So videotron has started making noise to charge content providers (google, amazon, youtube...) a tariff for hogging the internet "tubes."

With video and music downloads gobbling up Internet bandwidth at an ever-expanding pace, cable company Videotron is pushing for content providers like movie studios to share some of the cost to expand broadband pipelines.

Videotron (TSX:QBR.B) boss Robert Depatie wants the federal government to slap a transmission tariff on providers - like the music and film industry - so they can shoulder part of the burden. (http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/story.html?id=2fb34523-04ff-45b7-b503-fb4564c17c0e&k=20725)

What bothers me is that these companies already pay for the amount of bandwidth they use. To me, this is just a cash grab. Each bit coming down the pipeline should be treated equally as every other bit that I surf to.

The problem is, most politicians are fuddy duds and have no clue about technology. To them, it sounds reasonable to charge the content providers. Of course, it helps when you have strong lobby groups telling you what to do.

By the end of the week I am sure Bell, Rogers and the other large ISPs will be jumping on board.

What's next? Charging us to get a Comedy Pack, news pack, video downloading pack, music pack, forum pack?

Will it turn into theme pack system like TV...

Edit: Deleted an fixed.

This absolutely kills me.

If the content providers have to pay then why the hell are we paying companies like Videotron $40 and $50 a month for Internet service.

We pay $40 or $50 a month to get to Google (and Digital Home of course!)

Yes Google et al use up 50% of the pipes but without Google and Yahoo, why would you pay $40 or $50 a month?

If VIdeotron is concerned, why not just charge users by the GB? That way the people who are using the pipes will pay for what they use.


This stinks as much as the CD levy!

Westmanguy, that's a totally different issue. Prioritization of packets is a Quality of Service issue designed so that one downloader does choke others from being able to access the net.

Videotron is not talking about diminishing service or giving unfair priority to particular companies.

If I buy 4 times as much food this year as last year, does the grocery store

- demand a tariff on all farms, and then charge me the same that I paid for 1/4 of the food last year?
- charge me 4 times as much?

I think there's a hidden agenda here. Once the big government-regulated providers have chokepoints installed controlling what websites we can/cannot access, the Comission for Repression and Though Control will be able to jump in and slap Can-Con limits on our web-surfing.

The control freaks at the CRTC has never made any secret of their desire to control our surfing. 10 years ago the CRTC chair was whining about how much time Canadians were spending at American websites, and "by golly, we're going to do something about it". See http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/ottawa-sun.18nov96.html

There were a couple of attempts. The first one was about the CRTC taking control "for the children", and to protect us from con-artists, etc. They tried very hard to ignore the fact that law enforcement was the RCMP's job. But there was enough public screaming that that idea was shelved.

But if the federally regulated telcos and cablecos do it the CRTC will be able to avoid public blame... just like governments impose huge taxes on petroleum, and the public curses oil companies for high gasoline prices.

Yes Google et al use up 50% of the pipes but without Google and Yahoo, why would you pay $40 or $50 a month?


Very true and yet only half the picture. Google and other content providers, as I know you are well aware with DHC, pay large sums of money to distribute their content. Google has so much traffic to their sites that their bandwidth costs must be extraordinary.

So what if google is 50% of the internet traffic. The only reason they and others take up a lot of traffic is because of their popularity. To the ISPs, a bit is a bit on their backbone. Instead of using google services, I could just as easily use 10 other companies services equating to the same amount of traffic.

Why penalize companies for succeeding?

I pay a fee to be able to get X amount of bandwidth per month. It shouldn't matter where that bandwidth comes from. If I use too much bandwidth than create another tier of pay services for high end users.

(The Canadian companies are not hiding the fact they make a lot of money from their internet businesses. So their crying poor does not have much weight with me and I am loathe to suggest charging customer more for less).

They talk about money-making sites like studios. What about free services like AVG, Zone-Alarm, Microsoft Windows updates, this forum, other forums, ... ?

They won't get Google or any of these to pay.

They won't get any foreing companies to pay anyway, there going to get laughed at. I'd like to see them ask porno industry to pay up! They're going to get a few criminal organizations giving them trouble faster than they can think.

Anyway, they can charge me for the services I use. If I use too much, they can charge me more. But if they slow down or block sites I use because these sites refuse to pay, then the Internet is useless to me, and they'll lose the $600 a year I pay them.

What about free services like AVG, Zone-Alarm, Microsoft Windows updates, this forum, other forums, ... ?

But the funny thing about this is that TVA channel (same owners has Videotron) are telling people on many shows that they can watch it "Live" on their computer. Will they want TVA to pay up also?

Their "Regular" package is capped at 20gig/10gig for $39/month. The Extreme is not capped but it's $65. The Extreme Plus is also capped at 20gig for $80.

If most clients are on the Regular, I don't see why they think like that. And they still charge $ for each gig over the monthly bandwidth and it's ok.

If they want to keep a Quality of Service, they should not give more speed until the network is ready to meet the demand.

The Canadian Press is out this evening with an important story that reveals the government's true view on net neutrality. Based on documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, they provide a clear picture of an Industry Minister and policy makers content to leave the issue alone, despite acknowledging that major telcos such as Bell and Telus are "determined to play a greater role in how Internet content is delivered" and that "they [Bell and Telus] believe they should be the gatekeepers of content, with the freedom to impose fees for their role."

I fear the telcos will end up having it their way based on this new information.

Full article here. (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1664/125/)