CRTC green lights usage-based internet billing - Update: May Be Reversed
1 - 20 of 749 Posts
I doubt it will have much impact on Apple TV or Netflix anytime soon since most people subscribe to Bell or Rogers or Shaw etc for Internet service and they already have caps.
What is does do is kill companies like Teksavvy whose primary advantage was unlimited or near unlimited bandwidth caps.
Longer term, it means higher internet pricing as competitors are squeezed out and maybe lower bandwidth caps (which could then impact Apple TV or Netflix)
What is does do is kill companies like Teksavvy whose primary advantage was unlimited or near unlimited bandwidth caps.
Longer term, it means higher internet pricing as competitors are squeezed out and maybe lower bandwidth caps (which could then impact Apple TV or Netflix)
I hope those of us on unlimited plans - anyone on Bell Aliant I guess - will continue to have unlimited internet. It is the biggest reason I chose them many years ago. And now with their 25/5 and 70/15 FibreOP service rolling out, it would be a bad move to cancel their policy on bandwidth.
More free money to Bell.
Another big slap in the face:
Customers of smaller ISPs such as Teksavvy and Execulink who signed up for service before Feb. 1, 2007, will be "grandfathered," where their unlimited usage plans will be honoured. The CRTC did, however, give Bell the right to periodically raise rates on grandfathered plans in order to urge customers on to metered services.
Either way, you'll end up paying more.
Next, we'll have a per-email charge. Just like stamps. Just outgoing email at first... then incoming as well. Whatever money they can suck from us without providing value, they will.
Another big slap in the face:
Customers of smaller ISPs such as Teksavvy and Execulink who signed up for service before Feb. 1, 2007, will be "grandfathered," where their unlimited usage plans will be honoured. The CRTC did, however, give Bell the right to periodically raise rates on grandfathered plans in order to urge customers on to metered services.
Either way, you'll end up paying more.
Next, we'll have a per-email charge. Just like stamps. Just outgoing email at first... then incoming as well. Whatever money they can suck from us without providing value, they will.
Joined
·
8,706 Posts
What some people seem to forget, is that it costs money to provide bandwidth, both for up front capital costs and ongoing expenses. Resellers, such as Teksavey have to pay the major ISPs or carriers, in some manner, for that bandwidth. The options are flat rate or some sort of measured or metered service. Flat rate, as has often been demonstrated, can often lead to abuse of services. With measured, the costs may be higher or lower than flat rate, depending on usage. Also, if the ISPs, such as Teksavey, don't want to pay Bell measured usage, they can always install their own equipment in Bell offices and make other arrangements for bandwidth. In the telecom world, metered usage has been the norm for a long time. It's only North American telephones and now internet access that have been the exception. Even with cell phones and some internet access we buy blocks of bandwidth or minutes each month. This is a form of measured or metered service.
Bandwidth and usage are two different things.
It's the CRTC that forced the telephone and cable companies to share their systems with independent ISPs in the first place. Without that, there would be no other choices for high speed internet.
What about 200GB plans?
The CRTC could have balanced this with forcing Bell to provide faster plans. Without that, independent ISPs will be in trouble soon. In addition, $1.12/GB is punitive. Even Bell set it's usage rates at $0.25/GB to retail customer not long ago.
It's been proven that bandwidth costs next to nothing. Bell is just trying to stop a mass exodus of customers caused by it's own incompetence and customer gouging. Yes, infrastructure costs money but Bell is upgrading that to provide IPTV and other services that are more lucrative than wholesaling internet service. Compared to what IPTV will use, internet is almost insignificant. Bell also wants to limit the inroads of competing services, such as Netflix and IP telephone. This is an anti-competitive move on the part of Bell, with full blessings from the CRTC, that would not be allowed many other democratic countries.
Hmmm... I originally signed up with Execulink in late 2006, but changed to a Digital Phone bundle in January 2008, am I grandfathered? It will interesting to find out, but I hope so.
Any word on insurance plans? The CRTC granted a small concession with speed matching, but if higher speed plans can't be coupled with insurance plans, this could be the knockout blow.
I will be writing a letter to my MP and Tony Clement about this issue very soon.
That's right on the money (pardon the pun), ScaryBob!
It's bad enough when a company screws its own customers, but a travesty when that same company is allowed to screw its competitors and customers thereof.
The completely inept CRTC has moved this country another step closer to the middle ages when it comes to telecom/internet services.
It's bad enough when a company screws its own customers, but a travesty when that same company is allowed to screw its competitors and customers thereof.
The completely inept CRTC has moved this country another step closer to the middle ages when it comes to telecom/internet services.
What people are also overlooking here is that independent ISPs already pay Bell for bandwidth. They purchase high speed lines from Bell and pay a monthly fee for their use. As customer use goes up, ISPs must purchase more lines and pay a larger monthly fee to Bell. That's in addition to a flat monthly wholesale rate per customer. Now Bell wants to triple dip by going after individual consumers that make full use of the service they pay for. I typically don't use more than 60GB/mo but have on one or two occasions. I've also seen a number of occasions where people have been incorrectly billed or seen their internet bills skyrocket due to the use of streaming video services or IP phone services. The CRTC is 100% wrong with this ruling.
Joined
·
8,706 Posts
That article was about metering at the ISP level i.e. Teksavey etc. buying bandwitdth from Bell. You can be sure the aggregate usage from all the ISPs customers will be far more continuous than a single home user. This means they're talking about traffic loads, where usage, at any given will be some significant portion of available bandwidth. Also, it's peak load that drives the cost.
It's true that it's very cheap, but it's not free. One way or another Bell's customers have to pay for the capacity they use. One way is flat rate and the othe is metered. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Measured is not wrong, as it has long been the most common billing method. For example, in other parts of the world, even local phone calls were metered. With the old Telex network every minute of use was measured for billing. With data circuits, you could pay a flat rate for exclusive use of the bandwidth or by usage with dial up or packet swithced networks. Why should the internet be any different? Don't forget, usage based billing may result in lower bills for some months. As an example, I took advantage of that recent $30/6GB deal from Rogers for my phone. I have never come close to using that amount. Under usage based billing, I might save on data costs. The same situation occurs with my data limit on my internet account. One other possibility, would be stepped plan levels, as we have with smart phones, where you buy whatever block size you expect you'll be using and then pay extra for going over. However, it's still a form of usage based billing.
Bottom line, claiming metered billing is bad, without knowing the details, is nonsense.
This sort of thing is a real problem and a separate issue from the billing method. Companies like Bell and Rogers should be required to handle their own services under exactly the same terms as competitors. This is a very good reason for separating transport providers from content providers. As I've mentioned before, down in Wellington N.Z., basic ethernet connectivity is a basic utility. The customer then arranges for whatever internet or other access from the provider of their choice.
There are two parts to this. One is line access to the customer and the other is bandwidth to the internet. Some ISPs buy bandwidth from Bell and uses Bell's DSLAM. Others provide their own DSLAM in the Bell CO and make other arrangements for bandwidth. I set up some DSLAMs for Sprint (before Rogers bought them) in Bell COs and Sprint provided their own bandwidth, only using Bell's copper pairs to reach the customer.
I didn't mention that since the ruling does not address it. Since it has been mentioned, why is it that Teksavvy has no issues providing 200GB and unlimited data services for less money than Bell's 60GB service? Could it be that bandwidth and data really are dirt cheap and not a scarce as Bell claims? Why is it that Teksavvy charges a flat rate of 10 to 25 cents per GB for excess usage instead of over a dollar? Teksavvy pays both Bell and their internet backbone provider for that data so the true cost must be well under 25 cents per GB, probably much lower at Bell's end. If excess data use was billed at 10 cents per GB by Bell, I would have little issue with it. As implemented, this ruling is an independent ISP killer.
Bell's argument, of course is that high use impacts their network between the DSLAM and the ISP. However, Bell has already addressed that by throttling certain types of high bandwidth traffic. Bell must still build for peak demand for other types of traffic, including their own high bandwidth services such as IPTV. That basically means that the "bad" high bandwidth users have had the bulk of their traffic moved to off peak times when it has little impact and costs Bell nothing to provide. The only people that are really hurt by this are those that want to use or offer third party services that compete with Bell's own telephone and TV offerings.
Bull...
Bell has proved bandwidth is fairly cheap with their 40GB/$5 insurance plan.
They have priced bandwidth at 12.5 cents/GB, so you can be sure that the costs are less than that. This decision allows them to charge a 900% markup - pure profit - from third party, legacy network users.
As streaming video leads users away from paid TV services, increasing the cost of bandwidth increases the chances customers will stay with paid TV (cable/satellite) rather than incur extra charges. If my internet bill (+netflix +Leafs TV + any other future video service, they are all paid for and legal) goes up by more than $30 or $40 a month, I have economic incentive to just pay for cable or satellite rather than increased internet costs. Who wins there? Of course it's Bell and the cable providers.
I won't argue that bandwidth is free. But the cost has been shown to be fairly low if the CRTC is imposing UBB, what is good for Bell should be good for other ISP's as well.
Also, the date should be effective now or at some date in the future, say all new users after October 28, 2010 are under UBB, not Bell's arbitrary date. People signed up and invested in techologies under the premise that services were unlimited, yet the CRTC now changes the rules for those customers with no notice (only 90 days).
They have priced bandwidth at 12.5 cents/GB, so you can be sure that the costs are less than that. This decision allows them to charge a 900% markup - pure profit - from third party, legacy network users.
As streaming video leads users away from paid TV services, increasing the cost of bandwidth increases the chances customers will stay with paid TV (cable/satellite) rather than incur extra charges. If my internet bill (+netflix +Leafs TV + any other future video service, they are all paid for and legal) goes up by more than $30 or $40 a month, I have economic incentive to just pay for cable or satellite rather than increased internet costs. Who wins there? Of course it's Bell and the cable providers.
I won't argue that bandwidth is free. But the cost has been shown to be fairly low if the CRTC is imposing UBB, what is good for Bell should be good for other ISP's as well.
Also, the date should be effective now or at some date in the future, say all new users after October 28, 2010 are under UBB, not Bell's arbitrary date. People signed up and invested in techologies under the premise that services were unlimited, yet the CRTC now changes the rules for those customers with no notice (only 90 days).
Joined
·
8,706 Posts
'Fraid not. That is the case with with many services. For example, when you use electricity, you pay for the amount you use, but the utilities have to build the network to carry the peak load, even though average load may be well below that. A significant portion of your hydro bill goes to paying for that network. This is why they're trying to encourage users to shift their load to off peak times. With telecom, a circuit, be it fibre, twisted pair, coax etc., will have some maximum bandwidth that cannot be exceeded. The cost of installing that equipment and medium does not change with the amount of data carried. That cable in the ground cost just as much to lay whether it's used at 100% capacity or not at all. Capital costs and other non load related expenses are a significant portion of your bill.
Incidentally, several years ago, I worked in planning for Unitel Communications. When I left there, I was the person doing virtually all the planning for the main Unitel Office at 151 Front St. W. in Toronto (some 6,000 bays of equipment throughout the building). As part of my job, I bought the hardware that all the various services used. I can assure you, that stuff is not cheap. On many projects I did, the hardware costs were a few hundred thousand dollars. There were also a few I worked on that ran into the millions. Rarely did I see any job at less than $10K for hardware. Equipment is cheaper and more capable these days, but it still costs a lot. There have been times recently, when I've had a few grand worth of equipment in my car, as I drove to a customer site. Carrier grade equipment is much more expensive that the consumer gear people are familiar with.
I agree that equipment is expensive but amortized cost per GB is still dirt cheap. As I said, independent ISPs are already paying Bell for that. As already stated, Bell has already set a retail cost of 12.5 cents per GB for excess data. Allowing Bell to pursue other companies' customers and penalize them in an unequal manner is not only ridiculous from a business perspective, it is anti-competitive and counters the CRTC's own policy guidelines that were laid down when DSL was "deregulated."
Joined
·
8,706 Posts
^^^^
I thought that this required Bell to treat others as they would thier own customers. If so, this is a good thing, as it prevents predatory pricing by Bell. If Bell customers also pay metered rates, along with other ISPs customers, then it's fair. Again, if the ISPs don't like Bell's rates, they can install their own gear & bandwidth in the Bell CO. Also, as I mentioned, there are other non load related costs in delivering any service. They can be significant. For example, if they're using Bell equipment, they're also paying for Bell techs to maintain that equipment.
I thought that this required Bell to treat others as they would thier own customers. If so, this is a good thing, as it prevents predatory pricing by Bell. If Bell customers also pay metered rates, along with other ISPs customers, then it's fair. Again, if the ISPs don't like Bell's rates, they can install their own gear & bandwidth in the Bell CO. Also, as I mentioned, there are other non load related costs in delivering any service. They can be significant. For example, if they're using Bell equipment, they're also paying for Bell techs to maintain that equipment.
Power generation does not compare to generating bits. The analogy falls flat.
Joined
·
8,706 Posts
^^^^
The construction of power lines compares directly to the building of the telecom plant. For example, when I was setting up the DSLAMs for Sprint, they used DS3s (45 Mb/s) to provide bandwidth for the ADSL customers (phone services was handled via DS1s). If they need more than that 45 Mb, they'd have to run another. At the other end of that cable is some sort of multiplexing or carrier equipment. That equipment and such has to be paid for. If anything, this situation is more prevelant with data, because there is no production cost, as there is with electricity. When you pay for bandwidth, you're paying for the use of some portion of that equipment used to deliver that bandwidth. The more you use, the more you should pay.
The construction of power lines compares directly to the building of the telecom plant. For example, when I was setting up the DSLAMs for Sprint, they used DS3s (45 Mb/s) to provide bandwidth for the ADSL customers (phone services was handled via DS1s). If they need more than that 45 Mb, they'd have to run another. At the other end of that cable is some sort of multiplexing or carrier equipment. That equipment and such has to be paid for. If anything, this situation is more prevelant with data, because there is no production cost, as there is with electricity. When you pay for bandwidth, you're paying for the use of some portion of that equipment used to deliver that bandwidth. The more you use, the more you should pay.
1 - 20 of 749 Posts
Join the discussion
