The Internet (in Canada) has reverted to the BBS age

[23skidoo]

Not a lot of fun times here in Canada for Internet users. Recently the CRTC (think Canada's FCC) quietly put in a rule that eliminated the ability of internet providers to offer unlimited plans. And at the same time, Internet providers have started to charge their users for going over their plan's allotted gigabytes.

They've been able to do this for a while, but they've only recently started doing it for real. So someone with a 60 Gb plan who downloads 100 Gb might end up having to pay an extra $40 per month.

60 Gb ain't a lot. Even if you don't torrent movies and the like, you can go over it easily if you watch YouTube, use Facebook, Skype, Second Life, receive large files over e-mail for work, RECEIVE SPAM - I got a 10 Mb file with a spam a few months ago. And of course if you use Netflix, you have the potential to be screwed. It all adds up. Oh and don't forget all those Wiis and PS3s and XBox 360s that are hooked up to the Net and automatically downloading updates, etc. Same with PCs - my Mac automatically downloaded a 500 Mb update without my permission the other day. (My fault; I meant to shut that feature off - but a lot of people don't think about the hundreds of megabytes being downloaded everytime Windows Update does its thing.)

Which of course is giving the companies the chance to nickel and dime you into higher plans. What's annoying is last fall a number of companies were pushing "lite" plans aimed at "casual" users, with a cap of 15 Gb. Great if you only send e-mail. But then a family signs up for Netflix...

What annoys me is that we're regressing. Anything that is "reverse progress" pisses me off. We're back to the days of the BBS systems where we'd be charged by the minute and by the megabyte sometimes, and as a result you had people choosing non-graphical interfaces, all text (i.e. Usenet, but I remember seeing an early WWW interface rendered this way too) to avoid the charges. I confess I've never understood why "bandwidth" - something that does not physically exist - should be charged for anyway (beyond the costs of power for the servers), especially with stuff like wifi and the cloud. But even taking that out of the equation, 20 years after Usenet and BBSes you'd think they'd have found a better way.

I went 14 GB over last month without really doing a lot. And I don't torrent, I only download the occasional TV show file if I miss watching it on TV. I was doing a lot of Net-based research for a book I'm working on. And I've been ill and virtually housebound since New Year's so yes I've been online a lot. Still, I thought I'd be OK because I'm not a gamer (not even Farmville) or a super-downloader or a Netflix subscriber. Guess I was wrong. Luckily my ISP is giving a grace period before it actually starts charging.

I get the feeling the next computer I buy is going to come with a credit card swiper on the side.

Anyway, to its credit the Canadian government is likely to stomp on this pretty quickly. The charges may remain but companies will be able to offer unlimited plans. But not before a lot of people are going to find themselves out some good coin without realizing it.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Outrage+swells+Canada+over+Internet+charges/4207804/story.html

http://www.calgaryherald.com/techno...ce+users+back+Skype+gaming/4211384/story.html

(The second story is on Canadians dropping Skype and gaming over the decision.)

If we ever get an Internet 2.0 (not to be confused with Web 2.0; I mean a replacement infrastructure), they need to find a better way of funding it. Otherwise we're going to reach a point where people will be spending most of their money on accessing the Internet for the most basic of communication services (including TV and radio and telephone), or the whole kit and kaboodle is going to be glass-ceilinged. God help us if futurist Ray Kurzweil's prediction that within 20 years we'll be able to upload our consciousness to the Internet comes true - we'll all have to take out second and third mortgages to pay for the privilege!

Alex

 

[Marc]

I'm wonder if the Harper government would of done anything if this wasn't an election year and the NDP started to make an issue over it a couple of weeks back.

There's a great deal of outrage directed the CTRC that it's nothing but a lackey for corporate interests (not only this decision but it's introduction of a levy on cable and satelite tv subscribes to direct the money to "local tv" and "Canadian content") with some calling for it's abolotition.

 

[hamudm]

^Harper and his cronies wouldn't have lifted a finger.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that a lot of ISPs have secret bandwidth caps while offering "unlimited" service. It sounds like the Canadian government decided this was a deceptive practice and thus forbade anyone from offering "unlimited" plans, since they were all lies anyway. What's to stop an ISP from offering, say, 1TB of data transfer a month? That's effectively "unlimited" for the vast majority of people.

 

[Jadzia]

If we ever get an Internet 2.0 (not to be confused with Web 2.0.

I know how to make that. The world just needs to catch up

We need devices which people can buy and attach to their houses. These can talk to similar devices on neighbouring properties, either optically, or wired.

Each device can build a profile of it's neighbourhood, and work out where to send a data packet if it is known to go to a particular place.

These devices would form a sprawling P2P network. No ISPs. Free to use except for electricity to power it. Invulnerable.

