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

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

@anotherkady said:
"If you can recreate the cable for DSLAMs," Molnar suggests, and coordinate total volume to peak node utilization... #UBB

Why not do that on peak usage? Silence. #UBB

ANd no, the audio feed didn't come out because I can hear shuffling. And tension. #UBB
Click to expand...

Ok, definitely going to need audio of this later.
 
Hearings are over, decision is coming in the fall. UBB is 100% dead, and judging by the grilling Bell got it doesn't seem like AVP will get accepted, either.
 
Zombie James said:
Hearings are over, decision is coming in the fall. UBB is 100% dead, and judging by the grilling Bell got it doesn't seem like AVP will get accepted, either.
Click to expand...
Ex-Bell/Rogers execs are going to rule against Bell/Rogers? I'm holding my breath.
 
Zombie James said:
Hearings are over, decision is coming in the fall. UBB is 100% dead, and judging by the grilling Bell got it doesn't seem like AVP will get accepted, either.
Click to expand...

I really really hope you are right, so hard to be optimistic about this matter :(
 
TheExodu5 said:
How so?
Click to expand...

No one is interested in perusing UBB as it was when this thread started (charging individual consumers $x.xx/GB). Bell now wants a model called AVP where they charge indy ISPs $0.178/GB (it used to be higher and included buying a $200/TB block, but they dropped it during these hearings). Indy ISPs want a 95th percentile model, and MTS just wants to rent a dumb pipe. These are the three models the CRTC is going to be considering.

A couple of things came out of this hearing:

  • Bell's claim that AVP address congestion is bullshit since it doesn't address peak network usage.
  • What Bell charges per GB has nothing to do with what it actually costs, it's completely market (profit) driven.

And then you have Bibic's multiple meltdowns, like threatening to take speed matching to court and claiming they don't make any money in the internet business. All this stuff is on the record.
 
I'm not looking forward to the ruling, because I don't expect anything sensible to come out of it. Funny how Tony Clement, and a few other out spoken members of the PC, have really quieted down on the matter after the elections.
 
Decision(s) going down right now. People attending are being locked down (no phones or Wifi) until 4pm so there probably won't be any leaks until then, but you never know.
 
It's up, reading now: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2011/r111115.htm

The CRTC has selected two wholesale billing models that will give independent ISPs the flexibility to develop innovative business models. Moreover, the models do not contain any provisions that would require independent ISPs to impose bandwidth caps on their retail customers. The decision to impose such caps is left to the ISP and not mandated by the CRTC.

a) Capacity-based model

The first option is known as the capacity-based model, which contains three separate components:

a monthly access rate for each of the independent ISP’s retail customers
a monthly capacity charge, offered in increments of 100 megabits per second, and
any applicable ancillary charges, such a monthly interface charge and associated service charges.

This model allows large telephone and cable companies to charge separately for access and usage, but at the same time recognizes that independent ISPs are in the best position to forecast their needs. By determining in advance the bandwidth they need, independent ISPs assume the risk and responsibility associated with planning and managing the impact their customers will have on the large companies’ networks.

b) Flat-rate model

The second option is the existing flat-rate model, which contains two separate components:

a monthly access rate for each of the independent ISP’s retail customers, and
any applicable ancillary charges, such a monthly interface charge and associated service charges.

This model allows large telephone and cable companies to recover their costs by charging independent ISPs a flat monthly fee, regardless of how much bandwidth their customers use.
Click to expand...
 
SuperMarioFan462 said:
Bad news for pirates.
Click to expand...
Bad news for anyone who shares a house with roomates who all use netflix or any streaming service.

Me and my girl alone use around 200 out of our 250gb a month just from netflix/itunes/youtube.

it's bullshit, as if the usage cost these companies so much money.
 
styl3s said:
Bad news for anyone who shares a house with roomates who all use netflix or any streaming service.

Me and my girl alone use around 200 out of our 250gb a month just from netflix/itunes/youtube.

it's bullshit, as if the usage cost these companies so much money.
Click to expand...

I read your post first and you scared me man!
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/15/pol-crtc-ubb-decision.html

The CRTC’s decision gives the incumbents two options for charging the independent internet service providers — a flat rate or a rate based on capacity and the number of users.

Bell had asked to be able to charge based on the total volume of internet data used by its wholesale customers. The regulator rejected that model.

The capacity rate model charges based on the speed of the service — meaning the small ISPs will be paying for the size of the pipe, not the amount of data that flows through the pipe. And it means small ISPs will have to pay more to provide faster internet to their customers.

The CRTC requires Bell and Rogers to allow the smaller companies to use their internet infrastructure and regulates the price which they can charge for it.

