CRTC approves usage-based internet billing


Zan
#1
" 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. (external - login to view)














 
taxslave
#2
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
#3
So what? This will effect people stealing movies online....boo hoo.

I'll never use 60 GB and I use netflix.
 
darkbeaver
#4
Give them nothing.
 
Zan
#5
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
#6
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
+1
#7
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
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by ZanView Post

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

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
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ZanView Post

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?

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

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.
 
Zan
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

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??....
 
Unforgiven
+3
#11  Top Rated Post
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
#12
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
+2
#13
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
+3
#14
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
#15
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
+1
#16
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 **** 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
#17
I'll tell yuh Avro this is one where we part ways.
 
In Between Man
#18
Feds have just announced they will overrule CRTC's decision if they don't reverse themselves. Good job Mr. Harper!

Source
 
Avro
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

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


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

Congrats.
 
JLM
#20
I am wondering if Bell is any worse than Shaw and if so why are they still in business?
 
Bar Sinister
#21
The list of failures of the major ISPs in Canada gets longer and longer. First it serves only the most populous centres of the country, ignoring rural areas or leaving them to pay for expensive and low quality satellite internet systems. Second it charges more money for lower speeds than is the norm in most other industrialized nations. And third, instead of upgrading its infrastructure it now is preparing to limit the amount users download or make them pay a premium to get better service.

When countries like South Korea and Finland are heading for 100 megabyte speeds why is it that Canadian ISPs are doing everything within their power to limit internet usage, or price it out of the range of many Canadians?
 
petros
#22
Both my TV and net are DSL anyway so I don't believe the bull**** about streaming or downloading. TV is already being streamed in far better quality than any downloaded divx or mkv format with oodles of tax credits to the very providers who now ask our elected w hores to screw us yet again.

I didn't vote to get ****ed up the *** repeatedly. Did you?

We built, bought and paid for the telecomm system in this country with our labour traded for cash which was usurped by taxation to provide us with the best service in the world that no private corporation could have ever dreamed of getting the financing for or technological R&D.

The people united under a once more realistic democracy worked hard developing, building and paying for it if you want to use as much as you want for a price agreed upon considering we sold it them for a song and dance and built the ****ing thing then so be it.

In a true democratic free market they wouldn't need the tax credits they get to provide us with a service we choose to pay for.

Get a box of valentines, mail them to your MP and remind them of what happened to some rats on valentines day during the last time some far right cock suckers in Ottawa and Washington went too far and cut off booze and created mayhem in North America during a time when then bankers just like today were gang raping the wealth of the people on the planet through credit and debt.

How many *** reamings does it take to wake up the stunned?

.
Last edited by petros; Feb 4th, 2011 at 01:38 AM..
 
Unforgiven
#23
So the CRTC was told to reexamine the ruling by the Government. Of the very few things I think the Torys have done right, this is one of them.
 
petros
#24
How so? Are the Torys going to axe their tax credits to drive a more competative market with freedom and choice?

Maybe we should bankroll a couple more sattelites, a few thousand more cell towers, and enough fibre optics to pipe enough light to luminate a small city for telecomm?

How about putting some of the women who Harper will be tossing into the private run prisons to work in call centers so Bell and Shaw can be more competative? How can you beat free labour while the tax payer houses, feeds and provide healthcare to your $1.99 an hour contracted slave? That's one I'm going to invest in. Why not, humans are just resources anyway? That what the Human Resource Developement minstry is all about. Humans as a resource not the benficiaries but the raw material products are extracted from manufactured by and then sold to in a never ending loop of insanity.

Maybe Bayer is interested. The last time was a huge financial success. Why would this time be any different?
Last edited by petros; Feb 4th, 2011 at 02:05 AM..
 
miniboss
#25
It's about money. For whoever doesn't hit their cap, the provider will take note of that, and if enough people don't hit the cap, they'll just lower it, and make you pay the same amount. That's what Shaw did to me. I started out with a 75gb download limit per month, for $49.35. Now I have a download limit of 60gb per month, for the same price. I feel cheated.
 
petros
#26
I have unlimited GB but kbps is capped 650. It's plenty and Sasktel is decades ahead with beaming light around anyway. It's nice to have telecomm that pays a nice chunk of the provincial bills and is dirt cheap.

