Stop the Meter: CRTC's Usage-Based Billing for Internet Services

[onecoin]

Originally Posted by Scrapper6

I'm sorry, what? Water and Phone bills are under 45$? Uh, I don't think so, hell our family pays 80$ a month for our Phone Services... I mean maybe the bare bones phone service price is only 30+$, but when you factor in other features and such there is no way you only pay that small amount a fee per month.

Do I need the internet to live? No. I pay 3800 yen for Internet. Do I need to pay rent and electricity. I pay less than 5000 yen for water a month. Do I need water to live. Yes. My cell phone is less than 3500 yen a month. And I definitely need that more than the internet.

[Aernaroth]

The article up there has its ducks in a row, but fails to address the reduction in bandwidth caps by Bell and other ISPs recently, and the fact that this ruling only provided further incentives for them to do so again. What the author is saying would be reasonable in a situation where telecommunications companies were likely to "play fair", and he hits the nail on the head by saying legislative response to the internet has been waffly at best. However, this has not been the case as of late.

It's a pity you didn't relate your response more to the article though, since the author goes on to say that the model in question would create a massive disadvantage for independent ISPs, which would likely consolodate more control (and, of course, opportunity for profit) of the market in the hands of the current major players. Aside from the negative consequences for the customer, this would also likely have a stifling effect on the industry in Canada, who already has some of the worst internet connections in the industrialized world due to our low population density.

He also flat out agrees that Bell's pleas regarding network strain are bullshit, and that there are better methods than UBB to address the problem even if Bell's claims held water. And he points out that the UBB model proposed isn't even the "pay what you use model" you touted, onecoin, since it's a tiered system where you either pay a fair price for way too little bandwidth, or a much higher price for a reasonable rate (and apparently you're in an even worse situation if you're subscribed to videotron, a thousand foulest curses upon their name).

Basically, the crux of the article is that the legislation SHOULD be repealed, and that the government should instead pursue the methods users including myself have already stated in this thread, such as fostering competition and recognizing the internet as a growth industry with great potential for canadian commerce.

But on to your argument. You're right in that lobbying for usage based billing goes back farther than netflix, because once again, the telecommunications recognized they'd make more money this way, and even in 2007 they realized they were losing television market share (and profits) to the internet.

Your argument related to the number of people who don't go over their cap is spurious, because I could use the same statistic to say that many people are already paying too much for internet they don't use, and lowering the cap (and adding additional charges for its use, which a larger portion than 10% will then incur) will only raise the costs for many. People assume service providers (the major ones, at least, with their 96% market share, so effectively all) will "gouge" because they already do, charging tens if not hundreds of times more for bandwidth than it costs them. They don't need to increase their user base, because it is effectively "everyone", and with the increasing importance of an internet connection to everyday life, their market will grow even more and more captive, providing further economic incentive to "gouge".

Your idea about fair prices for low bandwidth would be nice, but there's no evidence that would be the case, and significant evidence that bandwidth needs will continue to rapidly increase.

Furthermore, comparing your other utilities to your internet is kind of a tricky thing. You see the internet as entertainment only, but what about people who use it for business too? Or as a primary source of communication? Oh right, they just need to accept they're going to have to pay and budget accordingly. What would you think if your electricity company or gas company or municipal water company did the same thing we've been talking about in this thread?

Also, it's not really a mob mentality if we're posting rational arugments and a varying spectrum of opinions that happen to be on the same side of a certain issue, is it? And besides, the only person who seems to keep missing the facts in this thread is you.

edit: How would you feel if your internet was more like 6000 yen a month? And you'd have a much shittier connection. And if your modem gets fragged during a freak lightning storm, you'd be expected to pay for them to ship you a new one, despite it being their modem. It's kind of different from in Japan (Japan's internet service is a lot better).

[Dark Rage]

The customers of Bell's DSL resellers are treated unfairly in this case, they had the expectation of unlimited bandwidth or a significantly higher bandwidth cap.

10% of Bell's users did go over their cap, but the article does not specify what the monthly caps of those statistics are. As far as we know, those caps could be 60 GB, or caps over 25 GB/month. The fact that they set it so low will definitely ensure that more and more people will go over their cap, allowing them to reap massive profits of over-usage fees, with a massive margin as well (approx. 5000% profit for $2/GB overuse fee with cost of 4 cents per GB.)

The problem is that the UBB has been set so damned low. Anyone who uses the internet often or who used to have a higher cap now is given this. If they re-evaluated it and set the limit higher (to something more competition-friendly), there probably wouldn't be such a negative feedback by the "mob". I know that a lot of people don't know or just don't like the CRTC. If they weren't run by former media company execs/employees, there wouldn't be such a conflict of interest that is blatantly obvious when you see how this regulatory body is set up.

You keep saying that businesses just have to adapt and deal with it; with some businesses budgets hanging by a thread in this economy, some (if not a good amount) may just have to shut down or settle for lower profits. This definitely hurts Netflix and Apple TV.

Another problem was that Bell paid too much into expanding their infrastructure, to the point that they went "oh well, we'll ask our good buddies/former co-workers at the CRTC to pass a law to increase fees/lower monthly bandwidth caps and screw over our customers and DSL resellers so we can still stay in the green and profitable!"