It would need to use something different than TCP/IP protocol, so that use could be moderated (ie to prevent DoS attacks and to prevent a few users hogging bandwidth when parts of the network become saturated)

 

[TheSeeker]

I think it's interesting to note that the Harper government only said they'd look into when the Liberals came out against it.

 

[firehawk12]

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that a lot of ISPs have secret bandwidth caps while offering "unlimited" service. It sounds like the Canadian government decided this was a deceptive practice and thus forbade anyone from offering "unlimited" plans, since they were all lies anyway. What's to stop an ISP from offering, say, 1TB of data transfer a month? That's effectively "unlimited" for the vast majority of people.

Ultimately, it boiled down to resellers offering unlimited or high bandwidth caps, undercutting the parent company's 20-60GB plans.

So rather than force the parent company to try to compete on those terms, they made everyone implement lower caps.

The side note is that the parent company has "grandfathered" users who still have unlimited plans (myself included), and they had to figure out a way to deal with those customers. Which amounted to ignoring them for the moment, anyway.

 

[Marc]

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that a lot of ISPs have secret bandwidth caps while offering "unlimited" service. It sounds like the Canadian government decided this was a deceptive practice and thus forbade anyone from offering "unlimited" plans, since they were all lies anyway. What's to stop an ISP from offering, say, 1TB of data transfer a month? That's effectively "unlimited" for the vast majority of people.

The answer to your last question is the decision by the CRTC which was pushed for by the likes of Bell Canada.

A lot of the smaller ISPs were providing unlimited plans by they also used Bell for the backhaul etc. The CRTC decision allows Bell to cut them off at the knees. So if they wanted to offer a 1TB plan, they'd be arse raped by Bell and would have to charge packet (no pun intended) for it.

Cogeco (operates in Quebec and Montreal introduced caps about 18 months ago which caught some people by suprise) but my old provider Nexicom (which is local in the Kawarthas) only advertised prices on the line speed - nothing about quotas.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that a lot of ISPs have secret bandwidth caps while offering "unlimited" service. It sounds like the Canadian government decided this was a deceptive practice and thus forbade anyone from offering "unlimited" plans, since they were all lies anyway. What's to stop an ISP from offering, say, 1TB of data transfer a month? That's effectively "unlimited" for the vast majority of people.

Ultimately, it boiled down to resellers offering unlimited or high bandwidth caps, undercutting the parent company's 20-60GB plans.

So rather than force the parent company to try to compete on those terms, they made everyone implement lower caps.

The side note is that the parent company has "grandfathered" users who still have unlimited plans (myself included), and they had to figure out a way to deal with those customers. Which amounted to ignoring them for the moment, anyway.

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that a lot of ISPs have secret bandwidth caps while offering "unlimited" service. It sounds like the Canadian government decided this was a deceptive practice and thus forbade anyone from offering "unlimited" plans, since they were all lies anyway. What's to stop an ISP from offering, say, 1TB of data transfer a month? That's effectively "unlimited" for the vast majority of people.

The answer to your last question is the decision by the CRTC which was pushed for by the likes of Bell Canada.

A lot of the smaller ISPs were providing unlimited plans by they also used Bell for the backhaul etc. The CRTC decision allows Bell to cut them off at the knees. So if they wanted to offer a 1TB plan, they'd be arse raped by Bell and would have to charge packet (no pun intended) for it.

Cogeco (operates in Quebec and Montreal introduced caps about 18 months ago which caught some people by suprise) but my old provider Nexicom (which is local in the Kawarthas) only advertised prices on the line speed - nothing about quotas.

Thanks for the information, guys. Sounds like telecom works a bit differently there than it does here. There's not a tremendous amount of Internet plan reselling in the US. You basically get to pick from a DSL provider (if DSL is in your area), a fiber provider (rather rare but getting more common), a cable provider, a mobile broadband provider, and a satellite provider. Reselling was primarily a dial-up phenomenon and doesn't really happen with the other types of Internet service except mobile broadband.

When it comes to DSL, cable, and fiber, in most of the US you only have one provider offering each. So Verizon may offer the DSL and the fiber and Comcast offers the cable. And if you don't like their prices or terms, you can get bent, I guess.

Mobile broadband would be a good option except I think just about all of them have (very low) caps now. There are some companies that resell wireless broadband access that's actually provisioned by Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, etc. but I think even those are starting to institute caps.

Caps are definitely an issue in the US but our lack of overall competition probably keeps it from being too comparable to Canada's situation.

 

[Canadave]

^ I think, though, that in the US most bandwidth caps are much higher than they are in Canada. For example, the "standard" plans from Bell and Rogers (the big two ISPs, who do DSL and cable, respectively) have 60 GB caps, which is absurdly low. My understanding is that the big American ISPs at least offer more reasonable caps for their plans.

