# CRTC's new 25 GB max cap - boycott Bell Canada



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Was just listening to Lowell Green's show on AM 850 in Ottawa.

Apparently, Bell has bent the CRTC over a table and thus, bending US over the table.

They've got the CRTC to now have a 25 GB MAXIMUM cap on all internet plans. If you go over, it's up to $25 additional per month (I think).

Of course, this is the first I've heard of it, but if anyone finds any articles, please pass it on.

Ironically, I was just about to call Teksavvy to have them replace my home phone and internet from Bell then cancel my satellite (we simply don't want alot of TV these days...such a waste).

Now, I'm that much more motivated to make those calls.

Our country is so pathetically regulated it's embarrassing. It's so great in so many other ways, but talk about getting screwed by 1 company.

Note: maybe this won't go through, but this was just reported so I take it seriously and not a passing whim of a notion.

argh!

Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Indeed, it's absurd.

The new cap is 25GB, with overages between 25GB and 300GB billed at $2/GB, to a max of $30 (I think). Anything over 300GB is billed at $1.10/GB.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

does this affect rogers? I think my cap is 95 gigs, which I doubt I'll go too near unless we suddenly rent a pile of movies this month.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

groovetube said:


> does this affect rogers? I think my cap is 95 gigs, which I doubt I'll go too near unless we suddenly rent a pile of movies this month.


groove, I believe this applies to any internet service.

I'll no doubt go over 25 GB when I cancel my satellite TV and order the few shows we do watch. I'm sure they'll be over that limit.

What's irks me about this is that it's 1 company forcing a regulator to impose rules on the competitors and how they want to run their businesses. I understand there needs to be laws and guidelines to be followed, but if Teksavvy wants to cap theirs at 200 GB, why not let them?

Oh...that's why.....b/c Ma Bell is the evil monopoly on phone/internet.

Is anyone else seething about this? I don't actually download much, but I'm really ticked.

I guess Ma Bell realizes their TV business is going to take a hit so they're going to get us a different way.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i think this applied to the companies that were re-selling bell's DSL (like teksavvy). Bell's customers won't be affected, but it's basically going to kill bell's competition since they can no longer offer better caps at cheaper costs.

it's the crtc ensuring bell can strengthen it's grip on the market. i'm sure rogers will follow suit.

good for bell/rogers, bad for everyone else.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i think this applied to the companies that were re-selling bell's DSL (like teksavvy). Bell's customers won't be affected, but it's basically going to kill bell's competition since they can no longer offer better caps at cheaper costs.
> 
> it's the crtc ensuring bell can strengthen it's grip on the market. i'm sure rogers will follow suit.
> 
> good for bell/rogers, bad for everyone else.


TekSavvy doesn't resell any Bell service except basic telephone service.

They do wholesale the connection between you and them, but it's not a white label service.

The CRTC has killed competition by limiting smaller ISPs to the same service plans that Bell offers their retail customers.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

keebler27 said:


> groove, I believe this applies to any internet service.
> 
> I'll no doubt go over 25 GB when I cancel my satellite TV and order the few shows we do watch. I'm sure they'll be over that limit.
> 
> ...


No it only applies to Bell and Bell companies and their GAS customers:

Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-802

*Ottawa, 28 October 2010

Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada – Application to review and vary Telecom Decision 2010-255 concerning usage-based billing for Gateway Access Services*

This is actually old news it is just that Bell is now allowed to implement the CRTC ruling.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> i think this applied to the companies that were re-selling bell's DSL (like teksavvy). Bell's customers won't be affected, but it's basically going to kill bell's competition since they can no longer offer better caps at cheaper costs.
> 
> it's the crtc ensuring bell can strengthen it's grip on the market. *i'm sure rogers will follow suit.*
> 
> good for bell/rogers, bad for everyone else.


Roger's could only do so if they file a request with CRTC and then the CRTC rules in their favour. However with the Bell precedent they likely would side with Rogers unless the specifics of Rogers situation is different.

