CRTC Decision on UBB?

[Wester004]

Did you miss the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tag there? Or do you seriously believe that having a duopoly on infrastructure (more like monopoly actually, Bell for DSL, Rogers for cable in Ontario) is good for the Canadian public?

Please don't feed the troll.

[Mark77]

Did you miss the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tag there? Or do you seriously believe that having a duopoly on infrastructure (more like monopoly actually, Bell for DSL, Rogers for cable in Ontario) is good for the Canadian public?

Nope. I meant exactly what I said. UBB is nothing but a price increase, primarily directed towards the heaviest users of the system. The alternative would have been an across-the-board price increase, such that, even someone who uses 10gb/month, ends up subsidizing heavily the 300gb/month user. Denying lower-volume, occasional users, of economical/affordable Internet access would be far more damaging to the Canadian economy than merely raising the prices on a relatively small number of extreme users (which, if they are downloading that much, probably are using it as a substitute to other costly activities, such as going to a video store for movie rentals, subscribing to cable TV, buying video games that are laden with lots of expensive packaging and distribution, or telecommutting instead of commutting to work).

The portion of one's income that one must spend to obtain high speed/high quality Internet access in Canada remains at one of the lowest levels in the world, even after these increases.

[hbassi]

I have already emailed my MP and Harper. Blasting this decision. I will be calling both of their offices for their support. Basically thats all I can do as an individual. All I know with all these 'taxes' being imposed on us in this country, my days are numbered and I will leave.

[Nook]

Nope. I meant exactly what I said. UBB is nothing but a price increase, primarily directed towards the heaviest users of the system. The alternative would have been an across-the-board price increase, such that, even someone who uses 10gb/month, ends up subsidizing heavily the 300gb/month user. Denying lower-volume, occasional users, of economical/affordable Internet access would be far more damaging to the Canadian economy than merely raising the prices on a relatively small number of extreme users (which, if they are downloading that much, probably are using it as a substitute to other costly activities, such as going to a video store for movie rentals, subscribing to cable TV, buying video games that are laden with lots of expensive packaging and distribution, or telecommutting instead of commutting to work).

The portion of one's income that one must spend to obtain high speed/high quality Internet access in Canada remains at one of the lowest levels in the world, even after these increases.

And you think this has nothing to do with the fact that Bell is trying to keep it's cable department in business? Bell has never provided any evidence that suggests high volume of downloading hurts network stability on its infrastructure. UBB is just another way to keep people off Netflix.

Let's not forget all the reported cases of people experiencing throttling while trying to download from Netflix..

Bell is anti-competitive and the CRTC has their pockets padded too far to give a **** about the people they're meant to serve. And isn't the CRTC full of ex-execs from Bell and the other telcos? (or so I've heard)

[jetfirex2]

The portion of one's income that one must spend to obtain high speed/high quality Internet access in Canada remains at one of the lowest levels in the world, even after these increases.

I am so calling troll on this. Even "third world" countries (sorry no offense, I myself am from one of those) beat Canada easily in terms of internet pricing and competition. So much for calling them the third-world, lol.

[Mark77]

I am so calling troll on this. Even "third world" countries (sorry no offense, I myself am from one of those) beat Canada easily in terms of internet pricing and competition. So much for calling them the third-world, lol.

As a percentage of average income?

[hbassi]

Nope. I meant exactly what I said. UBB is nothing but a price increase, primarily directed towards the heaviest users of the system. The alternative would have been an across-the-board price increase, such that, even someone who uses 10gb/month, ends up subsidizing heavily the 300gb/month user. Denying lower-volume, occasional users, of economical/affordable Internet access would be far more damaging to the Canadian economy than merely raising the prices on a relatively small number of extreme users (which, if they are downloading that much, probably are using it as a substitute to other costly activities, such as going to a video store for movie rentals, subscribing to cable TV, buying video games that are laden with lots of expensive packaging and distribution, or telecommutting instead of commutting to work).

The portion of one's income that one must spend to obtain high speed/high quality Internet access in Canada remains at one of the lowest levels in the world, even after these increases.