That's what's stupid; I will be a happy man when Bell goes bankrupt for being such a crappy competitor.

Is this mob mentality? Was the civil rights movement a mob mentality? So was Tienanmen Square, right?

No, this is a peaceful and valid protest against what we believe to be an unfair regulation (which doesn't seem to be implemented/planned very well).

You must have loved it when cell phone companies charged a system access fee every month on a plan for "maintenance fees", which was not always the case (and not even mandatory by the government); it was a cash grab/price gouging, whatever you call it. If it's gone up to the point that there's a class action lawsuit pending (and possibly valid), the mob must be wrong as well, right?

[onecoin]

Its a mob it prays on fears of people. Just look at the titles of the articles in the news or forums. How many of them are really objective? And worse yet, how many of the articles, are objective. And did you bother to notice the Liberal objection to this whole matter? When did that become news, before or after the decision was made.

I like that article, but like everything not everyone has to agree.

I just think of the status quo now. So, the ability to charge people different prices is pulled. Everyone, same price, unlimited internet. Great. If that price is the same 40 bucks its been for the past 10 years. What if the Service Providers just raise everyone's prices. If we say everyone gets unlimited internet. So now internet is 50 a month, 60 a month, 70 a month... Who suffers now?

[Aernaroth]

Prove to me the articles posted are not objective. If anything, George Strombolopolous is arguing against his own economic self-interest by telling people to oppose UBB, which will indirectly keep television viewership high and justify his paycheque.

I'm pretty sure many liberal MPs have weighed in as net-neutralists long before this point, so implying that they're only playing politics without evidence would be a kind of fear-mongering, wouldn't it, or at least a lack of objectivity?

The point everyone's been making this entire thread, and which you seem to miss every time, is not that people want the status quo. It's that the internet consumer in Canada is already getting hosed, and would prefer to avoid further hosing.

Also, your last sentence is pretty ironic given that's exactly what everyone in this thread figures is going to happen, it'll just be disguised as "usage-based billing" instead of a flat fee.

[Dark Rage]

Originally Posted by onecoin

Its a mob it prays on fears of people. Just look at the titles of the articles in the news or forums. How many of them are really objective? And worse yet, how many of the articles, are objective. And did you bother to notice the Liberal objection to this whole matter? When did that become news, before or after the decision was made.

I like that article, but like everything not everyone has to agree.

I just think of the status quo now. So, the ability to charge people different prices is pulled. Everyone, same price, unlimited internet. Great. If that price is the same 40 bucks its been for the past 10 years. What if the Service Providers just raise everyone's prices. If we say everyone gets unlimited internet. So now internet is 50 a month, 60 a month, 70 a month... Who suffers now?

Liberals' objection to the ruling was obviously after it became big, to gain more support for the next election probably. As long as they do something about it, I'll be happy, but it won't guarantee that I'll just vote for them blindly next time.

Your example is also pointless and doesn't exist in Canada, since the product differentiation will lie in download/upload speeds, which will result in different pricing for packages. There's going to be one method of product differentiation one way or another, either in products features or services for ISPs here. Obviously nobody wants a market full of the exact same things.

[onecoin]

Originally Posted by Aernaroth

The point everyone's been making this entire thread, and which you seem to miss every time, is not that people want the status quo. It's that the internet consumer in Canada is already getting hosed, and would prefer to avoid further hosing.

And what you're not listen to is that nothing stays Status Quo. High speed internet has been the same price for over a decade and usage is increasing exponentially. And even at the most basic financial level, few things are resistant to inflation. I bet Service Providers still have to pay their employees and rent and utilities..., what are the chances all those cost are still the same as they were 10 years ago.

And why do we assume people will get hosed? Why must we assume the worst. This could just as easily be a good thing for the majority of users.

[onecoin]

Originally Posted by Dark Rage

Obviously nobody wants a market full of the exact same things.

Thank you for proving my point EXACTLY. Bring on cheaper base plans. LOL you're so busy typing you just argued into a circle.

[Dark Rage]

Originally Posted by onecoin

Thank you for proving my point EXACTLY. Bring on cheaper base plans. LOL you're so busy typing you just argued into a circle.

You seem to love having the exact same things.

We are getting hosed. It's more or less an oligopoly and it can be a much better market, if the CRTC doesn't keep implementing more laws in the public's "best interests".

[Aernaroth]

Originally Posted by onecoin

And what you're not listen to is that nothing stays Status Quo. High speed internet has been the same price for over a decade and usage is increasing exponentially. And even at the most basic financial level, few things are resistant to inflation. I bet Service Providers still have to pay their employees and rent and utilities..., what are the chances all those cost are still the same as they were 10 years ago.

And why do we assume people will get hosed? Why must we assume the worst. This could just as easily be a good thing for the majority of users.

You know what else has increased exponentially? The technology to supply internet. If anything, its cheaper today to provide high-speed bandwidth than it was 10 years ago, especially as telecommunications lines have been improved and replaced. Even if we do account for inflation, it should keep pace with the cost of everything else (and with the wages earned by people), so it's not really a factor here.

We assume people will get hosed because they are already getting hosed, and there is no incentive under this policy for companies like Bell and Rogers to not hose people more, let alone continue hosage at current rates, corrected for inflation.