This was in the Financial Post a few days ago.
If I’m not mistaken, Rogers owns Macleans Magazine. The article is the Rogers position on usage caps.
Here’s another good article: 10 myths from usage-based billing supporters
More than half a million Canadians signed the national petition against Usage Based Billing.
Let’s see how many people from Northwest BC we can get to sign a petition against Citywest’s plans to introduce a metered internet:
What did he say?
Edit: Found it!
bclocalnews.com/bc_north/the … obile=true
Nathan Cullen: "If Telus, Bell and Rogers aren’t able to do so, I don’t see why CityWest would be able to,”
“It looks like a rip-off of public money and I think they are going to make a strong case for why it is being done…On the surface it seems very unfair. I think CityWest would have to make the case to me, the public and the federal government as to why they would like to do that.”
“I understand part of the argument if people are using a large amount of the bandwidth and clogging up the system. But that clogging has not been proven and increasing bandwidth is something that can be done for pennies on the gigabyte"
Remember when we used to go outside to play?
I remember back then overthrowing a corrupt government and leaking sensitive materials were almost next to impossible.
Today, the internet is one of the most powerful tools for democracy.
Your comment shows pure ignorance in this issue.
Some honest questions here-
With a flat fee, are low and moderate users not already subsidizing the heaviest users? Doesn’t a fee after a very high bandwidth cap just mean the lowest users are subsidizing them less?
Might bandwidth caps discourage spammers? Probably not a specifically Prince Rupert/CityWest problem, but reportedly a Canadian one…
I understand that there are some jurisdictions that declare internet access a universal human right, like access to potable water, or roads, health care. Will this debate be a quaint artifact when the internet as we know it has been made obsolete by the next technological leap forward.
To follow the road analogy, we all benefit from the highway system, whether we drive or not. Businesses and our neighbours profit from using them. Everything we touch has travelled on them. Therefore the portion of my taxes that pay for road construction and maintenance is justifiably spent whether I travel every day or never. Would it be fair to charge trucking companies more to compensate for their heavier usage? I don’t know.
Philosophically, I don’t know whether higher fees for higher usage will stifle growth and hurt us all in the long run, but right now it just dseems like the grousing of a very vocal minority. Go figure - an internet chat room filled with people upset with a potential raise of their internet bill.
How about CityWest produce a report showing the utilization of these so-called offenders along with all the other users on this system? …Pushing CityWest’s inbound and outbound data usage to outrageous heights? I bet they couldn’t. Show me that and I’ll be on board with UBB.
I’ve seen tactics like this before many times and while my statements are driven by pure speculation, I would bet my last $1.87 that the “heavy usage” “offenders” are VERY few. Most likely hardly affecting PR’s overall utilization.
Have they been made to provide proof of over utilization by the private sector? Because I’ll tell you something, a business line at $99.00 (Full High Speed ADSL) which is stated as exactly the same speed as a private Full High Speed ADSL line, transfers INFINITELY faster. I’ve seen over 80 computers, 4 servers utilizing many services running at $99.00 per month. I cannot even begin to tell you how much bandwidth that uses at full utilization.
So, from my perspective statements have always been inaccurate: “It’s impossible for your internet connection to transfer over 1Mbit due to line noise, attenuation etc.” - while it was possible 5 years ago - on old copper lines running into our homes, why is it that suddenly with progrress, NEW equipment and all this fandangled fiber expansion are we NOT able to transfer as fast? One reason: “They won’t allow your ADSL modem to sync at a speed that will give you a net 1Mbit speed.”
Bottom line is we pay ENOUGH for an astonishing inferior service as compared to other companies and UBB models. I, and most likely we, don’t care about the reason it is inferior. If CityWest wants to guage us, they best provide the service to at least par throughput per second.
Ok, First of all I know, some of us have friends and maybe even family who are employed by Citywest. So what I have to say next might sting a little.