I don't have Roger's as I live in Quebec, do they sell Gateway Access Services like Bell does?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

keebler27 said:


> CRTC's new 25 GB max cap - boycott Bell Canada


I've been boycotting Bell for over 5 years now... even for phone use, I use Vonage. Bell is evil! beejacon


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> Roger's could only do so if they file a request with CRTC and then the CRTC rules in their favour. However with the Bell precedent they likely would side with Rogers unless the specifics of Rogers situation is different.
> 
> I don't have Roger's as I live in Quebec, do they sell Gateway Access Services like Bell does?


Rogers offers wholesale access via TPIA, which allows ISPs to hook up to individual POIs (point of interconnection), which serves a neighborhood or area. This is different to Bell's GAS tariff, where connections are aggregated, and ISPs only connect at one physical point - 151 Front St E, in Toronto.

To provide cable service via Rogers, TekSavvy has connected to many POIs throughout Ontario.

Rogers has filed for UBB tariffs, as well as an aggregated service similar to Bell's. Hopefully, this will only be offered as a cheaper alternative to POI connections.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> Rogers offers wholesale access via TPIA, which allows ISPs to hook up to individual POIs (point of interconnection), which serves a neighborhood or area. This is different to Bell's GAS tariff, where connections are aggregated, and ISPs only connect at one physical point - 151 Front St E, in Toronto.
> 
> To provide cable service via Rogers, TekSavvy has connected to many POIs throughout Ontario.
> 
> Rogers has filed for UBB tariffs, as well as an aggregated service similar to Bell's. Hopefully, this will only be offered as a cheaper alternative to POI connections.


Thanks for the answer JC.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Whoa. Major misunderstanding of what has happened here folks, for the first few posters. The rates and caps you quote are those of PRIMUS - A BELL RESELLER. Not Bell's own rates to retail customers, nothing at all to do with Rogers...(took me a while to post this - others chimed in since I started writing...)

In a nutshell, the CRTC has allowed Bell to bill their RESELLERS (not their own Bell RETAIL customers) for usage. Bell already charges their own retail customers for usage. Primus and other companies that use Bell's DSL lines will no longer pay a flat fee - they're going to be charged on the basis of the amount they (or more correctly, their customers) use. So, Primus has gone ahead and instituted usage based billing for their customers that may appear somewhat draconian compared to what they used to offer, but is actually pretty much in line with what Rogers and Bell offer to their OWN CUSTOMERS now. 

While I'm no fan of Rogers and Bell et al - we do pay more in Canada than in many other places in the world and lack of competition has a fair bit to do with this - I do "get" what Bell is on about from a business standpoint...somewhat, anyway. Their resellers, when paying a flat rate for unlimited usage, can turn around and offer unlimited usage to their customers. Presumably, the reseller's customers could start to gobble up a disproportionate amount of the available bandwidth, and do so at rates that are less than what Bell seems to think it has to charge its own customers. I'm not defending what Bell charges its own customers - not at all - but I do see the point. Rather than jack the flat rates charged to resellers across the board (which was one option I assume they had open to them) they instead asked the CRTC for permission to bill for usage.

Primus clearly responded to this by hiking their rates, obviously in the belief that their own charges were going to go up substantially.

Their rate structure now (if you sign up for additional usage, rather than pay whenever you do go over the 25GB):

$34.95/mo - up to 25GB/mo.
$39.95/mo - up to 40GB/mo
$44.95/mo - up to 80GB/mo
$49.95/mo - up to 120GB/mo

Compare that to Bell's own retail plans - $31.95 for the plan that tops out at 25GB, but $46.95 for the top tier plan that offers only 75GB/mo. You can add another 40 GB for $5, for a total of $51.95. So, all in all, pretty similar rates. I didn't compare bandwidth rates - from what I've seen, the resellers generally do not offer the higher speeds you see with Bell and Rogers, which is another decision factor when choosing an ISP.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

screature said:


> No it only applies to Bell and Bell companies and their GAS customers:
> 
> Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-802
> 
> ...


Thanks screature. From what i heard, this isn't necessarily the same thing. I'm still looking for more news on it and/or the podcast once it becomes available.

How is Vonage working for you? It hopes on the back of your internet line, but you use the regular phone?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Paddy said:


> Whoa. Major misunderstanding of what has happened here folks...


To be honest, I think a few of us here get it Paddy, but thank you for providing it in plain English for the rest of the folks here...


