Internet usage ruling to be overturned?

I gotta say first that this really doesn't affect me as I download next to nothing and usually use the internet to browse web sites and post stuff on here but for those of you who talk about needing huge band width for downloading large media files or multiple large media files at once this is probably of great interest to you.

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2011/02/02/17131926.html

:KKK:

Although it states quite clearly that the Government will overturn this ruling if the CRTC doesn't step up and do it themselves it's not all rosy. They also mention that this should go to committee to come up with a suitable solution which means it's not totally dead yet.

This is something I’ve been following closely. I currently use TekSavvy as my internet service provider, and I must say, I love paying $32/month for a 200GB cap with what is essentially Bell’s DSL service. After the CRTC approved Usage-Based Billing (UBB), I got an email from TekSavvy that, starting March 1st, my cap limit would become 25GB/month. Talk about a cap hit.

If you exceeded this cap, you’d be charged $1.25/GB over the limit. That could REALLY add up, considering I generally use 100-150GB/month. They gave me the option to pre-buy “insurance” packages (i.e. extra GBs). For an extra 80GB/month it’d be about $10. That is what I selected. So my monthly bill would go up $10, and my usage limit would be slashed in half. I wouldn’t be happy with this situation, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world for me.

I could really see it affecting people and small businesses that were signed up with services that allowed UNLIMITED usage. With the new ruling, unlimited usage would no longer exist. If you’re a small business with a legit need for tons of data transfer each month, this would be a huge problem.

I have no idea if my “heavy” usage actually has an impact on Bell’s network, or if it’s just Bell trying to grab more money. From what I’ve read, I think it’s just a case of the CRTC (who apparently is made up of ex-industry executives) catering to Bell based on information provided by Bell. I’ve read that the CRTC doesn’t really know how the internet works.

This type of decision would effectively mean that these third-party internet providers would have to charge the exact same rates as Bell, and would drastically impact the ability of consumers to use services like Netflix. Streaming HD media uses a lot of bandwidth.

Anyway, I’ll be thrilled if the government actually steps up and prevents this from happening.

http://stopusagebasedbilling.wordpress.com/

the crime here is that the actual cost to provide 1 GB is around one cent per GB.

Since I've moved to the US, I've noticed the plethora of choices I have in internet, phone and other services. All competitively priced.

In Canada, the big companies rape the citizen and is allowed to do so by the Government (CRTC).

I'm not even sure what the CRTC is doing meddling with internet: internet is neither a telephony nor a television product.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I gotta say first that this really doesn't affect me as I download next to nothing and usually use the internet to browse web sites and post stuff on here but for those of you who talk about needing huge band width for downloading large media files or multiple large media files at once this is probably of great interest to you.

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2011/02/02/17131926.html

You're a bit short-sighted to say it doesn't affect you. Remember when a 14.4 modem was enough? The reason it's not anymore is that the content is no longer simple text. Do you watch youtube clips or click to see them when embedded here? Would you stop doing that if suddenly all the content became high-definition? How about streaming a game -- what if watching it in full-screen mode you no-longer saw all the pixels. I don't watch it full screen now, but I certainly would think about it if the definition was there.

Back in November I actually exceeded what, at the time, was my cap of 25 GB. Sure, I had some help from my 14-year-old who was watching TV shows on his laptop. Still, I'd gone to 12G by myself in the past, and the Lite limit was recently dropped to 15GB. I've recently switched to Express (I think I did, the speedtests are a bit inconclusive) which carries a 60 GB cap -- but now that my access is 10M up from 3M I think I'll be much more inclined to download things. Maybe even try out the Netflix free trial with my PS3.

What Pager said.

