CRTC petitioned to stop usage-based billing as Netflix doubts Canadian future.

[Twister]

Update:


Canada’s national telecom regulator was formally asked to stop imposing a controversial usage-based Internet pricing regime, on the same day that Silicon Valley powerhouse Netflix Inc. expressed serious concerns about its future in Canada.

“[usage-based billing] is something we’re definitely worried about,” Reed Hastings, chief executive of the web-based video streaming provider, was quoted by the Canadian Press as saying in a conference call on Wednesday; during which his company announced more than 20-million people now subscribe to Netflix.

“It is potentially a significant negative for Netflix,” Mr. Hastings said.



Read more: http://business.financialpost.com/2...-questions-its-canadian-future/#ixzz1CHlHPrwm

 

[JohnHenry]

Its only controversial to the 10 percent of users who use 90 percent of the available bandwidth.

 

[benstt]

And those with enough foresight to realize that consumption will go up, even for normal users, as services like Netflix compete.

If you can use your internet connection to get your content elsewhere, this threatens the lock-in model that Bell wants us to buy from them.

 

[alexmst]

According to a relative of mine, Bell already throttles torrents during prime time consumer use periods (5pm to 1am) such that it flows at a trickle and isn't worth even trying to use during those hours.

I am against the usage-based billing and if the home-use progress of the net is to advance, this has to go. The future will probably see the net replacing cable and Blockbuster as the primary ultra-high speed entertainment pipeline into homes. This model only works with no usage based fees and a flat monthly fee for unlimited use. A challenge for providers will be to increase speed and capacity of the net to allow much higher traffic without excessive throttling.

I asked my relative who uses this (I don't use netflix or torrents myself) why Bell isn't just looking at how to expand network capacity and speed, and he said because it is cheaper for them to try to get away with throttling and, worse, monthly download limits, instead of spending money to make their network better to accommodate what customers are moving towards.

 

[lovelatinas]

If you don't like this please sign a petition, I did.

http://openmedia.ca/meter

 

[Zombie]

Signed.

 

[friedrice]

Also signed.

 

[JustSex]

It is a classic government supported rip-off that not only gives Rogers & Bell free rein over entertainment to the home while holding back technical innovation.

From Digital World:

Internet Capacity
With Internet traffic continuing to grow exponentially, the question becomes how can Internet Service Providers be expected to provide so much bandwidth without raising prices or implementing Usage Based Billing?

The answer is actually quite simple. The same technology that drives the internet is also getting faster and more powerful. While Internet bandwidth grew at a rate of around 50% per year over the last decade, the University of Minnesota found that processing power, hard disk densities, and transmission rates grew at rates closer to 60% per year over the same period. In addition, the servers and routers and other equipment that ensure the internet works have become much more energy efficient meaning the cost of running the Internet has fallen.

In simple terms, the bandwidth explosion is real and its massive but it’s been more than offset by more powerful and more energy efficient machines.

One industry insider told Digital Home that four years ago, the cost for a large Telco to transmitting a GB of data was around twelve cents when all operational and fixed costs were accounted for. Thanks to improved technology and more powerful machines, that number dropped to around six cents two years ago and to about three cents today.

A senior staffer at one web hosting company which serves up terabytes of data a day says the cost of serving up an extra Gigabyte of data in today’s marketplace is negligible. This staffer described the extra charge of $2 to $5 per gigabyte for overages as “obscene.”

Link: http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/01/usage-based-internet-billing-what-can-you-do/

They get away with it because most people think of cabling as water pipes - physically limited volume. Electronics doesn't work that way. The telephone cable that was placed into your home originally supported 2,600 Hz or modems of up to 56kb/sec. My ASDL service on the same cable is now ~ 4 Mb/sec. If the CRTC was making changes before this happened, we would be at 56kb/ sec because there isn't enough kb's to go around.

Sadly what is at stake is that Bell & Rogers are being handed the keys to all home entertainment for the next generation. Netflix film will could ~ $4 each for HD movie download making their future in Canada shaky at best. The model is different in the US where monthly limits are in the order of 250 GB. Ironic is that as Bell are warning about the Internet capacity in danger from uncapped downloads, they are rolling out a new Internet service that increase speed to 25 MB/ sec.

