• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Usage Based Billing approved, Canadian govt shoots it down, more developments to come

bloodydrake said:
Umm didn't you know supreme courts overturned foreign owned telcos in canada? Winds got 4 months to get the fuck out of canada.
Click to expand...
What the fuck? How the hell did anyone think that this was a good idea? Anti-antitrust?
 
Slavik81 said:
What the fuck? How the hell did anyone think that this was a good idea? Anti-antitrust?
Click to expand...
I missed this post.. wait, what the fuck seriously?! What happens to all the people on Wind services?
 
16-Bit Heroics said:
Netflix has decided to lower the quality of instant streaming in Canada, due to bandwidth caps. Apparently, you can still get their HQ streaming, but you have to opt-in now through the settings page.

It's sad to see this day has come already.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/223655/netflix_cuts_videostream_quality_in_canadais_us_next.html

Edit: Old news.
Click to expand...
Fucking bullshit. I hate the state of our internet in Canada, and what's even more upsetting is that I don't know how we are going to change things.
 
It has it's upsides. I nostalgically look forward to being forced back into using BBS on our 14.4k speed connections capped at the MB level. Also the 4k game contest just wrapped up this year I believe so we have lots of 4kB games that we'll be able to play online now.

Under the new pricing structure, Bell will charge small Internet providers by the total volume of data they use, charged in C$200 per terabyte increments, or 19.5 Canadian cents per gigabyte
Click to expand...

So I can get a 2TB HDD for 75$, or I can use '400$ worth' of bandwidth for the same amount of data. The more I see this the more i push my family members to switch over to Teksavvy or the like. Only problem is there is no way for me to completely avoid funding the incumbents as they still turn a profit on leasing their pipes to independent ISPs
 
Canadian ISPs admit that their pricing is structured to discourage Internet use:

Telecom companies' submission to the CRTC said:
In order to be effective as an economic ITMP, the usage based price component needs to be established so as to discourage use above the set limit. The price should incent use in excess of the limit only to the extent that the consumer would gain significant value from that usage. If the price is set substantially below the consumer's value, it will have little influence on usage. It follows that the price does not necessarily reflect the cost of supplying the network capacity.

[Michael Geist's commentary:] In other words, UBB is behaviour based billing, not usage based billing. Notwithstanding the claims about fairness, paying what you use, or costs to the network, overage pricing is not connected to cost or even value - it is designed to price above the real value to stop Canadians from "overusing" the Internet.
Click to expand...
Their true motivations should come as no surprise to those of us who have been following this issue obviously, but to hear them flip flop between stances publicly is amusing nonetheless.

Source
 
MoFuzz said:
Canadian ISPs admit that their pricing is structured to discourage Internet use:

Their true motivations should come as no surprise to those of us who have been following this issue obviously, but to hear them flip flop between stances publicly is amusing nonetheless.

Source
Click to expand...

It looks to me like they're saying one of two things:

1. Overusage shouldn't be based on cost, but on a superficial 'value' ala the diamond industry.
2. We want to deter Canadians from using the internet too much.
 
MoFuzz said:
Canadian ISPs admit that their pricing is structured to discourage Internet use:

Their true motivations should come as no surprise to those of us who have been following this issue obviously, but to hear them flip flop between stances publicly is amusing nonetheless.

Source
Click to expand...

CRTC came out during the hearings and literally said they need to 'discipline the user', and they were obviously touting what Bell had been telling them. No surprise.
 
Zzoram said:
don't just link facebook, you have to sign into an account to view that

actually say something to describe what's there
Click to expand...
A very long explanation of how to use these changes to cancel your contract without paying fees. I'm not about to copy paste the entire thing + images here. I'm' going under the assumption that most people have a Facebook account because it's now 2011. My parents have a Facebook account. It doesn't take too long to sign in.
 
