The Shrine

A couple of weeks ago, the CRTC board was finally bribed enough to change the rules to allow Bell to charge their wholesalers on a usage-based billing as opposed to the "per bandwidth" rate that's currently in place. The whole point of the non usage-based billing is to allow for competition from smaller companies who want to offer a different product than the big boys. For you Americans, the standard internet plans up here generally carry a 60GB usage limit which, with 2GB per movie on Netflix and streaming off of even legit websites becoming more prominent, is revoltingly inadequate.

Bell and the CRTC used the bullshit "we need to lower congestion on our networks" excuse publicly to try to pass this bribe off as a legit reason. Of course it doesn't even pass the smell test since Bell themselves are offering a "next generation" internet connection called Fibe which offers 25MBit per sec (vs the standard 6) and these predatory companies have all been prepping for this increased usage for years (how the hell do you think Rogers offers On Demand?) and have far more than adequate bandwidth in reserve. But why would they even bother competing when they're not forced to?

It was so bad and blatant what went on that early this week (it was announced last week that the change was coming), the federal government decided to place the decision "under review" (link). When the government even hints at "reviewing" a decision by one of it's own agencies that generally means they've already decided that it's ridiculous and will be overturned. Two days later, the Industry Minister overruled his own agency - the one who's mandate it is to look after the best interest of the public - and told them that if they didn't reverse it, he would (link).

I mention this to show you what kind of regulatory environment we deal with up here when it comes to telecommunications. This is the second time in a year the Industry Minister has had to overrule his agency. When Wind Mobile spent over a year smack-talking Rogers' and Bell's insane cell plan structures, they bought out the CRTC to "review" the ownership structure of Wind and, just before launch, try to pull Wind's license to operate (link). That ridiculousness cause the Minister to step in then as well.

It's this type of shit that goes on which consistently rates Canada poorly compared to the rest of the developed world when it comes to internet policies (link), broadband quality (link), and cellphone rates (link). It's not that we don't have the infrastructure in place, it's our regulatory environment has allowed the oligopoly to run amok.

Motherless fucks, all of them. And we can't do jack shit about it. All we can do is just sit there and take it up the ass

Zeus wrote:A couple of weeks ago, the CRTC board was finally bribed enough to change the rules to allow Bell to charge their wholesalers on a usage-based billing as opposed to the "per bandwidth" rate that's currently in place. The whole point of the non usage-based billing is to allow for competition from smaller companies who want to offer a different product than the big boys. For you Americans, the standard internet plans up here generally carry a 60GB usage limit which, with 2GB per movie on Netflix and streaming off of even legit websites becoming more prominent, is revoltingly inadequate.

Bell and the CRTC used the bullshit "we need to lower congestion on our networks" excuse publicly to try to pass this bribe off as a legit reason. Of course it doesn't even pass the smell test since Bell themselves are offering a "next generation" internet connection called Fibe which offers 25MBit per sec (vs the standard 6) and these predatory companies have all been prepping for this increased usage for years (how the hell do you think Rogers offers On Demand?) and have far more than adequate bandwidth in reserve. But why would they even bother competing when they're not forced to?

It was so bad and blatant what went on that early this week (it was announced last week that the change was coming), the federal government decided to place the decision "under review" (link). When the government even hints at "reviewing" a decision by one of it's own agencies that generally means they've already decided that it's ridiculous and will be overturned. Two days later, the Industry Minister overruled his own agency - the one who's mandate it is to look after the best interest of the public - and told them that if they didn't reverse it, he would (link).

I mention this to show you what kind of regulatory environment we deal with up here when it comes to telecommunications. This is the second time in a year the Industry Minister has had to overrule his agency. When Wind Mobile spent over a year smack-talking Rogers' and Bell's insane cell plan structures, they bought out the CRTC to "review" the ownership structure of Wind and, just before launch, try to pull Wind's license to operate (link). That ridiculousness cause the Minister to step in then as well.

It's this type of shit that goes on which consistently rates Canada poorly compared to the rest of the developed world when it comes to internet policies (link), broadband quality (link), and cellphone rates (link). It's not that we don't have the infrastructure in place, it's our regulatory environment has allowed the oligopoly to run amok.

Motherless fucks, all of them. And we can't do jack shit about it. All we can do is just sit there and take it up the ass

What do you mean by "different product"?

