CRTC approves usage-based internet billing

[Outta here]

" The CRTC has approved Bell Canada's request to bill internet customers, both retail and wholesale, based on how much they download each month.

The CRTC has approved Bell Canada's request to bill internet customers, both retail and wholesale, based on how much they download each month.
The plan, known as usage-based billing, will apply to people who buy their internet connection from Bell, or from smaller service providers that rent lines from the company, such as Teksavvy or Acanac...." more


Interesting development:

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper is taking the unusual step of intervening in an ever mounting controversy over Internet billing.
Mr. Harper on Tuesday put more heft behind Industry Minister Tony Clement’s decision to launch a probe of a regulatory decision that raises the cost of Internet service, announcing he, too, is second-guessing the ruling...." more


If you'd like to add your voice to the issue, there's a Take action petition site.

​

 

[taxslave]

Not knowing much about it but at first glance it seems fair. Near as I can tell I use less than half of the minimum billing amount. Going by this many of us are paying more than we should to subsidize those that stream steady.

 

[Avro]

So what? This will effect people stealing movies online....boo hoo.

I'll never use 60 GB and I use netflix.

 

[darkbeaver]

Give them nothing.

 

[Outta here]

I download nothing either - and I'm not all that keen on having my rates helping to pay for the excessive use of others, but that's not the point imo. I'm more concerned that this is just the beginning of a long and slippery slope. I'd like to see internet use remain as accessible as possible to everyone - I do realize it's already not accessible to everyone... but I don't see this as a positive move in that direction.

 

[Johnny Utah]

There's also the percentage of people who've gone from their home computers to using smart phones, how is the CRTC going to police that?

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I disagree with this completely because it changes the billing after the fact. The contract I signed up for with my internet provider was unlimited. In the last year they suddenly started whining about usage. As I recall, I asked for the most expensive unlimited plan. So now they have added a new wrinkle to their already expensive plan to bilk even more money out of me.

Excessive use is a load of bull. Most high speed providers are making money hand over fist. They are just getting ready for the new medium when cable and satellite become obsolete. Once its all internet they have us by the short and curlies.

 

[Avro]

I download nothing either - and I'm not all that keen on having my rates helping to pay for the excessive use of others, but that's not the point imo. I'm more concerned that this is just the beginning of a long and slippery slope. I'd like to see internet use remain as accessible as possible to everyone - I do realize it's already not accessible to everyone... but I don't see this as a positive move in that direction.

Everyone has access to the internet....check out the library.

I disagree with this completely because it changes the billing after the fact. The contract I signed up for with my internet provider was unlimited. In the last year they suddenly started whining about usage. As I recall, I asked for the most expensive unlimited plan. So now they have added a new wrinkle to their already expensive plan to bilk even more money out of me.

Excessive use is a load of bull. Most high speed providers are making money hand over fist. They are just getting ready for the new medium when cable and satellite become obsolete. Once its all internet they have us by the short and curlies.

You don't have to get any of this, it's a service. If you don't want to pay for it....don't.

 

[Machjo]

I download nothing either - and I'm not all that keen on having my rates helping to pay for the excessive use of others, but that's not the point imo. I'm more concerned that this is just the beginning of a long and slippery slope. I'd like to see internet use remain as accessible as possible to everyone - I do realize it's already not accessible to everyone... but I don't see this as a positive move in that direction.

Don't you have free internet at your local library?

I disagree with this completely because it changes the billing after the fact. The contract I signed up for with my internet provider was unlimited. In the last year they suddenly started whining about usage. As I recall, I asked for the most expensive unlimited plan. So now they have added a new wrinkle to their already expensive plan to bilk even more money out of me.

Excessive use is a load of bull. Most high speed providers are making money hand over fist. They are just getting ready for the new medium when cable and satellite become obsolete. Once its all internet they have us by the short and curlies.

I agree that they ought to respect their contracts. Beyond that though, I'd actually welcome usage-based billing.

Quite honestly, except for education (which I think all have a right to), I'm for usage-based billing and taxation. For instance, wouldn't shifting taxes towards resource-based taxation not help to ensure those who consume gas the most (and so likely those who use our roads the most) would contribute more to our roads than those who don't?

And no, I'm not some kind of heartless ueber-capitalist who supports letting the poor starve. If that were the case, I'd be opposed to universal education. My idea is that while we have an obligation to teach people to fish (and feed them while teaching them), that beyond that they ought to be on their own. Once they know how to fish, there is no excuse anymore to not be able to pay their own way.

 

[Outta here]

Everyone has access to the internet....check out the library.....

Seriously?? In the world of haves and have nots, that's not just semantic, it's downright silly.

