Stop The Meter On Your Internet Use

[BEFAN5]

nternet Service Providers (ISPs) are about to impose usage-based billing on YOU.

This means we're looking at a future where ISPs will charge per byte, the way they do with smart phones. If we allow this to happen Canadians will have no choice but to pay MUCH more for less Internet. Big Telecom companies are obviously trying to gouge consumers, control the Internet market, and ensure that consumers continue to subscribe to their television services.

These Big Telecom companies are forcing small competing ISPs to adopt the same pricing scheme, so that we have no choice but to pay these punitive fees.

This will crush innovative services, Canada's digital competitiveness, and your wallet.

We urgently need to send a clear message to Ottawa, saying that we won't stand by while some of the most profitable companies in the country indiscriminately add new fees to our Internet bills. Enough is enough.

UPDATE: The Liberals and the NDP have now come out AGAINST Internet metering. We're winning, Canada - now onto the government in power!


http://openmedia.ca/meter

[Topspin]

[Hedley]

Many years ago, it was Andy Tanenbaum who said that you should never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes!

I guess these days it would be a minivan full of SD cards!

Round Trip Time sucks, though

[niss]

You know who else put bandwidth caps on the internet?*














*[Citation Needed]

[Expat]

We still have it good in Canada.
See, here in Af, we have a satellite connexion with 1024 kbs download, and 512 upload. As soon as we exceed 10 Gb of download, or 3 Gb of upload, our speed gets throttled by half. Every 8 hours, the system is reset.
The cost? 2000 for the dish, and 600 USD per month.
In Canada, they should have a system to limit bandwith hogs, that plug the system. There are way too many abusers, who do not have any idea how much bandwith they are wasting, or they do not care.

[Brewguy]

In this instance, it's not the big telcos who are out to rape you; they're the ones who have asked the CRTC to step in and keep themselves from getting raped by the little guy.

You see in Canada, the government stepped in years ago, and forced the big companies (Bell, Telus) to open up their networks to little, mom & pop companies who wanted to become ISPs. Those small ISPs have taken huge advantage of the deal they get, and offer cheap internet service to their customers with huge (if not unlimited) bandwidth limits.

So customer A signs up with a small ISP. Pays a fraction of what a Bell customer does, and gets an unlimited high speed connection on what is ultimately Bell's network. Customer B signs up with Bell, uses the same network, but has bandwidth limits in place ... and ultimately, customer B has to help pay for all that excess bandwidth that customer A is using, but not paying for.

The new deal the CRTC is imposing, is that the small ISPs will buy bandwidth from the big telcos the same as any other customer, but at a discounted rate. The difference between their bulk rate and normal retail rates is where they will earn their money. Just how much their customers will have to pay depends on how little margin the small ISP is willing to work on.

Nothing is free in this world folks - somebody has to pay.

So for all of the WoW playing, pirated movie downloading, basement dwelling bandwidth hogs out there who have been getting a free ride, stop whining and start paying your fair share. Or, explain to your mommy & daddy (whose basement you're living in) why its necessary for you to blast through 80 GB of downloads a month. I'm sure your mom is curious as to where you're getting all that porn.

[TheCheez]

Expat, fortunately we're in a modern, developed country here:

Bandwith hogging is the way of the future. Netflix, Itunes, Steam etc are huge for digital distribution - netflix is even scaling back its DVD mailing program. XBox live/PSN and Wii all have digital download available for games now too. The big players like Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw all have media streaming services as well. Every major network has their shows posted online immediately after they air. Games are 7-9GB each, movies in the 1GB neighbourhood.

Unlike 5 years ago major bandwith is now being eaten up 100% legally. If Bell was really clever they would have made this move when the government made them sell bandwith to resellers. It's nothing more than a shrewd move by a large multimedia corp to maximize their bottom line at the expense of consumers. I know this is what corporations do, but they built their foundation and infrastructure while they held a government granted monopoly and therefore the government has an obligation to step in when they use that competitive advantage to f^^^ us over. People will be getting giant bonuses if this ruling stands.

Also of note; Bell content doesn't count against your cap under this new deal. Bell owns CTV and Global is owned by Shaw and Rogers has a variety of TV stations. You will be penalized financially for downloading a significant amount of media from other companies....Are we putting the pieces together here yet and seeing the direction this one ruling is taking media and the internet in this country?