I want to rub it in a little...especially all you telus and Bell folks out there. Thanks for subleasing on the Sasktel network using Sasktel tech. I really appreciate it as a beneficiary. It might even see my PST go bye bye.

Too bad you sold yours.

Ah well. Enjoy the HST and crap telus & Bell as they ream you again for my benefit.

Alas though I too no longer benefit from the coast to coast national system. I was too young to be heard by my MP but am okay with what is a shining example of what public ownership can do when managed properly and is willing to invest locally in R&D of cutting edge.
Last edited by petros; Feb 4th, 2011 at 03:11 AM..
 
Praxius
#27
Something I wondered about for years is that why hasn't anybody attempted to design a home system that can tap into the internet without going through Internet Service Providers?

There's Cable Internet, DSL Internet, Dial-Up *shudders*, Satellite Internet and all sorts of other avenues for internet access.....

There's already thousands upon thousands of programs and gimmicks for hacking your cable boxes to get all the channels you want for free, just by hooking it up (not that I promote that sort of thing) ..... And the ISP's who provide us with our internet must have their own systems that tap into the internet that they have a death grip on...... you'd think someone would be able to make a smaller Internet Access System you can setup into your own home, plug your computers into and do as you please.

I know it's not a simple procedure to do, but I know it's not impossible.

People can make their own pirate radio stations in their basements, others can tap into radio waves to communicate with one another..... even if the ISP's and Cable/Phone companies hold the monopoly on telephone wires, satellites and all that crap, why isn't there some mom and pop company out there making a dirt-cheap network system that people can use to bypass all this BS from the ISP's?

Google came along and made their own internet browser, google earth, google map, and all other sorts of things that are free to download and use.... why doesn't somebody go one step further and just make a home system that directly taps into the internet??

It's not like the internet is owned by one person or company.... there's thousands of companies out there already tapping into the internet and charging us an arm and a leg to see what's on here....... why can't we have what they have?

Oh yeah, that's right..... they wouldn't get any money and would become obsolete..... how silly of me.
 
Avro
#28
Gee, I guess the lines and the network are all their for free and to service that is free also.

I guess because I can I should rip off movies and music via the internet as well.

It's called stealing, just like a New Democrat to think everything is free.
 
Unforgiven
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Gee, I guess the lines and the network are all their for free and to service that is free also.

I guess because I can I should rip off movies and music via the internet as well.

It's called stealing, just like a New Democrat to think everything is free.

Not at all. A better comparison is ordering a dinner that the menu tells you costs 20 dollars and being presented
with a bill for that dinner of 25 dollars after you've had the dinner.

They companies can change their rates and services offered with new customers, but when you make a deal, you have to stick with the deal.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Gee, I guess the lines and the network are all their for free and to service that is free also.

I guess because I can I should rip off movies and music via the internet as well.

It's called stealing, just like a New Democrat to think everything is free.

The more reasonable approach to take here is that both the entertainment industry and internet service industry should be providing lower cost services with higher quantities of information. More services like Netflix might help for this sort of transition, but the cost of media - whether it is games, music or movies - should really be going down by now.

In this day and age, albums should be $5 each, and blu-ray movies should be $10 and games should absolutely not be more than $50 each at launch. If they want to impose internet cost on a use basis, then it better be pretty damn cheap as well. And data plans.. DATA PLANS.. $80 - $100/month to use your phone to surf a 3G network is abhorrent by now.

No, there's no excuse for the price-gouging these media/internet outlets dole out as they all make an exuberant profit that really doesn't need any increases right now. A responsible government would be fighting to allow people on lower incomes greater access to media and information rather than punishing them for the sake of unnecessary profit.
Last edited by mentalfloss; Feb 4th, 2011 at 12:20 PM..
 

Similar Threads

34
Internet Usage in the Work Place
by karrie | Oct 1st, 2010
0
Monitoring Your Internet Usage
by jjw1965 | Aug 13th, 2005
no new posts