 

[Marc]

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that a lot of ISPs have secret bandwidth caps while offering "unlimited" service. It sounds like the Canadian government decided this was a deceptive practice and thus forbade anyone from offering "unlimited" plans, since they were all lies anyway. What's to stop an ISP from offering, say, 1TB of data transfer a month? That's effectively "unlimited" for the vast majority of people.

Ultimately, it boiled down to resellers offering unlimited or high bandwidth caps, undercutting the parent company's 20-60GB plans.

So rather than force the parent company to try to compete on those terms, they made everyone implement lower caps.

The side note is that the parent company has "grandfathered" users who still have unlimited plans (myself included), and they had to figure out a way to deal with those customers. Which amounted to ignoring them for the moment, anyway.

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that a lot of ISPs have secret bandwidth caps while offering "unlimited" service. It sounds like the Canadian government decided this was a deceptive practice and thus forbade anyone from offering "unlimited" plans, since they were all lies anyway. What's to stop an ISP from offering, say, 1TB of data transfer a month? That's effectively "unlimited" for the vast majority of people.

The answer to your last question is the decision by the CRTC which was pushed for by the likes of Bell Canada.

A lot of the smaller ISPs were providing unlimited plans by they also used Bell for the backhaul etc. The CRTC decision allows Bell to cut them off at the knees. So if they wanted to offer a 1TB plan, they'd be arse raped by Bell and would have to charge packet (no pun intended) for it.

Cogeco (operates in Quebec and Montreal introduced caps about 18 months ago which caught some people by suprise) but my old provider Nexicom (which is local in the Kawarthas) only advertised prices on the line speed - nothing about quotas.

Thanks for the information, guys. Sounds like telecom works a bit differently there than it does here. There's not a tremendous amount of Internet plan reselling in the US. You basically get to pick from a DSL provider (if DSL is in your area), a fiber provider (rather rare but getting more common), a cable provider, a mobile broadband provider, and a satellite provider. Reselling was primarily a dial-up phenomenon and doesn't really happen with the other types of Internet service except mobile broadband.

When it comes to DSL, cable, and fiber, in most of the US you only have one provider offering each. So Verizon may offer the DSL and the fiber and Comcast offers the cable. And if you don't like their prices or terms, you can get bent, I guess.

Mobile broadband would be a good option except I think just about all of them have (very low) caps now. There are some companies that resell wireless broadband access that's actually provisioned by Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, etc. but I think even those are starting to institute caps.

Caps are definitely an issue in the US but our lack of overall competition probably keeps it from being too comparable to Canada's situation.

I don't think we've got much more in the way of competition than the U.S.

Mobile broadband using 3G/4G is is subject to congestion which can only be solved by building a shitload more towers (and we've got enough of a problem here with the anti-wifi brigade who lack a clue),

A better option would be something like WiMax but I can't see the traditional providers going for that when they screw people with their charges for mobile broadband and they don't have to build more towers.

There shouldn't be any cost difference between data over the air and data through ADSL and cable because coming from the same place and both need backhaul etc. Instead it's a case of profits (and the carriers can make up a bomb on mobile services - read an interesting article on how becasue of the nature of the SMS, the actual cost to send is pretty much zero) and b) to to discourage people from using it all the time as a primary internet connection so they don't have to build more towers to hand the congestion issue.

 

[firehawk12]

Do you have resellers in the US? People can't buy access to a network wholesale to resell it?

 

[Switch]

If we ever get an Internet 2.0 (not to be confused with Web 2.0.

I know how to make that. The world just needs to catch up

We need devices which people can buy and attach to their houses. These can talk to similar devices on neighbouring properties, either optically, or wired.

Each device can build a profile of it's neighbourhood, and work out where to send a data packet if it is known to go to a particular place.

These devices would form a sprawling P2P network. No ISPs. Free to use except for electricity to power it. Invulnerable.

It would need to use something different than TCP/IP protocol, so that use could be moderated (ie to prevent DoS attacks and to prevent a few users hogging bandwidth when parts of the network become saturated)

I believe you're talking about mesh networking. Here's a fun piece exploring the notion of throwaway solar-powered nodes.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, not a lot of fun. It's going to feel a lot like what dialup was like, with usage metering and all that. It's price gouging, because the companies are seeing an opportunity due to Netflix having appeared in Canada and using the excuse that it costs a lot, but the fact is, it's actually much cheaper than it was in the past. Fortunately though, there seems to be enough noise that there's a chance it could be overturned. What peeves me though is that if it does happen, then it's not as if we can switch to a different ISP to escape it. The consumers are screwed without a choice. All because of greedy companies who want to milk their nickel and dime.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2011/02/01/internet-usage-based-billing-clement.html

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.”