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

As I noted Screature, (just edited my post) - it took me a while to look a few things up and write the post, during which time a number of the rest of you saw the first few "sky is falling" posts and responded. I'll have to type faster! Or not try to marshall as many facts...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

keebler27 said:


> Thanks screature. From what i heard, this isn't necessarily the same thing. I'm still looking for more news on it and/or the podcast once it becomes available.
> 
> How is Vonage working for you? It hopes on the back of your internet line, but you use the regular phone?


It is the same thing keebler, part of the conclusion of the ruling:



> ...In light of the above, the Commission concludes that implementation of the Bell companies’ grandfathering arrangement and of the economic ITMP for GAS ISPs’ non-grandfathered retail customers is to be completed within 90 days of the date of this decision.


Vonage is great. No it is actually part of your Internet usage... VOIP, so if you are worried about going over your usage just to let you know it adds to it. But it is small. You need at least basic high speed for the bandwidth. Cheap too and free long distance anywhere in North America. 

Oh and you need a separate phone modem but yes you use a regular phone. Best to go with a wireless and then all the other phones in the house connect via the one that is connected to the modem


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Paddy said:


> Whoa. Major misunderstanding of what has happened here folks, for the first few posters. The rates and caps you quote are those of PRIMUS - A BELL RESELLER. Not Bell's own rates to retail customers, nothing at all to do with Rogers...(took me a while to post this - others chimed in since I started writing...)
> 
> In a nutshell, the CRTC has allowed Bell to bill their RESELLERS (not their own Bell RETAIL customers) for usage. Bell already charges their own retail customers for usage. Primus and other companies that use Bell's DSL lines will no longer pay a flat fee - they're going to be charged on the basis of the amount they (or more correctly, their customers) use. So, Primus has gone ahead and instituted usage based billing for their customers that may appear somewhat draconian compared to what they used to offer, but is actually pretty much in line with what Rogers and Bell offer to their OWN CUSTOMERS now.
> 
> ...


It would appear, Paddy, that you are the one that doesn't get it.

Primus is merely the first to announce it to their customers. This affects all DSL wholesalers (WHO ARE NOT RESELLERS, for the nth time).

The issue here isn't what Bell is doing to their retail customers - they're free to screw them as much as they want to. What Bell is charging retail customers isn't relevant to this in the slightest - saying it is in effect saying that Bell sets the market price for DSL internet in Canada, which is absurd. The issue is that they're castrating the competition, and for no good reason. 

During the CRTC proceedings, Bell never proved that the GAS network was being saturated because of high-bandwidth users. In fact, the per GB bandwidth costs cannot be higher than 5c/GB because the traffic never leaves the internal network (TekSavvy's cost per GB of transit, or data transferred to external networks/ISPs, is below 25c/GB, which is what they charge customers for overage). The only costs associated with the GAS service, to Bell, is the connection between the ISP and the end-user. There are two fees that currently reimburse them for this, the GAS tariff (per end user) and the AGAS connections (aggregated 1Gbps connections, larger ISPs like TekSavvy have 20+ of these) to the ISP's network.

With UBB, Bell is in effect triple billing ISPs, and charging them extra for bandwidth they've already paid for.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> It would appear, Paddy, that you are the one that doesn't get it.
> 
> Primus is merely the first to announce it to their customers. This affects all DSL wholesalers (WHO ARE NOT RESELLERS, for the nth time).


Well they are resellers in the sense that they are selling bandwidth that they buy/rent/access from Bell.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> Well they are resellers in the sense that they are selling bandwidth that they buy from Bell.


They're not reselling anything. They're wholesaling access to the GAS network. There are no transfer limits in any part of the GAS tariff. Bell is becoming greedy because they see the success of the independent ISPs.

Reselling implies that it's the same service as Bell, with another label on it. This simply isn't the case.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> They're not reselling anything. They're wholesaling access to the GAS network. There are no transfer limits in any part of the GAS tariff. Bell is becoming greedy because they see the success of the independent ISPs.
> 
> Reselling implies that it's the same service as Bell, with another label on it. This simply isn't the case.


