The CRTC, and Useage Based Billing.

[punked]

I love when bandwidth hogs hide behind Evul Corporations to justify their compulsive behaviour. (You want it? You pay for it.)

However you are drinking the Bell Kool-aid. Bandwidth isn't worth the markup they want on it. 2 dollars for a GB is like a 3000% mark up on what it costs. If they want metered internet fine charge what it is worth. They don't want that though because then they might be making what the actual bandwidth is worth pennies and people you like you and I who use very little a month would no longer be paying 60 bucks for internet we would be paying 5 bucks.

The thing that outraged people isn't the idea of metered internet it is that they want subsidies provided by us the tax payer to create their network, then they want to mark up the use of that network we helped build by 1000-3000%. People wont stand for that. If they want to do something fair I bet you would see a different story here.

[August1991]

However you are drinking the Bell Kool-aid.

No, I use Netflix, and watch a movie or two every week. This rate cap has no effect for me. And I'm like most people in Canada.

But the bandwidth hogs have made Layton/Clement move and talk.

----

If someone is downloading 5 Gigabytes of data one night, someone else is paying.

Edited February 4, 2011 by August1991

[Battletoads]

As Coyne said, the bandwidth hogs want the rest of us to pay for their gluttony.

Coyne is a moron spouting out about technology he doesn't understand. Someone needs to point out to Coyne that bandwidth isn't a finite resource.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Battletoads

[Battletoads]

No, I use Netflix, and watch a movie or two every week. This rate cap has no effect for me. And I'm like most people in Canada.

But the bandwidth hogs have made Layton/Clement move and talk.

----

If someone is downloading 120 Gigabytes of data one night, someone else is paying.

Yes, the person who downloaded that amount and paid their internet bill.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Battletoads

[August1991]

Coyne is a moron spouting out about technology he doesn't understand, because bandwidth isn't a finte resource.

You don't get oranges delivered every day for free. BT, why do you believe the Internet is any different?

Coyne is not a moron.

[Battletoads]

However you are drinking the Bell Kool-aid. Bandwidth isn't worth the markup they want on it. 2 dollars for a GB is like a 3000% mark up on what it costs. If they want metered internet fine charge what it is worth. They don't want that though because then they might be making what the actual bandwidth is worth pennies and people you like you and I who use very little a month would no longer be paying 60 bucks for internet we would be paying 5 bucks.

The thing that outraged people isn't the idea of metered internet it is that they want subsidies provided by us the tax payer to create their network, then they want to mark up the use of that network we helped build by 1000-3000%. People wont stand for that. If they want to do something fair I bet you would see a different story here.

I'd be willing to pay 10 cents per gig at a maxium, and even that is a huge markup over its actual cost. (maybe half a cent per gig).

I'd love to see the feds mandate a maxium markup, just to watch these ISPs try and argue that the law would be unfair.

PS: That half cent cost per gig is already covered in your net subscription fee

Edited February 4, 2011 by Battletoads

[Battletoads]

You don't get oranges delivered every day for free. BT, why do you believe the Internet is any different?

Coyne is not a moron.

If I took an orange from a tree and the tree instantly regrew that orange I would expect them for free... I'd pay for however much is cost to maintain that tree but I certainly wouldn't pay per orange.

Thats pretty much exactly analogous to how the internet works.

And yes, talking about an issue and technology he knows nothing about makes him a moronic tool.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Battletoads

[bloodyminded]

Where do you get this stuff? Shaw, Bell, Telus et all don't give a rats ass what you download, as long as it is huge files they can charge extra money for.... Porn, movies, Netflix, WikeLeaks, Harpers secret agenda- if its big, they want you to get it. Your notion they want to control the freedom of info is just silly and ass backwards. They do not make money if they restrict content .

Oh good Christ. You are totally unaware of the entire net neutrality debate? Seriously? It's been going on for years.

Second, you think "free market principles" are what business always wants. That's absurd. No Businessperson worth his salt would ever make such an outrageous claim; these claims are for their defenders awash in untested and ephemeral economic theory.

Business wants "free markets" when and if it will help their business. Period. When it won't help them, they don't want it.

That's not even a controversial opinion.

But you are advocating govt involvlement in content,

Like hell I am! Not in a million years.

Why invent positions for people that are the opposite of the opinions they hold (and repeatedly state)? To what purpose, fellowtraveller?

Edited February 4, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Scotty]

The best protection against idiocy is choice. And the best way to trust someone is to know that they are acting in their own best interest.

