CRTC To Allow Usage-Based Billing

Idiomatick writes "The CRTC ruled in favor this week for usage-based billing. Bell Canada was given a monopoly on lines in Canada, and in exchange they were made to resell to competitors at cost in order to have a functional market. The new CRTC ruling will allow Bell to charge their competitors more money based on individual customer usage. They are now able to implement a 60GB cap on a competitor's highest speed lines (charging $1.12/GB for overages). The effect on the market seems clear."

Comments

Quick Canada Lesson

[EmperorOfCanada]

In Canada we have no competition for apparently 6 reasons:
- Previous governments gave a monopoly to friends who supported them. Where these monopolies have collided they don't compete.
- We have no working anti-monopoly laws in Canada preventing collusion and other anti-competitive behavior. Technically we do but please tell me the last time a company was fined and how little they might have been fined.
- The CRTC (our FCC) is the tool that previous governments used to give their friends these monopolies and thus the CRTC will enforce the monopolies behavior not prevent it.
- Any competition that poses an actual threat will be bought out.
- The present government is a minority government and thus is focused on other fish that need frying such as keeping power and maybe finagling a majority. How many bytes people can download is not on their radar for now.
- Many of the telco monopolies also are media giants thus they control what the pubic thinks about this stuff.

Re:Quick Canada Lesson

[shovas]

You'd have to be using Netflix as a replacement for CATV to have to worry about going over your cap.

Something I and many others would like to do but *shock* all avenues of attempting to access competition to the majors results in finding out no one is particularly better than another, no matter what metric you use.

Cable TV is getting very hard to justify these days when, day after day, you keep noticing "500 channels and nothing's on." I would love to have an alternative but there's no competition.

Re:Quick Canada Lesson

[profplump]

I've been saying this for years -- would you rather download the known-good episode at high quality directly from the virus-free source immediately when the episode is broadcast via traditional channels, with a few commercials, or download a possibly fake, possible virus-ridden, unknown-quality/language/subtitles copy 2-12 hours later without commercials?

I'm sure some people would still pirate things, but if you gave people an "ABC.com downloader" app that did bittorrent from your own commercial-filled seeds 90% of users would never try anything else. I'd certainly be willing to hit "30 second skip" a few times per episode to have known-good, on-time releases.

Re:Quick Canada Lesson

[Shark]

We're an ISP with at least twice as many customers. It'd be wonderful if what your friend said was true, but it definitely isn't. Just to hook a cable onto a telephone pole costs a substantial rental fee, per post. Never mind underground fibres.

It's okay if your 1000 customers are all in the same 3-4 square kilometres but we span about 200km. Bandwidth itself is cheap, we could afford to give them a fair bit more than they get now if they all were able to move within a few kilometres of our main links. We certainly would be happy to do so. Transporting it to them is what costs a bundle.

In areas where you have the kind of density that makes running your own fibre economical, you usually also have 2-3 huge telcos very eager to crush any hopes you have of making a profit.

This is going to be hellish in 5 years

[assemblerex]

This is like charging $1 per 1.44mb , very soon this arbitrary measurement will hamper innovation and Canada as a whole will suffer.

Re:This is going to be hellish in 5 years

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of about 300,000 with Teksavvy that will be affected not including the multitude of other GAS companies.

"$22.50 is lunch money at Harvey's for a couple of days, or one hour of pay for a halfway-decent engineer"

And for those making minimum wage, barely able to pay for the necessities let alone take-out? $22.50 represents a 50% increase in my bill - it puts it at the same level as a week of food for 2 people. Total for a cell plan + internet it will be over $150. At minimum wage that's 25% of their yearly income on being able to stay in touch with the world? It's ridiculous.

that makes comcasts 250gb cap and higher business

[Joe The Dragon]

that makes comcasts 250gb cap and I think it's higher on business planes look real good.

But not as good as fios and att no caps.

Attn : Canadian Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

I could care less about most of the other issues and debate topics.

State publicly that your party is against usage based billing and you've got my vote.

It's that simple.

(For the record, I'm in the 30-35 year old male demograph, with above-median income.)

