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

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

So why, then, is Mr. Clement even bothering, especially since it is pretty obvious that the CRTC decision is merely bringing some equity to a system that sensibly should be based on usage?
Click to expand...

I would agree with this if the price per Go wasn't so ludicrous.
 
Kifimbo said:
I would agree with this if the price per Go wasn't so ludicrous.
Click to expand...

This is the part that drives me nuts 1.50 a gig is so outrageous it is like the telco's are asking for an uprising. If they had come in at 10 cents or even 25 cents people wouldn't be so up in arms. Instead they tried to repeat their cellphone raping of consumers I hope this one blows up in their faces.
 
wipeout364 said:
This is the part that drives me nuts 1.50 a gig is so outrageous it is like the telco's are asking for an uprising. If they had come in at 10 cents or even 25 cents people wouldn't be so up in arms. Instead they tried to repeat their cellphone raping of consumers I hope this one blows up in their faces.
Click to expand...

Should be no more than 5cents/GB for the end user... And that's still a lot of money

2.5 cents/GB for max for resellers is fine too

Those should be the rates, not $2.00

This reminds of the cell data plans just before iPhone came along

$20 for 20 MB (!!!) overages 7cents a KB (WTF!!!)
 
Lol pro-ubb I wonder what other shit they accept and put up with. I wish I could cancel my cable too and only go with streaming content.

Have to at least get rid of home phone and switch to VoIP.ms.

Teksavvy charged only .25 pre ubb for every gb over the cap, that was wonderful compared to the other companies.
 
Zombie James said:
These pro-UBB people are funny:


he best route to that end is to allow the major companies to continue to compete in the installation of bigger and better bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would be great. Instead, we're getting the same lines and the price of the service, per GB, is skyrocketing.

Maybe if the major telcos wanted to launch a Canada-wide network upgrade plan over 5 years, and then ramp our service costs up to reflect the better service, I'd be okay with it.

But as it stands, I'm not paying (so much) more for the same.
 
Because the major companies in Canada have no competition, they have no need to upgrade infrastructure, just maintain it. This is capitalism as its worst. Without anyone to push these companies, they'll continue to ass rape us. And the government takes an eternity to step in, if they do at all.
 
Zombie James said:
If the government were to suddenly prevent Bell and others from continuing to charge higher fees for Canadian Internet users who consume more bandwidth, it would be massive policy reversal and a destructive one.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So they agree that the CRTC has always sided with Bell and other companies instead of Canadians.
 
That's the thing. My service just got downgraded to 1Mbps here in crappy Guelph. I'm literally at a service level below what my speed was in 1999 when I first got DSL in Toronto.

If they were putting money into the network and improving service, then fine. But obviously they're not doing anything of the sort.

What I don't understand is why aren't media/gaming companies being more public about this. I'm sure a lot of people will be hesitant to buy stuff on Steam/XBLA/PSN now, let alone "30,000 iTunes" (I know it's a typo, but it makes the dude sound like an idiot, so it's still funny).
 
EvilMario said:
Because the major companies in Canada have no competition, they have no need to upgrade infrastructure, just maintain it. This is capitalism as its worst. Without anyone to push these companies, they'll continue to ass rape us. And the government takes an eternity to step in, if they do at all.
Click to expand...

It's not really capitalism, it's economic nationalism. Allowing Verizon, AT&T and others to compete with Bell/Telus/Shaw/Videotron would probably create a bigger debate.
 
Kifimbo said:
It's not really capitalism, it's economic nationalism. Allowing Verizon, AT&T and others to compete with Bell/Telus/Shaw/Videotron would probably create a bigger debate.
Click to expand...
Or you could do the Australian thing, make broadband internet a national project and pay for the installation of new lines that cover the country.

But that would drag Canada out of the 20th century and I'm sure both the Conservatives and the Liberals would be happy if they could take us back to the 19th century.
 
firehawk12 said:
Or you could do the Australian thing, make broadband internet a national project and pay for the installation of new lines that cover the country.

But that would drag Canada out of the 20th century and I'm sure both the Conservatives and the Liberals would be happy if they could take us back to the 19th century.
Click to expand...

Except that the internet infrastructure in Canada for both phone and cable was largely paid for by tax payer dollars. But instead of the gov't managing it, they handed over the keys to these crooks.
 
Sinatar said:
Except that the internet infrastructure in Canada for both phone and cable was largely paid for by tax payer dollars. But instead of the gov't managing it, they handed over the keys to these crooks.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the DNC... Don't let a company manage this shit ffs
 
Sinatar said:
Except that the internet infrastructure in Canada for both phone and cable was largely paid for by tax payer dollars. But instead of the gov't managing it, they handed over the keys to these crooks.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the same thing that happened, so Australia went back to the drawing board and decided to do it again.