[ArcticKat]

CTV News is reporting this morning that Ottawa has told the CRTC to "reconsider" the plan because it will be overturned anyways.

http://regina.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/C ... hub=Regina

[wowo]

The new deal the CRTC is imposing, is that the small ISPs will buy bandwidth from the big telcos the same as any other customer, but at a discounted rate. The difference between their bulk rate and normal retail rates is where they will earn their money. Just how much their customers will have to pay depends on how little margin the small ISP is willing to work on.

That's all fine and dandy Brewguy, but the problem lies with the rate the big telcos are charging retail customers for overages. Why is it that Shaw wants to charge me $2 per GB when Amazon only charges me at most $0.15 per GB for data transfer out of their S3 service (http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/)?

Shaw and the other big telcos are grossly overcharging for bandwidth, which imho is anti-competitive towards the smaller independent ISPs.

And I don't buy the whole "living in my parent's basement" BS either. The internet is legitimately becoming more media intensive every year (Netflix, Hulu, etc). Most Canadians have no clue what they will miss out on if UBB is allowed. Do you really think it's a coincidence that UBB was introduced right around the same time Netflix debuted in Canada?

[Sulako]

This isn't about little guys raping the big guys, this is about the big media companies trying to stifle competition.

First of all, I download about 450 gigs per month, and I pay $89.95/month for the privilege. How does 450 gigs add up? Well, we don't subscribe to cable tv, we use the internet and stream content to our various media players. Watching hi-def content in Netflix uses about 2 gigs/hour, and watching movies on Youtube in 1080p uses about 5 gigs/hour. Watch 3 hours of hi-def content per day (we have 2 tvs, 3 pcs, and 4 media-capable consoles in our house), and that's 450 gigs right there, not including the bandwidth that Xbox live and online gaming uses, and not including downloading free music on the web. If we used bittorrent, we'd essentially double the transfer on anything we download as it's only polite to seed to at least a 1:1 ratio.

When Netflix came to Canada, Shaw Cable, western Canada’s largest cable company, quietly lowered usage caps on virtually all of their broadband plans, while “forgetting” to change the date on their Terms of Service:

* Lite was 13GB, now increased to 15GB ($2/GB overages)
* High Speed was 75GB, now decreased to 60GB ($2/GB overages)
* Xtreme was 125GB, now decreased to 100GB ($1/GB overages)
* Warp was 250GB, now decreased to 175GB ($1/GB overages)
* Nitro was 500GB, now decreased to 350GB ($1/GB overages)

Cable and phone companies in Canada have established a unique, unchecked duopoly. They are systematically increasing prices while decreasing the amount of service provided to Canadian consumers. Shaw’s decrease in usage limits comes with no corresponding price cut for Internet service.

At a time when Netflix streaming is attempting to make inroads into Canadian homes, broadband providers who also have interests in pay television (cable, phone or satellite) are working overtime to make sure no consumer believes they can safely cancel their cable-TV service and watch everything online.

Over the past four years, Canadian ISPs have embarked on a wide range of Internet Overcharging schemes:

* The elimination of flat rate, unlimited broadband service;
* The introduction of low usage allowances designed to trip up an increasing number of consumers leading to,
* The introduction of stinging overlimit fees for customers exceeding usage limits, at prices marked up from 500-5000 percent above wholesale;
* The introduction of speed throttles which artificially slow your broadband experience to speeds sometimes just above dial-up;
* The ongoing limbo dance of usage caps that decrease in size over time, exposing more consumers to overlimit fees, making them think twice about everything they do online.

Nobody has successfully monetized the broadband experience like Canadian ISPs have. Even as their costs to deliver the service continue to rocket downwards, companies keep on increasing prices, exposing Canadian consumers to unwarranted bill shock from unjustified overlimit fees. What does it cost Shaw per gigabyte? An estimated 1-3 cents. What do they charge you? Up to $2.

How do we compare to other countries? Let's take a quick look at our brothers and sisters to the south:

http://stopthecap.com/2011/02/02/compar ... -falls-ny/

[Brewguy]

Shaw and the other big telcos are grossly overcharging for bandwidth, which imho is anti-competitive towards the smaller independent ISPs.

Yes, because it's their networks, their infrastructure, that is ultimately providing the service to the small ISPs. So the customers of the big telcos have to pay for the excess bandwidth used by the small companies, who have up until now had a sweetheart deal.

If you don't believe that the geeks who are downloading a new Linux distro every day, the heavy gamers, etc burn through a disproportionate amount of bandwidth, then that's fine.