Are you blind? Do you see which way the world is progressing? The internet is already an essential service, but everything thing is using the internet as its backbone. So your telling me these big money sucking corps have an incentive to increase their networks at the same rate? Please they will lag our consumption and increase their profits while they drag their heels.

Our kids in school will be left behind, while kids in china will be brainstorming with kids in sweden on science projects via teleconferencing. We will have to pay high video rental rates to support a dying industry or scoff pay bell or rogers a ppv fee to watch movies with our families. I wonder what would happen to their over bloated 'networks' if everyone on a friday night decided to rent a ppv on rogers on demand. I am sure they would find a way to pick up the slack. UBB is BS in this day in age.

[Ethan15]

Nope. I meant exactly what I said. UBB is nothing but a price increase, primarily directed towards the heaviest users of the system. The alternative would have been an across-the-board price increase, such that, even someone who uses 10gb/month, ends up subsidizing heavily the 300gb/month user. Denying lower-volume, occasional users, of economical/affordable Internet access would be far more damaging to the Canadian economy than merely raising the prices on a relatively small number of extreme users (which, if they are downloading that much, probably are using it as a substitute to other costly activities, such as going to a video store for movie rentals, subscribing to cable TV, buying video games that are laden with lots of expensive packaging and distribution, or telecommutting instead of commutting to work).

The portion of one's income that one must spend to obtain high speed/high quality Internet access in Canada remains at one of the lowest levels in the world, even after these increases.

The unlimited usage philosophy versus how much should we charge per gigabyte of usage is an entirely different discussion.

I can live with a metered internet, but not at 25GB cap and an extra $1 per GB of usage. That's crippling.


FYI: Canadians overall paid around 6.5USD for 1mbps internet. (Versus in the US its 3.33USD, and we're higher than most countries including, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Germany, etc)

SOURCE: http://www.itif.org/files/BroadbandRankings.pdf


Where's the source of your statistic?

[Mark77]

And you think this has nothing to do with the fact that Bell is trying to keep it's cable department in business? Bell has never provided any evidence that suggests high volume of downloading hurts network stability on its infrastructure. UBB is just another way to keep people off Netflix.

Netflix and similar services, if left unchecked, would have forced them into massive and costly upgrades, the cost of which would have not been economically viable at current rates. The networks just aren't built to provide 2gb/hour of data to all customers simultaneously on a Saturday night. At some point, they have to ration. Customers have expressed a severe dispreference for systems not based around net neutrality, so usage based pricing definitely was the way to go.

Let's not forget all the reported cases of people experiencing throttling while trying to download from Netflix..

You sure its throttling, or simply, Netflix not having a big enough 'pipe' into Bell's system? The fact that Netflix is slow is proof that some form of rationing needed to occur, in order to preserve the integrity of the system for the people who legitimately wanted to pay for the use of Netflix, and that increased investment ultimately is required to meet future demand.

[Mark77]

FYI: Canadians overall paid around 6.5USD for 1mbps internet. (Versus in the US its 3.33USD, and we're higher than most countries including, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Germany, etc)
SOURCE: http://www.itif.org/files/BroadbandRankings.pdf
Where's the source of your statistic?

I'd be cautious of those statistics. An ISP could, in theory, wire gigabit Ethernet into your residence and charge you $200/month (Telus/Bell/Shaw/Verizon have been doing this!) which works out to 20 cents per megabit, but without a solid network to back that up, those megabits in your local loop don't mean anything.

Also, per capita GDP isn't as high as Canada in most of those countries you quote.

[Mark77]

Are you blind? Do you see which way the world is progressing? The internet is already an essential service, but everything thing is using the internet as its backbone. So your telling me these big money sucking corps have an incentive to increase their networks at the same rate? Please they will lag our consumption and increase their profits while they drag their heels.
Our kids in school will be left behind, while kids in china will be brainstorming with kids in sweden on science projects via teleconferencing. We will have to pay high video rental rates to support a dying industry or scoff pay bell or rogers a ppv fee to watch movies with our families. I wonder what would happen to their over bloated 'networks' if everyone on a friday night decided to rent a ppv on rogers on demand. I am sure they would find a way to pick up the slack. UBB is BS in this day in age.

