Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canada CRTC Rules Against Usage Based Billing

Posted by samzenpus on from the internet-buffet dept.

iONiUM writes "In a somewhat surprising end to the ongoing fight between large ISPs (a duopoly in Canada), and independent ISPs, the CRTC has ruled in favor of the small ISPs. This means that independent ISPs can continue to have unlimited plans offered to customers. From the article: 'Under the CRTC’s new capacity-based approach, large telephone and cable companies will sell wholesale bandwidth to independent ISPs on a monthly basis. Independent ISPs will have to determine in advance the amount they need to serve their retail customers and then manage network capacity until they are able to purchase more. Alternatively, large companies can continue to charge independent ISPs a flat monthly fee for wholesale access, regardless of how much bandwidth their customers use. Both billing options give independent ISPs the ability to design service plans and charge their own customers as they see fit.' Score one for the citizens."

8 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. If I'm not mistaken.... by mark-t · · Score: 5, Informative
    ... there's absolutely nothing in this ruling that actually prohibits UBB... it only prohibits charging more than the amount that was agreed to. Simply put, once a customer has used up the bandwidth that they've paid for in a money, they will have to go and buy more.

    It cuts out the suprise bills at the end when you find out just how much bandwidth you really used last month, but it doesn't really stop ISP's from charging consumers based on how much bandwidth they actually use, or, more specifically, they intend to use.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:If I'm not mistaken.... by penguinstorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're not expecting the CRTC to have a thorough, comprehensive technical understanding of the industry they're regulating, are you? Seriously: let me know how that works out for you.

      Frankly, Usage Based Billing is a secondary concern to Net Neutrality. Every internet service provider in Canada was built on a monopoly granted to them by the Government of the day (literally or in essence) to provide services that can *now* be replaced by online IP based services. They all have a vested interest in retaining those monopolies and the additional bills you incur as a result.

      I get my connection from the *only* cable provider in the mega-city I live in. They could easily start throttling streaming video and impede the technical growth of 1.7 million people.

      The CRTC seems like not much more than a cabal run by the large telecoms these days. They're supposed to be an advocate FOR CANADIANS not for the businesses. When they start doing that, I'll have hope.

      --
      Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
  2. Re:Duopoly? by BobNET · · Score: 5, Informative

    Spell TekSavvy right and link to it so others can bask in its awesomeness!

  3. teksavvy going under by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    see this :
    http://teksavvynews.ca/index.php
    Chatham, Ontario, November 15, 2011 â" TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (âoeTekSavvyâ), one of Canadaâ(TM)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 (âoeCRTCâ) 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 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.

    âoeThe CRTC decision is a step back for consumers. The rates approved by the Commission today will make it much harder for independent ISPs to competeâ, said Marc Gaudrault, TekSavvyâ(TM)s CEO. âoeThis is an unfortunate development for telecommunications competition in Canadaâ, he added.

    -30-

  4. Canadian broadband is still crap by Grieviant · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sure, score a small point for not letting Bell and Rogers increase the abuse, but our wired broadband status quo is still terrible. High prices, low monthly caps (60GB typical) with massive overage fees, absurd asymmetry between D/L and U/L rates (10 Mbps down / 0.5 Mbps up typical), unmitigated throttling any time the provider feels like it (apparently 65-85% of the time), 'unintentional' throttling of gaming, etc. Aside from the low caps, you can't even get around any of this by going with one of the smaller ISPs since AFAIK the leased lines are subject to the same 'traffic management' policies.

    The service is pretty shitty also - video buffering on a 25Mbps D/L connection, ping to the west coast randomly spiking up to 400ms, problems that 5 calls to tech support over the period of a month and one modem replacement failed to resolve. The tech support guys and technicians all but admit that it's a policy issue rather than anything they can fix.

  5. Re:Usage based billing is efficient by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except bandwidth isn't a limited resource, which is what they're charging for. UBB is the easy and cheap way to stall back network upgrades and ding consumers hard in the pocketbook at the same time. In Ontario, independents with their own DSLAMS and cable plants can offer 200-300gb caps and competitive, or better service than the big incumbents can. This tells me that either these organizations have serious fiscal problems in operations, they're so inept that they can't figure out what needs to be upgraded, or there is no problem with bandwidth, and they're just out to screw everyone they can, because they're in a duopoloy, monopoly or super-monopoly position.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  6. Re:Duopoly? by Maow · · Score: 5, Informative

    allow third party providers to survive and flourish. It hasn't happened here in Vancouver.

    I'm in Vancouver, and *enjoying* my first Shaw-free month with TekSavvy as ISP over Shaw's cable lines (I own my cable modem).

    They're certainly worth checking out, if for no other reason than $30 / month is what a 7.5 Mbps connection is actually worth.

    Note, at 17:25 on a tuesday afternoon I'm getting SpeedTest.net score of 30ms ping, 19.24 Mbps download, and, 0.48 Mbps upload speeds.

    Shaw is, of course, still making money on the last mile, but a lot less than when I used them directly.

    TL;DR: it's up to *us* to make the 3rd parties flourish: change ISPs today.

  7. Michael Geist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The CRTC's UBB Decision: Bell Loses But Do Consumers Win?