I have high speed internet through the only cable provider in this area. I manage a half-dozen websites, I do download the occasional Linux distro, or buy software that has a download option. I use Netflix quite a bit, and have two VoIP lines; and I'm still hard pressed to come anywhere near my 60 GB limit, that I pay around $50 a month for... so what, nearly $1 a GB? The account / package I'm on is comparable to when I was on Bell Sympatico (DSL) at my old house.

If you've already blasted through a good sized package, paying a couple of bucks a GB for overages isn't really the end of the world. As you say, a movie on Netflix is about a Gig. $2 a movie is cheaper than rental - especially if you've already watched around 80 hours of streaming video that month.

All ISPs, including the big telcos, offer high-limit packages. You can get 100, 200 or even 500 GB packages, but you pay for it. If you use that much bandwidth, the price per GB is still way cheaper if you get the correctly sized account, rather than getting a smaller one and paying overages.

But it's these people who thing they should be entitled to unlimited bandwidth for $30-60 a month from their small local ISP who are way out to lunch; and are the majority of the ones bitching about this new metering system.

Ever look at a map of Canada? It's really not fair to compare us to the USA or Europe, etc. We live on one hell of a big land mass here, with a fairly small population. It's not the same situation.

Government doesn't build the telecommunications infrastructure - a handful of big companies do. They build it, maintain it, upgrade it and are legislated by the government to share it with others, at a very low cost. That's the problem - and that's what is being changed. At least as far as internet usage.

You know what, some of you are right in a few aspects. Our society as a whole is becoming highly digital. Streaming video vs. a traditional TV, etc. But how would that all work for you if we were all still on dial-up? The infrastructure must be upgraded in order to provide enough capacity. Old phone lines eventually need to be upgraded to fiber optic, etc. When Bell first made DSL available in our area (years ago), I remember being on a waiting list for when a new switch or something was installed on the circuit that serviced my area. Your neighbour across the street may have had the feature available on their line, while you didn't.

Who do all of you think should be paying to upgrade that hardware, the actual physical infrastructure? Maybe the government should step in and buy the entire telecommunications network in Canada. Have the taxpayer pay to maintain and upgrade it, and then give all the telcos access on a level playing field. Do you all think that be a more popular decision?

[Expat]

+1

[Expat]

This isn't about little guys raping the big guys, this is about the big media companies trying to stifle competition.

:

http://stopthecap.com/2011/02/02/compar ... -falls-ny/

Sulako,
I don't watch TV, because it is so below my standards. I sold my last set 2 years ago. I do not watch any stupid flixx, and the good movies are rare nowadays. I do not play any on line games either. I think I use the internet intelligently, but at lest 10 hours a day! Then again, as I mentionned above, why should I be paying for the fiber that you use so prodigally???

[Sulako]

The small ISPs are still paying the large ISP's for the use of their networks, albeit at a wholesale rate (a discount of about 15% on the retail rate). That 15% is where the small ISP's make their money - it's not like the small operators have free access to the networks, and there's still plenty of money to invest in upgrading.

As an aside, where can I find a 500 package from Shaw, Bell or Rogers? As far as I can tell, the only package that offers more than 175 gigs/month is from Shaw (Nitro) and it's $150/month.

http://www.rogers.com/web/link/hispeedB ... faultPlans

http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/

http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpInt_Access.page

Again, keep in mind that it costs Shaw an estimated 1 to 3 cents per gigabyte of traffic on their networks. And you're comfortable with paying $2/gig overage?

Are you thinking that maybe the large ISP's aren't making enough money to upgrade their networks?

Shaw makes record profits:
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=114694
The company reported that, despite the worst economic recession in seventy years, revenue and operating income for the year climbed 9% in fiscal 2009. The company earned operating income of a whopping $1.54 billion on record revenues of $3.39 billion.

Rogers 2010 profit rises over 2009:
http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal ... IR_LANDING

Bell Canada Enterprises profit up 84%:
http://www.itworldcanada.com/blogs/nw-w ... ent/52826/

This isn't about bandwidth crunch, this is all about extra revenue, and trying to keep a stranglehold on Canadian internet consumers.

[Sulako]

Sulako,
I don't watch TV, because it is so below my standards. I sold my last set 2 years ago. I do not watch any stupid flixx, and the good movies are rare nowadays. I do not play any on line games either. I think I use the internet intelligently, but at lest 10 hours a day! Then again, as I mentionned above, why should I be paying for the fiber that you use so prodigally???