An unlimited service as opposed to a per-GB pricing structure. That changes the usage of the product completely giving you a very different product. That's the entire basis behind this issue, the big boys forcing everyone else through their influence on the regulatory environment to offer the exact same product as they do.

Zeus wrote:An unlimited service as opposed to a per-GB pricing structure. That changes the usage of the product completely giving you a very different product. That's the entire basis behind this issue, the big boys forcing everyone else through their influence on the regulatory environment to offer the exact same product as they do.

These smaller ISPs just buy their bandwidth wholesale from the big firms, so not having usage based billing going from first party provider to third party provider gives the smaller firms an unfair advantage. In the current climate, this makes no sense. If the smaller firms are able to undercut the larger firms and somehow eventually overtake their market share... then they would be the larger firms and they would go to a usage based billing structure if they had their own infrastructure. They are just taking advantage of unfair market rules to provide this superior service.

Perhaps your provincial government should set up a crown corporation to provide you with internet service that is more concerned with providing access than providing for shareholders.

The reasons they're allowed to buy wholesale from the big boys are:

a) the unfair advantage the big boys had in building their infrastructure from their long history as monopolies
b) you don't want 700 companies each with their own lines in the ground

In order to ensure b) never gets unweildy and against the public good, you force the ex-monopolies to share the infrastructure they would never have completely owned had they not been monopolies. Everyone knows that capacity isn't an issue, it's the will of these ex-monopolies that's causing supply issues that don't exist. Since they won't compete with each other through either implied or back-door understandings, you introduce other entrants in this way to ensure there is actual competition.

Don't ever think that Bell or Rogers ever deserve your sympathy. They have done nothing but fuck the consumers in the ass as hard as they possibly can since your grandfather's days. They do it with every service they offer, just look at the complaints and policies they have just in their cell business alone. And they spend waaaaay more money trying to change through lobbying than they do trying to offer you a better service.

And this is a national, not provincial, issue. If the federal government was even remotely interested in introducing competition through crown corporations, they would never have sold Petro Canada and forced us into a ridiculous retail oligopoly that we have in this country with respect to gas prices. Then there's banking and insurance which are further up the list in industries that need their balls cut off. Telecommunications comes after those

bovine wrote:

Zeus wrote:An unlimited service as opposed to a per-GB pricing structure. That changes the usage of the product completely giving you a very different product. That's the entire basis behind this issue, the big boys forcing everyone else through their influence on the regulatory environment to offer the exact same product as they do.

These smaller ISPs just buy their bandwidth wholesale from the big firms, so not having usage based billing going from first party provider to third party provider gives the smaller firms an unfair advantage. In the current climate, this makes no sense. If the smaller firms are able to undercut the larger firms and somehow eventually overtake their market share... then they would be the larger firms and they would go to a usage based billing structure if they had their own infrastructure. They are just taking advantage of unfair market rules to provide this superior service.

Perhaps your provincial government should set up a crown corporation to provide you with internet service that is more concerned with providing access than providing for shareholders.

Damn you, Bovine, I expect better from you on this subject.

If the 'big ISPs' don't like their current wholesale pricing structure with the third party ISPs, then they are free to renegotiate their whole sale prices. While going to useage-based billing may seem to be a 'fair' way to accomplish this, based on projected pricing structures and how the big ISPs have been courting the CRTC, this is just an opportunity for the big ISPs to force third party ISPs out of the ISP market all together.

If useage-based billing operated more like an electrical, water, or natural gas utility, sure. Charge me a low base monthly fee ($15?) and charge me somewhere in the neighbourhood of $0.10-$0.30/GB (if that) and I might be on board. That's the problem with bandwidth charges, the market is charging WAY more for bandwidth than what it actually costs to delivery. Make a profit? Sure. Gouge me and charge me 1000% of what it actually costs to deliver said bandwidth? FUCK. YOU.

No, the government should NOT set up a crown corp to provide 'internet access'. What they SHOULD do is own the backbone, or ensure the backbone is owned by a non-profit, and treat it like a utility. Then they can have all the ISPs they want connecting to the backbone and re-selling the service, letting competition come up with the norm for a pricing structure. Currently, the backbone is owned by basically Rogers and Bell, with said backbone having significant public funding due to having the priviledge of being granted a near-monopoly by the CRTC, and funded by the government to ensure quality of infrastructure.

