Canadians, Speak Out to Stop Internet Metering!

[MusicallyInspired]

Canada is the first nation who is being forced by the CRTC and Bell to put a meter on our internet usage and charge by the byte. This means a lot of the stuff we have available right now won't be affordable because we'll have to pay through the nose for it. This is a cheap shot to force people to stop streaming movies and TV shows through innovative services like Netflix to go back to watching cable TV. The cap they are proposing is 25GB/month which is a fraction of what we currently have and we'll get charged for going over that limit. We'll be paying more for a lot less of what we have now.

Link to Article

Metered Internet usage (also called "Usage-Based Billing") is coming to Canada, and it's going to cost Internet users. While an advance guard of Canadians are expressing creative outrage at the prospect of having to pay inflated prices for Internet use charged by the gigabyte, the consequences probably haven't set in for most consumers. Now, however, independent Canadian ISPs are publishing their revised data plans, and they aren't pretty.

"Like our customers, and Canadian internet users everywhere, we are not happy with this new development," wrote the Ontario-based indie ISP TekSavvy in a recent e-mail message to its subscribers.

But like it or not, the Canadian Radio-Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved UBB for the incumbent carrier Bell Canada in September. Competitive ISPs, which connect to Canada's top telco for last-mile copper connections to customers, will also be metered by Bell. Even though the CRTC gave these ISPs a 15 percent discount this month (TekSavvy asked for 50 percent), it's still going to mean a real adjustment for consumers.
This is going to hurt

Starting on March 1, Ontario TekSavvy members who subscribed to the 5Mbps plan have a new usage cap of 25GB, "substantially down from the 200GB or unlimited deals TekSavvy was able to offer before the CRTC's decision to impose usage based billing," the message added.

By way of comparison, Comcast here in the United States has a 250GB data cap. Looks like lots of Canadians can kiss that kind of high ceiling goodbye. And going over will cost you: according to TekSavvy, the CRTC put data overage rates at CAN $1.90 per gigabyte for most of Canada, and $2.35 for the country's French-speaking region.

Bottom line: no more unlimited buffet. TekSavvy users who bought the "High Speed Internet Premium" plan at $31.95 now get 175GB less per month.

"Extensive web surfing, sharing music, video streaming, downloading and playing games, online shopping and email," could put users over the 25GB cap, TekSavvy warns. Also, watch out "power users that use multiple computers, smartphones, and game consoles at the same time."

Sign the petition against Internet Metering!

[Maiandra]

What the...?! Freaking, greedy, money-grabbing...

We don't stream a lot of video or use services like NetFlix, but I have concerns about how this would affect our Steam usage. We probably won't be buying any large games in the near future on Steam, but it could end up being an issue later on. We usually buy games on Steam because they have good sales, but it won't end up being such a good deal if we have to pay extra to download them.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for our monthly internet service, if it would end up reducing the need for measures like this. It's certainly worth it.

I'll definitely sign the petition AND look into this further. Thanks for the heads-up, MI.

[MusicallyInspired]

No problem.

Also, an interesting anecdote someone on the interwebs noted:

[DeadPoolX]

I'd like to say this is unbelievable, but it's not. I could see us eventually moving back to the old pay-per-hour price plans of the 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s.

I found it interesting that in this article it's mentioned that Bell is essentially taking over smaller, independent ISPs. Now that's in Ontario where Bell seems to have the largest market share of internet providers; however, in western Canada, Bell is barely an afterthought and Telus and Rogers are the main options. So while Bell is probably SOL in western Canada, it's foreseeable that Telus and/or Rogers could do something similar.

Like Maia, I'm concerned about Steam. Games are getting larger and I already have a couple of titles on my account that're in the 15GB range, such as Empire Total War. If the usage cap is set at 25GB per month, I'll end up using over half just to download that ONE game.

Going beyond Steam, services like Skype and other VOIP programs will be affected. Even something as minor as watching a few YouTube videos could cause an issue.

I signed the petition and I hope it makes a difference.

[Collector]

This is about Net Neutrality. Besides nickel-and-diming their customers to death, they mostly want to control where you can get content from by making other sources too expensive or impossible to get so you will buy the content from them. Several of the major providers want to start for fee streaming media services. Comcast is the the worst. This is yet another example of why people who say that government should be run like corporations are idiots.

Look for it to start happening here in the US, too. There was some proposed legislation to rein in the providers' trend in this direction, but it will most likely be killed or emasculated to the point of being worthless. The new congress will be very sympathetic to the major providers as they use government to do their dirty work of stifling the smaller competition.

More about Net Neutrality can be found at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

[MusicallyInspired]

Didn't Comcast try to do this very thing a while back and got sued for it?

[DeadPoolX]

What I don't understand is if you're pro-business (which I am), how does placing a hard cap on internet usage do anything but harm business? Think about all the small(er) businesses that'll go belly up because of this; even large corporations make extensive use of the internet and while they could afford the extra prices, they won't want to.

All this might do -- besides getting tons of Canadians ticked off -- is put more people on EI. If small businesses shut down, those people will be out of work. Likewise, a large corporation will look for ways to cut costs if their internet use begins costing them more. That means "letting people go."

Unemployed people usually aren't the first in line to buy stuff. So this damages the economy even more.

[Collector]

Just because certain decisions may harm a business does not they will not be made. A common example is how some executives become so obsessed with overhead for short term profits that they end up mortgaging the company's future by cutting too much, such as by cheapening a product to the point no one will continue to buy it.