It's a matter of semantics... It's Bell's network and their bandwidth... they wholesale what they don't use to third party providers. I understand what you are saying but the infrastructure is Bell's and the ISP's are selling bandwidth on Bell's network. It may not be "reselling" in the way you interpret it, but they are "reselling" what they bought from Bell to the end user.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

John, believe me, I DO get it. 

Bell is trying to cut off their competition at the knees. If that's not a "good reason" for THEM (though certainly not for us) then I don't know what is, from a business standpoint. Monopolistic behaviour from big corporations...nothing new about that.

And as I said, "_Presumably, the reseller's customers could start to gobble up a disproportionate amount of the available bandwidth..."_ - I didn't say that they'd proven that this was the case! I'd be willing to bet that's what a lot of Bell's whining was about, though.

Again - I typed that post when there were only a few responses to the OP - all indicating that nobody had any idea what this was really about. 

As for the wholesale/resell argument - Bell wholesales to companies like Primus, who in turn resell that service to end users, no? All on Bell's lines, no?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Paddy said:


> As for the wholesale/resell argument - Bell wholesales to companies like Primus, who in turn resell that service to end users, no? All on Bell's lines, no?


They wholesale the access from Bell to the datacenter at 151 Front St, but Bell has nothing to do with the actual internet portion of the service.

Primus also runs their own DSLAMs in some facilities, which are not covered under the new UBB rules. Primus is going to be limiting those users as well - obviously a cash grab on their part as well.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Bell has been squawking about usage for some time now - rather interesting article here:

Bell Canada – We are Overloaded, 33% Capacity Peak is Overloaded


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> They wholesale the access from Bell to the datacenter at 151 Front St, but Bell has nothing to do with the actual internet portion of the service.
> 
> Primus also runs their own DSLAMs in some facilities, which are not covered under the new UBB rules. Primus is going to be limiting those users as well - obviously a cash grab on their part as well.


But the infrastructure is primarily Bell's... if it wasn't we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> But the infrastructure is primarily Bell's... if it wasn't we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


Bell owns it, but it was originally paid for by our tax dollars.

We need a government-owned broadband network with access sold to any provider who wants it - like Australia's NBN.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> Bell owns it, but it was originally paid for by our tax dollars.
> 
> We need a government-owned broadband network with access sold to any provider who wants it - like Australia's NBN.


Well that's not gonna happen anytime soon and if you think Bell is bad... I would hate to see the costs associated with a government run monopoly... just what we need another Crown Corporation... one Canada Post is enough....

What we need is true competition and for that we need many private interests and infrastructures. Regrettably with a county the size of ours and our small population I don't see this happening any time soon.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

screature said:


> It is the same thing keebler, part of the conclusion of the ruling:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thanks. I'm looking into it right.

So if I understand everyone ok  , I can switch to Teksavvy and not worry about having a 25 GB cap (the plan i'm looking at is 200 GBs which is plenty).

Part of my lack of understanding is due to emotions - lol : I just want to make the right decision and get my business going for the next year. I need to sort this out first - it was on the list of changes to be made for 2011 so the timing is good (I think


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2011)

Screw Bell and their blood sucking, anti-competitive crap. Stop overselling your network and use some of that money to upgrade it instead of doing your best to kill resellers (who are in turn making you money).

I'm a Teksavvy user and hopefully they can hold out from what has been set in motion here as long as possible (and yes I understand that the wholesale bandwidth is a whole different thing than simple resellers). 

I boycotted bell years ago as well -- unfortunately they still get some of my money in roundabout ways -- but that's what happens when you are a monopoly -- you want a dry loop? Pay the Ferryman!


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

keebler27 said:


> thanks. I'm looking into it right.
> 
> So if I understand everyone ok  , I can switch to Teksavvy and not worry about having a 25 GB cap (the plan i'm looking at is 200 GBs which is plenty).


as of right now, teksavvy hasn't changed their plans, but i'm guessing they'll have to pass that extra cost to their customers eventually (at least on their dsl plans....and if rogers ever gets their way probably on their cable as well).


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2011)

i-rui said:


> as of right now, teksavvy hasn't changed their plans, but i'm guessing they'll have to pass that extra cost to their customers eventually (at least on their dsl plans....and if rogers ever gets their way probably on their cable as well).


