Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«116 »
  • Post
  • Reply
8ender
Sep 24, 2003

clown is watching you sleep


So this week the CRTC has ruled that the big guys (Bell and Rogers, etc) can apply usage based billing to wholesale ISP accounts (independent ISPs) using their networks. What does this all mean? Some brief history which may not be completely accurate:

A long time ago it was ruled that since Bell Canada has a complete monopoly over the phone lines they have to resell their DSL and other services in a wholesale manner to create some small amount of competition in the market. Seems like a sweet deal for Bell right? They get paid even when their competitors sign up customers.

Well what happened was that Bell started moving toward usage limits, throttling and caps on their DSL all while raising their prices to make mo' money. The independent ISPs reselling the wholesale service were offering unlimited bandwidth at much cheaper prices. Some were even offering affiliate programs with discounts for referrals. For the record, I pay $21 / Month for Teksavvy DSL thanks to this.

Naturally once every tech savvy person in Canada started spreading the word, signing up the whole family including grandma, the independents started eating Bells lunch. Bell responded in the way only a spoilt Canadian monopoly can and whined to the government to stop these evil competitors from... competing.

The CRTC, which regulates this sort of thing, seems to be an organization full of back slapping good old boys from the cable and phone industry which exists to give the government thumbs up when this sort of thing comes up. Even with a big coalition of independent ISPs and rafts of lawyers things havent gone well for them with the CRTC.

This latest ruling essentially opens the door for Bell to not only charge their wholesales prices and throttle different protocols, but now to also charge overage fees:

quote:

Under the plan, Bell will charge wholesale service providers a flat monthly fee to connect to its network, and for a set monthly usage limit per each ISP customer the ISP has. Beyond that set limit, users will be charged per gigabyte, depending on the speed of their connections. Customers using the fastest connections of five megabits per second, for example, will have a monthly allotment of 60 GB, beyond which Bell will charge $1.12 per GB to a maximum of $22.50.

Another important thing in that quote: wholesale customers are stuck with a very old 5mb DSL service. Bell itself now offers a 25mb service but aren't letting the independents use that service. The independents now have to pay for providing bandwidth to their customers through their networks, then pay Bell for the wholesale DSL service, then pay Bell for the bandwidth if the customers go over 60GB of usage. Its insane.

The timing could not be more awful, since we just got Netflix streaming here in Canada. In short, I expect that this will effectively kill off or cripple any competition in the ISP market. Then, years from now, our government will be scratching its head wondering why our country holds the title for worst and most expensive internet access in world.


More info here including a forum thread where polite Canadians get angry:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...-Billing-111145

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

MeestarK
Aug 12, 2004
Its cold outside

You would think with the push of legitimate bandwidth use (Netflix, etc.) that usage fees would have to finally be abolished, but not if Bell has anything to say about it.

I'm on a local independant ISP where Bell is not even available, but I'm sure I'll feel this too.

Rupert Buttermilk
Apr 15, 2007

RowboatMan: Freezing time is an old P.I. trick...


Any idea how this affects BellAliant in the maritime provinces?

A c E
Jun 18, 2007

Is this weird? Is this too weird? Do you need to sit down?

I'm really disappointed that they actually went through with this.

I'm stuck with the choices of Bell with their lovely 60GB cap, Rogers/Cogeco with their great speeds with a lovely 60GB cap and random companies that go through bell with slower speeds but decent caps.

It's completely ridiculous that Bell has the monopolies on the lines and are giving everyone such a shoddy deal.

Family of 6 at my house and we are already using 2 connections because of caps, up until now I was enjoying TekSavvy's 200GB limits on their 5mbps connection but it looks as though this will change.

Good thing North America is striving for better internet speeds instead of trying to gently caress over consumers and surprise sex them with fees.

Edit: spelling.

Sprawl
Nov 21, 2005


I'm a huge retarded sperglord who can't spell, but Starfleet Dental would still take me and I love them for it!


Wow even the bell fiber stuff has bandwidth a month, the telus stuff isn't even metered.

Brace
May 29, 2010

by Ozmaugh


What does this mean for someone that uses a high-speed Rogers service?

Nomenklatura
Dec 4, 2002

If Canada is to survive, it can only survive in mutual respect and in love for one another.


