Usage based internet billing

[Jimmy]

http://www.ndp.ca/press/canadians-lose- ... ed-billing

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are about to impose usage-based billing on YOU.

This means we're looking at a future where ISPs will charge per byte, the way they do with smart phones. If we allow this to happen Canadians will have no choice but to pay MUCH more for less Internet. Big Telecom companies are obviously trying to gouge consumers, control the Internet market, and ensure that consumers continue to subscribe to their television services.

These Big Telecom companies are forcing small competing ISPs to adopt the same pricing scheme, so that we have no choice but to pay these punitive fees.

This will crush innovative services, Canada's digital competitiveness, and your wallet. (Netflix, Google TV, Hulu, iTunes, etc, etc will all cost you more money)

We urgently need to send a clear message to Ottawa, saying that we won't stand by while some of the most profitable companies in the country indiscriminately add new fees to our Internet bills. Enough is enough.

The CRTC is set to make a critical decision about Internet metering in a matter of days!

Sign the petition
Contact your local MP

[Evan]

someone actually posted this on my facebook this afternoon. this is how internet usage is in Western Australia and man it bit the big one! I just signed it, man if this is what is going to be of Internet usage I am building a Wokfi

[Jimmy]

Looks like we are too late..this is a terrible decision by the CRTC.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-44.htm
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/CRTC ... ocomment=1

[Evan]

this is balls!

[derek]

Looks like we are too late..this is a terrible decision by the CRTC.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-44.htm
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/CRTC ... ocomment=1

That's a no-brainer. It says that if the telcos charge the retail customer "X", they have to charge their wholesalers no more than X-15%. That's probably exactly how it is already for the flat rates, but they've been gouging the wholesalers on "overage" rates, and this caps it.

Contrary to the statement on DSLreports, this ruling has said _nothing_ about the general applicability of Usage-based billing (it implies, however, that it's already a fact of life).

I, for one, am happy with it. My entire life is on the net, but the last time I paid an over-use rate, it cost me 5 cents. I resent having to pay the same rate to use a choked network pipe as the guys who are downloading entire movies they will never watch.

[Jimmy]

I can understand restricting piracy, but UBB isn't the fix for that. This will only make piracy more expensive than it currently is (but still cheaper than the legal alternative).

I like to use streaming services such as netflix, xbox live (has streaming hd & sd video), etc. The way of entertainment for the future is over the internet and the telcos know this and are simply trying to choke out these innovative options, and make consumers choose their service instead. By implementing UBB, Canada is effectively taking a step backwards and helping to ensure that new innovative products requiring bandwidth never make their way here.

[derek]

No, I'm not talking about piracy - I'm talking about the _legal_ downloads. I know many people who are downloading garbage they'll never use.

[mr x]

I can understand restricting piracy, but UBB isn't the fix for that. This will only make piracy more expensive than it currently is (but still cheaper than the legal alternative).

I like to use streaming services such as netflix, xbox live (has streaming hd & sd video), etc. The way of entertainment for the future is over the internet and the telcos know this and are simply trying to choke out these innovative options, and make consumers choose their service instead. By implementing UBB, Canada is effectively taking a step backwards and helping to ensure that new innovative products requiring bandwidth never make their way here.

It's just idiocy, and greed. The corporations go through the government so they can fleece the consumers legally. There should be a sensible flat rate, and when you go over that, a sensible fee per byte. What we are going to get is fucked over hard, while the providers triple their profit. CRTC should be dealt with - Ceauşescu style.

[derek]

How is a "sensible flat rate and when you go over that, a sensible fee per byte" not usage-based billing?

“Madam, we've already established what kind of woman you are,” said Churchill, “now we're just negotiating the price.”

[mr x]

Because they'll set the cap so low, it's just a consumer slaughter.

[derek]

Nevertheless, it's still usage-based billing - and that's why I have no problem with the _concept_ of UBB. I agree with you - they should have sensible caps with sensible rates/byte over that. So far, my ISP has charged me a total of $0.05 for overuse. I can live with that. Bell claimed on Spark (CBC Radio 1), today, that their cap is well above the median bandwidth used by their customers. Now, I'm not going to take Bell's word for it, but that certainly _should_ be the case.