First of all, I'm paying for the bandwidth I use, thank you very much, in fact I'm paying hundreds of percent more than the value of the product I'm using. After tax, I'm paying over a hundred bucks a month just for internet. I'm okay with that, but I'm NOT okay with paying even more for it and getting less of it when the large ISP's stifle competition and raise their rates, which is what they have been doing. Google Netflix in Canada and see the various ways the large ISP's have been trying to stifle them.

[TheCheez]

I really don't think the major issue here is about costs and bandwith. It's the way it's being represented to media and CRTC because it's easier to understand and sympathize with. Is there real hard data out there to support that(that isn't provided by Bell)? Every interview done with Rogers and Bell execs has been on message with Brewguy.

Bell, Shaw, Telus, Rogers aren't exactly bleeding money because of Teksavvy raping them with basement dwelling nerds doing illegal things as some would have you believe. What they want is to capture more of the future marketplace and they are laying the groundwork today to shape exactly what the future will look like. Right now the vast majority of internet users can probably relate to the idea that they're being overcharged for the small amount of email, youtube, farmville and surfing they do and punish the rest. EDIT*Oh also online gaming like WoW, Call of Duty etc uses a pittance of data while you're actually playing. Think 100mb/day tops, it's the initial download, patches and content that add up. Give it 10 years when they catch up with technology.

TVs at this years CES featured built in wifi, streaming, netflix access etc. Access that the geeks among us have gone out of our way to set up now will be as close as a button on the remote in every living room in a decade. The media owners right now, today, are putting themselves in the driver's seat to cash in when that tech makes it down to the lowest common denominator. Put the caps in low (25 GB?!) and drive the prices up so the users who are at a $25-40 price point now are forced into $60-100 for the same service later.

[wowo]

Exactly.

[Beefitarian]

First of all, I'm paying for the bandwidth I use, thank you very much, in fact I'm paying hundreds of percent more than the value of the product I'm using. After tax, I'm paying over a hundred bucks a month just for internet. I'm okay with that, but I'm NOT okay with paying even more for it and getting less of it when the large ISP's stifle competition and raise their rates, which is what they have been doing. Google Netflix in Canada and see the various ways the large ISP's have been trying to stifle them.

I'm sure my wife is not the only person that tried netflix and stoped watching regular television. Now she's using significantly more bandwith and won't be buying Shaw Cable.

Obviously I'm on her side but I understand the problem the company is likely to face. Blockbuster? forget them, I don't even have to get out of the chair to find a video to watch.

[iflyforpie]

First of all, I'm paying for the bandwidth I use, thank you very much, in fact I'm paying hundreds of percent more than the value of the product I'm using. After tax, I'm paying over a hundred bucks a month just for internet. I'm okay with that, but I'm NOT okay with paying even more for it and getting less of it when the large ISP's stifle competition and raise their rates, which is what they have been doing. Google Netflix in Canada and see the various ways the large ISP's have been trying to stifle them.

I'm sure my wife is not the only person that tried netflix and stoped watching regular television. Now she's using significantly more bandwith and won't be buying Shaw Cable.

Obviously I'm on her side but I understand the problem the company is likely to face. Blockbuster? forget them, I don't even have to get out of the chair to find a video to watch.

We got Netflix and we are on Telus High Speed (we've never had cable TV or internet). Started watching it a lot and I was like 'oh crap, I hope we aren't getting dinged for extra bandwidth. (My brother-in-law used to download movies off the internet and even though the service was 'unlimited', there are provisos for abusive use of bandwidth). So far, nothing extra has shown up on our bill in spite of having up to three devices running Netflix.

I wouldn't have a problem with capped bandwidth, it would encourage me to not spend at much time on the internet or Netflix. Seems every time I am done a series I like, another one shows up....

[Beefitarian]

My concern is finding out about the cap because we went over it and got the internet bill. How much?

I was a loud mouth telus supporter for a long time.

Now I have a speak out cell phone, "temporary just to try it for 6 months" shaw intenet, basic sattlite (starchoice/surprise! we're Shaw, LOL) and Primus VOIP home phone. Treat me bad enough and I have to think you don't want me to be a customer. I'm way to lazy to switch, you have to abuse me enough to make me cranky. I didn't like Shaw cable TV back in the 1970 - 80s. We tried it last year when we had to rent a house because of fire, it wasn't much better. "Why is the TV not working?" "I'd like to cancel, we're moving, have to wait? Uh, but we won't live here then."

I think all the little ISPs have gone away. CIA etc. what are my choices, Rogers, Bell/Telus and Shaw I think.

