The CRTC, and Useage Based Billing.

[Battletoads]

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

The population density of cities is all the matters, and I'd be willing to bet Canadian cities have comperable population desnities to european cities. Europe is just a much more pro-consumer place, and that leads fair rates rather than these grossly inflated rates we pay in Canada.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Battletoads

[Smallc]

The population density of cities is all the matters, and I'd be willing to bet Canadian cities have comperable population desnities to european cities.

Ummm, no. Cellular covers about 95% of Canada's population, and high speed connections will be somewhere around 80%. Rates inside and outside of cities have to pay for all of this.

Europe is just a much more pro-consumer place, and that leads fair rates rather than these grossly inflated rates we pay in Canada.

You're going to have to show evidence of that, since the overall cost of living is often higher in European countries than in Canada.

[cybercoma]

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 an interesting, but expensive proposal that should be given serious consideration:

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.

(from aforementioned site)

[Esq]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Conservatives+deny+CRTC+takeover+plan+critics+slam+partisan+hire/4239039/story.html

Looks like Stephen Harper is manouvering to convince the CRTC to change its decision.

[dre]

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.

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.

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.

Thats true for some posters, but some people are coming out against the idea of regulation in general, and calling for the end of the CRTC. Those people dont know much about the internet.

And the reason I brought up the tier 1 providers is because thats the area that poses by far the biggest threat when it comes to bad resultions, and the whole network nutrality debate.

Edited February 7, 2011 by dre

[dre]

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.

Wireless connections are just end points anyways. Just a means of connecting the internet. The backbone is all fibre and copper... there no such thing as wireless internet, just wireless CONNECTIONS.

[Bonam]

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.

Worldwide, more people access the internet wirelessly through mobile devices, and it is a far faster growing market than desktops with wired internet connections. Read that in some article, will try to dig it up when I have some time.

[Bonam]

Wireless connections are just end points anyways. Just a means of connecting the internet. The backbone is all fibre and copper... there no such thing as wireless internet, just wireless CONNECTIONS.

All connections between computers that interact with public networks comprise the internet. It is not just the backbone that is important.

[Esq]

Wireless connections are just end points anyways. Just a means of connecting the internet. The backbone is all fibre and copper... there no such thing as wireless internet, just wireless CONNECTIONS.

Its actually very possible to communicate via radiowave.. it just isn't common, the energy inovled and resources.

Think how far a radio transmission tower broadcasts.. they actually have nanotransmitters now that are very very small that do the same thing.

You got to think of it in these terms. If you could have a nano device every 100 meters (10 per km) or a line the whole way, what is going to cost more?)

What is more practicle, what has a smaller footprint? What is more interoperable? What is more cost effective?

We know there will be changes to how the internet is delivered in coming days.

You could even rig a make shift network to broadcast from car to car on the drive in.. along major highways, or from street road light to road light.

These same systems could be used for monitoring and lots of other things, it is just the tip of the iceberg.

Very cost effective, very simple

you even have the ability to quantum entangle for security with this stuff - making it more secure than current transmission technologies.

Not the same thing but here is an example:

http://www.pdfcontent.com/data/500-meter-range-fm-transmitter-circuit.html/page/25

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lbytaVwslrIJ:www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/19666/+nanotechnology+transmitter+distance&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&source=www.google.ca

Edited February 8, 2011 by Esq

[dre]

Its actually very possible to communicate via radiowave.. it just isn't common, the energy inovled and resources.

Think how far a radio transmission tower broadcasts.. they actually have nanotransmitters now that are very very small that do the same thing.

You got to think of it in these terms. If you could have a nano device every 100 meters (10 per km) or a line the whole way, what is going to cost more?)

What is more practicle, what has a smaller footprint? What is more interoperable? What is more cost effective?

We know there will be changes to how the internet is delivered in coming days.

You could even rig a make shift network to broadcast from car to car on the drive in.. along major highways, or from street road light to road light.

These same systems could be used for monitoring and lots of other things, it is just the tip of the iceberg.

Very cost effective, very simple

you even have the ability to quantum entangle for security with this stuff - making it more secure than current transmission technologies.

Not the same thing but here is an example:

http://www.pdfcontent.com/data/500-meter-range-fm-transmitter-circuit.html/page/25

You got to think of it in these terms. If you could have a nano device every 100 meters (10 per km) or a line the whole way, what is going to cost more?)

WiFi and cellular are obviously very usefull and versatile technologies but we are a long long way from replacing fibre optics. A bundle of fibre can move MASSIVE ammounts of data, and often has to handle traffic for millions or even tens or hundeds of millions of clients at a single time.

All a wireless ethernet or a cellular phone network does is gather a relatively small ammount of data and stuff it into the pipe.

The technology is good enough for ethernets though, and home networks. The 802.11n standard is almost as fast as a piece of cat5 at least!

