011 by August1991

maple_leafs182 · February 3, 2011

So, what, you expect the internet to just fall for free from the sky? Providing a service like this costs money. I see no reason to believe or expect that the government could better provide this service than can private enterprise.

I am not saying the government should provide an internet service.

ISP aren't losing money, they are profitable as it is right now. I am saying it should stay the way it is right now.

What I am worried about is limiting internet access to people by making it unaffordable. Internet is very important in todays society, the protests in Egypt were organized threw social networks.

fellowtraveller · February 3, 2011

No, it is certainly about freedom of information. If large private entities are allowed to control speed and access--in favour of their own profits, in direct opposition to freedom of information--then "the marketplace" becomes nothing more than an autocratic system under control by a few special interests. And unlike the government, we have no power to throw the bums out.

Nonsense. Type in any word or phrase on a search engine, and you'll get 80 million hits instantly, with 99.99999999999% free of charge to download and completely uncensored in any way.

That is freedom of information.

But I can see I'm wasting my time. You want both content and accesss provided by government. I think there is a strong possibility you work for the Chinese government.

bloodyminded · February 3, 2011

Nonsense. Type in any word or phrase on a search engine, and you'll get 80 million hits instantly, with 99.99999999999% free of charge to download and completely uncensored in any way.

That is freedom of information.

Yes.

Currently.

But private, money-making entities, quite rationally, would prefer it another way. They'd prefer to have some control over which sorts of access, which directions, if you will, might be faster and easier to get to. Those of their own choosing.

But I can see I'm wasting my time. You want both content and accesss provided by government. I think there is a strong possibility you work for the Chinese government.

Get outta here with that nonsense. I'm openly, unequivocally wishing for continued freedom of information.

The "Business knows best" school of thought--a religion by this point--is begging (whether they know it or not) for something else: not the lack of regulation, as they think they're calling for, but a regulation to be determined in the interests of those who control access to information.

Edited February 3, 2011 by bloodyminded

madmax · February 3, 2011

Interesting reading.

I have counted on MLW for interesting discussion. This might be the first thread, where "The Right" looks both confused and conflicted. But one thing is clear, I would want few in this thread to be making any decisions for myself and the internet. Some of the comments here are downright scary, naive and backwards. Luckily the techies got the message, mobilized and the Liberals then the Conservatives fell in line. (Still gotta watch these klowns, keep your eyes on the ball)

Charlie Angus was fighting this over 1 year ago because it was the right thing to do. He didn't have to wait for 200,000 petitions to get the message.

Tony Clement, obviously was lost in the wilderness, until all the petitions came in, then he "Got it" and good for him. But that doesn't mean he knows his way out.

The techies and the General public will keep this ball going in the right direction and UBB will not only die, but Net Neutrality will continue to be fought for.

Once again, its nothing personal, its just amusing that the Looney comments, would be more dominate on MLW on this issue. Just a rare anamoly I am certain.

The mainstream public are whom us Politically amused are here follow. Not just the political parties or cheap shots on the Media not involved in the dispute vs those that are directly involved in the gravy train ruling.