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

 

[Marc]

Yeah, not a lot of fun. It's going to feel a lot like what dialup was like, with usage metering and all that. It's price gouging, because the companies are seeing an opportunity due to Netflix having appeared in Canada and using the excuse that it costs a lot, but the fact is, it's actually much cheaper than it was in the past. Fortunately though, there seems to be enough noise that there's a chance it could be overturned.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2011/02/01/internet-usage-based-billing-clement.html

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.”

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

Does that price include the purchase of the data from various tier zero providers etc?

I have heard an explation for the high price of charges for overusage but it was more from an Australian angle (where ISPs are bill for data coming into and leaving the country which I gather is very unusual).

The explanation was that the ISPs would look at their quote their needs for the money and buy X amount of data at a negotiated price. If they went over the amount they had to buy at a spot price which would be much higher so they passed it on the customer (combined with a disincentive factor).

How valid that explation was then/is now/applied in Canada I don't know.

What I do no know is there's no reason beyound exchange rates why we see a massive jump in data prices because it goes across the border from the U.S into Canada.

It comes down to who controls the large internet pipes and that's probably leading back to Bell (one of the reasons for the Australian government building the National Broadband Network is that much of the telecoms infrastrcture in the country is the hands of one provider giving as massive monoply).

Something else that's relevant - the push to cut quotas gained attention when Netflix arrived in Canada. On the same day it started Rogers push cuts to it's clients quotas.

Why? Becasue not only is rogers a communications and internet company, it's a TV company and provides an OnDemand service to it's cable customers.

If they can watch a netflix movies and tv for $CA8 a month, who's going to want to pay the prices for Rogers OnDemand?
(rogers is also one of the companies making a mockery of the levy on cable tv customers - it owns a cable tv company and CityTV - so that the levy customers pay which is suppose to support local tv stations and contents actually ends up in pockets).

 

[Owain Taggart]

Does that price include the purchase of the data from various tier zero providers etc?

I have no idea, as they don't say, but either way, it is still absurd for them to be so high. It reeks of consumer exploitation in market where the consumer doesn't have any choice. I do agree that Bell has too much power. Unfortunately it's been like that for awhile, and Bell has become greedier and greedier because they can, putting everyone's backs to the wall. The way I see this, is Netflix finally came to Canada, and Bell said, "You know what? Let's screw them!"


Edit: Here's some good news at last:

Basically, Ottawa is threatening to reverse the decision if the CRTC doesn't do it themselves, and if I'm reading it correctly, the CRTC chair will be made to explain the decision behind the bill, (in going forward with it, I think). I have a feeling the Chair will be fired soon.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-to-reverse-crtc-decision-on-internet-billing

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-decision-on-bandwith-billing/article1892522/

 

[Arrqh]

Why? Becasue not only is rogers a communications and internet company, it's a TV company and provides an OnDemand service to it's cable customers.

And Bell now owns CTV, the largest private network in Canada. The only reason for the caps and the pricing as Bell wants it is to be anticompetitive. I would be curious to see what sort of lies the CRTC tries to come up with for justification though, if only for the amusement value. I don't think it's quite as bad over here on the western half at the moment... dunno about Telus (I won't go near them for home service), but I've heard that Shaw is starting to clamp down on their caps now too.

There's a staggering lack of necessary regulation in Canada on the ISPs. I've never really understood it but I think part of the problem is that most Canadians just don't seem to realize how badly they're getting ripped off in price, speed and caps. Part of this is I think because of the lack of real streaming services of any real quality in Canada until recently. In a way I'm actually glad that this is causing a big stink now because I think it's finally pushing awareness of these issues into the general public.

The way I see this, is Netflix finally came to Canada, and Bell said, "You know what? Let's screw them!"

Like Marc said, this isn't because the telcos want to screw Netflix... it's because they're afraid of them. The internet is a threat to the stranglehold these few companies have on Canadian media and they will do everything they can to get people to stop using them and go back to the (poor quality) services that they offer themselves.

So help me, I actually miss Comcast and Verizon. It's upsetting

 

[TheSeeker]

^ I think, though, that in the US most bandwidth caps are much higher than they are in Canada. For example, the "standard" plans from Bell and Rogers (the big two ISPs, who do DSL and cable, respectively) have 60 GB caps, which is absurdly low. My understanding is that the big American ISPs at least offer more reasonable caps for their plans.

It depends on which plan you have with Rogers. I have their Extreme Plus package and it's 125GB/mth with an additional $1.25 for every GB you go over.

 

[eastman23]

Why? Becasue not only is rogers a communications and internet company, it's a TV company and provides an OnDemand service to it's cable customers.

And Bell now owns CTV, the largest private network in Canada.

And Shaw now owns Global. It's kinda sad really...

It's a well known fact that the entire communications industry (internet, phone, TV) in Canada sucks. Mostly because it's all run by 3 or 4 companies.

 

[TheSeeker]

Yeah, it's pretty sad when I miss the days of living in Romania becasue digital cable and internet was so much cheaper.