 

[friedrice]

Actually they get away with it because the vast majority of Canadians believe all the propaganda their monopolies throw at them, and will defend the monopolies ahead of the people's interest time and time again. You see it year in, year out, the same script writes itself over and over. There will never be a time when Bell and Rogers don't make screaming profits, yet they constantly scream--much like the cops--that if they don't get more money they'll be out of business, or the big, bad US companies will take over. As my friend, a senior exec at Rogers tells me, there are employees of Rogers and Bell whose expressed purpose is posting on HowardForums to prevent any citizen movement against expensive Internet/cell bills. And guess what? Ordinary Canadians protect the monopolies more than the employees! Says it all.

The SECOND netflix arrived and more people cancelled their cable bills, Rogers threw down the curtain.

Check this out:

http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2011/01/ful...on-usage-based-billing-and-marketplace-drama/

"UBB" (Usage Based Billing) - Otherwise known as METERED BILLING. The CRTC is allowing ISPs to put a METER on your internet access, so you PAY BY THE BYTE!

Matt Stein, Vice-President of Network Services for Primus, calls UBB overage fees:

"an economic disincentive for internet use" since the charges levied by Bell Canada are "many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it."

The CEO of Teksavvy ISP said:

"UBB is pure profit. IP transport of internet data is somewhere between $3 and $10/Mbps for companies like ours.... So doing basic math we're talking of $3-$10 per 300GB of data... So 1 to 3 pennies per gig of downloading on the Internet transit side."

Shaw uses misleading information, and tells customers that their limits are generous, and overstates the cost of bandwidth. In fact, bandwidth is 1-3 PENNIES per GB, but Shaw is charging $2 PER GB!

Did you know that just as Shaw began charging for "overuse of the internet", they also (quietly) reduced all of their usage caps by 30% without telling customers?

Funny part is, the infrastructure most of these ISPs use was FUNDED BY CANADIANS! Now they are charging us massive overage fees for using it.

Shaw, and other Canadian ISPs are using UBB as a method to control access to their TV competitors, ie: Netflix, Hulu, etc. It is clearly a conflict of interest to allow a TV Broadcaster who is also an ISP, to limit our access to their competition.

With these massive new overage fees, once you are over your recently lowered "usage cap" with Shaw, every HD Netflix movie will cost you an extra $8!

This is how Netflix feels about this situation: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/n...

 

[oldjones]

Bell has a monopoly over their wires but has to allow other telephone providers to use them. Rogers faces no such rule allowing cable competition. We're waiting for the CRTC to force that; they're waiting for us to demand it. And do the same farther upstream in the web, where they—and their sister regional monopolies—are the only game. The real beef is is the TekSavvies cannot eventually get at that level of the game because rules freeze them out rather than encouraging them.

But what else besides cable-tv do you consume ongoing without paying as you consume, for as much as you consume? Cable's a bit different when you watch just one feed, no matter how many are available so it's the availability you pay for. Turn your home viewing into the same multi-feed consumption that any computer's capable of—and the whole net's available to every one of them—and just watch that cable bill go up.

Old fashioned phone bills were flat rate because the billing technology couldn't cope with usage costs dynamically, and internet billing didn't have to track usage when it was just an accessory activity, but it's poised the become The Main Thing, and we're gonna hafta pay for it. As we go.

There's only one other model where user doesn't pay, and that's roads. "Free internet for all, paid from taxes". The bandwagon's loading now.

 

[shakenbake]

Signed.

Me too!

 

[alexmst]

I also signed

 

[OddSox]

Bell has a monopoly over their wires but has to allow other telephone providers to use them. Rogers faces no such rule allowing cable competition. We're waiting for the CRTC to force that; they're waiting for us to demand it. And do the same farther upstream in the web, where they—and their sister regional monopolies—are the only game. The real beef is is the TekSavvies cannot eventually get at that level of the game because rules freeze them out rather than encouraging them.

But what else besides cable-tv do you consume ongoing without paying as you consume, for as much as you consume? Cable's a bit different when you watch just one feed, no matter how many are available so it's the availability you pay for. Turn your home viewing into the same multi-feed consumption that any computer's capable of—and the whole net's available to every one of them—and just watch that cable bill go up.

Old fashioned phone bills were flat rate because the billing technology couldn't cope with usage costs dynamically, and internet billing didn't have to track usage when it was just an accessory activity, but it's poised the become The Main Thing, and we're gonna hafta pay for it. As we go.

There's only one other model where user doesn't pay, and that's roads. "Free internet for all, paid from taxes". The bandwagon's loading now.

The cable companies lines are also being resold by independents.