So what's the solution? Beat up upon Rogers/Telus/Bell/Shaw's employees and investors until they work for free and accept a sub-standard return on their investment? Or let them raise prices and potentially create business cases for additional providers to start operations, and build physical infrastructure, if a current need in the market is going unmet?

If the CRTC ordered private companies such as Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Telus (among others), to keep their systems wide open to non-infrastructure owners who weren't willing to pay the full costs, then investment in new infrastructure would eventually dissappear. Hence, your dream of kids brainstorming with kids in China would be even less likely. You're suggesting that communism is better than capitalism, that central planning trumps the free market. The CRTC has sought to strike a balance between the owners of the infrastructure (Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw), and users, and I think they've done an excellent job.

[hbassi]

Netflix and similar services, if left unchecked, would have forced them into massive and costly upgrades, the cost of which would have not been economically viable at current rates. The networks just aren't built to provide 2gb/hour of data to all customers simultaneously on a Saturday night. At some point, they have to ration. Customers have expressed a severe dispreference for systems not based around net neutrality, so usage based pricing definitely was the way to go.

Where do you get this from? Have you been brain washed by the Corporations to think that? Rogers would love all us to use Rogers on Demand and rent PPV movies on Sat night. They use the same network! Lets call a spade a spade, Canada has the same old boys at the top and get re shuffled from Government Post to Corp Boards vice versa. So as long as their cottages in Muskoka are safe they don't give a crap what users want or say.

[Mark77]

Where do you get this from? Have you been brain washed by the Corporations to think that? Rogers would love all us to use Rogers on Demand and rent PPV movies on Sat night. They use the same network!

Well sure, its the least you can do, since people are abandoning structured Cable TV products in droves, leaving these firms, in many cases, with severely diminished revenue. Much like revenues from Long Distance voice products have largely dissappeared as well.

[jetfirex2]

As a percentage of average income?

Yes. For an average middle class income , it is 1% in my area. Pretty cheap.

Also, comparing it to average income when comparing countries is tricky. In a country where taxes and rent/mortgage eat up 50-60% of your gross income, saying that internet at 5% of avg. income is better than in a place where you only pay 20-30% of your income in those costs is sort of comparing apples to oranges.

Hell if you even compare it to UK they are much better off than us. I have never heard my cousins complaining about internet/phone bills and usage and they are heavy talkers/surfers. There is no excuse for monopoly and involving governments in your plan to allow milking the customer when they could have choice through other providers, which are barred from entry in Canadian market.

[Ethan15]

So what's the solution? Beat up upon Rogers/Telus/Bell/Shaw's employees and investors until they work for free and accept a sub-standard return on their investment? Or let them raise prices and potentially create business cases for additional providers to start operations, and build physical infrastructure, if a current need in the market is going unmet?

If the CRTC ordered private companies such as Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Telus (among others), to keep their systems wide open to non-infrastructure owners who weren't willing to pay the full costs, then investment in new infrastructure would eventually dissappear. Hence, your dream of kids brainstorming with kids in China would be even less likely. You're suggesting that communism is better than capitalism, that central planning trumps the free market. The CRTC has sought to strike a balance between the owners of the infrastructure (Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw), and users, and I think they've done an excellent job.

TekSavvy, PRIMUS, Acanac, combined only occupies a tiny bit of their business. Ask most people around you, do they even know these ISPs existed?

You must realize that Bell, ROGERS, Telus, etc are not just ISP. They're content provider and tons of their revenue comes from TV services, mobile, etc. Even their internet service revenue is going strong. Your argument that their investment will dwindle down and collapsing is non existent. To maintain status quo ....

I think few years back they already introduced traffic shaping management practice which means if you are a heavy user on P2P you're already being throttled ... but that alone wasn't enough! now the UBB comes into effect and you see what's really the motivation behind all this.