Firestorm said:
A very long explanation of how to use these changes to cancel your contract without paying fees. I'm not about to copy paste the entire thing + images here. I'm' going under the assumption that most people have a Facebook account because it's now 2011. My parents have a Facebook account. It doesn't take too long to sign in.
Click to expand...
Already pasted on GAF without the pics.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26799888&postcount=17548
 
I'll call them and ask them to give me the same price as TS or I quit.
 
They're doing the same shit in the US, but we don't have any real way of combating it. :(

I don't even know if anyone is fighting it, here.
 
I just found out that recently Teksaavy cable became available in my area (Ottawa). I can't wait for when I move and get them instead of my 60gb capped Rogers. It'll be nice not having to worry about actually enjoying Netflix.
 
For more CRTC lolz; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...to-look-at-regulating-netflix/article1985547/

I'm pretty sick of taking it up the butt from Canadian companies because it 'protects Canada and Canadian culture'. A culture of being abused.

TV industry asks CRTC to look at regulating Netflix

Representatives of Canada’s media industry have approached the federal broadcast regulator to ask it to consider regulating online TV and movie service Netflix, the way traditional broadcasters are.

“We’ve asked the commission to look into it, and to initiate, if necessary, a process,” André Bureau, the chairman of the board at Astral Media Inc., (ACM.A-T37.07-0.13-0.35%) said during the company’s conference call to discuss its second quarter results on Thursday.

Members of “the television sector” approached the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission with the request roughly two weeks ago, Mr. Bureau said. They are now awaiting a response from the CRTC.

Netflix Inc. (NFLX-Q236.18-2.57-1.08%) launched its streaming service in Canada last September, which allows viewers to watch video over the Internet on computers, tablets, Web-enabled TV sets and televisions connected to certain gaming consoles that can access the Web.

Such “over the top” services present a challenge to traditional media businesses, especially in Canada, since Netflix is able to operate in a similar fashion as a broadcaster, but without regulatory strictures such as costly requirements for spending on Canadian programming.

Mr. Bureau did not identify which other companies took part in the request.

“The objective is really, that from an industry point of view, that we maintain a level playing field within the system – a system that is a very positive and strong element in terms of our Canadian culture, identity and the Canadian economy,” Mr. Bureau said. “So we have that in mind, and we are trying to make sure that we see the regulator looking at it from the same point of view.”
Click to expand...
 
purnoman3000 said:
I just found out that recently Teksaavy cable became available in my area (Ottawa). I can't wait for when I move and get them instead of my 60gb capped Rogers. It'll be nice not having to worry about actually enjoying Netflix.
Click to expand...

I just cancelled my rogers 80GB cap last week. I am getting Teksaavy cable on May 7th. I live in London, Ontario.

Old Rogers Plan:
15mbit
$70/month
80gb Cap
$1.50 Overage/gb
New Teksaavy Plan:
15mbit
$50/month
300gb Cap
.50 overage/gb

When I was on the phone asking the cancel with Rogers, they tried to convince me to stay by upping my cap to 125GB instead of 80GB for the same price. I said the only way I will stay is if you price match Teksaavy's package. Of course he said no. Why the fuck would I stay with you then, when I can get the same speed for $20 less per month and almost 4x the amount of bandwidth. Retards.. seriously.

Feels good man.
 
Shambles said:
Wow. Time to block youtube access in Canada while we're at it. Time to clear out all these dinosaurs who lost touch with reality decades ago.
Click to expand...
I just wish they would lose touch with their real bosses at R/B/T.
 
Eteric Rice said:
They're doing the same shit in the US, but we don't have any real way of combating it. :(

I don't even know if anyone is fighting it, here.
Click to expand...
In the US at least you have like Microsoft and Google around to lobby against UBB - especially since a lot of their services depend on bandwidth usage.
 
Zombie James said:
An internet video service is not a cable broadcaster.
Click to expand...
They're not really all that different.

The real question is why we regulate TV and radio the way we do. Go back to basic principles, then based on those, figure out if Netflix should be affected.
 