Re:You WANT usage based billing

[Chryana]

Are you a shill, or some sort of moron? I live in Canada. I am directly affected by this. In France for the price I pay monthly, I could get a line which is 10 times faster than mine is along with unlimited phone calls to a bunch of places and HDTV. The speed of my internet line, 3 Mbps, has not increased in the past 7 years I have lived in downtown Montreal, which is about as urban as it gets in Canada. The price I pay for that same service, though, has increased quite significantly (at least 20%). Why was Bell able to offer unlimited access plans 5 years ago, and now they can't? Should they not have upgraded their lines since then? Everyone I know that uses the services of Bell hates their guts because they are complete scumbags.

Usage based billing means more people can afford internet service,

Have you bothered checking the pricing schemes Bell offers? Check their lowest offering. It says it's 20$/month in Quebec, but it's 25 if you don't have a phone or satellite service deal with them already. Oh, and the speed is 500 kbps with a 1G data cap. They were able to offer unlimited at 3 Mbps 6 or 7 years ago for 30$ a month. I guess poor people don't do much but change their status on Facebook.

Please go back under the rock you came from. For same money that I pay, people in Europe and Asia are getting unlimited data plans with speeds that approach the speed of my LAN.

Re:You WANT usage based billing

[canajin56]

Bell already HAD usage base fees. This isn't about what Bell is allowed to do to their own customers. This is about what Bell is allowed to do to people who are NOT their customers. Bell is now allowed to demand bandwidth usage from third parties that use their lines, and tax those third parties. That is, TekSavvy connects their modem to a Bell copper line, and then wires that modem to their backbone. And Bell gets to hold a gun to your head and say you cannot download more GB than WE allow our customers or else it's not fair to us! Please at least read the summary.

Re:You WANT usage based billing

[jenningsthecat]

The problem IS NOT usage-based billing per se. The problem is that Bell can now apply usage-based billing to third-party ISP's such as TekSavvy, WITHOUT APPLYING IT TO THEIR OWN DIRECT CUSTOMERS! It's no longer even close to a level playing field; the CRTC has effectively destroyed competition in this market, with one stroke of a poisoned pen. So now I have a choice between staying with TekSavvy, enjoying their superior service and tech expertise but having to pay UBB, or going back to Bell Sympatico and putting up with arrogant jerks in customer service, and know-nothing f**ktards in 'tech support' who couldn't tell the difference between Linux the OS and Linus the Charlie Brown comic strip character. The CRTC has sold Canadians down the river with this move, and I'd like to know how much Bell paid some snivel serpents for this favourable legislation. Arrogant, whining, incompetent Bell fancies that it owns the infrastructure on which land line calls and DSL service take place. I'm sure that as far as the law is concerned they do, however in reality Canadians own the infrastructure. We've paid for it several times over with decades of tax breaks, government-enforced monopoly, public rights-of-way, putting up with crap service, etcetera. The CRTC ought to be dismantled and its functionaries jailed, and Bell ought to be nationalized. Free enterprise is one thing; government-sanctioned raping and pillaging of the population by actively suppressing competition is quite another.

Re:You WANT usage based billing

[Interoperable]

That's absolutely right, if the market determines the going rate for bandwidth. Bandwidth is, after all, a finite resource; however, there is no competition and hence there are no market forces at play in this situation. That's where this whole can of worms came from in the first place. The whole industry is regulated because of the excessively high barriers to entry for new competitors. It's not going to be an ideal situation but it would be less bad if it was regulated well instead of being regulated by the CRTC.

Re:60GB is nothing

[realityimpaired]

You're confusing your contractions of yore.

Re:You know what? This is Canada.

[mdielmann]

I have a great fucking idea. Nationalize bell.

We don't need to nationalize Bell. We just need to nationalize Bell's lines. We can even contract out servicing, and perhaps even upgrading those lines, but then lease usage to whoever needs it (i.e., the ISP you contract with). This gets rid of the natural monopoly being used against competitors, and puts everyone on a level playing field.
To be properly done, the cable companies and cell towers should be nationalized, as well, with the same rules.