These on-line services for streaming media are the future, and these ridiculously low cap limits are a step backwards from the future. It’s just Bell/Rogers’ way of trying to protect their satellite/cable services while making extra money in the process. If I were Bell and Rogers, I’d probably be lobbying for the limits too, as it’s another way to line my pockets without actually doing anything!

tim1_2 wrote:This is something I’ve been following closely. I currently use TekSavvy as my internet service provider, and I must say, I love paying $32/month for a 200GB cap with what is essentially Bell’s DSL service. After the CRTC approved Usage-Based Billing (UBB), I got an email from TekSavvy that, starting March 1st, my cap limit would become 25GB/month. Talk about a cap hit.

If you exceeded this cap, you’d be charged $1.25/GB over the limit. That could REALLY add up, considering I generally use 100-150GB/month. They gave me the option to pre-buy “insurance” packages (i.e. extra GBs). For an extra 80GB/month it’d be about $10. That is what I selected. So my monthly bill would go up $10, and my usage limit would be slashed in half. I wouldn’t be happy with this situation, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world for me.

I could really see it affecting people and small businesses that were signed up with services that allowed UNLIMITED usage. With the new ruling, unlimited usage would no longer exist. If you’re a small business with a legit need for tons of data transfer each month, this would be a huge problem.

I have no idea if my “heavy” usage actually has an impact on Bell’s network, or if it’s just Bell trying to grab more money. From what I’ve read, I think it’s just a case of the CRTC (who apparently is made up of ex-industry executives) catering to Bell based on information provided by Bell. I’ve read that the CRTC doesn’t really know how the internet works.

This type of decision would effectively mean that these third-party internet providers would have to charge the exact same rates as Bell, and would drastically impact the ability of consumers to use services like Netflix. Streaming HD media uses a lot of bandwidth.

Anyway, I’ll be thrilled if the government actually steps up and prevents this from happening.

http://stopusagebasedbilling.wordpress.com/

Yep...I'm with Teksavvy as well and was hugely disappointed to receive their email regarding the cap lowering. It shows you how much Bell is ripping off its customers. If Teksavvy can rent bell's lines and offer a lower price plus roughly 5X the bandwidth, without a contract, you know Bell is royally screwing over their customers. Why anyone with the option of using teksavvy would choose to use Bell is beyond me. Even if the ruling is not overturned, teksavvy is still the better option considering the lack of contract. In more than 6 months of service with teksavvy, I have yet to have any problem with service interruption. When initially setting up the service, they were very personable and easy to deal with....anyway...all this to say that the government stepping in here is great news!!!

To qualify my answer: It currently doesn't directly affect me at this time as I download next to nothing and am on my home computer an average of about 20 minutes total in a week.

My work is where it may affect me but they already block streaming video.

Number Twenty Nine wrote:the crime here is that the actual cost to provide 1 GB is around one cent per GB.

Since I've moved to the US, I've noticed the plethora of choices I have in internet, phone and other services. All competitively priced.

In Canada, the big companies rape the citizen and is allowed to do so by the Government (CRTC).

I'm not even sure what the CRTC is doing meddling with internet: internet is neither a telephony nor a television product.

My initial reaction is that heavy users should pay more than casual users of bandwidth. Otherwise a flat fee is just a subsidy by the casual users to the heavy users.

But if the cost is as low as you say(I am not challenging your number) then I agree with the sentiments expressed above.

However this being Canada, we will likely need a government study to determine what Bell, Telus and Rogers can charge.

Also there seems to be a lot of margin between the cost of data on your smartphone and the actual cost to the providor.

go one step further....

Someone...CRTC or the Gov't needs to open up the market to the US providers..then you'll see prices drop.

I don't understand this restriction. 90% of what we see is American content anyway and they can just as easily allow the US providers to see in Canada as long as they include the Canadian Channels...(ie cbc/ctv tsn..etc). That means having to purchse the broadcast rights to those channels which doesn't that mean more money being paid to ctv, global, CBC anyway?

That, my friend, is called protectionalism. I have been screaming for years that I wanted the government to open the domestic air travel industry. Unfortunately, I highly doubt that happens during our lifetimes ...