Stanley Pain posted:

My figure is a rather generous one, but hey I'm also looking out for the poor corporations here as well. I want them to be able to afford the upgrades to their network. Even at 12 cents/GB; 1 TB of data would only be twelve bucks and not $1200. Wholesale rates are cheaper, but you're not going to get those as a consumer.

fishmech posted:

Didn't Netflix say the actual cost of bandwidth to the home was a penny per gigabyte?

Martytoof posted:

I'm having a lot of trouble articulating what I'm trying to say so hopefully someone can follow where I'm trying to take this.

Stanley Pain posted:

My figure is a rather generous one, but hey I'm also looking out for the poor corporations here as well. I want them to be able to afford the upgrades to their network. Even at 12 cents/GB; 1 TB of data would only be twelve bucks and not $1200. Wholesale rates are cheaper, but you're not going to get those as a consumer.

orange lime posted:

Your figure is extraordinarily generous, because the "poor corporations" make money on every bit they charge you for regardless of how much it is. They pay literally nothing for the transfers because nearly all the ISPs in North America have peering agreements where they don't pay anything to transfer on each others' networks. A 1 cent charge is equal to a 1 cent profit.

Furthermore, you need to do the math again: 1 terabyte at 12 cents/gig is $120, not $12. A reasonable rate for right now (I would expect it to go down over time) is more like 2.5 or 3 cents per gigabyte, and that's still an infinite% profit.

Stanley Pain posted:

Found a half way decent one template


Canadian ISPs have "just become a collection agency for the monopolies" according to the CEO of the Canadian Internet service provider TekSavvy Solutions. On January 25th, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) gave the go-ahead to allow Bell Canada to charge Usage-Based Billing (UBB) to local Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as Mega-Quebec here in Quebec City. Starting in February any data over your cap will be charged extra. Despite being charged per gigabyte (GB) when you exceed your cap, if you use less than your cap you will not receive a discount. According to an employee of TekSavvy, bandwidth costs to your ISP are "1 to 3 pennies per gig". Your local ISP is now obligated to charge you $1-4 per GB, more than a 10000% markup, and pass that money directly to Bell.

This is a disaster for everyone who is currently using the Internet; your Internet bill will almost certainly go up. It is trivially easy to pass the 25-50 GB caps that will come into effect next month. Watching a low-end HD movie on the Internet will set you back 4-6 GB, and a single episode of television could be as much as 1.5 GB. Downloading 2-3 games per month off Steam that will set you back 25 GB a month alone. Streaming just 30 minutes of 720p videos on YouTube every day could use over 30 GB. Even if you are already on a plan with a cap, this gives leeway to your current ISP to raise your prices in the absence of competition.

So why the sudden push to impose UBB? The answer is Netflix Canada, an online DVD-rental and movie streaming service that recently became available, and Hulu, an online TV streaming service that is very popular in the united states. Bell is the owner of the CTV television network, as well as offering monthly television subscription services. Bell has decided that the best way to ensure that you cannot cancel your television service (and watch shows online at your convenience) is to make online streaming of TV shows and movies too costly by over-charging for bandwidth. And through the CRTC, to force competing ISPs to do the same. That the CRTC would ignore such a huge conflict of interest is surprising, until you realize that some of its members have previously worked at Bell or Rogers and are unfit to regulate an industry they are beholden to.

There are three possible solutions that we can implement to stop our Internet access from dropping to third-world levels: 1. Disband the CRTC and replace it with an organization directly responsible to parliament, fill it with members who won't rubber-stamp every anti-competitive request made by our monopolies. 2. Create a provincial crown corporation here in Quebec, similar to Sasktel, which has pledged to keep providing the citizens of Saskatchewan with unlimited Internet access at affordable rates. 3. Adopt a system similar to the one in Japan, where the owner of last mile infrastructure (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone) was broken up into competing companies. They were also forced to lease their lines to smaller competitors at wholesale rates. Thanks to government regulations mandating competition, Japanese citizens now enjoy un-capped 160 Mbps Internet speeds for $60 a month, speeds unheard of here in Canada, at any price.

http://www.antiubb.com/why-should-we-oppose-ubb/ also has a lot of great key points that could be easily copy/pasted into an email.

quote:

Les fournisseurs internet viennent juste de devenir agence de collection pour les monopoles, selon Teksavvy, un fournisseur internet qui est maintenant obligé de réduire le service qu’ils peuvent offrir à leurs clients. Ce 25 janvier, la CRTC a accordé à Bell Canada de droit d’imposer un tarif. Dès février, tout excès du montant de giga-octets (go) accordés chaque mois seront facturés à $2.50 par go. Selon Teksavvy, le coutant d’envoyer ce giga serait, au max, 3 cents. Ceci donne à Bell plus de 5000% de profits, que tout fournisseur d’internet doit maintenant charger à leurs clients pour ensuite donner à Bell. Pire encore, les frais supplémentaires sont moins cher en Ontario qu’au Québec, les québécois payant 2.5x le montant des ontariens.