It is ill thought out, but it is not the first time that some have been distracted by potential (unseen) profits that they don't see the potential losses. As to whether or not it would affect businesses customers is another issue. Business class accounts are handled differently. They probably wouldn't have a cap. What businesses that it would hurt, besides the providers themselves, would be the online commerce, like digital download sales. It could put a lot of those companies out of business.

There may be another aspect to this. There may also be pressure being brought to bear by record labels and Hollywood to make it cost prohibitive to get movies or music via the likes of bit torrent.

[Maiandra]

One of the things that bothers me about this is that they cite the reason of streaming media as using too much bandwidth. Using the internet for music or movies is far less necessary than other applications that rely exclusively on it. Gaming online has to be done online and you don't have any other options. Business applications are essential.

I would prefer if they didn't restrict online usage at all, but clearly they are going to restrict it or at least try. It irks me that other online activities that are exclusively designed for it and have no other options will suffer because people can't bothered to go to Blockbuster or don't want to pay for something.

Unfortunately, there is no easy and non-invasive way for them to restrict certain bandwidth uses and leave others alone. Even if there was, they would probably just ignore it and use this as an excuse to raise prices like they are now.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind paying a little extra for my internet service per month, since the cost hasn't really changed in the last few years at all. I just don't like the inflexibility and BS of this entire issue.

[Collector]

I don't know what Net Neutrality initiatives there are in Canada, but it might be worth looking into it.

[MusicallyInspired]

Looks like it's been turned around:

Ottawa Threatens to Reverse CRTC Decision on Internet Billing

OTTAWA—A controversial CRTC decision that effectively imposed usage-based Internet billing on small service providers will be reversed, the Toronto Star has learned.

“The CRTC should be under no illusion — the Prime Minister and minister of Industry will reverse this decision unless the CRTC does it itself,” a senior Conservative government official said Wednesday.

“If they don’t reconsider we will reverse their decision.”

The promise to reverse the ruling comes as CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein is scheduled to explain the decision Thursday before the House of Commons industry committee.

While the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is an independent agency, its decision can be overturned by cabinet. The Star was told that could happen as early as next week.

The CRTC decision has sparked outrage across the country with Canadians rushing to sign petitions asking the Conservative government to reverse it. Industry Minister Tony Clement has received tens of thousands of emails requesting that it be struck down.

“Frankly, a decision like this is clearly not in the best interest of consumers,” the senior official said.

“This is a bread-and-butter issue.”

The CRTC’s ruling affects the wholesale business of the major Internet service providers, who sell capacity to smaller resellers. To encourage competition, major telecom operators that have spent heavily on infrastructure are required to lease bandwidth on their networks to small providers.

Major providers charge customers extra if they download more than the monthly limits they set, typically between 20 and 60 gigabytes. Small providers, however, offer plans with 200 gigabyte ceilings and even unlimited use.

The issue came to a head last week, when the CRTC denied independent service providers the right to continue offering unlimited Internet plans.

Although critics say the CRTC ruling will lead to lower download limits and higher rates, major Internet service providers say usage-based billing based is fair because it means heavy users pay more than those who just surf the web and use email.

As it invests billions in new broadband capacity, Bell says old pricing structures need to be brought in line with the huge amount of growth in Internet usage. Businesses and consumers are increasingly relying on the Internet to download videos, documents and even software. Rogers says its customers are using about 40 per cent more data each year.

Consumers’ Association of Canada president Bruce Cran said the CRTC decision is nothing but corporate gouging by Canada’s monopolistic communications companies.

John Reid, president of CATA Alliance, a group that advocates for innovation in Canada, said, “This has to be a decision that Canada makes — that it wants to be the best in the world in the provision of high-speed Internet.”

He added, however, that usage-based billing is not the answer.

“You don’t want to stifle the sort of richness that comes from using high-speed Internet,” says Reid.

[DeadPoolX]

I'm glad to see this will get stopped. I bet someone somewhere was bribed and they thought: "Hey, no one will notice!" Heh. Yeah, right. Nowadays "confidential info" is all over the internet before noon and they expected something that affects internet use to go unnoticed?

I can see why Bell's getting annoyed by smaller ISPs. Caps of 200GB or unlimited usage by smaller ISPs is a bit much, especially considering they don't own the lines. Maia and I have a cap of 75GB per month from Telus and we've never gone over it.

Bell's plan to reduce their cap to 25GB was too extreme. If they reduced it to anywhere between 60-80GB range, I don't think too many people would've complained.

That said, "Konrad von Finckenstein" is the BEST NAME EVER!

[MusicallyInspired]

Yeah. 25 is just pathetically and unforgivably small. Myself, I'm with Shaw and I have a 60GB cap at a 7.5Mbps throttled download speed. I've never checked my usages but I know I'd never survive on 25.....and have to pay the ridiculous fee of $2 per GB over.

[Collector]

I have no idea what my monthly usage is since I do a lot of streaming video, but I imagine that it is rather high. At least I don't have a cap with my RoadRunner. At 25 GB I would use most of it if I ever had to completely reupload SHP. This is something that they need to be very careful about. There are starting to be too many businesses that relying on customers having plenty of bandwidth. Even Microsoft's plan for the future is to shift to cloud computing.

[Maiandra]

Well this is good news! It hasn't been reversed yet, but at least it sounds like they will have little choice.

Even if they want to impose some restrictions to cover costs, what they propose is way too much. They really need a better thought-out solution.