Thus its in the interest of Bell and Rogers to charge the consumers $2-$5 per gig for a service which costs them between 1-3 cents to provide.

And this is good?

[Scotty]

I love when bandwidth hogs hide behind Evul Corporations to justify their compulsive behaviour. (You want it? You pay for it.)

The notion that if you consume more Internet traffic, you should pay more seems like a fair argument. The question then becomes, what is a fair price for those extra gigabytes of data?

What is a fair price for internet service

[charter.rights]

Oh good Christ. You are totally unaware of the entire net neutrality debate? Seriously? It's been going on for years.

Second, you think "free market principles" are what business always wants. That's absurd. No Businessperson worth his salt would ever make such an outrageous claim; these claims are for their defenders awash in untested and ephemeral economic theory.

Business wants "free markets" when and if it will help their business. Period. When it won't help them, they don't want it.

That's not even a controversial opinion.

Like hell I am! Not in a million years.

Why invent positions for people that are the opposite of the opinions they hold (and repeatedly state)? To what purpose, fellowtraveller?

The request by Bell / Rogers to the CRTC proves that they are not interested in the free market. They want to control it for their own benefit.

[madmax]

"Telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[4] Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality"

[dre]

"Telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[4] Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality"

The funny thing is people think they are being "pro business" by opposing government regulation of the internet, but the opposite is true. The business community has a lot more to gain from network nutrality than anyone else.

Even these ISP's have a lot to lose. The tier 1 providers can do the exact same thing to them, as they are trying to do to us. Without government regulation the telecomms that own the backbone can shut ALL these companies down.

The people arguing against regulation just flat out dont know what theyre talking about here. Its too late to argue against regulation because the GOVERNMENT has already put Tier 1 providers in a position or power over everyone else. Now you have to regulate them, or youll essentially have the modern day version of the railroad tycoons.

Edited February 4, 2011 by dre

[bloodyminded]

Thus its in the interest of Bell and Rogers to charge the consumers $2-$5 per gig for a service which costs them between 1-3 cents to provide.

And this is good?

Good for a few people. Bad for everyone else.

[bloodyminded]

The request by Bell / Rogers to the CRTC proves that they are not interested in the free market. They want to control it for their own benefit.

Of course they do. It's perfectly rational.

But it's not rational for everyone to accept their demands.

[Esq]

Thus its in the interest of Bell and Rogers to charge the consumers $2-$5 per gig for a service which costs them between 1-3 cents to provide.

And this is good?

It is pretty clear they are trying to impede net streaming because it infringes on their business markets, where providers arn't controlled by them, and are superior to their own service.

Meaning rogers cable tv business caputs. Bells satalite tv business caputs.

That is what this is really about.

Take rogers as an example:

net profit $1.26 billion CAD

of this how much is via

cable? -- 2.5 million customers 1 in 15 or so canadians.

high definition television, video on demand, interactive television and enhanced television

all these can be done online - by other providers. And for less. This is part of the reason for "increased" charges for streaming. That arn't representative to the cost of streaming but rather lost profits by loosing the business to their otherwise monopoly on service provision.

Example if you have an online movie streamer, why buy from pay per view? just a classic point.

Also the internationality renders the CTRC somewhat redundant with US streaming or foreign streaming from other countries. Where there is no "net censorship.. yet"

Net neutrility and government regulation of media (canadian content) and rights payments IP enforcement etc.. all become problematic. Good for canada in general but very bad for IP in canada -- effectively forcing socialization of artists - and astranging canada from international IP law. Services like youtube paying royalties out are an example of the future.. people will be paying royalties as a fraction of what they use to get. and no one will buy anything. It basically would reduce bell and rogers simply to infrastructure providers - but heavily regulated information providers. their only profit cut is in the bandwidth itself once this happens and the "actual cost" doesn't cut it. even though a margin above it is effectively their profit margin. but other countries have other laws in effect - or the US is a leader in media Canada simply can't compete and there goes the profit and arts in Canada. It isn't new but there is a gradual transitioning --- it isn't in full effect now but people should be aware of the migration and its effects in 10 years from now.

cell?

internet?

It is a house of cards - then it opens up the whole broadcaster/infrastructure problems.. but this is happening.

then there is the problem of monopolization... this sorta exists..

then the "how much is enough" if they have to undercut other providers.