[mr x]

It's only partially user based billing. Guaranteed, they will get the gold mine, we will get the shaft. It's just a bad idea except for very, very heavy users to pay by the byte. Flat cap at 400-500 Gig, then by the byte after that.

[Jimmy]

And then what happens as technology changes? 15 years ago no one ever dreamed of downloading 1 gig a month. With the advances in technology we are just heading towards more and more bandwidth usage. I'm sure the telcos won't take that into account, but will instead keep reaming us with low bandwidth packages.

The whole idea of usage based billing just opens a huge can of worms.

[mr x]

Worse than a can a worms. This isn't just about the internet, explain this:

The federal regulators decision means that starting in March, third-party Internet access providers will be required to cap internet usage for consumers in Ontario at 25GB. The regulator has set the cap in Quebec at 60GB.

[derek]

Where'd you get that from? There's nothing about that in their decision.

[mr x]

It's being reported that's the deal. Just do a search.

[chalmers]

Where'd you get that from? There's nothing about that in their decision.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/01/crtc- ... d-billing/

There's some info in here about caps, as well:

http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-255.htm

[derek]

The digitalhome article quotes the entire CRTC ruling, and nowhere does that mention this 25GB cap, and http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-255.htm is Bell's _application_, not a ruling. That's what I don't understand - I have no doubt the figure's genuine, but this particular ruling is not where the numbers come from. Somewhere there _is_ such a ruling, and everybody's referring to the most recent rule that is at best tangential (it's just about what the telcos can charge other ISPs, nothing directly to do with customers).

[mr x]

These numbers are a direct result of the latest 'ruling', 'application', 'etc.'. Whether or not you see them in that archive is irrelevant.

Notice for Ontario customers of Primus - Quebec customers get the 60GB message:

As you may have heard, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has recently approved Bell Canada’s request to introduce Usage Based Billing on wholesale Internet services.

The CRTC’s decision directly affects the High-Speed Internet services that Primus provides using Bell Canada’s wholesale Internet services. The newly associated costs to Primus make the unlimited Internet service you are now enjoying no longer financially viable. To unify its products and services, Primus will be implementing usage-based billing on all of its Internet service offerings.

As a result, the following changes will apply commencing with your February invoice:

* Your existing High Speed Internet plan will now have 25GB (gigabytes) of monthly usage included
* For the minority of customers who exceed this amount, additional usage up to 300GB will be charged at $2.00/GB to a maximum of $60.00/month. Usage in excess of 300GB per month will be charged an additional $1.10/GB.
* Additional Usage Plans can be purchased starting at $5/month for an additional 40GB
....

[derek]

No, really, they're not. Those numbers are _either_ a cap Bell has arbitrarily imposed (entirely possible) or a direct result of some _other_ CRTC ruling. I'm trying to find out where the CRTC has set a cap, and afaict, they haven't - but they may have responded to the request for a ruling that Bell submitted. In fact, the ruling of last week suggests they had, but it makes me wonder why those who oppose it left it so much too late to do anything about it.

[mr x]

No, really, they are. It is what it is, and there's no amount of rationalizing or denial that will make it anything else.

[mr x]

Some good points on why this is such a bad idea:
http://www.antiubb.com/why-should-we-oppose-ubb/

Usage-Based Billing is a scam because it’s sold at 100x times what it costs to make

According to research, data cost $0.02 per GB to transmit – and that number is getting lower and lower every year as optic fiber gets cheaper.
Bell wants to sell it at $2.00 per GB. This is an absolute scam. Would you agree to pay $700,000 for an entry-level car? Would you pay $35.00 for an apple?

Sounds very similar to cell phone companies charging 1000x the actual cost on some rates, and so on...

Watch this (while you can still afford to, lmfao), next year, it will be about internet service charges...
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2010/cana ... /main.html

[KMcK]

It's not necessarily all about ISPs maximizing current profits. It likely has more to do with them stiffling new technolgies that threaten their future profits (e.g. the telcos don't want you to have enough bandwidth to use VOIP and the cable companies don't want you to have enough bandwidth to download video).

We're quickly moving into an era when the bandwidth providers and content providers need to be separated. That's what the CRTC should really be concerend about.

[Jimmy]

Looks like the people are winning this one. The government is ready to step in and reverse the decision!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1892522/

[mr x]

I thought this one might generate enough backlash from business and the public. It was just too destructive. Up yours Bell!!!!!