Don't have any problem paying for what I use - just want there to be some real competition in terms of the price. Right now, Bell and the Cable guys are obviously in cahoots on pricing - charging something like 100 times the cost.

 

[JustSex]

Bell has a monopoly over their wires but has to allow other telephone providers to use them. Rogers faces no such rule allowing cable competition.

FYI Distributel provides Internet & voice services by cable. If they do, I find it hard to believe others don't.

Turn your home viewing into the same multi-feed consumption that any computer's capable of—and the whole net's available to every one of them—and just watch that cable bill go up.

It is now. Rogers Internet offering is a dedicated (virtual) Internet connection without separate cable run as you seem to suggest (It's not a water pipe). Cable facilities have leaped far beyond the the 260MHz unidirectional system that they stated out with almost 50 years ago. Figure out the bandwidth required to send 400 channels of HD content and you soon realize why the Internet has not only had little impact on the system but still allowed Rodgers to permit more more personal programing capabilities.

Old fashioned phone bills were flat rate because the billing technology couldn't cope with usage costs dynamically, and internet billing didn't have to track usage when it was just an accessory activity, but it's poised the become The Main Thing, and we're gonna hafta pay for it. As we go.

I started my career in Bell Canada engineering and I know this is misleading. Local service was provided at a shared cost plus profit as approved by the CRTC. Individual use was not factored nor was the cost of the plant (switching equipment including cable) which was different depending on the distance from the central office (switching centre). The setting up of regional long distance rates was limited by the cost of billing equipment and again not by usage. Yes they charged by usage but it was not always because you were using up long distance resources. For instance in many communities such as Caledon, etc - Bell Canada would charge for long distance calls between communities even though the phones were terminated in the same central office. They did it because they could get away with it - not because there was physical limitation. When touch tone phones came in Bell Canada charged a premium even though DTMF saved them money and it cost more to process pulse calls (call set up was a shared resource and pulses took more time). What I'm trying to say is don't let them spoon feed you bullshit. Costs are going down including the cost of phone calls. Oversea calls that were $10 / minute and now 60 minutes for under $2 - because the technology improves.

There is no way that Bell & Rogers should cap use and charge $3 - $5 for a GB that costs them ~ 6 cents to provide. Worse than the pure greed aspect is the long term rape of the consumer that it sets up.

 

[diehard]

Mother fuckers

 

[wigglee]

This situatation is ridiculous.....Bell and Rogers have colluded in a price fixed monopoly and now they as internet providers AND content providers, want to get you coming and going . Make you pay for the program and the delivery of that program.
Next , they will offer "discount " delivery for THEIR content. It is a problem the CRTC is handling badly, so we will continue to get screwed for internet, tv, and phone services. Whatever happened to Torornto Hydro's plan to provide internet service through the electrical lines? Duh........can you say "opportunity missed"?

 

[benstt]

I am against the usage-based billing and if the home-use progress of the net is to advance, this has to go. The future will probably see the net replacing cable and Blockbuster as the primary ultra-high speed entertainment pipeline into homes. This model only works with no usage based fees and a flat monthly fee for unlimited use. A challenge for providers will be to increase speed and capacity of the net to allow much higher traffic without excessive throttling.

I don't mind usage-based billing, but am against forcing it down as the only option onto DSL providers. There should be a model on how the DSL providers share the cost of the portion of the Bell network that they use (the costs of which are correlated to total bandwidth available, not bandwidth used). The DSL providers should be allowed to determine their own billing model underneath that, and compete on it.

 

[diehard]

hst, insurance rate hikes, smart meters with increased rates, no bonuses at work, no salary increase, and now this fucking bullshit.

Being poor irritates me...

I'll just pick a Scandinavian country and move there...

Is Finland better than Sweden?

I've heard their women their are hot, white smooth skin and everything.

 

[blackrock13]

hst, insurance rate hikes, smart meters with increased rates, no bonuses at work, no salary increase, and now this fucking bullshit.

Being poor irritates me...

I'll just pick a Scandinavian country and move there...

Is Finland better than Sweden?

I've heard their women their are hot, white smooth skin and everything.

and the men rank as some of the biggest chauvinists, so..........

 

[JustSex]

I'll just pick a Scandinavian country and move there...

Is Finland better than Sweden?

Sweden has some strange sex laws that are little weird. The Wikileaks founder was charged for molestation because he didn't wear a condom during consensual sex and the girl felt 'pressured' in allowing it.