Another part of the decision will force the small ISPs to plan how much internet they expect to need. If they require more than they’d planned for, they will need to buy more capacity from the established providers.

Part of the rationale for going with a capacity model is that it costs more for the infrastructure to provide faster internet. The infrastructure is much of the cost for providers like Bell and Rogers, who are the only ones who directly reach consumers' homes.

Konrad von Finckenstein, chair of the CRTC, said in a statement that the regulator's goal is to encourage as many options as possible for internet services in Canada.

"Independent ISPs provide an alternative to the large telephone and cable companies, but must rely on these same companies for certain elements of their network. Under the capacity-based model announced today, they will have to forecast their usage and plan accordingly."
Click to expand...
 
"a monthly access rate for each of the independent ISP’s retail customers
a monthly capacity charge, offered in increments of 100 megabits per second, and
any applicable ancillary charges, such a monthly interface charge and associated service charges"

"a monthly access rate for each of the independent ISP’s retail customers, and
any applicable ancillary charges, such a monthly interface charge and associated service charges."

In English, doc? Please.
 
BY2K said:
"a monthly access rate for each of the independent ISP’s retail customers
a monthly capacity charge, offered in increments of 100 megabits per second, and
any applicable ancillary charges, such a monthly interface charge and associated service charges"

"a monthly access rate for each of the independent ISP’s retail customers, and
any applicable ancillary charges, such a monthly interface charge and associated service charges."

In English, doc? Please.
Click to expand...

Basically, indie ISPs won't have to charge users per GB or pay Bell/Rogers themselves per GB. It's all based on capacity (speed) now, not usage.
 
Divvy said:
Some of the news sources are reporting this as a small bell victory?
Click to expand...
Only if you think that Bell getting any money instead of having to give it away for free is a victory.
 
I had a pretty terrible experience with teksavvy. Their support is still bottleknecked by rogers if anything serious happens like dhcp. I won't be using a 3rd party again until i get a job that doesn't rely on always up internet. This is a good first step but the service still remains unreliable.
 
http://teksavvynews.ca/index.php

Chatham, Ontario, November 15, 2011 – TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (“TekSavvy”), one of Canada’s leading independent internet service providers, is disappointed with the rates for the wholesale high-speed services that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) approved today. The rates are for services that Internet service providers need to purchase from the large telephone and cable companies, such as Bell and Rogers, in order to provide Internet access services to their own retail customers.

In Telecom Regulatory Policies CRTC 2011-703 and 2011-704 issued today the CRTC the CRTC implemented new rate structures and rates for wholesale services.

TekSavvy is pleased with the rate structure adopted, but the actual rates will increase the cost of Internet for Canadian consumers.

“The CRTC decision is a step back for consumers. The rates approved by the Commission today will make it much harder for independent ISPs to compete”, said Marc Gaudrault, TekSavvy’s CEO. “This is an unfortunate development for telecommunications competition in Canada”, he added.
Click to expand...

Anyone know what the rates are?
 
Canada sounds like heaven if it wasn't for your Insane Conservative Politicians in power or your shit telecommunication companies.
 
Trojita said:
Canada sounds like heaven if it wasn't for your Insane Conservative Politicians in power or your shit telecommunication companies.
Click to expand...

to be fair, our insane conservatives are what you would call "centrists" in america. The best thing about Canadian minorities being so prevalent is that politicians know they cant win with only white people so they are a bit more tolerant.
 
TheExodu5 said:
From what I'm hearing (from a guy at work who's been following this story), $1000/mo for a 100mbps connection. That sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...
guess thats a true 100mbps up and down connection? Seems really high

hell Shaw offers residential 100mbps down 5mbps up with 500gb cap per month for 69.00..hows in indy isp gonna compete with that?
 
amrod said:
I pay 150 for 100Mbit down with shaw.... only 6Mbit up though, unlimited bw
Click to expand...
My dad works for a company that got bought out by Shaw.

Our 50Mb down is like 30$ a month with 500GB monthly cap
 
Zombie James said:
http://teksavvynews.ca/index.php
Anyone know what the rates are?
Click to expand...

From the dude who runs Teksavvy over at dslreports.
Hey gang, I have to leave and join everybody at the ISP Summit as we all digest this further. In a nutshell though I'm not happy.

In essence I like the model but the usage component is way too high. As an example, a gig link from Bell currently costs us something like $1700/mth and under this plan it would go up to $22000/mth then looking at the MTSA pricing - $2810/mth for the same thing... it just doesn't pass the smell test.

more to come.. going to see Katz speak at dinner! maybe he can explain it better somehow..
Click to expand...

I'm too tired to tell if those numbers are realistic though.
 
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
697
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
951
StueyDuck replied
Top Bottom