Canadians - Stop Charges per Byte of Internet!

02/01/2011 05:20:32 PM · #1

Here's a petition for the CRTC, to disallow the ISP providers to charge us per byte of internet use. As far as it seems, it's a pure money grab by Bell, Rogers etc. (Apparently it costs them about 1 cent/Gigabyte. The sum of $4/gig has been mooted.)

//openmedia.ca/meter

Go here, sign it!

02/01/2011 05:36:10 PM · #2

I am not from Canada, but please Canadians, don't let this happen! We need to keep the Internet as readily available as possible, and there is no reason for them to start charging in this manner other than greed. (And possibly "power", I'm not sure how your television/cable/ISP corporations are organized in Canada, but I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast [Cable TV and ISP] attempts to pass something similar here in order to curb online TV watching so their business model can stay relevant.)

02/01/2011 05:43:11 PM · #3

Most of the service providers are also TV providers. So, if they can't get the fees from cable (which they aren't right now) then they want them from the Internet...

02/01/2011 05:48:46 PM · #4

That's the rub, they get more money from the Internet service, but they also drive people back to Cable TV since it becomes too expensive to watch video online. :(

jeger

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/01/2011 06:52:03 PM · #5

bump

mBastin

Nikon D80

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Nikon

02/01/2011 08:00:17 PM · #6

I thought it was only going to happen in Ontario and Quebec?

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/01/2011 08:40:12 PM · #7

The Feds are going to review the CRTC decision and may reject it.

02/01/2011 08:41:45 PM · #8

Screw Canada. Backwards little third-world hicksville. >:-(

02/01/2011 10:28:24 PM · #9

Bumpity bump...

02/01/2011 10:29:25 PM · #10

Originally posted by Louis:

The Feds are going to review the CRTC decision and may reject it.

Cross fingers, but I don't put a whole lot of faith in the feds unless they have a whole lot of prompting...

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/02/2011 05:48:09 AM · #11

bumpin'

Shaman

Canon EOS-40D

02/02/2011 07:16:02 AM · #12

Signed. This must stop. They want to charge me $2 per gig, after 25 gig / month(which already costs me $40). Outrageous.

LandzEnca

Samsung TL500

Sony SAL-16105 DT 16-105mm

02/02/2011 07:23:08 AM · #13

This is tough for internet consumers. Don't they have a bill cap? Not sure how things are done in Canada, but in my part of the world, for mobile data, they give me 10gig per month for $9. Anything in excess is charged at 15cents per Kb, until my bill reaches $18, and by then, i will have unlimited data access while my bill stays at $18. But regardless if its mobile data or fixed cable home broadband internet, the same logic can be applied.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

02/02/2011 07:52:01 AM · #14

Let all your friends know about this too.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

02/02/2011 10:39:48 AM · #15

It depends on the plan what the limit is and what the overage cost is.

Shaw has overage cost of $1-$2 per GB with no cap.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

02/02/2011 12:33:38 PM · #16

The cable internet providers are, in effect, monopolies, having divided territories up akin to drug dealers. Bell aDSL is the other choice, but we have to face the fact that the quality of their connection is very bad compared to cable. In my neighborhood, aDSL is non-functional. Both have monthly download caps.

Cable providers also offer television under separate billing. Bell offers television via satellite under separate billing. So the two internet providers we have to choose from are also television providers. Of course they want to discourage us from downloading television and/or movie content from providers such as Netflix, which charges $8 per month in Canada for unlimited viewing.

Here are some numbers for my situation:

I use Bell Expressview satellite TV, which costs $113 per month. I call cancellations every year to have them lower my price to $83 per month, it's easy to do, and I find their service is better than digital cable TV.

My cable internet plan is $65/month and capped at 60GB. $1.50 per additional GB to a maximum of $30 per month.

My internet usage for the last three months was:
12.65 GB January
16.85 GB December
11.85 GB November

To watch an HD movie on Netflix you'll download about 2GB/hour, So one movie will cost you about 1.5 to 2GB.

Worst case scenario for me will earmark 20GB per month for internet usage, and 2GB per movie.

So:

40GB / 2GB = 20 hours of HD TV per month before the extra charge starts.

$8/20hrs = 40 cents per hour, Cogeco-ized Netflix charge.
If we really tried hard, we could manage to run the TVs for 36 hours in a week, or about 150 hours in a month. Even though that may not be the case, we should have the right to.
$8/150 = 5 cents per hour, actual Netflix charge.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

02/02/2011 01:08:32 PM · #17

Originally posted by Cyberlandz:

Wouldn't it be easier to just pay $18 for unlimited? (Assuming, of course, that you are going over 10gig consistently).

02/02/2011 03:13:51 PM · #18

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

The cable internet providers are, in effect, monopolies, having divided territories up akin to drug dealers.

That part at least is pretty much identical in the states. We've got a few places where the companies overlap (probably in the exact amount they need in order to avoid government intervention), but there is usually only one practical cable provider in an area.

Actually most of it is identical, except we get to add Hulu into the mix (which is partially owned by NBC, which is now owned by Comcast, but luckily they had their power taken away when the merger went through). Time Warner tried adding bandwidth caps a couple years ago but there was a huge backlash and they didn't go through with it.

This frustrates me so much. The cost to provide bandwidth is going down, not up. The infrastructure is there, the cable lines have been paid for long ago, and the upgrades to the system have been for the sake of HD TV in order to compete with Satellite which can upgrade channels to HD at the flip of a switch. They make money from us every month. Every month we pay a large quantity of money and give it to them for several order of magnitudes above what they pay. It's not like people are having their friends download stuff and ship it to them in order to avoid having to pay for their own account (well, these guys are providing that service for you Canadians, but only in reaction to the bandwidth caps), they aren't creating new customers, and they aren't "ensuring quality" (personally at least, my service has been of acceptable quality unless it's completely offline), they are simply wanting to get more profit out of their consistent and significant revenue stream.

Basically, as a company they need to show "growth" even if they constantly maintain a more-than-healthy profit level.

Message edited by author 2011-02-02 15:15:14.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/02/2011 03:32:02 PM · #19

Originally posted by xianart:

Originally posted by Open Media:

"These Big Telecom companies are forcing small competing ISPs to adopt the same pricing scheme, so that we have no choice but to pay these punitive fees."

I'm a direct customer of Big Telecom, and am capped at 60GB. Why shouldn't Reseller X also be capped? Their service isn't available to me, yet all their customers are stealing my bandwidth. I say, cap the mutherfuckers, or uncap us all.

Message edited by author 2011-02-02 15:33:37.

VitaminB

Nikon D800

02/02/2011 04:09:15 PM · #20

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

I agree

Sony SAL-16105 DT 16-105mm

02/03/2011 01:07:21 AM · #21

In the spirit of Canada, I propose a new mantra: "Cap pollution, not our bandwidth!"

LandzEnca

Samsung TL500

02/03/2011 01:38:47 AM · #22

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Cyberlandz:
This is tough for internet consumers. Don't they have a bill cap? Not sure how things are done in Canada, but in my part of the world, for mobile data, they give me 10gig per month for $9. Anything in excess is charged at 15cents per Kb, until my bill reaches $18, and by then, i will have unlimited data access while my bill stays at $18. But regardless if its mobile data or fixed cable home broadband internet, the same logic can be applied.

Wouldn't it be easier to just pay $18 for unlimited? (Assuming, of course, that you are going over 10gig consistently).

This one is for mobile data. I seldom reach 1 gig, so $9 is fine. At work, my internet is filtered, so if I want to watch some youtube, I'd probably reach a few more gigabytes on my mobile. The Australian open just finished, and I'll be expecting more than 10gig out of JustinTV. The same thing happened during last year's NBA finals. The good thing is, they cap my bill, but not my bandwidth. Cool :)

Oh it's not 15 cents, sorry. It's 0.015 cents per kB.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

02/03/2011 10:41:26 AM · #23

It appears the Government is going to overrule the CRTC ruling.