[Expat]

The only way you guys will get a break, is if the government back tracks, and that will only be for a while, or if the big telcos, I mean the real big ones, are allowed to come in and put downward pressure on billing.
Bell, is small fry in this ocean...


Largest Mobile Phone Companies in the World by Subscribers
Here is a list of the five largest mobile phone companies in the world by total subscribers based on late 2008, early 2009 numbers:
1. China Mobil: 482.9 million subscribers
2. Vodafone: 264.1 million subscribers
3. Telefónica/Movistar/02: 195.5 million subscribers
4. América Móvil: 186.6 million subscribers
5. Telenor: 159 million subscribers

Largest Mobile Phone Companies in the U.S. by Subscribers
Here is a list of the five largest mobile phone companies in the U.S. by total subscribers based on March 2009 numbers:
1. Verizon Wireless: 86.6 million subscribers
2. AT&T Mobility: 78.2 million subscribers
3. Sprint Nextel: 49.083 million subscribers
4. T-Mobile: 33.173 million subscribers
5. TracFone Wireless: 11.759 million subscribers
Verizon ranks 15th in the world for total subscribers


Largest Publicly Held Phone Companies (Mobile or Other) in the U.S. Based on May 2009 Market Capitalization
Here is list of the largest publicly held phone companies, mobile or land-line, in the U.S. based on their market capitalization:
1. AT&T: $139.7 billion
2. Verizon: $81.8 billion
3. Comcast: $41 billion
4. BCE: $16.6 billion
5. Sprint: $14.8 billion
T-Mobile is a privately held company, and as such does not have a market capitalization.


Largest Mobile Phone Companies in the Europe by Subscribers
Here is a list of the mobile phone companies with the largest subscriber base in the United Kingdom based on 2008 and 2009 numbers:
1. Vodafone: 21.72 million subscribers
2. 02: 20.42 million subscribers
3. T-Mobile: 16.8 million subscribers
4. Orange: 15.82 million subscribers
5. 3: 4.4. million subscribers
(Figures are rounded up)
Notable Country Specific Companies


Here is a list of large mobile phone companies with a country or region specific market:
Airtel (India) 96.61 million subscribers
MTS (Russia): 65.68 million subscribers
NTT docomo (Japan) 54.69 million subscribers
Vivo (Brazil): 45 million subscribers
Turkcell (Turkey): 35.5 million subscribers
TIM (Italy): 34.77 million subscribers
Kyivstar (Ukraine): 23.05 million subscribers
Telstra Mobile (Australia) 9.34 million subscribers
(Figures are rounded up

[TheCheez]

http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/Content ... ityId=7245

Science/Industry Commitee meeting starting at 4 for anyone really into this stuff.

After I wrote this the irony dawned on my about how, in a world of stupid low internet caps, I might elect not to view the meeting about my internet because of my internet.

[JakeYYZ]

It is quite reasonable for libertarians (and I consider myself one) to reflexively suggest that laissez-faire competition will almost always result in the best market outcome. In the vast majority of cases, this is correct.
But in a duopoly situation like that in Canada (which behaves quite similarly to a monopoly), a completely hands off approach results in monopoly pricing that is incredibly harmful to society’s economic well-being. What you end up with is a phone call from Toronto to Montreal costing $1.50/minute like it did 15 years ago before long distance competition was introduced. The $1.50 minute of fifteen years ago is the $2 gigabyte of today.
Let me just point that there is NOTHING inherently wrong with usage based billing. If usage was priced in the vicinity of cost (which is estimated to be well under $0.10/GB) like it would in a competitive market, few people would be complaining. The fundamental problem is that it is being priced at punitive rates. Rates designed to strongly discourage use and protect legacy TV businesses.
If usage based billing was being proposed at a rate of ten or twenty cents per gigabyte, this story never would have made it into the media.

[North Shore]

I've got to admit, right off the bat, that I don't really know much about bandwidths (Bachman-Turner Overdrive were pretty wide ) or how many Gigs I use every month. I don't use netflix, XBox live or any other streaming services. (Perhaps I've got nothing to worry about then?) However, I do use Skype almost every day during the fire season to keep in touch with my family. Any impingement on that would really crimp my lifestyle.

This seems to be coming down to a common problem in the western democracies: Everybody wants everything, but no-one wants to pay for it..

That all being said, a large +1 to what Jake said.

[grimey]

I think I use the internet intelligently

And yet you post here.