I think the problem here is also that Teksavvy is accountable to their users who have current access with them. They can't just overnight cut your access levels by almost 1/10 and get away with it (or can they?). I'm sure that if they had to go that route they would have to give some kind of notice, and I can tell you I would be extremely upset if that came to pass.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

This news sucks. I'm on bell and have a 65gb cap now. That was fine until netflix came along. If I watched netflix at will I'd easily go over my current cap. I'm locked in with Bell until the end of March and planned to make the switch to Teksavvy's 200gb plan for less money. I hope this doesn't screw up my plans.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

teksavvy seems to be a real upstanding company, so i doubt they'd conduct themselves like most of the other ISPs, but business is business, and if bell is allowed to charge them for their users bandwidth then they'll have to adjust their rates to compensate. hopefully they'll try to come up with plans to mitigate the cost to end users, and they'd certainly give a "heads up" to their users about any changes but i can't see them keeping the same rates for long.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I recommend teksavvy to everyone looking for a DSL provider. The only reason I was on bell myself is that they offered 7 meg service but I never get that speed anyhow so I'll likely make the switch. Now Bell is constantly trying to lock me into a contract as they did successfully last year. You pretty much need to have a calculator and a writing pad beside you to try make sense of the marketing shell game they play with you on the phone. Drives me insane. Just give me the ACTUAL monthly charge already!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

My living in Quebec is finally paying off... 

Over the holidays I upgraded my Internet package for FREE with Videotron. I am a long time subscriber (since the beginning of DSL in the Outaouais... about 13 years ago now). I had a package that was 10Mbps with a 100GB up and down limit (it started off as unlimited) for $69/mnth. I recently noticed on their web site that they are offering the same package for the same price but with 30/Mbps. I gave them a call and they installed the new modem and cable to the house for FREE and my bill remains the same.... WOOHOO. :clap: I thought it was fast before... 

They go all the way up to 120Mbps, but it ain't cheap... $129/mnth. :yikes:


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2011)

I wish I had options like that were I am screature ... I can barely hobble in at 4Mbs/768kbps with DSL but at least with Teksavvy I get premium routing, reasonable caps and good support. Cable is also a pretty terrible option from what I hear from my neighbours here who have constant connectivity problems, poor speeds, crazy caps and insane throttling of ALL encrypted data.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> I wish I had options like that were I am screature ... I can barely hobble in at 4Mbs/768kbps with DSL but at least with Teksavvy I get premium routing, reasonable caps and good support. *Cable is also a pretty terrible option from what I hear from my neighbours here who have constant connectivity problems, poor speeds, crazy caps and insane throttling of ALL encrypted data.*


I am very pleased with the service I receive here mg...

Happily this is not my situation at all... I routinely check my speed and it is almost always at or near what I am paying for with almost no downtime aside from power failures which are relatively few. 

I can also add, a la carte, more bandwidth for a given month for a very reasonable price, (relative to paying overage fees) if I keep track of my use at their consistently updated online Customer Centre if I think/know I am going to go over in a given month. It is actually, relatively speaking from the horror stories I have heard here from Ontario, a really sweet service.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

John Clay said:


> Bell owns it, but it was originally paid for by our tax dollars.
> 
> We need a government-owned broadband network with access sold to any provider who wants it - like Australia's NBN.


In theory, I agree with you. It will be interesting to see how it works in practice though. I just had a look at Australia's _current_ broadband pricing at Compare Broadband Plans, Mobile Broadband and Wireless Broadband - looked for something in the higher speed (25Mbps) and heavier use range (80 GB) and it's no bargain at the moment. (CDN $ and AUS $ almost at par right now) Plus they have time of use caps - not something we've seen here yet and I hope we never do!

The NBN will take up to 15 years to roll out completely - it's only just started testing in some small areas in the last few months.

I don't know how the NBN will affect pricing - or if it will. According to the Australian government's web site, it may not affect pricing, but restrictive download caps may be eased...



> Q8 How much will services on the NBN cost?
> A)The NBN is a wholesale only network so it will be up to retail service providers competing on the new network to detail the services and prices they will offer consumers. The Implementation Study recommends that NBN Co Limited sets wholesale prices to drive affordability and take up at the retail level and to ensure that consumers get much faster broadband speeds (and less restrictive download caps) with comparable prices they pay today.
> 
> The Implementation Study confirms that the NBN can provide consumers with faster broadband speeds and download limits for comparable prices to what consumers pay in the market today.


General info: 
Home | National Broadband Network
National Broadband Network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obviously, the goal of providing a high quality backbone for the entire country is worthwhile. I would be concerned that over a 15 year rollout, the technology could change radically though!

When it comes to public utilities, I'm generally in favor of them. Privatizing electricity has been one big disaster for consumers - both here and in the US.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Paddy said:


> ...When it comes to *public utilities*, I'm generally in favor of them. Privatizing electricity has been one big disaster for consumers - both here and in the US.


I don't know if at this point I would consider internet access as a "public utility", it may eventually be so but at this point, many, many people can get along just fine without it. The same cannot as easily be said for electricity and water. And for that matter water and electricity aren't public utilities depending on where you live, i.e. private wells and "living off the grid". Even the "telephone" as we know it now is not considered a public utility thus the historical divestiture of Bell Canada. If electricity, water and a telephone isn't considered "essential" for a residence then the internet sure as hell ain't. 

Just to add, electricity is still a public utility in some parts of Canada a la Hydro Quebec.

However, that being said any "public" utility, like any monopoly, is ripe with the possibility for abuse. In general, I believe competition is good.


----------



## Paul82 (Sep 19, 2007)

keebler27 said:


> thanks. I'm looking into it right.
> 
> So if I understand everyone ok  , I can switch to Teksavvy and not worry about having a 25 GB cap (the plan i'm looking at is 200 GBs which is plenty).
> 
> Part of my lack of understanding is due to emotions - lol : I just want to make the right decision and get my business going for the next year. I need to sort this out first - it was on the list of changes to be made for 2011 so the timing is good (I think


Sorry to be a downer but no, teksavy will have to switch to usage based billing too, they haven't announced it yet, but they will and I'd bet customers will get the same 30 days notice that primus customers got. Primus is implementing it feb 1 I'd bet teksavy won't be more than a month behind, last I'd heard all parties were asking for a 30 day extension of the implementation period which is likely why teksavy hasn't notified customers yet.

For myself I am seething about primus' actions as I'm on their own equipment not on bell gas equipment and they DO NOT have to implement this for those not on bell gas service. That said I'm hardly surprised at the money grab. 

For now it looks like teksavy cable is the best alternative for unlimited Internet if it is available in your area. This is likely to only be a temporary solution though as Rogers is trying for the same usage based billing as bell has won, and will likely get it in the near future...


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

Search Engine (TVO, Jesse Brown) did a good podcast on this (14 minutes long), you can hear him interview the Techsavvy CEO Rocky Gaudrault about the CRTC ruling.

http://podcasts.tvo.org/searchengine/audio/800858_48k.mp3


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Public utility doesn't mean it's essential (or essential for every single citizen)... 

Actually, on further thought, I think the best model for consumers is a non-profit co-op. The local electricity entity when I lived in Corvallis, OR was a private, non-profit co-op with 17,000 members. I just checked - they currently have lower rates than any state average in the US at the moment. (Great company - progressive and good customer service in our 6 years with them)

Probably way too late in the game for that sort of organization to provide internet service on any wide scale. There are only a few internet coops in the US from the looks of things and they're mostly very small.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Paddy said:


> *Public utility doesn't mean it's essential (or essential for every single citizen)*...
> 
> Actually, on further thought, I think the best model for consumers is a non-profit co-op. The local electricity entity when I lived in Corvallis, OR was a private, non-profit co-op with 17,000 members. I just checked - they currently have lower rates than any state average in the US at the moment. (Great company - progressive and good customer service in our 6 years with them)
> 
> Probably way too late in the game for that sort of organization to provide internet service on any wide scale. There are only a few internet coops in the US from the looks of things and they're mostly very small.


Public in the way you originally referred to it would imply a necessary component to the service. Otherwise a "public" utility is only public as a matter of ownership, which the rest of your post seemed to contradict and would be a circular argument if there were no "essential" aspect associated with the delivery of the service to the public.

But you do understand the difference between the examples you just provided and your original statement? These are all still "private" institutions even though they operate on a cooperative basis. They are not state run and thus a large part of the reason for their ability to operate efficiently.

How do you define public utility if not by ownership? If it is because it is owned by the public then that is correct but then you seem to be presupposing ownership or the right to ownership of these services based on the "public good". So what other than the general public good being essential could justify the state having a monopoly over all other potential competitors?


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Screature, I absolutely realize the difference between a private, non-profit co-op and a public (utility/company/whatever) - I did say "on further thought, the best model for consumers..." - that should have differentiated it from my previous statement about public utilities. I certainly wasn't implying that those two things are in any way the same.  There are some similarities of course - profit is not the motive in either case.

The national broadband network being constructed right now in Australia is a public enterprise in that 51% is owned by the Australian government. (Perhaps it should more accurately be termed a public/private partnership?) At any rate, it is an undertaking that would have been unlikely without government involvement. As the internet becomes increasingly "necessary" (yeah, that's a whole 'nother debate) it can be seen as project for the public good.

This example may be one that demonstrates a justification for a public entity over a private one. After all, this entire debate started over the fact that BELL is a private entity with a stranglehold on DSL in this country. Bell is ultimately answerable to Bell's shareholders - NOT to the consumers who use their services or the wholesalers for that matter. Bell does what's good for Bell. A public entity, on the other hand, is supposed to be doing what is good for the public. Of course, we all know that this all too often gets perverted as there is often little incentive to provide good, efficient service - and that's where it will be interesting to see how Australia does. 

A private co-op, on the other hand, is answerable to all of its shareholder/customers, who of course are interested in good, efficient service because they're paying for it directly. It doesn't rely on competition or the profit motive for the impetus to be efficient.

Having lived places where there have been public utilities, deregulated private utilities and co-op utilities, I can say that I was most happy with the co-op, followed by the public utilities. The deregulation of electricity in Massachusetts resulted in higher prices, and since very few companies wanted to bother with the residential market, very little competition (for the entire 10 years we lived there, there was NO company offering residential service to compete with National Grid - the privatized former Mass Electric - it was a complete joke. In the three years since we moved, there are a few little companies, but they look like Mickey Mouse operations and are hardly serious contenders. Suppliers did rush in to sell to industry - but the residential market was not seen as major profit source) The deregulation/privatization here has been no better for consumers from what I can see. Consumers are paying more and being ripped off regularly (though hopefully that will change a bit with the most recent legislation enacted).


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Here's the deal. Many have complained about the 407 ETR in the GTA. Too high a charge they say ..... so don't use it, says I. If you don't use it the price will drop. Same here. Tekheads flock like lemmings to the newest gadget and most of them eat gig space. You think this isn't related to Netflix and such.... So, don't use them. Don't use Rogers, Bell, Telus or any of the others. Use snail mail, refuse to use cable....read a book....one with pages not bits and bites......rent DVDs, if enough of us revolt they'll get it. Right now we are playing into their hands. We can whine all we want but we only own our cheque book and not the infrastructure. However the cheque book will always rule......... 

I think it's criminal they way we are hosed. Our only defense is to not use the product. Then the price will drop I can assure you.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Rps said:


> Here's the deal. Many have complained about the 407 ETR in the GTA. Too high a charge they say ..... so don't use it, says I. If you don't use it the price will drop.


Funny...I don't use it and they just raised the price (I've heard). So...I'll go on not using it. 



> Same here. Tekheads flock like lemmings to the newest gadget and most of them eat gig space. You think this isn't related to Netflix and such.... So, don't use them. Don't use Rogers, Bell, Telus or any of the others. Use snail mail, refuse to use cable....read a book....one with pages not bits and bites......rent DVDs, if enough of us revolt they'll get it. Right now we are playing into their hands. We can whine all we want but we only own our cheque book and not the infrastructure. However the cheque book will always rule.........
> 
> I think it's criminal they way we are hosed. Our only defense is to not use the product. Then the price will drop I can assure you.


The thing is, it's not quite the same - you can still drive around Toronto and easily get to where you want to go without driving on the 407. 

