It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada regulator OKs metered Internet billing

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by wingsfan[/i
I miss the good ol internet circa 90's. most every site was free, few ads, few virus/worms etc.. and the government and large corporate interest was VERY minimal.


Around 93 or so, Bell floated the idea of charging people for accessing web pages outside the user's area code. CRTC shot them down. Looks like the CRTC got their gift bags this time around.




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Sorry guys. This is the simple truth of capitalism:

These companies see probably 5% of the users using around 80-90% of the bandwidth with heavy torrent downloading; video games; streaming media; etc. Those are the "power users". All that activity slows down the network for the 95% of users who are casual to medium level users. Normal browsing; occasional You Tube or song download. Why shouldn't they pay less and you pay more? It's just like your power bill--there's no flat fee. You are charged on the basis of what you use--I don't understand why this is such a problem.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcflint05
I don't understand why this is such a problem.


Simply the problem is the heavy leechers want everyone else to subsidise what they leech.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by zcflint05
 


power users or not, without concrete proof they hurt thier operations, it's just another money gouge. besides, even the most mundane browsing habits teters close to the proposed limits. theres capitalism and then theres just being a pig. like other users said, if heavy users are such a burden, then why are small isp's still offering unlimited?? phone companies do the same scam to. when enough smaller companies started offering afforadable, unlimited rates, the big companies got exposed for thier hustling and had to adjust.

large companies now get together and sign non-compete contracts then get political favor to do thier bidding on price fixing. all it takes is a small company top expose them. there is no more competition breeds consumer advantages. if you let them think for a second getting gouged is kosher, then stay on all fours cause theres more where that came from.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I was with a small provider for years that was unlimited usage and never throttled my speed. Then last year they sent out an email saying Bell was limiting them and not offering them top high speed anymore. When I went in to talk to them about this they said Bell had tied their hands on this matter. I was told that the average customer was using less then 20gb an month with about 5% of the customers using over 80%. The company would buy a block of gigs for the month from Bell but they never came close to using up what they bought each month.
This just shows that the big companies don't want any small business compatition

Check out the link it explains what is going on.
www.netneutralitycanada.ca/



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by wingsfan
power users or not, without concrete proof they hurt thier operations, it's just another money gouge.


I work in Telecoms and can say that there are, in the public domain where the ISP's use contention, problems caused by the few who torrent endlessly causing other users to not get what they are paying for. If ISP's took no action, then the backhaul routes would (and are) get over utilised. I see no problem with paying a bit extra if I am a heavy downloader.

Currently, I have "unlimited" (fair use) 50Mps from Virgin and I want that speed available to me all the time, as I'm paying for it and quite a bit too. If others in my street are using their full bandwidth all the time to torrent dodgy films, games and the like then what do you think will happen to my speed and is that fair? The only other recourse ISP's could do is major network overhauls to increase backbone capacity which costs money, which will be passed on to everyone in higher bills.


Originally posted by wingsfan
besides, even the most mundane browsing habits teters close to the proposed limits. theres capitalism and then theres just being a pig.


Define mundane. Web browsing and occasional surfing won't even push you past 2Gb for a month. I know this because I use my Vodafone 3G smartphone on my laptop with a 2Gb limit and have never exceeded it. On my desktop, which is connected to my normal broadband, even on a busy month of downloading games of steam I rarely exceed 50Gb a month, maybe pushing it to 75Gb on occasion.


Originally posted by wingsfan
like other users said, if heavy users are such a burden, then why are small isp's still offering unlimited??


It's called a loss leader. Entice people in with "unlimited" so they can compete and get their customer base up. But there will still be terms in their contracts to restric service if "fair use" has been deemed to be broken.


Originally posted by wingsfan
phone companies do the same scam to. when enough smaller companies started offering afforadable, unlimited rates, the big companies got exposed for thier hustling and had to adjust.


As I said, small companies can only comepet with the big boys by basically giving their service away and trying to build up their base. Once the small fry become big fish, price increases are likely.


Originally posted by wingsfan
large companies now get together and sign non-compete contracts then get political favor to do thier bidding on price fixing.