They have to port their service to the net... but not everyone has the net.. and if for less... it is a question of overall profits declining.. and little else.. and long term control -- as they have to negotiate for the rights.. and Canadians don't hold the rights.. so US companies can put out their own content at their prices.. then it goes back to content ownership and rogers and bell don't have a lot of prime ownership of the american market.. that I'm aware of.. things like universal studies, sony/bmi, microsoft, google etc.. those are the companies that will kick bell and rogers buts in 10 years if these things are liberalized.

and those arn't canadian companies.

Other than tech companies rogers and bell are big hitters in the canadian economy their loss to US companies streaming from the US is not negligible.

#7. BCE Inc. (Bell Canada Entreprise

phone services such as voip also make free long distance and local calling the future norm.

chances are IPV6 devices with dedicated ips will be the future of video comunications replacing phones before vr kicks in.

Oh and once content is liberalized people will be guided by their knowledge of the existence like search engines....

if the content providers are american all you will see is american - it ain't that clear cut but it is leading.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Esq

[fellowtraveller]

Sounds good in theory, and technology may change, but I doubt this makes sense froma cost sense.

Your GPS device can easily pick up a satellite signal. But could a satellite pick up a signal from your GPS? When Neil Armstrong was on the moon, a vast array of antennae existed to receive signals from the LM.

Local wifi can handle such data volumes if users are relatively small in number. Even cellphone networks can manage this if bandwidth is not large. (I occasionally use an iPhone for connecting my laptop to the Internet. It works, but slowly.)

So for the foreseeable future, we must rely on wired connections and for most of us, that means two choices. If the owners of these two wires can't charge per Gigabyte used, they will get their money some other way.

As Coyne said, the bandwidth hogs want the rest of us to pay for their gluttony.

It is not a theory, the info I got was from a gent who was attending a training course this week for the dishes and uplink testing software.

This has no application in urban Montreal, but does apply to the many, many rural areas that cannot get wifi, 3G phone service, cable TV or ADSL- all for varying reasons. Wired connections simply do not exist in many farms and villages and never will because the costs are prohibitive, and this is the market addressed by high speed, two way satellite data.

Alberta funded the installation of a fiber network into every location in the province that had either a school or a post office, and each installation was allowed to hook up anybody nearby that they wished- houses, businesses whatever. That still leaves out a big chunk of farms, acreages and villages that have neither schools or post offices.

[kimmy]

I would *LOVE* usage-based billing.

Scrap the exhorbitant flat-rate fee I pay just to get on the network, and bill me for the bandwidth I actually use. That would be more than fair.

While you're at it, give me a usage-based data option for my cell phone. Don't offer me some stupid plan where I pay $50 a month for some pathetically small amount of data. Only a low-grade idiot would buy a plan like that. Give me the opportunity to buy it by the megabyte, you dirtbags.

If Canada had real competition, this wouldn't be an issue. People would already have any number of options. Since we've got these tiny little oligarchies running these industries, we consumers get dicked around like nowhere else in the world.

Personally, I as a consumer support whatever is going to make Shaw and Telus and Bell and Rogers miserable. They deserve it. They're assholes, all of them.

-k

[CANADIEN]

The problem is not caps per say, or heavier users paying more.

The problem is that the duopoly (cable/phone) is gouging the public through exorbitant fees and stiffling competition.

Regulation of ISPs is needed to protect the interests of the customers. There is a sad irony in the fact that the regulator (the CRTC) is allowing for the duopoly to gouge the public and that a right-wing pro-"laissez-faire" government is stepping in an reversing the regulator's decision.

[August1991]

Thus its in the interest of Bell and Rogers to charge the consumers $2-$5 per gig for a service which costs them between 1-3 cents to provide.

And this is good?

Where do you people get these costs of 1-3 cents per gigabyte?

Scotty above provides a G&M link with this self-serving quote:

To find out what is a fair price, I contacted several industry insiders. They informed me that approximately four years ago, the cost for a certain large Telco to transmit one gigabyte of data was around 12 cents. That’s after all of its operational and fixed costs were accounted for. Thanks to improved technology and more powerful machines, that number dropped to around 6 cents two years ago and is about 3 cents per gigabyte today.

Are these valid numbers? After the recent CRTC decision regarding UBB, it was announced that effective March 1st, Bell will be charging Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) providers $4.25 for a 40 GB block of additional data transfer.

Installing, maintaining and upgrading the large infrastructure of the Internet (wires into houses and switching stations) involves a large fixed cost. When infrastructure is not good enough, what are congestioncosts? How is this fixed cost to be shared among users? There is no free lunch. If heavy users don't pay, someone else will.

