13

CRTC to review usage-based billing decision

Regulator stands by usage caps, but delays implementation by 60 days


 

The CRTC will delay the implementation of usage-based billing by at least 60 days while it reviews its controversial decision on the matter. Customers were quick to react to the regulator’s ruling allowing the major Canadian Internet providers to charge smaller companies by the amount of data they transfer, effectively eliminating unlimited Internet service in Canada. In testimony before the House of Commons, CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein said he’d decided to review the decision before the Conservative government threatened to overrule the commission. Von Finkelstein nonetheless added he stands by the principle behind the ruling. “The ordinary users should not subsidize the heavy users,” he said. “We are convinced that Internet services are no different than other public utilities,” he said.

Toronto Star


 
Filed under:

CRTC to review usage-based billing decision

  1. “The ordinary users should not subsidize the heavy users,” he said. “We are convinced that Internet services are no different than other public utilities,”

    The problem is that UBB makes sure that the "ordinary" user is discouraged from ever becoming a heavy user. It means that "ordinary" users are less likely to try alternatives to telcos and cablecos like netflix or skype.

    UBB is a status quo machine.

      • It can be much more than that. An HD movie on Netflix takes at least one gig *per hour*

  2. The statement that ordinary users subsidize heavy users is ridiculous, along with the idea that it is like any other public utility.

    My problem with the first part is that the CRTC is willing to listen to whatever jibberish flies out of Bell's boardroom. They are making huge profits. No one is subsidizing anyone in this decision, Bell is just recognizing that heavy users are able to stop buying TV services because they can stream it all on the internet; through services like Netflix this is even becoming legal. This is bad for Bell in the long run, so they are lobbying the CRTC to make anti-competitive decisions in order to protect their business.

    Furthermore, the internet is not like any other public utility. Do you really expect me to believe that I should conserve my internet use for the same reasons that I conserve the use of my water, gas and electricity? The internet is a global social tool, and the most important aspect of its growth is that it be used. It is NOTHING LIKE OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES, precisely because it is more important that we use it than that we conserve it.

    Wake up CRTC.

  3. For anyone who believes this is a non issue because they only occasionally use Google, Wikipedia, email, Facebook, Flickr, and many of the other popular services provided on the internet, please recognize that the only reason you're able to use those services is because a group of 'heavy users' continually pushed the envelop on what the Internet is capable of.

    Just imagine what the world would have looked like if the CRTC decided, 10 years ago, that anyone using more than 10mb/month in bandwidth should have to pay a $1 per 500KB charge "because that's all that text-based email ever uses, and anyone using more than that is just sharing mp3's and accessing porn". Think about how such a position would have stifled network investment and destroyed our ability to access what we consider to be vital services today!

  4. Next up: get them to roll back the increasingly onerous caps the big players have already placed on residential users. A year ago, they cut my cap by 90%; I went from being way below my limit to exceeding my limit literally overnight.

  5. These limits are entirely arbitrary and pointless. The fact of the matter is that the service provided costs such a premium in comparison to the cost of delivering it. Add to that the meddling of the ISP's in limiting traffic in both bandwidth and volume and I say you have what amounts to a breach of contract in good faith. If the heavy users are so few and far between, what is the problem? Compared to a majority of users who use is so meager the traffic should be of little consequence to the provider because according to them there would be an abundance of bandwidth. This is just another opportunity to captialize.

  6. If they push for these limits I"m pushing back. I've cut my services once, but this time I'm going to cancel them all including the phones. The fun times are far gone anyway and the internet is becoming a bloody great virtual mall. Might as well go visit the real thing and spend my time bargaining with retailers instead of paying my ISP to bend me over with my own money on my own time.

  7. boycott Bell Boycott Rogers…Boycott Telus..Email your MP and tell them to get rid of the CRTC…that virtually is a spokeman for industry corporate telecom greedy tyrants…

  8. this organization is suppose to represent more competition and not practice anti competitive anti consumer practices. Meanwhile Canadians have the most expensive cell phone rates in the world thanks to the CRTC. Meanwhile Canadians have the slowest Internet services thanks to the CRTC. Meanwhile the CRTC tries to ram Canadian expensive content down people's throats….Why don't you Mr. Konrad von Idiot pay for Canadian garbage content yourself. Better yet resign. You are a disgrace to Canada. We the 400,000 Canadian Anti CRTC protestors hate and despise the CRTC .

    • 400,001.

  9. The only way not to go over bandwidth caps it to limit your download/upload speeds. 1.5Mbps? Bah! .2Mbps.

  10. Only in repressive societies are internet access and usage restricted. Canadians have one of the lowest bandwidth cap in the
    free world. (Only 10% of USA users) and we pay more than most. It's time to replace the entire CRTC with new blood, far removed from certain boardrooms and influences.

Sign in to comment.