Edited February 8, 2011 by dre

[Mr.Canada]

Yes. This UBB crap is just a way for the cable and phone companies largely Rogers and Bell to strengthen their stranglehold on the telecommunication market. It's disgusting, they want a monopoly.

Here in Canada we pay the highest Internet and mobile phone rates in the world for the lowest speeds. In other words compared to other nations we have slow internet and it's very expensive.

Sure they're the ones who have built the communication infrastructure but that shouldn't mean they can gouge us at will.

[cybercoma]

The problem is streaming digital media. And by problem, I mean the companies' greed is affected by users streaming digital media. Why purchase cable, satellite, or rent videos when you can stream it all from the net? Why buy movies or music when you can stream it from the net? They want to be able to charge more for people using digital media, streaming videos and music or just downloading through iTunes. Often, I can get a digital copy of movies when I purchase blu-rays, but if I go over my "cap", I'm charged a second time for the movie. The amount of data users can transfer ought to be unlimited, with different price points for speed. The nature of society and media today is that we stream content from the internet. Games, movies, music, everything is online now. You only get a limited amount of access to it in Canada though. The service providers aren't making enough money.

[Mr.Canada]

High speed used to be unlimited, it's only the last few years that they started capping it. I don't know exactly when they started it but I remember having high speed internet and it being unlimited. This was back when 1MB/sec was considered fast mind you.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[Battletoads]

Worldwide, more people access the internet wirelessly through mobile devices, and it is a far faster growing market than desktops with wired internet connections. Read that in some article, will try to dig it up when I have some time.

Thats not to say wired internet is going anywhere...

I would imagine this perceived faster growth rate is due to people comparing homes with internet connections vs people with cellphones. Plus all these wireless connections feed into the wired net at some point.

Its a simple fact that wireless systems will never replace the wired net...

[Hydraboss]

The problem is streaming digital media.

Thank you for finally posting the answer. This is simply the reason all of this has been started. Without digital downloading of movies (mainly), few households would even reach 10GB never mind go over the cap so everything in Shaw and Bell land was great. People were starting to pay (dearly) for movies-on-demand and PPV because the premium services are where the cash is. We saw VHQ (among others) go down in flames because, lets face it, who wants to drive to the video store in -30 to return a movie that is 3 days overdue and has already cost you $5.99 to rent + $12.00 in late charges?

Enter NetFlix. UNLIMITED movie streaming/downloading for $8.00 a month. Goodbye paying for premium services (you know, the ones where you have to subscribe to the 40 channels of unwanted bullshit to get the one or two movie channels you wanted) just to have the ABILITY to have PPV. (side note: NetFlix in Canada sucks dick compared to what's available in the US. Go online and look at the difference for yourself...)

Now, if only there were a way to make NetFlix more expensive (thinks Shaw and Bell)....

Oh ya! We'll just charge $2.00/GB over the small cap and...voila!...stream a movie of let's say only 10GB and that works out to...$20.00 in extra internet charges (if you're over the cap). All without Shaw or Bell having to pay for any digital distribution rights! Bring on the caps, baby!

High speed used to be unlimited, it's only the last few years that they started capping it. I don't know exactly when they started it but I remember having high speed internet and it being unlimited. This was back when 1MB/sec was considered fast mind you.

Nothing was ever "unlimited" (see: home long distance phone plan fine print), but the allowable download amount was far more than almost anyone could ever reach, let alone go over.

I used to use 3-4GB a month. Enter: kids and youtube. Up to around 15Gb. Enter Facebook, forums, the kids "flash" games, MEGA email with attachments, etc, etc...now we're looking at 20+GB per month.

Enter: me downloading movies from bittorrent. I'm easily at 50-60GB a month. And that's with me pulling down 1GB movies and upconverting them on my end (good enough for most of the crap produced today). Haven't rented a movie in about two years (screw you Blockbuster and Shaw!). If I wanted to start downloading "HD" movie content, I'll blow over 120+GB per month easily. That's 60GB over my "cap" which would equal $120 extra a month to Shaw. Hmmmm. Think I'll keep picking the 1GB files.

[Battletoads]

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/technology/Vancouver+seeks+Internet+metering/3993791/story.html

http://openmedia.ca/blog/city-victoria-joins-stop-meter-movement

So far Vancouver and Victoria have come out in opposition to UBB.

Anyone know if any other cities have joined in with the opposition?

Maybe with a bit of luck UBB can be killed before it gets off the ground.

[Mr.Canada]

Hydroboss. In the early 90's Bell Canada DSL was advertised as being unlimited. Was it false advertising? I don't know.

High speed costs about 1 cent a GB to the big companies but they charge us $2-4 per GB. That's a massive mark up and robbery.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[Esq]

This is way bigger than cost per giga byte.

no need to tell the truth in news reporting

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crtc-plan-to-lift-ban-on-false-news-prompts-political-investigation/article1898147/

The same deal works for cellular phone charges...

it in part is about the cost of improving new infrastructure.