That should be illegal and if you suspect as much, then you should report them to the proper authorities. I know here in the UK, OFCOM takes a very dim view of monopolous or uncompetative practices.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
*snip*
edit on 30-1-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I understand what your saying to a point. yes I know bandwidth hogs effect everyone in the end, but to limit is still iffy to me. I'm in the US and have Cox service. they are an extremely profitable company, as for the most part they are the ONLY company. of course there is dsl options here where I'm at but that is lousy garbage.

a couple years back major competition entered the area with tons of advertisement (comcast). they never got off thier feet here. cox communications is a major political contributor where I live and got comcast out of the picture fast.

point being I know these companies are monopolizing and profitable. sticking heavy users isn't going to make everyones internet better, given enough time they will stick the light users to. now this is of course in reference to a canadian issue and you are english. but coming from america, we know this game too well already. we get the shaft on everything here. our government and corporate entities work in tandum, and in the end we always get nailed. if you guys in england have a better and more fair system then great, but in america it's crap. and once they learn to get away with screwing us they take it north to canada and vise/versa.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by wingsfan
 


Yeah, from what I hear in the US alot of smaller towns and what have you have single providers in the area, effectively creating a monopoly. Not good for business in the grander scheme of things, but great for the incumbent. Here in the UK our incumbent BT is getting hammered by the regulator so much they cannot engage in such practices and have to open up their network to others, plus we have several other national telco's to choose from with their own networks, such as Virgin. Choice is the key to competition and ultimately low prices and fair deals.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Define mundane. Web browsing and occasional surfing won't even push you past 2Gb for a month. I know this because I use my Vodafone 3G smartphone on my laptop with a 2Gb limit and have never exceeded it. On my desktop, which is connected to my normal broadband, even on a busy month of downloading games of steam I rarely exceed 50Gb a month, maybe pushing it to 75Gb on occasion.


I'm sitting at 1.5 gig for today so far. Streaming al-jazeera for a couple of hours and a couple of skype calls. For me, that's mundane. Haven't bought any content from iTunes, for example.

Five years ago, downloading a gig in a day... I have no idea how I'd have done that. A year from now, two years from now, as more and more video switches over to high-def and more networks put content online, 5 gigs a day will be pretty normal.

That's what's behind this metering scam. And I say scam, because one of the companies (Rogers) controls a huge amount of the Canadian media - and Canadians will be paying a premium to access their content via the internet. The option is to get cable (owned by Rogers) or go satellite (and pay Bell, one of the other companies).

Canada's internet infrastructure has been in a steady decline for over a decade now. Yet profits have increased, year on year, as have costs to the consumer. Those responsible for maintaining the infrastructure have chosen to spend the money elsewhere - expanding media empires and executive bonuses - and now that it's approaching a crisis point, they claim it's the fault of the consumer for using too much. And they refuse to allow the market to be opened up to international competition.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
with regards to internet in the uk i occasionally hear of indviduals who assume unlimited internet be it smartphone or broadband is unlimited only to be charged a wad when they exceed the fair usage policy. i think it comes down to reading the small print prior to signing up to a service. education is the key here i think.
the tiered system was inevitable.
f



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


1-2Gb a day seems fine and "mundane". That only totals a max of 60 Gb a month, well under most "fair use" policies I've seen.

Bottom line is though, no one is forcing you to do anything online just like no-one forces you to use a certian amount of Electric or Gas. If one wants to use more than their contract allows, then they should pay a bit extra. Like I said, I get 75Gb a month as a "fair user" and can exceed without being charged, providing I don't make a habit of it. I am an avid PC gamer, play online and purchase most (if not all) of my games via Steam or Gamersgate, so I do use alot of bandwidth so I can see why some may get funny about it.

It seems that the problem over the pond is actually lack of competition, rather than anything else. Over here in the UK/EU, we have ALOT of choice so it keeps prices down and gives you a better deal.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
Canada's internet infrastructure has been in a steady decline for over a decade now. Yet profits have increased, year on year, as have costs to the consumer. Those responsible for maintaining the infrastructure have chosen to spend the money elsewhere - expanding media empires and executive bonuses - and now that it's approaching a crisis point, they claim it's the fault of the consumer for using too much. And they refuse to allow the market to be opened up to international competition.


This is the heart of the problem right here and has been for years. Rogers/Bell/Telus all drink from the same cup, the one with dollar signs. All 3 companies have the CTRC by the short and curlies who in turn also have canadian consumers held at ransom. The CRTC's mandate and deliverables are like their staff, old, saggy and useless. They need to go, about as fast as the Egyptian government.

There was mention in one post to simply use alternate ISP's, smaller companies. That won't work since they essentially piggyback off the big boys, hence the new controls. The argument for ISP's that they need to protect their infrastructures and networks is bogus. There are tools and measures by which they can, and have been, throttling traffic. Deep packet inspection and even SSL termination are possible but that's another story.

There is no coincidence here that rogers and even bell are unhappy with netflix. This service is a clear shot at upgrading the crap quality of TV they pretend to offer. It hits them square between the eyes and digs into their revenues. So they lobby the government and here we are with probably even worse to come.