I have already written to a number of other ISPs. Explaining that as a general rule we (people of Prince Rupert) are very unhappy with the service or lack there of. That we have had enough and I for one would switch over to another ISP in a heartbeat.
Myself I have chossen this company, Good reputation, inexpencive, and many options.
Here is a link to the contact form, it goes directly to the Head office. Feel free to browse the site, This might not be for you. So I encourage you to do this at what ever ISP you think would do a better job here.
If another provider come to Rupert, I think we all know the fate suffered by Citywest and unfortunately the employees. But I for one will not be held hostage, and forced to suffer poor service, lost connections, and overpricing. If the Citywest employees really like thier jobs, and truely valued us as customers. Maybe they should be standing up to the department heads as well.
And if anyone is interested…You can troll through alot of this data on price per country, by speed, usage, data, price per Gigabyte etc…
Confirmation that Citywest doesn’t pay by the byte from Chad Cunningham, in an e-mail he sent me today:
“We don’t pay for each GB transferred. And have not made that claim. We pay based on sustained usage in mbps. Consider the following data, between 2006-2010 the cost of bandwidth per user has gone up $6.15 per month due to increased usage per user. Over the same period, the revenue per user has dropped by $3.16 per month due to bundling discounts. Up to now cost data we have supplied has only fuelled more confusion so I’d be interested to hear if that per user data is more valuable.”
He has also written a lot more, and I will go through it when I get a chance and post some of it.
But it confirms what I thought all along.
If three Citywest customers use 5GB, 75GB, and 200GB respectively, they all cost Citywest the exact same amount. However, Citywest wants to charge the third customer $250 more per month. It’s not “pennies per gigabyte” or whatever calculation we saw elsewhere – it’s zero per gigabyte. Citywest pays for the pipe, but not the bandwidth.
So, any journalist still following this story, that’s the question to ask Citywest next time – what is the extra cost per gigabyte that Citywest has to pay for those that go over their caps? The answer is zero. And then ask them where the $2.00/gigabyte figure came from. The answer will surprise you.
Nice to see the CRTC wash its hands of the internet billing question
vancouversun.com/business/CR … story.html
Interesting how a government agency isn’t inclined to listen to the public, the bureaucrats with the government payday seem just a little out of touch on where the consumer and end user might be on the question.
AT&T announces caps: “According to Broadband Reports, DSL customers will have a 150GB monthly usage limit, while U-Verse subscribers will get 250GB. AT&T will impose the $10 fee for every 50GB over the limit a customer uses.”
truth-out.org/att-limit-inte … -fees68501
Seems much more reasonable than CityWest’s overage fees.
Dear Sir or Madam:
Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding usage-based billing (UBB)
for Internet services. It is essential that I hear the views of Canadians
on the issues that matter. Prime Minister Harper and I have been clear
that we cannot support imposing a UBB business model on wholesale Internet
service providers.
Our government recognizes that the Internet and digital technologies are
an increasingly important part of everyday life—including driving
innovation, commerce and social interaction. As the government develops
Canada’s first comprehensive Digital Economy Strategy, we need to look
carefully at how issues like UBB affect the big picture. We will be
guided by our long-standing policies of encouraging competition and
investment, increasing consumer choice, minimizing regulation and allowing
market forces to prevail.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has
chosen to examine these concerns that the government shares with a large
number of Canadians. Details of the CRTC consultation are available at
www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2011/r110208.htm.
When the CRTC reaches a final decision following its consultations, the
government will carefully assess the CRTC position to ensure that it is in
line with the best interests of Canadian consumers and encourages
competition among internet service providers. I will be recommending that
any decision counter to these foundational principles be reversed.
You can find the latest news on the government’s Digital Economy Strategy
and related issues at www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/h_00008.html.