1 $500 million dollar profit on 10 million people is about $50 profit a year from each subscriber. That isn't a tremendous upcharge.

That works out to about $4-5 profit a month out of $60 or however much people are paying for internet these days.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Esq

[Hydraboss]

Hydroboss. In the early 90's Bell Canada DSL was advertised as being unlimited. Was it false advertising? I don't know.

High speed costs about 1 cent a GB to the big companies but they charge us $2-4 per GB. That's a massive mark up and robbery.

"False advertising" is a yes/no answer. Companies have a little wiggle room in the definition because they always put that asterisk in there and then in tiny print they put the "Fair Use Agreement". "Unlimited" phone plans usually have a cap of a couple thousand minutes or so (they claim it's to stop automated data transfers like auto phone dialers, etc). This is nothing new, but it never hit the news until people actually started reaching the caps.

I don't much care how much markup they make (in percentage); it's the reason behind it that bugs the crap out of me. See: anti-competition moves against companies that offer better deals (NetFlix, web-based movie suppliers, etc). Instead of making your own corporate offerings "reasonable", it's easier with this ruling to make the "other guys" unreasonable.

[eyeball]

On the face of it the logic behind UBB for Internet makes sense, like billing for electricity or telephone use.

That said, South Koreans pay a fraction of the cost for 10 times the bandwidth we get here so our telecoms should get us to that starting point before talking to us about UBB.

The public is right to be cynical of Internet usage regulators

[GostHacked]

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.

There are other options if you are willing to pay for the costs to bring it into your house. For businesses at least there are more options if you are willing to pay. 3 years ago, we had a 10/10 fiber connection put in which is now 15/15(bell) with a 10/10(allstream) fiber back up.

If you are willing to pay a few grand to get this into your house, then go for it. Otherwise, you are correct with the duopoly.

[cybercoma]

This is way bigger than cost per giga byte.

no need to tell the truth in news reporting

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crtc-plan-to-lift-ban-on-false-news-prompts-political-investigation/article1898147/

The same deal works for cellular phone charges...

it in part is about the cost of improving new infrastructure.

1 $500 million dollar profit on 10 million people is about $50 profit a year from each subscriber. That isn't a tremendous upcharge.

That works out to about $4-5 profit a month out of $60 or however much people are paying for internet these days.

How would unlimited access eat into those profits?

[Battletoads]

How would unlimited access eat into those profits?

More people might switch to new media sources, the telecoms would call these people bandwidth hogs.

[fellowtraveller]

Enter NetFlix. UNLIMITED movie streaming/downloading for $8.00 a month. Goodbye paying for premium services (you know, the ones where you have to subscribe to the 40 channels of unwanted bullshit to get the one or two movie channels you wanted) just to have the ABILITY to have PPV. (side note: NetFlix in Canada sucks dick compared to what's available in the US. Go online and look at the difference for yourself...)

Bingo, or nearly.

Why bother getting that $45 per month for basic cable from Shaw when they have no content worth watching. You have to get into the 90+ per month range to get HBO, movies and the premium cable that shows things that used to be free like Jays baseball or local NHL hockey......

Netflix at $8 is a very serious, real and immediate threat to all those big, fat ISPs that also have billions invested in content nobody really watches. CRTC helped create and promtote those too, by the way.

[Bonam]

Well I just upgraded to a 4G phone with unlimited data and tethering a few days ago, and found that I get a strong and consistent 4G signal in my apartment. So I went ahead and canceled my cable internet service today and now access internet purely through my phone.

Since some of you missed what I meant by tethering earlier: it means that you can use the phone as a wireless modem + router. It broadcasts a WiFi signal and you can wirelessly connect your laptop to it, which then accesses the internet through the cell network that the phone is connected to. I've connected both my laptops and my desktop to the phone at the same time and get download speeds of 1 megabytes/sec consistently (down from about 1.5 megabytes/sec with cable internet). Still more than good enough for video streaming, downloading large files, etc. The latency (ping time) is a bit high compared to cable internet, so not quite good enough for fast-paced online gaming, but fine for all other internet usage applications.

$80/month plan for unlimited data/calls on my phone + broadband internet for all my computers (which I can now use to access the internet wherever digital cell signals exist) + dozens of TV channels that I can either watch on my phone or connect to a monitor / TV screen with an analog TV out cable (no HDMI though). This is using a Samsung Epic 4G phone, which I got free from Sprint since my free phone upgrade window came around after being a customer for 2 years.

Saves me about $40 per month (canceled my $50/month cable internet, but the 4G plan costs $10/month more than my old 3G plan). 4G is going to make wired personal internet connections all but history over the next decade (when 5G will start getting deployed), except perhaps for online gamers. Hope Sprint isn't gonna lose too much money on me downloading about 200 GB/month on their 4G

Edited February 8, 2011 by Bonam