Next week im pulling everything out of rogers shopping for alternatives now getting rid of my internet and phone with them.They even changed their cellphone plan recently.They use to have a package where you could get call display, voice mail and 5 other add-ons for $12.00. Now they have broken them apart into single add-ons and they charge 7.00 now for voicemail, 8.00 for call display and the others are $2.00-$5.00 like wtf is this crap.
 
Hey guys, I remember a few months back that there was an issue with Bell's Bandwidth Usage page... I'm curious if they still are. I asked my dad to check our usage for this month, and apparently in 6 days I've used 10.5 GBs. I don't see how that is at all possible with what little I've been doing on the internet.
 
Slavik81 said:
They're not really all that different.

The real question is why we regulate TV and radio the way we do. Go back to basic principles, then based on those, figure out if Netflix should be affected.
Click to expand...

If you go down that road, you really could say the same about crap like Vevo and Youtube. Not that I disagree with your assessment in regards to cleaning up the basic principles. It's just not going to happen. Ever.
 
Good news for those with Shaw as their internet providers! They have listened to the Canadian people's cries and reacted accordingly:
As we've been covering, Canadian regulatory agency the CRTC recently had their plan to impose usage-based billing (UBB) on Canadian wholesalers and consumers shot down by Canadian leaders for being anti-competitive, punitive, and generally just ridiculous. A review was demanded after immense public backlash to the concept, which in turn led many Canadian ISPs to suspend their plans for usage-based billing. Among those companies was Canadian cable operator Shaw, who insisted the company wouldn't start charging steep per byte overages until they had engaged in "consulting sessions" with users, and developed "a solution that works for everyone."

After a scattered number of town halls held around Canada, Shaw appears to be finalizing their solution -- and it sounds like the same "solution" they had before: users paying more money for the same service. Users in our forums note that in a recent conference call with analysts and the press, Shaw proudly proclaimed that after consulting with users, they found that Canadian consumers were simply thrilled with the proposition to pay more for broadband services.

"Not one of the customers that came to these consultations said that if you charge more we will leave for a 'lesser performing' internet service," Shaw informed conference call attendees, adding that "customers have said we are prepared to pay more for a higher value of service." Shaw also proudly proclaimed that usage-based billing was "a win-win for our shareholders as well as our customers."

Except if Shaw had actually listened to Canadian consumers, they'd realize this wasn't what users were saying at all. Canadian consumers are well aware the new pricing isn't about fariness -- it's about imposing steep new usage surcharges on all users -- heavy and light -- in order to offset the possible impact of Internet video on broadband revenues. Opposition to this pricing is unquestionably fierce among educated users.

Shaw, which already imposes caps as low as 15 GB per month on its Internet tiers, had been cooking up their per byte overage system since last fall, insisting that charging users $5 per gigabyte (as broadband delivery costs decline) wasn't about making additional money. As many had suspected, Shaw's "consultation" with users appears to have been little more than a stage play, giving Canada's political turmoil time to play out. Shaw says they'll have a formal announcements on their UBB plans at the end of May or early June. CRTC hearings on the matter are slated for July.
Click to expand...
As taken from here.

SMH
 
Looks like Shaw is definitely putting in caps after the election (nice timing), with Telus soon to follow. I'm currently getting service from Telus so Shaw doesn't affect me but seeing as how I'll be moving into a new place in a couple months I'll wait until then to switch over to Teksavvy. Even still it seems pretty sad if Teksavvy is the only real choice out here in Alberta unless I don't know of some other providers. Still, I would be even far more happy if I could get service on a non-incumbant owned line so they aren't making any money off me. Even going with teksavvy i'm supporting the incumbants profit margins :S

Honestly and with these new regulations that allow false or misleading information to be broadcast it blows my mind how the CRTC is still around, fuck those useless shits.
 