Since they government DOESN'T own the backbone, all they can do is regulate those who do. And all usage-based billing will do is force more competitors out of the market, bringing internet access in Canada closer and closer to being in the hands of exclusively two main entities.
Not only is this proposed usage-based pricing structure proposed by Rogers and Bell used to push out third-party ISPs from the market, but it's a massive cash grab. Gee, Netflix is launching in Canada? Wonder if that has anythign to do with the big cable companies slashing their customer bandwidth caps and increasing usage fees THE WEEK BEFORE Netflix launches.

What the CRTC-approved usage based billing would result in: Lower quality service for more money, utilizing an infrastructure that tax dollars largely paid for.

Good read on Bell's bullshit pricing ambitions:

http://boingboing.net/2010/10/30/canada ... eviouspost

Oracle wrote:Good read on Bell's bullshit pricing ambitions:

http://boingboing.net/2010/10/30/canada ... eviouspost

Oh yeah, I completely forgot that when those predatory fucks Bell and Rogers (and I believe Shaw) were actually monopolies they got government funding to build the infrastructure, particularly to (what was once) rural areas. Another reason why they're forced to share their networks....WE FUCKING PAID FOR PART OF IT.

So Bell now admits that their tracker "may" (read: "definitely will") over-report your actual usage rate. And it could be quite costly to you since you'll be payin' $2.50 for each GB they "may" over-report

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011 ... usage.html

That's how much these companies need their balls cut-off. They could (likely will) overcharge the ISPs if they're allowed usage-based billing (UBB) which will then filter down to you. So Bell will be overcharging customers who aren't even theirs. Just the latest in the LOOONG list of reasons not to allow UBB. May actually be so overwhelmingly in favour of no UBB that the CRTC can't even deny it.

Last I checked, CRTC was being forced to to reverse their decision and getting a bit of a public wrist slap. Did that change?

kali o. wrote:Last I checked, CRTC was being forced to to reverse their decision and getting a bit of a public wrist slap. Did that change?

Nope, as far as I know, the feds are still saying "reverse the decision yourself, or WE will."

Still doesn't change the fact that companies like Bell and Rogers basically have the CRTC in their back pocket. It just so happens that, in this case, the CRTC got called on it by their "parent" organization :p Can't bank on that happening every time.

kali o. wrote:Last I checked, CRTC was being forced to to reverse their decision and getting a bit of a public wrist slap. Did that change?

No, it's still on. But with the recent federal court decision to overturn the feds' overturning of the CRTC with respect to ability of Wind Mobile to provide service in Canada (that was in December 2009, supreme court ruling on it was last week), who knows what kind of teeth the feds will have in the future over the CRTC (which stands for Canadians Rarely Taken into Consideration)?

My last post there was actually a bit of a tangent that was related to the whole mess

Talking as an industry insider, I do know that the unlimited model doesn't work. It boils down to the last mile. Beefing up the PoP links (or Internet drains, backbone providers, etc.) is easy. It's a little expensive, but compared to the last mile, it's nothing. The last mile can cost billions to replace, depending on the size of the network. Billions.

Now, fortunately, cable has a bit more longevity than unshielded twisted pair, especially with DOCSIS 3.0. But, that's still expensive to implement, and DOCSIS 3.0 modems have hardly seen the public market. We're just getting our feet wet with it, and it's a painful process of learning the differences and smacking our vendors to fix their D3.0 bugs.

DSL has to replace the lines themselves to move forward, ie: fiber. I don't envy that route. It's really, really fucking expensive. We have fiber to the node, but fiber to the house is infinitely more expensive.

That's not to say that I don't think Canada's broadband providers are corrupt as fuck, but there's a happy medium here, too. Everybody will be playing around with metered bandwidth, and it's going to be hard to say where the ideal GB cap is going to land. Yes, Netflix and other video streaming will play a big factor, since P2P's legalities is no longer a valid excuse.

SineSwiper wrote:We have fiber to the node, but fiber to the house is infinitely more expensive.

...

Yes, Netflix and other video streaming will play a big factor, since P2P's legalities is no longer a valid excuse.

You sure sound like an "industry insider" :p

Sine, I'm for a reasonable cap. But 60GB for $45+ a month (plus tax)? That's inhumanely inadequate. IF we had the Comcast 250GB limit, I would never bitch. But 60? That's retarded