What you and I are doing right now, from the comfort of our own homes, is internet access... and I doubt very much that even if I could find a library open at this time, they'd be tolerant of the erratic hours I would find myself running in to get exact measurements for a recipe, grab a print out off google maps, toss off a status update, book a flight, email my family on the coast, pay my bills, make a purchase, .... so ya, there's access, and then there's ACCESS.

And no, I'm not some kind of heartless ueber-capitalist who supports letting the poor starve. If that were the case, I'd be opposed to universal education. My idea is that while we have an obligation to teach people to fish (and feed them while teaching them), that beyond that they ought to be on their own. Once they know how to fish, there is no excuse anymore to not be able to pay their own way.

Your point is a bit muddled to me - access to education isn't free..... so..... let's take away access to the internet too...and that'll teach them to fish??....:neutral:

 

[Unforgiven]

Well you have to hand it to them for having the balls to take it. As the Internet begins to deliver movies, people are dumping Cable and Satellite tv. So simply put up a toll both to rake in the money without having to provide the content. Fair is fair I guess. I've sent a letter off to Rogers telling then that from March 1, 2011 there is a $42 charge for the use of my door and or doorbell per instance, as well having this clearly posted on my door.

That way when they come to ask me to sign up for the services I have canceled, I can still make money off it even though I won't actually answer the door. I have similar value added services ready to roll out on my telephone number and email addresses in the spring and feel that this will enhance my bottom line for the next three quarters of this fiscal year.

I hope to write off $13000 from my income taxes for start up costs and consultation of my new business next year as this is what I am paying myself for coming up with these great ideas. I project that I will also be able to tender massive cuts to my tax payable account to cover my accounts payable and legal fees for years to come.

Check back this summer for my Canada post mail box unsolicited junk mail storage fees announcement.

 

[Chiliagon]

well, this will hurt those who take advantage of the Internet.

download movies all day and all night, do illegal activities,

they'll have to learn to limit themselves I guess.

 

[Praxius]

It's a pile of crap is what it is. You already pay your service provider per month for a certain download amount and now they want to charge you more.

It's just like the additional charges for Mp3 players, CD's and DVD's...... sure they claim it's to target those who pirate..... but it also attacks those people who purchase their music and movies online legally.... or use CD/DVD's to backup their work.

I deal with large files of media, for print, video and more.... I have to go from one FTP site to another in order to get logos and files to work on and then send them elsewhere to be printed..... that uses the internet and many of those files can be more then 200MB each.... so then technically I'd get charged more money because of this scam.

Oh wait, no I won't, because I don't live in Canada anymore and I don't have to worry about such BS..... lucky me..... not so lucky for you guys.

That's not to rub it in.... just to send a point..... I wouldn't put up with that crap and you guys shouldn't either.

Look at the bigger picture..... especially you Chili.

 

[Andem]

Basically what they're doing is now charging you more for less and they're effectively forcing their own business terms on a contract between you and your provider, something a monopoly like BCE should not be able to do in a free market economy. They're essentially using their contacts in a government body (the CRTC) to disrupt the business you do with their competitors.

Make no mistake, Bell is looking to further increase their profit margins.

 

[CUBert]

The decision must be reversed (i'm not paying $30 or more a month for 25 gig cap) and the corporate pigs at Bell should be lynched.

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

WOW, YOU GUYS ARE SO SHORTSIGHTED!

Just because you aren't close to exceeding your bandwith cap doesn't mean it won't happen in the future... Esp. when more and more media services (ie. TV, streaming music, photos) are served through it. Plus higher quality media means bigger file sizes... you remember when digital music used to be encoded at 128kbps? Now, it's at least 192kbps with 256kbps on the horizon. You remember when digital cameras were 2MP? Now it's pushing 12MP and climbing... We went from video at 240p (old TV's) to 480p (DVD) to 720p (HD) and now to 1080p (BluRay). We went from mono channel to 2 channel stereo to 5.1 DTS and now 7.1 DTS-MA. Higher quality, bigger files... etc. etc.

You're going to kick yourself in the arse because you made this UBB the status quo. And do you think they are going to increase the caps as media files get bigger and take up more bandwidth?... think again. The only thing that's going to increase are the fees... and that's guaranteed.

We need to stop this before it becomes the norm. Bell or any of the big ISP's are fully capable of using their profits to increase network bandwidth. The problem is that they won't simply because it will look bad on paper and that would piss off the shareholders.

Thanks guys.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I'll tell yuh Avro this is one where we part ways.

 

[In Between Man]

Feds have just announced they will overrule CRTC's decision if they don't reverse themselves. Good job Mr. Harper!

Source

 

[Avro]

I'll tell yuh Avro this is one where we part ways.

That's fine, seems the petition worked and you win.

Congrats.

 

[JLM]

I am wondering if Bell is any worse than Shaw and if so why are they still in business?