Another article on UBB in Canada. Nothing too surprisingly, or new. It's an opinion piece. But a good read.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...y-on-vertical-integration-ubb/article2007003/

Last week, Bell, Shaw, Quebecor, Rogers, Netflix, the Canadian Media Production Association, Open Media and hundreds of others filed documents detailing the stance they will take at crucial CRTC hearings on vertical integration and Usage-Based Billing in June and July.

At stake is control over a set of industries – what I call the ‘network media industries’ – that have grown immensely from $42.3-billion in revenue to nearly $74-billion between 1996 and 2009 (adjusted for inflation). Also at stake is whether the ‘business models’ of the dominant telecom and media giants or the open and decentralized principles of the Internet and digital media will set the course of development in the decades ahead.

The issues are also fundamentally about media concentration, a hotly contested subject that is as important as it has ever been, but one that is usually compromised by a lack of evidence. Consequently, fiery debates typically take place in a vacuum and closely track ideology rather than evidence.

To take one example: the existence of 500 ISPs suggests a highly competitive market. CRTC data, however, point in the opposite direction, with the “old” telephone or cable providers serving 95 per cent of subscribers and the “Big Six” (Bell, Shaw, Rogers, Telus, Quebecor, Cogeco) alone accounting for three quarters of the market.

My own data shows that concentration climbed sharply between 1996 and 2004, and has stayed remarkably flat ever since, with more than two-thirds of Internet access revenues going to the Big Six. While not quite as high as the CRTC’s figures, the upshot is still a few players competing in oligopolistic markets.

The problem with the CRTC’s data is three-fold: it focuses only on the top four or five players; it is presented inconsistently from one year to the next; it relies on information that it refuses to disclose. Last year, I filed several Access to Information requests to obtain this data, but was refused each step of the way.

I did so as the lead Canadian participant on the International Media Concentration Research Project – a project led by Eli Noam, a renowned Professor of Economics and Finance, and media expert, at Columbia University. The project includes more than forty researchers from across the political spectrum who are systematically collecting data for every sector of the telecom, media and Internet industries since 1984.

So, what does the evidence for Canada show?

First, that each sector of the media is concentrated by standard measures. Second, that patterns follow a U-shape, with concentration falling in the 1980s, rising sharply from the mid-1990s until peaking in the early 2000s, and staying relatively flat since then. Third, that concentration is high by global standards and more than twice as high than in the US.

These trends have been encouraged for several reasons. First, there can be no doubt that the Internet has vastly expanded the range of expression available, but this reality often overshadows the fact that several core aspects of the Internet are prone to concentration (e.g. ISPs, search, social networking sites, etc.) and that the biggest players now control an ever-expanding stable of outlets.

Formal rules on media concentration were adopted for the first time in 2008 by the CRTC and this is a far cry better than none at all. However, by using the same criteria used to regulate banking and granting frequent exceptions, the rules are weak and detached from the values of free speech and democracy.

Second, there is too much deference to claims that the traditional media are in crisis. Such claims are generally false (see here).

In fact, “old media,” such as television, have grown impressively and new media markets have been a boon for established players. The vast majority (95 per cent) of Internet access revenue ($6.5-billion), for instance, goes straight to the incumbents’ bottom-line.

Companies that have crashed and burned, notably Canwest, were actually profitable. However, saddled with debt, it could not weather the short-term decline in revenue caused by the global financial crisis and forced into bankruptcy in 2009-2010.

Third, the myth that Canada’s small media market requires big players with deep pockets further underpins consolidation. However, Canada has the eighth largest network media economy in the world, after France and Italy and just ahead of South Korea and Spain.

Independent ISPs, TV channel owners (the Weather Channel), online video providers (Netflix) and others have consistently claimed that the big players use their dominant positions to crush competition. The CRTC, despite its own analysis, has failed to deal with media concentration head-on. The Harper Government’s directives to rely on “market forces to the maximum extent feasible” have further disarmed the regulator.