People have a choice though. Downgrade ALL your services to base packages, kill the fluff or added pieces (if its canadian its junk anyways). Stop your cell phone services with the big 3 and go with alternate providers. Download at coffee shops, libraries or even work. Point here is hit them in the pocket book its the only way they will listen. Petitions and playing some crappy beatles song to get your point across is a colossal waste of time and you look like a fool.

Screw the big players as hard as you can and as much as you can, only then will you see results. Dont even start on TV, Canadian TV has been the butt end of real world tv and jokes for years, a complete failure and embarassment (but there are good alternatives)

brill

edit on 30-1-2011 by brill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
IMHO,The
Government ruled in favor of this because it will be receiving millions more in Taxes and the usual kickback party donations.


Four years after Canada deregulated its telecommunications industry with the promise it would bring competition, better service and lower prices, Canadian consumers are instead paying too much for broadband service that delivers too little.

That is the conclusion of a new report from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a non-profit consumer protection organization that compared provider promises with the bills ordinary Canadians ultimately pay for their Internet service.

Michael Janigan, the report’s author told CBC News that deregulation has brought “super-normal” profits for Bell, Telus and Rogers — among Canada’s largest telecom companies — while those same providers continue to increase prices and, in some cases, reduce the amount of broadband usage customers can access before overlimit fees kick in.




Bell, Canada’s largest telecom company, stands to gain even more power over the broadband marketplace with a ruling from Canada’s telecommunications authority that has direct implications for Canada’s independent service provider market. Most third party providers obtain their Internet connectivity from Bell at wholesale pricing. Thanks to a now-approved-request from Bell to charge wholesale customers usage-based pricing, providers are now forced to pass along those artificially high prices to Canadian consumers.

“The days of unlimited Internet service are about to become extinct in Canada,” says Stop the Cap! reader Giles in Trois-Rivières, Quebec. “How surprised can you be that the company that sells access to competitors has managed to find a way to price that competition out of business.”

For one such competitor, Primus, the effect of Bell’s usage-based pricing will have an immediate impact on their customers’ monthly bills.

The company is now notifying customers that effective Feb. 1, the unlimited service plans that appealed to those opposed to usage-limited broadband will be now limited to just 25GB of usage per month. Primus directly implicated both Bell and the the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for the pricing changes.

Those who exceed the limit face overlimit fees of $2.00 per gigabyte, up to a maximum of $60 per month.
stopthecap.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Poor, working class types like myself are losing our voice online. The bright side; one less bill to pay.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Eh, I've only got a 60gb download limit. No unlimited plans here, well, unless you want to go with a cruddy ISP where the speeds are shocking.

Who even needs internet TV anyway?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Bottom line is though, no one is forcing you to do anything online just like no-one forces you to use a certian amount of Electric or Gas.


No one is forcing me to live in an apartment, but if the roof leaks I've got the right to protest it - especially if the landlord tries to raise my rent or locks me out if I spend too many hours a day here. Granted, I could go live in a tree, but that's a bit stupid.

The internet is infrastructure, and access to it is considered widely to be as essential as a telephone or electricity to the functioning of modern society and the economy.

This is about changing the terms of access to that infrastructure to force people to pay more for less, and removing competition from the marketplace to prop up an effective oligopoly that knows that demand will increase over time.

It means paying a little more today, a lot more next year, and a hell of a lot more in in 10 years for a service that most countries consider to be essential infrastructure, while at the same time accepting fewer options and lower levels of service.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Cygnis
 




They are putting an increased price on "information" that in most cases, is free.

It's a principal, thats what matters.



stumason's right - originally, ALL usage was metered. ...I remember a net conference that jacked the phone bill up to $850.

BUT. The marketing strategy pitched free access, got everyone hooked, now they're changing the rules again. Truth is, unlimited access really does NOT cost more to provide.

imho - free information and free access to information is the mark of a civilized nation. Creating an "information elite" is the mark of tyranny.









TRYING TO GET VID TO LOAD

edit on 30/1/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 30/1/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 30/1/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
stumason's right - originally, ALL usage was metered. ...I remember a net conference that jacked the phone bill up to $850.



In Canada it was metered by time for dial-up, but I don't remember unlimited access not being an option after about 1993. And if you went over, they wouldn't scale you down to 800 baud. They'd bill you, and give you a number to call to upgrade your service.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Do they liberty or shaped usage plans?

I pay $69.95 for 200GB on adsl2+ but once i go over that limit my speed get shaped to 64kbs. Which is a nuicence but it stops any huge bills and normally 200gb is enough anyways.

Although give it time, the smaller ISP's will probably argue and may even take it to court or whichever government body overlooks it all as it will be seen as anti-competitive behaviour.

The problem the smaller ISP's have is the dont have the capital to lay out their own infrastructure, which in turn will give the larger and wholesale ISP's an unfair advantage.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join