I agree that the duopolists (owners of teh last mile) must be regulated. But this regulation shouldn't mean that some 10% of the population should get a free (or cheaper) ride at the expense of the majority.

I happen to think that people who drive on roads alot should pay higher road fees, people who pollute the atmosphere should pay pollution taxes and people who use the Internet alot should pay for their bandwidth.

With that said, I don't know if 60 GB per month is a sensible cut-off point (why not 250 GB?) and I have no idea whether $1 per GB per month over the limit makes sense either. (Why not 50 cents instead?)

----

Last point. It is hard not to see what is happening here. The owners of the last mile, the owners of cable and phone wires (Rogers, Videotron, Bell, Shaw, etc) also offer content - and subscriptions to this content are what paid for Canada's Internet infrastructure. Netflix is only the first of many coming future content threats.

Edited February 6, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

The funny thing is people think they are being "pro business" by opposing government regulation of the internet, but the opposite is true. The business community has a lot more to gain from network nutrality than anyone else.

...

The people arguing against regulation just flat out dont know what theyre talking about here. Its too late to argue against regulation because the GOVERNMENT has already put Tier 1 providers in a position or power over everyone else. Now you have to regulate them, or youll essentially have the modern day version of the railroad tycoons.

Dre, I think you misrepresent people in your post.

For example, I am "pro business" and I understand perfectly the logic of regulating the "Tier 1" providers. I think you are the one who is jerking your knee on this issue.

I would *LOVE* usage-based billing.

Scrap the exhorbitant flat-rate fee I pay just to get on the network, and bill me for the bandwidth I actually use. That would be more than fair.

While you're at it, give me a usage-based data option for my cell phone. Don't offer me some stupid plan where I pay $50 a month for some pathetically small amount of data. Only a low-grade idiot would buy a plan like that. Give me the opportunity to buy it by the megabyte, you dirtbags.

If Canada had real competition, this wouldn't be an issue. People would already have any number of options. Since we've got these tiny little oligarchies running these industries, we consumers get dicked around like nowhere else in the world.

Trust Kimmy to show up and offer the intelligent "other side of the coin".

The problem, Kimmy, is that any network requires a huge fixed cost. You may use that network rarely, but having access to it is useful to you.

I have always liked the following comparison: how much would you pay to get into Disneyland, and how much would you pay for each ride once you're there? IOW, there's a fixed cost merely to be a member of the club, and there's another charge for how much you use the club's services.

It is not obvious at all how to set these two very different rates.

----

As to your point about "tiny little oligarchies", modern technology dictates that most people have two wires coming into their homes. The government bureaucrats, and posters to this forum, cannot change this basic fact. So, for Internet connections, we live with a duopoly. With luck, wise bureaucrats will regulate this duopoly intelligently.

Edited February 6, 2011 by August1991

[Bonam]

As to your point about "tiny little oligarchies", modern technology dictates that most people have two wires coming into their homes. The government bureaucrats, and posters to this forum, cannot change this basic fact. So, for Internet connections, we live with a duopoly. With luck, wise bureaucrats will regulate this duopoly intelligently.

Except of course that physical wires are becoming less and less relevant when it comes to personal access to the internet. We've laid enough wire in urban areas for them to be able to go wireless. Already, more people today access the internet using wireless means than wired, and that trend will only continue.

[Scotty]

Trust Kimmy to show up and offer the intelligent "other side of the coin".

The problem, Kimmy, is that any network requires a huge fixed cost. You may use that network rarely, but having access to it is useful to you.

Do other countries not have these huge fixed costs? Is there a reason why cell phone plans cost more in Canada than in Africa? Is there a reason why internet costs per mbp are twice what they are in the US, five times what they are in France, and ten times what they are in Sweden? Or there's Finland Their average connection speed is 22mps, vs 6mps for Canada. Their costs per mbs are 2.77 v 6.50 in Canada.

[Smallc]

Yes. Look at the size and population distribution of Canada. It is not in any way comparable to an African or European nation.

[Battletoads]

Except of course that physical wires are becoming less and less relevant when it comes to personal access to the internet. We've laid enough wire in urban areas for them to be able to go wireless. Already, more people today access the internet using wireless means than wired, and that trend will only continue.

Where did you get this statistic from? I don't know a single Canadian who relies on wireless connection as their main internet source.

and wired connection will always have faster download/upload speed and larger bandwidth capacity.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Battletoads