These issues will no doubt come to a head during the vertical integration and Usage-Based Billing hearings. Yet, there is every reason to be skeptical about what can be accomplished given that this is a classic case of bolting the barn door after the horse has already left the stable. Industry Minister Tony Clement’s recent declaration that vertical integration is the way of the future further reinforces the perception.

This is not the way of the future; it is the way of a discredited past.

In the U.S., for instance, the fully integrated multimedia conglomerate has become the exception (e.g. Comcast/NBC-Universal) after the disastrous AOL-Time Warner merger, the break-up of Viacom-CBS and collapse of the “old” AT&T. Indeed, the reign of sprawling media conglomerates is in retreat in almost every other developed capitalist democracy.

With events in Canada running counter to trends elsewhere, it is time to think about breaking-up Bell/CTV, Shaw/Global (Corus), Rogers/City-TV and Quebecor/TVA (Sun TV) into two separate parts: network infrastructure and content services. This is called “structural separation” and under this scenario these entities would become wholesalers of network facilities and retailers of their own content and services.

They would sell access to their networks to other content providers and ISPs on equal terms. This would give them an incentive to increase revenue by intensifying the use of their networks by others instead of by prioritizing services and content they own. More than a century of experience teaches a simple rule: when allowed to combine network ownership with the content delivered over them, incumbents will always confer advantages on themselves that they deny to others.

Steps to address this reality are already in place in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Sweden. There may be circumstances in Canada that require unique adaptations of the separations principle. However, only by hiving off control over the medium (networks) from control over the message (content) will innovation, competition, free speech and an open network media ecology trump the incumbents’ vested interests and dogma.
Click to expand...
 
Now that the elections are done, and the "free market rules" conservatives have a majority, I will go ahead and assume nothing substantial will be done.
 
if your ISP's own streaming service isn't counted towards useage, and something like Netflix is thats the end of net neutrality imo
 
StevieP said:
Now that the elections are done, and the "free market rules" conservatives have a majority, I will go ahead and assume nothing substantial will be done.
Click to expand...

Not anytime soon anyways. The CRTC will probably hum and haw over this for months if not years. It don't have reason to believe the Conservatives will let UBB slip through, but they don't have a plan or platform regarding how to deal with the CRTC going forward. Its like they see why UBB is bad for Canada, but don't see how the CRTC is bad for letting it go as far as it did.

The NDP sees the CRTC for what it is, and hopefully being the opposition party now they'll have some marginal influence in how things play out.
 
So I officially switched to TekSavvy this week, and holy shit what a difference already.

It took about about 15 minutes to download the last episode of Doctor Who, as opposed to cable, with Bell, which took half an hour.

God Bell are such scam artists.
 
Man, reading these last few pages makes me feel bad for you Canadians, and sounds like an ominous prelude to the future of American broadband. No sir, I don't like it.
 
Negator said:
Man, reading these last few pages makes me feel bad for you Canadians, and sounds like an ominous prelude to the future of American broadband. No sir, I don't like it.
Click to expand...

It's already happening. Enjoy it.
 
MoFuzz said:
Good news for those with Shaw as their internet providers! They have listened to the Canadian people's cries and reacted accordingly:As taken from here.

SMH
Click to expand...
I told my dad about this about a month ago and he told me to start researching other ISPs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hear me out: Sony should bring Medievil back with a more serious tone & make it more skill based.
46
423
onQ123 replied
Crimson Desert Developer, Pearl Abyss says AI usage in the game were 'unintentional placeholders'
News  2
77
700
justiceiro replied
Nvidia shows neural texture compression cutting VRAM usage from 6.5GB to 970MB
2 3
128
1K
TheUnicornGuy replied
Developers: Please give me the option to remove swear words from your games | VGC writer begs developers to tone it down!
News  2 3
113
865
Revolutionary replied
Daniel Vavra stepping down from Warhorse to shoot live action KC:D movie instead
2
64
952
StueyDuck replied
Top Bottom