Except this time, when they privatize their new network, the new company is ONLY allowed to be a wholesaler. The reason why internet companies screw consumers is because they want you to buy everything from them - phone, tv, internet, cellphone, etc. UBB incentivizes their other offerings - you drop Netflix in order to watch movies on Demand from... whatever the Bell satellite network is called.

Australia seems to be doing it right this time, which is funny because only 5 years ago the positions were reversed.
 
firehawk12 said:
That's exactly the same thing that happened, so Australia went back to the drawing board and decided to do it again.

Except this time, when they privatize their new network, the new company is ONLY allowed to be a wholesaler. The reason why internet companies screw consumers is because they want you to buy everything from them - phone, tv, internet, cellphone, etc. UBB incentivizes their other offerings - you drop Netflix in order to watch movies on Demand from... whatever the Bell satellite network is called.

Australia seems to be doing it right this time, which is funny because only 5 years ago the positions were reversed.
Click to expand...

Curious, what's the ETA for Australia's plan?
 
I really hate people who think that UBB is a "fairness" that has been neglected and that the system has been abused.

56k's payment scheme was based on minutes/seconds, because it was built on top of the systems used to charge for long distance phone calls.

Groups like Bell then had the option to build a high speed network based on usage-billing, but they REJECTED IT in favor of creating a network based on speed billing.

We are already paying for speed. The ISPs would like to double dip and make us to pay for usage on top of that? One or the other, people. Next they'll decide to triple-dip on the Internet, because it's only fair that we pay for speed, and it's only fair that we pay for usage, and it's only fair that we pay for the amount of time we spend online. And then as soon as we get that pesky net neutrality out of the way, we'll pay for type of content (porn should obviously be the highest cost, because the fees do double duty as positive behavior modification). Quadruple-dipping is clearly the only way that a company that refuses to invest in the future can continue to post record profits.

The reason we're not on a usage-based system is because the ISPs would have to give MASSIVE concessions to more than 50% of their userbase, people who would be perfectly well served by lesser systems like 56k. The top 5% of the customer base is simply not going to accept paying to carry an Internet that doesn't suit their needs. They will go elsewhere. They'll airmail SSD hard drives if they have to. The ISPs would make less money with usage-based, not more.

The problem here is that Bell-et-all have spent years selling high speed Internet to grandmothers who get monthly emails from the grandkids. They've oversold and under developed, and pocketed the difference. Now little Susie might want to send a Youtube clip to Grandma? People are FINALLY starting to use more than 56k? No no no. That will not do. Someone has to pay for this unexpected new trend.
 
im happy the Liberals are looking to stop UBB for small companies. sadly a lot of us are still fucked out west since most areas you only have a choice of shaw or telus. both large companies set on keeping UBB. UBB needs to be stopped for all isp.

i really hope some protests start popping up outside the head offices of these ISP and the crtc. hopefully people get egyptian on their asses.


EvilMario said:
I know it won't, but I do hope this spirals into our other monopolized markets; notably cell phone.
Click to expand...

im hoping the same. curb stomp these companies back down to where they should be.

in my city of 25,000 we only have one tiny blockbuster left for movie content. the only other option is your cable providers service. netflix was going to be a god send for many here but with UBB that hope died.




For the time being it seems like Shaw has been relatively uninvolved, have they come into this story at all. Also just for interests sake as far as ISPs go out west are there any real alternatives to Shaw/Telus?
Click to expand...

no shaw is fully involved. they even lowered already low caps as soon as CRTC passed UBB. im just outside of edmonton, we have no choice except telus or shaw.


These pro-UBB people are funny:
Click to expand...

out west shaw has a dedicated team of people surfing the net supporting UBB. im sure the other companies do as well. fucking pathetic.
 
This is seriously fucking retarded. The CRTC has his head up its ass for so long now it doesn't even know it.

Canadians already getting majorly fucked by wireless carriers with some of the most expensive plans in the world and now we're getting double fucked by the internet providers too.
 
EvilMario said:
Congratulations, Aussie-GAF. Now I can list you with Sweden, Korea, Japan, and a host of other countries with amazing access to the net.
Click to expand...
Yep, meanwhile Bell tries to hock "Fibe" as some kind of revelation in internet access speeds.
 
firehawk12 said:
Yep, meanwhile Bell tries to hock "Fibe" as some kind of revelation in internet access speeds.
Click to expand...

They should be fined for using that deceptive made up word. They're too cheap to lay actual fiber so they just relax their throttling to make it seem your getting faster access. What a truly POS company. Glad I don't have to deal with these internet cockblockers.
 
They paid thousands (possibly hundreds of) for some marketing company to research and develop that shitty web 2.0-wannabe name.

I hate how no one brings up foreign nations when debating this issue. More populated and more densely populated first world countries around the world have successfully had a system where people have among the fastest sub-fiber speeds with unlimited caps and the Internet didn't come crashing down on everyone, whether it was privately owned pipes or nationalized. Your argument for caps are negated, there are working examples in the rest of the world. Don't look at the US, look further. I don't care if UBB is the issue or not, there are de facto caps as a result. Missing the forest for the trees.

Tony Clement talks about wanting Canada as one of the world telecom leaders (who wouldn't?), but I don't think he wants to rock the boat too much.
 
Slavik81 said:
I doubt they actually prepare for that possibility. They probably base it on statistical analysis of normal usage patterns, and ensure that something like 99.99% of the time they won't have to throttle traffic. If they did build infrastructure for 100% utilization, the network would be almost entirely unused all the time, and therefore an incredible waste.

UBB could help manage network load by having costs vary dynamically. Bandwidth during off-peak hours could be cheaper, encouraging people to make large transfers during other times. For the most part, I'd expect the impact to be very small on minor users, but large companies might choose to transfer backups off-site at cheaper times, or stuff like that.

We're trying to move towards that sort of system for electricity. That's part of the point of the 'smart grid'. Do energy-intensive things at night when it doesn't contribute to peak-power. Like processing aluminum and such. In fact, I'd bet that big electricity users already have deals of that sort.
Click to expand...

That would still be incredibly wasteful. I can't speak for other parts of the world, but in my country ISPs are required to assure you 10% of the speed they advertise at all times (i.e. at peak times) and you can definitely see them do just that. No caps yet though, so I'd still take it over your situation.
 
Tabris said:
They are going to overturn this. I don't know why we even have CRTC, get rid of it.
Click to expand...
That's one way to solve the problem. I mean, Bell and Rogers can't force indie ISPs to follow their bandwidth caps if indie ISPs don't exist, right?

Your response is about as stupid as that Financial Post writer's.
 
firehawk12 said:
That's the thing. My service just got downgraded to 1Mbps here in crappy Guelph. I'm literally at a service level below what my speed was in 1999 when I first got DSL in Toronto.

If they were putting money into the network and improving service, then fine. But obviously they're not doing anything of the sort.

What I don't understand is why aren't media/gaming companies being more public about this. I'm sure a lot of people will be hesitant to buy stuff on Steam/XBLA/PSN now, let alone "30,000 iTunes" (I know it's a typo, but it makes the dude sound like an idiot, so it's still funny).
Click to expand...

Like who? Netflix CEO released a sentence or two but that's ok he's got America.

Valve? Sony? Microsoft? Canada isn't their main source of income.
 
realraptor said:
Like who? Netflix CEO released a sentence or two but that's ok he's got America.

Valve? Sony? Microsoft? Canada isn't their main source of income.
Click to expand...

They still do business here, though, and it's becoming more and more online focused.
 
crazygambit said:
That would still be incredibly wasteful. I can't speak for other parts of the world, but in my country ISPs are required to assure you 10% of the speed they advertise at all times (i.e. at peak times) and you can definitely see them do just that. No caps yet though, so I'd still take it over your situation.
Click to expand...
Maybe a bit. That would equate to maxing out only during the busiest hour of the year. However, I wouldn't want to see it drop below 99%, which would be roughly 3 and a half days per year.

Really, though, the number I chose was kind of arbitrary. It just existed to help illustrate the general point.
 
Tabris said:
They are going to overturn this. I don't know why we even have CRTC, get rid of it.
Click to expand...

We need the CRTC to make sure quality Canadian programming like The King of Kensington and the Beachcombers aren't squeezed out by the invasion of American programming - amirite?

And, yes, the mere fact that the government has announced that they'll be reviewing the CRTC decision is already a nail in the coffin for UBB. The backlash has been felt. To not reverse this ruling would be political suicide. The people have won one for a change.
 
mugwhump said:
What, really? How do you know?
Click to expand...

people from redflagdeals and dslreports have uncovered them. shaws internal ip gives them away and then it's a matter of finding cross posting among sites.
 
Truespeed said:
We need the CRTC to make sure quality Canadian programming like The King of Kensington and the Beachcombers aren't squeezed out by the invasion of American programming - amirite?
Click to expand...
Without the quotas, I'd say many of our talented musicians wouldn't be able to get airtime as radio stations go with easy American music. I'm pretty glad for the quotas.
 