Ceci est un désastre pour tous utilisateurs d’internet, garantissant une augmentation de facture dans la majorité des cas. Il est très facile de dépasser les maximums qui s’imposeront le mois prochain. Un film en HD prend entre 4 et 6 go, et un épisode de télé peut en prendre 1.5. Deux ou trois jeux PC à travers le service Steam peuvent totaliser plus de 30go. Rien que 30 minutes en HD sur YouTube chaque jour utilise plus de 30go en un mois.

Alors pourquoi l’intérêt soudain? La réponse est Netflix Canada, un service permettant l’écoute de films et séries télés en ligne, qui est très populaire aux États-Unis. Bell, qui est maintenant propriétaire de CTV et qui revend le service télé satellite, a décidé que le meilleur moyen d’éviter l’annulation de services télé est de rendre le service télé en ligne trop cher pour les consommateurs, et de forcer les autres fournisseurs d’internet de le faire aussi à travers cette décision. Que la CRTC puisse ignorer ce conflit d’intérêt flagrant semble difficile à croire, avant de réaliser que certains de ses membres sont d’anciens employés de chez Bell.

Trois solutions possibles existent qui éviteront que notre internet deviennent dépasser par les services offert au pays du tiers-monde : 1. Élimination de la CRTC, la remplaçant par une organisation qui répond directement au parlement, remplis de membres qui n’approuveront pas ces demandes anti-compétitives faites par Bell et d’autres monopoles. 2 : La création d’une corporation couronne au Québec, semblable à Sasktel en Saskatchewan, qui a promis de continuer à fournir les citoyens de la Saskatchewan avec un service internet sans limites à des prix abordables. 3. L’adoption d’un système semblable au Japon, où NT&T, la compagnie qui posséda l’infrastructure téléphonique, a été séparé en plus petites compagnies en concurrence. Ils furent aussi obligé de revendre le service à d’autres compétiteurs à de bas prix. Cette décision qui força la competition a donné aux japonais un service internet de 160 mégabits par seconde pour $60 par mois, vitesse impossible à obtenir aux résidences canadiens.

Nomenklatura posted:

This shouldn't change things for Bell/Rogers customers at all. We've had caps for years.

prom candy posted:

If there really is a finite amount of bandwidth, why not charge for it they way we get charged for hydro? Cost + a reasonable (or even gigantic) profit margin plus a speed multiplier.

Oh, I know why, because their bread and butter customers would start getting monthly bills of like $8.

kuddles posted:

And as a surprise to nobody, the National Post editorial team is taking the stance that this will effect nobody, that we're all a bunch of whiners, and that Bell is only charging what it needs to in order to survive, as determined through their heavy research of asking a Bell spokesperson about it.

Suniikaa posted:

Friend who is a CSR at Telus sent me a txt this morning. They got a work email stating that Telus will not be changing their bandwidth policy. If this is true, yay.

ZShakespeare posted:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...aign=DTN+Canada

Hopefully this will be the first step in the government coming around to realizing that the CRTC is incapable of meeting it's mandate, and is instead trying to make their buddies more rich than they already are.

kuddles posted:

And as a surprise to nobody, the National Post editorial team is taking the stance that this will effect nobody, that we're all a bunch of whiners, and that Bell is only charging what it needs to in order to survive, as determined through their heavy research of asking a Bell spokesperson about it.

kuddles posted:

And as a surprise to nobody, the National Post editorial team is taking the stance that this will effect nobody, that we're all a bunch of whiners, and that Bell is only charging what it needs to in order to survive, as determined through their heavy research of asking a Bell spokesperson about it.

Nomenklatura posted:

That Spark interview was crap, too. Hey, mister economics professor? You can't talk about how the market will solve all ills when there is no free market here. Bell et al have natural monopolies. Telecoms are the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of natural monopolies. Competition is something you have to impose, or you won't get any.

Sashimi posted:

I love how just about every comment on that editorial is calling the author out on their bullshit.

kuddles posted:

And as a surprise to nobody, the National Post editorial team is taking the stance that this will effect nobody, that we're all a bunch of whiners, and that Bell is only charging what it needs to in order to survive, as determined through their heavy research of asking a Bell spokesperson about it.

Sashimi posted:

I love how just about every comment on that editorial is calling the author out on their bullshit.

Also saw coverage of this issue on Global for the first time tonight, its becoming too big for even a news outlet owned by Shaw to ignore.

Suniikaa posted:

Friend who is a CSR at Telus sent me a txt this morning. They got a work email stating that Telus will not be changing their bandwidth policy. If this is true, yay.

quote:

The Harper government will overrule a recent decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that effectively kills unlimited Internet-pricing packages — unless the telecommunications regulator backs down first, Postmedia News has learned.

"The CRTC should be under no illusion. The prime minister and the minister of industry will reverse this decision unless the CRTC does it itself," a senior government source, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said Wednesday evening.

The ultimatum sets the stage for an awkward appearance before a parliamentary committee Thursday by Konrad von Finckenstein, chairman of the CRTC, who will now be making his public remarks with a threat hanging over his head.

blkmage posted:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Ottawa+quash+CRTC+decision/4214138/story.html

Anonymous government sources and it's a surprisingly quick response, but there you have it.

Septimus posted:

Can't wait to hear why Konrad's testimony as to why he supported UBB.

less than three posted: