The internet is dead in canada... 25gb cap for everybody

[AFurryReptile]

http://canadiandownload.com/

Don't worry guys, you're going to be all right.

 

[meltdown75]

boom

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...everse-crtc-decision-on-internet-billing?bn=1

 

[Phokus]

boom

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...everse-crtc-decision-on-internet-billing?bn=1

Democracy prevailed.

 

[Howard]

Democracy prevailed.

And to think, most of the feedback was by email, Twitter and Facebook. Times definitely are a-changin'.

 

[coreyb]

I sent an e-mail to my representative. Good to hear the news...now just waiting to see exactly how it pans out.

 

[Ninjahedge]

And to think, most of the feedback was by email, Twitter and Facebook. Times definitely are a-changin'.

I actually find that Ironic......

 

[Number1]

Praise the lord!!!!!

The rich were going to get richer and the poor poorer and the fucking republicans in here were tripping over each others to tell us it's a good thing..... LOL (Never mind that they all get better pricing then most of us Canadians as it is).

Screw Rogers, Screw Bell, I am pleased the government acted so quickly. Excellent.

Jesus Christ, I used over 5G yesterday alone.

 

[KMFJD]

And that's the heart of the matter. If you use that much then pay for it. There are tons of providers that would bend over backwards to give you internet no matter where you are, as long as you pay for it.

I got a 155 Mbs OC3 in the middle of nowhere, not a problem. But I had to pay for it.

sure you do

 

[sdifox]

Praise the lord!!!!!

The rich were going to get richer and the poor poorer and the fucking republicans in here were tripping over each others to tell us it's a good thing..... LOL (Never mind that they all get better pricing then most of us Canadians as it is).

Screw Rogers, Screw Bell, I am pleased the government acted so quickly. Excellent.

Jesus Christ, I used over 5G yesterday alone.

I don't want this stayed. I want the whole issue to be completely re-examined, the caps that are in place for 95% of Canadians is still crap. How we actually regressed on internet access compared to ten years ago is beyond me. I think it's time we take back the last mile. Bell, Rogers and Shaw have proven they cannot be trusted when it comes to utility type service such as internet.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Come on guys don't celebrate too much now, they'll just go back to the drawing board and find some other way to restrict/limit usage unless you're willing to pay a price. You don't shoot down something like this so quickly without preparing for Round 2. Good luck though, this is an important time for the internet.

 

[actuarial]

Come on guys don't celebrate too much now, they'll just go back to the drawing board and find some other way to restrict/limit usage unless you're willing to pay a price. You don't shoot down something like this so quickly without preparing for Round 2. Good luck though, this is an important time for the internet.

It's true. The issue here isn't UBB, which actually makes sense. No one would contend that all cell phone plans should be unlimited minutes. Same as unlimited long distance plans or cable packages should only include every channel etc.

The issue is allowing a privately run utility - which internet has now become. This is a very hard problem to undue, considering that rogers/bell owns the infrastructure. They can charge whatever they want because they have a near monopoly, AND they own the infrastructure necessary to offer the service.

UBB makes perfect sense if the charge is relative to the cost of usage. The current decision didn't accomplish that. They were already making boatloads of money in the current unlimited state (due to the duopoly), so if UBB was properly implemented everyone below average bandwidth should have had reduced fees. Since that wasn't the case it was clear that the change had nothing to do with billing based on usage cost. That and the charges for additional usage couldn't be close to actual cost, otherwise they would have gone bankrupt years ago.

I personally don't want to pay the same as a high bandwidth user and DO support moving to a usage based system. With that said, I'm not going to let the telcoms use that desire as a excuse to fuck over all users.

 

[sdifox]

It's true. The issue here isn't UBB, which actually makes sense. No one would contend that all cell phone plans should be unlimited minutes. Same as unlimited long distance plans or cable packages should only include every channel etc.

The issue is allowing a privately run utility - which internet has now become. This is a very hard problem to undue, considering that rogers/bell owns the infrastructure. They can charge whatever they want because they have a near monopoly, AND they own the infrastructure necessary to offer the service.

UBB makes perfect sense if the charge is relative to the cost of usage. The current decision didn't accomplish that. They were already making boatloads of money in the current unlimited state (due to the duopoly), so if UBB was properly implemented everyone below average bandwidth should have had reduced fees. Since that wasn't the case it was clear that the change had nothing to do with billing based on usage cost. That and the charges for additional usage couldn't be close to actual cost, otherwise they would have gone bankrupt years ago.

I personally don't want to pay the same as a high bandwidth user and DO support moving to a usage based system. With that said, I'm not going to let the telcoms use that desire as a excuse to fuck over all users.

yeah, like they are going to give up the cash cows, the regular users that use 5gb a month and pay 45 dollars a month for that privilege.

 

[ShawnD1]

The issue is allowing a privately run utility - which internet has now become. This is a very hard problem to undue, considering that rogers/bell owns the infrastructure. They can charge whatever they want because they have a near monopoly, AND they own the infrastructure necessary to offer the service.

All we need to do is regulate them. Privately owned stuff fine is long as it's regulated. Alberta's power infrastructure is all private and it works great because it's tightly regulated. The telephone network in the US was for a long time owned by AT&T and it was not regulated, so the service was horrible. It was basically 1 telephone company saying this is your rate, pay it or go fuck yourself since there's no other telephone company you can work with.

 

[Ninjahedge]

The key here is what you have been saying. If they go to a UBB system, they will not lower the low BW users, they will simply use them as the "base price" for their model and charge those that use it more...more.

 

[actuarial]

yeah, like they are going to give up the cash cows, the regular users that use 5gb a month and pay 45 dollars a month for that privilege.

They don't have to give up the cash cow. They can still take in the same amount of money and just allocate it based on a flat fee + usage, as opposed to allocating it equally to every person.

Example:
I pay $50 a month and use 25gb
You pay $50 a month and use 75gb

Implement UBB:
I pay $25/month + $0.50/gb: $37.50
You pay $25/month + $0.50/gb: $62.50

 

[MikeyLSU]

They don't have to give up the cash cow. They can still take in the same amount of money and just allocate it based on a flat fee + usage, as opposed to allocating it equally to every person.

Example:
I pay $50 a month and use 25gb
You pay $50 a month and use 75gb

Implement UBB:
I pay $25/month + $0.50/gb: $37.50
You pay $25/month + $0.50/gb: $62.50

but you assume usage will be the same with pricing like that. I have no clue what I do, but I promise you if they started charging like that, I would be sure to backup all steam games before reformatting on a second HDD. I would also probably cut back on other things if I was going too far over the limit.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I was going to say the same thing.

Usage patterns vary on a change, but they will also vary from month to month.

It is hard to have a budget if your income keeps varying. If you are guaranteed a certain amount, you can easily see what your surplus is and plan accordingly.

What would happen if everyone, for some unknown reason, stopped streaming (on average) for 3 months?

 

[Zargon]

They don't have to give up the cash cow. They can still take in the same amount of money and just allocate it based on a flat fee + usage, as opposed to allocating it equally to every person.

Example:
I pay $50 a month and use 25gb
You pay $50 a month and use 75gb

Implement UBB:
I pay $25/month + $0.50/gb: $37.50
You pay $25/month + $0.50/gb: $62.50

I would certainly change my usage as i would not be paying 120+ bucks a month for internet. that would make it equal with some of my power bills

 

[0roo0roo]

but you assume usage will be the same with pricing like that. I have no clue what I do, but I promise you if they started charging like that, I would be sure to backup all steam games before reformatting on a second HDD. I would also probably cut back on other things if I was going too far over the limit.

yea thats no way to go about it, if that had been in place youtube would never had existed. you can't have folks looking over their backs for their bandwidth running out on wired broadband. if you don't want to give that much, then make the pipe smaller for the price, that has always been the way before, tiers of bandwidth. it just makes no sense to get caps when the cost of bandwidth continuously drops and should continuously drop because of competition. caps restrict competition between carriers, and fatten profits, that is all. only in wireless does capping make sense, where they can't always jack up the bandwidth relatively easily.

 

[Krynj]

I'd never make it.

 

[sdifox]

They don't have to give up the cash cow. They can still take in the same amount of money and just allocate it based on a flat fee + usage, as opposed to allocating it equally to every person.

Example:
I pay $50 a month and use 25gb
You pay $50 a month and use 75gb

Implement UBB:
I pay $25/month + $0.50/gb: $37.50
You pay $25/month + $0.50/gb: $62.50

You mean they actually want a fair system? :awe: The baseline cost should not be 25 dollars since maintaining your account does not cost anywhere near that. call it 5 dollars + 20cent/gb usage then sure, it would be fair. But there is no way they want it to be fair. They make most of their money off low usage users. They just want to crush the small players and drive them under. Once they are gone, the big ISPs can charge whatever they want.

 

[Lotheron]

Hey look, it's what I said already!

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....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!

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Canadian-Caps-Arent-Economically-Justified-112535

 

[meltdown75]

i got an email reply from Michael Ignatieff today... anyone else get it?

Jason --

It’s another step towards an open and competitive internet in Canada, and it's thanks to you.

Late last night, news broke that Tony Clement will ask the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to reverse their decision on usage-based internet billing – a decision that allows internet service providers to impose download limits and new fees.

Our work is not yet done. We need to keep up the pressure until the CRTC’s decision is reversed once and for all.

Canadian families and businesses need open, affordable, unlimited internet access. The future of our economy depends on it. The Conservative government should have known that from the start.

When messages like yours reached us this past weekend – on Twitter and Facebook, by email, phone and fax – my Liberal colleagues and I knew what we had to do.

On Tuesday morning, we sided with you against the CRTC’s decision. By the end of the day, Liberal MPs on the Industry Committee had already begun an investigation. Then, yesterday, we kept the pressure on the Conservative government during Question Period in the House of Commons. At tonight’s meeting of the Industry Committee, Liberal MPs will tell CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein to reverse course.

This isn't the first time that you’ve stared down the Conservatives over an open internet — and that's why tens of thousands of you visited our action page at http://www.liberal.ca/ubb/, to join our digital policy email list and help carry the fight into Parliament.

This is your movement. You rallied on Twitter. You wrote emails and called Tony Clement’s office. You made the difference.

We all know that there are wider issues at stake here. After five years of Stephen Harper, Canada still has no digital plan. The Conservatives’ proposed copyright bill contains unfair digital lock provisions. Canadians are less connected and face higher internet costs than citizens of other OECD countries. And don’t even get me started on the long-form census.

Liberals have been engaged on these issues. In 2009, we worked with the Openmedia.ca / Save Our Net Coalition on Net Neutrality, a position that we support wholeheartedly. Last fall, we announced our Open Government Initiative, which will make government data accessible to all Canadians.

At the heart of our digital policy is a core Liberal value: we must make Canada more competitive and more innovative. That means expanding high-speed internet access to every region of the country, fair and equitable wholesale access, and transparent pricing.

We must build a digital strategy for Canada that embraces the energy, entrepreneurial spirit, and innovative creativity of consumers, businesses and digital influencers like you.

We'll keep the pressure on the Conservatives in Parliament to make sure they follow through and reverse the CRTC’s decision on usage-based billing. This victory is just a taste of what we can accomplish, if we continue this fight together.

I hope you’ll join the Liberal Party's digital policy email list at http://www.liberal.ca/ubb/. Let’s build a more open, more competitive future for Canada.

Thank you for being engaged.

Michael Ignatieff

 

[sdifox]

Them politicians are quick to pat themselves on the back.

 

[actuarial]

You mean they actually want a fair system? :awe: The baseline cost should not be 25 dollars since maintaining your account does not cost anywhere near that. call it 5 dollars + 20cent/gb usage then sure, it would be fair. But there is no way they want it to be fair. They make most of their money off low usage users. They just want to crush the small players and drive them under. Once they are gone, the big ISPs can charge whatever they want.

I'm just giving a random example, not what I think the actual numbers should be. I have no idea what the cost of running a line is. The flat fee needs to cover the cost of maintaining your account (including customer service, tech support), and also the cost of infrastructure. If you and I both have T1 lines, we should pay the same amount for getting the line into our homes.

If it were to turn out that the cost of providing you excessive bandwidth is very close to providing me basically none, then I agree we shouldn't have UBB.

What I don't like is companies one on hand complaining that their networks can't handle the traffic and then on the other pushing traffic heavy services (like IPTV).