Using the internet from home requires you to pay for that service from someone. There is no free option - and since Bell controls DSL in this country, its latest move is strangling the competition so that there are no cheaper options. For some, Bell or a wholesaler selling service over Bell lines is the only option for internet (other than dial-up) - cable is not available everywhere. So Bell in effect has a monopoly of sorts in at least some areas of the country. In this case, your only option is dial-up (walking) or no internet (staying home), not avoiding the toll roads and driving on the free ones!

Of course, you can always go to the library - but that's sort of like the public transit option (if you want to stretch this analogy all the way) - it doesn't come right to your house and it's no good in the middle of the night.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Here's an opinion piece that touches on what Australia is doing and contrasts Canada's lack of strategy.

We’re overdue for a digital-economy strategy


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vancouver city council stepping into fray:

Vancouver seeks ban on 'Internet metering'


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that the CRTC is out of touch with its original mission statement.
Having them preside over our communication interests is like giving Jack the Ripper an Avon route. 

Surely we can use NAFTA to show that the CRTC is not using its powers under National Treatment but a non tariff barrier to trade between the U.S. infrastructure on ours.


----------



## Puccasaurus (Dec 28, 2003)

Rps said:


> It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that the CRTC is out of touch with its original mission statement.
> Having them preside over our communication interests is like giving Jack the Ripper an Avon route.
> 
> Surely we can use NAFTA to show that the CRTC is not using its powers under National Treatment but a non tariff barrier to trade between the U.S. infrastructure on ours.


Finally, a real reason to invade Canada. We'd hail them as liberators! :clap: 

This cap and UBB nonsense is outrageous. I've written letters, made phone calls, signed petitions but this monster keeps on coming. I just don't have the heart anymore to keep fighting. I'm on Teksavvy DSL right now and using about 80 - 100 GB/month (Netflix!). There's no way I can stick around; I need to move to Teksavvy Cable...but how long before Rogers gets greedy too? This is a damn shame all around.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Rps said:


> It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that the CRTC is out of touch with its original mission statement.
> Having them preside over our communication interests is like giving Jack the Ripper an Avon route.
> 
> Surely we can use NAFTA to show that the CRTC is not using its powers under National Treatment but a non tariff barrier to trade between the U.S. infrastructure on ours.


The CRTC is working wonderfully administering its mandate to referee Big Electronic Media.

The sole purpose of the CRTC is to look after the interests of Bell, Rodgers, Shaw et al and these private companies do not have to work too hard by actually competing to make huge *guaranteed* profits.

Much better than the bad old days of only having a guaranteed franchise.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

It appears that Bell will be favouring it's own customers....300 Gig! That's a lot of data.

They're definitely discriminating against their wholesale customers.

Bell Canada to levy $1 per gigabyte penalty on heavy users - FierceTelecom


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

Rps said:


> It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that the CRTC is out of touch with its original mission statement.


I don't believe it was ever *in touch* with the mission statement.


> Having them preside over our communication interests is like giving Jack the Ripper an Avon route.


Avon routes go to prostitutes in back alleys now? 


> Surely we can use NAFTA to show that the CRTC is not using its powers under National Treatment but a non tariff barrier to trade between the U.S. infrastructure on ours.


I think what we need to do is anyone that wants network access should just pay for their own fibre form their house directly to the main trunk. Going to cost a little up front I'm sure, but during the transition phase it will be used as a bargaining chip for real estate deals. Eventually no matter what house/apt you move in to will have a nice dark fibre line waiting for your personal fibre modem. 

Or we could set up an alternate wireless network in the style of Daemon & its sequel, FreedomTM - by Daniel Suarez (a good book imo, no matter what format you get).


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

I keep getting Bell offers to turn a $67.41 credit for funds lifted from me too far in advance into greater savings for upgrades to my exiting services that i don't fully understand.
Why don't they just give me what I want, straight, without all the mumbojumbo? I'm on a plan that no longer exists that they can't match or beat with any current plan, that we have no formal agreement to, that they honour based on I have no clue what agreement, that they warn me of cancelling every time I try to figure out what internet plan i should be on. 
Very much like the Ontario gov't- keep charging me more for whatever, then send me cheques to offset the affects of whatever it is they are charging me more for.....


----------