Once again, thank you for writing. I trust that this information is
helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Clement
So on that note , I think City West should be called to task because are they not part of CRTC , I may have read my same letter wrong but yeah they City West should be called to task.
cbc.ca/news/politics/canadav … -west.html
bell has dropped its plan for usage based billing.
wake up city west…
Article from today’s Financial Post
".The Great Internet Billing Debate: Stop the meter
Comments Twitter LinkedIn Email .Special to the Financial Post Mar 28, 2011 – 9:13 PM ET | Last Updated: Mar 28, 2011 9:25 PM ET
Stopthemeter.ca
A graphic from stopthemeter.ca, where an online petition has been signed by almost half a million people.
.Tony Clement made the right move by siding with Canada
By Steve Anderson
Bell Canada’s announcement Monday that it is changing its approach to Internet billing looks like the start of a major policy reversal. But it should not be seen as the end of the user-based billing game.
And it is a game, not unlike hockey. Canadians love hockey in part because it’s a fair fight based on talent and teamwork. The team that pulls together and puts out the best mix of offence and defence wins the game. When referees call a fair game, it works out well for both the players and the fans. If referees chose to unfairly penalize one team and not the other, fans would be rightly outraged and the game would be ruined.
Likewise, it is the value of fair play that has led to the unprecedented level of public outcry over new Internet fees — called usage-based billing. Nearly half a million Canadians have signed the Stop The Meter petition, which blows the whistle on new fees that we could all soon see on our bills.
When it comes to telecommunications — phone, cable, and Internet — the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the government are supposed to be our impartial referees. Their job is to make sure that all industry competitors play by the rules and, most importantly, that the market serves the interests of the Canadian people.
When it comes to the Internet, there are two main teams: the big telecom companies that supply our phone, cable and Internet (Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Videotron, etc.) and control most of our country’s digital infrastructure, and the smaller, independent Internet service providers (Teksavvy, Acanac, Telnet). Players from both teams want to provide Canadians with access to the Internet and it’s the CRTC’s job to ensure fair play: The big phone and cable companies should not use their control over infrastructure to unfairly hogtie their smaller independent competitors. When proper rules that ensure fair play and consumer protection exist and are enforced, Canadians benefit from affordable Internet access and good customer service.
But the big phone and cable companies appear to have unduly influenced the CRTC and, as such, the Canadian people are literally paying the price. These large incumbents have home ice advantage, and they’re old friends with all the refs. The CRTC has decided to allow the big guys to impose new, unnecessary Internet usage fees not only on their own customers but also on customers of the independent ISPs. Canadians will have no choice but to pay these new fees, regardless of whether they use a big telecom provider or one of their independent competitors.
The price of bandwidth is dropping globally, but in Canada we’re actually paying more while getting less Internet. Canada has fallen behind other countries in terms of Internet speed, cost and openness. Industry experts estimate that it costs as little as a few cents to provide a gigabyte of data, and yet big phone and cable companies want us to pay upward of $5 per gigabyte on some plans. This is a clear case of monopolistic companies regulating the market and gouging Internet fans. This kind of conduct is befitting of a stint in a regulatory penalty box, but the CRTC has fully endorsed this anti-competitive practice.
The CRTC, one of our telecom referees, is not doing its part to ensure fair play and so the game is rigged. The other referee, the government, also shares responsibility for the dismal state of telecom in this country. Big phone and cable companies’ ability to gouge consumers stems from market failure borne of years of policy neglect.
Conservative Industry Minister Tony Clement, however, recently took some steps forward in attempting to rectify the situation before the government fell. Clement called for the CRTC to revisit its rules and he appeared committed to dealing with the larger structural issues within the market in his Digital Economy Strategy.
There may be a division in the Conservative party on this issue, if a recent op-ed in the Post, Clement’s confusion (March 
, by two of former industry minister Maxime Bernier’s former policy advisors, is any indication. The authors would have us believe that we don’t need market referees; rather, they want to just let the market sort itself out. But we have tried the “do nothing” approach to public policy and the results speak for themselves. What the attack on Clement does best is undermine the Conservative party’s credibility on consumer issues with voters.