One more article with a piece of vital information:

If you went into a restaurant with a friend and they had an appetizer, main dish and a dessert while you had coffee and a salad, would you want to split the bill? The notion that if you consume more Internet traffic, you should pay more seems like a fair argument. The question then becomes, what is a fair price for those extra gigabytes of data?

To find out what is a fair price, I contacted several industry insiders. They informed me that approximately four years ago, the cost for a certain large Telco to transmit one gigabyte of data was around 12 cents. That’s after all of its operational and fixed costs were accounted for. Thanks to improved technology and more powerful machines, that number dropped to around 6 cents two years ago and is about 3 cents per gigabyte today.

Are these valid numbers? After the recent CRTC decision regarding UBB, it was announced that effective March 1st, Bell will be charging Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) providers $4.25 for a 40 GB block of additional data transfer.

The fact that Bell is able to sell 40 GB of data to wholesalers for $4.25 and still make a profit demonstrates that the true cost of data transfer is well below the 10.5 cents per gigabyte they are charging wholesalers. One TPIA provider agreed the 3 cents per gigabyte figure is probably close to the true cost.

So why are Internet service providers charging consumers $1 or more per gigabyte of data used beyond their respective data caps? That’s a good question.

Bell will charge you an additional $2 per gigabyte to a maximum of $60 a month up to 300GB. After 300 GB, you'll pay a $1 a gigabyte. Shaw is charging $2.00 per GB on its popular high-speed package while Rogers is charging a whopping $5 per gigabyte on its Ultra Lite plan and $2 per GB on its popular 10 Megabits per second service.

Assuming an inflated cost of 10 cents per gigabyte, it means that Bell, Shaw and Rogers are charging consumers between 10 and 50 times what it costs them to deliver data. This on top of their regular monthly Internet pricing! While I agree that heavy users should be prepared to pay more once they have reached their bandwidth caps, a fair price would be much closer to 10 cents per GB than the inflated $1-to-$5-per-gigabyte charge sanctioned by the CRTC.
Click to expand...

Yet another source that confirms the $0.03/GB figure, and that's after operational costs.
 
mugwhump said:
What, really? How do you know?
Click to expand...
It's pretty well known that companies send shills online all the time to defend shitty stuff. You really think all those well written, grammatically correct defenses of UBB are everyday users? Everyday users don't give a shit about UBB, and high end users don't support it.
 
Firestorm said:
Without the quotas, I'd say many of our talented musicians wouldn't be able to get airtime as radio stations go with easy American music. I'm pretty glad for the quotas.
Click to expand...

Quality rises to the top.
 
Takao said:
I'm sure you'd agree that Justin Bieber, Nickelback, Avril Lavigne, and Hedley are four of Canada's greatest musical acts, right?
Click to expand...

What does listing shitty bands and singers have to do with quality bands and singers being recognized?

By the way, last time I checked shit also floats.
 
Truespeed said:
Quality rises to the top.
Click to expand...
hahahahahahahahahaha

no

cheap and already marketed, low-risk already proven content rises to the top - aka american

edit: i somewhat like hedley :( I'm all for the system that gave us The Tragically Hip, Our Lady Peace, the tea party, Hot Hot Heat, The New Pornographers, etc though
 
Firestorm said:
hahahahahahahahahaha

no

cheap and already marketed, low-risk already proven content rises to the top - aka american

edit: i somewhat like hedley :(
Click to expand...

Um ya, whatever. If you can write great music, lyrics, sing and perform then you'll eventually get picked up. Unfortunately, this combination is relatively scarce, but it does exist and does eventually rise to the top.
 
Truespeed said:
Um ya, whatever. If you can write great music, lyrics, sing and perform then you'll eventually get picked up. Unfortunately, this combination is relatively scarce, but it does exist and does eventually rise to the top.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with you if we lived in a vacuum. However, for better or for worse, we live beside the largest culture producer in the world.
 
webrunner said:
If the resellers are getting 10c/gb, could someone like TekSavvy then charge, say, 15c/gb instead of two bucks?
Click to expand...
the 10c is only for the 40GB insurance blocks on top of the regular service.
 
can we have some kind of really or something in Toronto? Bring couple of cp24 woman and some newspapers take some photos with our angry smiles against rogers and telus and bell and all that
 
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
398
onQ123 replied
Crimson Desert Developer, Pearl Abyss says AI usage in the game were 'unintentional placeholders'
News  2
77
674
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
862
Revolutionary replied
Daniel Vavra stepping down from Warhorse to shoot live action KC:D movie instead
2
64
946
StueyDuck replied
Top Bottom