Canadians know a raw deal when they see one and this is why so many signed the Stop The Meter petition, in what appears to be the biggest citizens’ movement in generations. The Facebook page for OpenMedia.ca is more popular than the pages of any of the political parties or leaders. If the Internet were a political party, it would win the election.
This latest case of big telecom gouging is one of those rare instances where Internet fans — Canadian businesses, citizen groups, innovators, entrepreneurs, creators and the public at large — are on one side of the issue, and a few large companies are on the other. A few greedy companies are too focused on winning to remember their love of the game, and are threatening our economy, innovation and social progress. Clement made the right move by siding with Canada.
The authors of the anti-Clement op-ed suggest that his decision to act on the will of Canadians would somehow hurt Internet access competition. This ideologically blinded position manages to entirely miss the fact that Canadians face high prices and a very limited choice in providers.
The authors also consider the minister’s actions “artificial” attempts to create competition. However, there’s nothing natural about the monopolistic control currently enjoyed by big telecom companies. It’s only through regulatory coddling that they have achieved dominance. Either big telecom companies will regulate Internet access in Canada or basic rules and proper refereeing will exist in order to give Canadians a real choice regarding Internet service providers.
As we go full tilt into the election, politicians who take a stand against the gouging practices of big phone and cable companies are on the right side of voters and history. If we can get the rules right and have impartial referees, we can master the game again and get back into the global arena.
Financial Post
Steve Anderson is founder and national co-ordinator of OpenMedia.ca. Response by Martin Masse and Paul Beaudry here.
.Posted in: FP Comment Tags: CRTC, Internet billing, telecommunications, UBB .
You helped move one of Canada’s largest and most entrenched conglomerates. Yesterday, Bell Canada finally weaseled its way out of its request to impose a punitive pricing model onto its independent competitors. Bell has now put forward a new scheme called “Aggregated Volume Pricing.”
You’d be hard-pressed to find another instance in recent history when a Big Telecom conglomerate backed down from something it had fought for so unrelentingly. The Stop The Meter petition is working.
But will this new scheme stop usage fees, expensive rates, and overall horrible telecom service? No, we’re afraid not.
Here’s what we know:
- Bell and other big telecom companies continue to impose usage fees on Canadians and they control 94% of the Internet access market.
- Sources tell us the scheme was crafted between major industry players behind closed doors.
- Big phone and cable companies do not want telecom price gouging to be an election issue.
Big telecom companies know that during an election, we have the ears of our representatives. They know that we have a unique opportunity to tell candidates that we want digital policy that will remove the Internet from the stranglehold of Big Telecom and stop price gouging, once and for all.
[quote=“cranky1”]Some honest questions here-
With a flat fee, are low and moderate users not already subsidizing the heaviest users? Doesn’t a fee after a very high bandwidth cap just mean the lowest users are subsidizing them less?
Might bandwidth caps discourage spammers? Probably not a specifically Prince Rupert/CityWest problem, but reportedly a Canadian one…
I understand that there are some jurisdictions that declare internet access a universal human right, like access to potable water, or roads, health care. Will this debate be a quaint artifact when the internet as we know it has been made obsolete by the next technological leap forward.
To follow the road analogy, we all benefit from the highway system, whether we drive or not. Businesses and our neighbours profit from using them. Everything we touch has travelled on them. Therefore the portion of my taxes that pay for road construction and maintenance is justifiably spent whether I travel every day or never. Would it be fair to charge trucking companies more to compensate for their heavier usage? I don’t know.
Philosophically, I don’t know whether higher fees for higher usage will stifle growth and hurt us all in the long run, but right now it just dseems like the grousing of a very vocal minority. Go figure - an internet chat room filled with people upset with a potential raise of their internet bill.[/quote]
Like many situations, some people just have too much idle time on their hands, whether they are heavy internet users, fuel-burning drivers that shop out of town or watch lots of movies. CityWest is like a lot of businesses in town…they don’t ask why people do that, they just complain, reduce service and charge the max hoping Rupertites feel guilty enough to acquiece(?) to their prices and shitty service.