Internet service in Canada is absolute, unmoderated poo poo. Maybe not quite as bad as the Australians, but we don't have the excuse of geographical isolation. And our cell phone service and costs ARE EVEN WORSE. The CRTC used to do good work, and I do still support its existence as a television regulator, but clearly it's not doing its job when it comes to non-broadcast telecommunications. We're getting gouged by natural oligopolies, and without government intervention there's nothing that can be done about it.

Crumbletron
Jul 21, 2006

KNÆLE.


A c E posted:

I'm really disappointed that they actually went through with this.

I'm stuck with the choices of Bell with their lovely 60GB cap, Rogers/Cogeco with their great speeds with a lovely 60GB cap and random companies that go through bell with slower speeds but decent caps.

We ended up going with Bell with the Fibe-7 plan and an extra 40GB a month of bandwidth (flat $5). It comes up to about $35 a month for 100GB, which is better than the alternative (the most comparable plan in terms of speed from Videotron here is at $49 with 30GB of bandwidth ). We don't have a contract, but we have ExpressVu and our home line with them so that's an extra $10 off our bill every month. I would really love to start using Netflix but with a family of four living here and sharing the connection, we just can't afford it.

Sprawl posted:

Wow even the bell fiber stuff has bandwidth a month, the telus stuff isn't even metered.

Yes It's not even that fast, either. Whenever I hit about 700-800kb/s I pretty much can't do anything else. At least torrents can hit those speeds so it doesn't seem like they're throttling us (Quebec side here for what it's worth).

I also heard that Bell decided to cut their 60GB cap down to 25GB around the time Netflix came here, but we haven't been affected here in Quebec.

Crumbletron fucked around with this message at Oct 31, 2010 around 20:44

Cryptic Edge
Aug 4, 2006

by Y Kant Ozma Post


This is why I'm glad in the US I can get a unmetered 25mbit up/down fiber line for under $100/month.

Nomenklatura
Dec 4, 2002

If Canada is to survive, it can only survive in mutual respect and in love for one another.


Parachute Underwear posted:

I would really love to start using Netflix but with a family of four living here and sharing the connection, we just can't afford it.
This, right here, is why this poo poo needs to change.

Rukus
Mar 13, 2007

Hmph.


Nomenklatura posted:

This, right here, is why this poo poo needs to change.

I think Rogers feels very threatened right now since Netflix could take away a lot of revenue from their movie rentals either from B&M or from their On Demand. Hell, the day Netflix announced they were coming to Canada the bandwidth caps for all of Rogers' tiers was lowered.

I just hope this doesn't also mean Teksavvy's cable internet packages can be capped because their unlimited package is the only competitive thing they really have going against Bell/Rogers(15down/1up @ $54.95).

univbee
Jun 3, 2004

Let's maintain dazzling beer indefinitely.


^^ Rogers lowered it on I think two of their six plans, but there's no question it was a dick move on their part. There's no question they're feeling threatened now that their world is crumbling. I'm sure BlockBuster's failure is having quite the foreboding effect on them.

Vancouverite here (Coquitlam, technically) on Shaw. Technically has a 100 gig a month limit, but it's not actually checked so I've never been penalized or threatened despite doing 500+ gigs some months. Down speeds are awesome, too, I pretty much get the full 10 megabits if I download from the right places. However, the upload speed is god-awful, despite it being "up to" 1 megabit I don't even get 256 kilobits up (my upload pretty much maxes out at 20 kilobytes per second), so I'm limited in doing certain things, and pretty much can't use any online backup service because it would literally take years with the amount of data I have now.

Whiskey A Go Go!
May 7, 2007

For legal reasons, the answer is no. For anecdotal reasons...sure why not.

Rupert Buttermilk posted:

Any idea how this affects BellAliant in the maritime provinces?

If it was a few years ago, it wouldn't matter since BellAliant was just in name with Bell and management really never had much say with the services in the Atlantic Canada. Nowadays, they will most likely shall follow suit with the rest of the company since they basically removed Bell Aliant's control of cell phone service to Bell Mobility in Toronto, and are currently going to move the Internet portion into Bell Firbe Ops' control since they been aggressively been trying to get customers Rogers didn't touch.

So Atlantic Canada are going to be hosed.....as usual.

MA-Horus
Dec 3, 2006

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.


This poo poo has got to stop. But it won't as long as ISPs keep bitching "bluu bluu our customers are using too much bandwidth". I remember when Cogeco started first capping and cutting off at the limit, then switched to usage-based billing.

YES stop your customers from using the service they're over-paying for, wonderful idea. That will cause them to be loyal customers.

Godinster
Jan 2, 2005

No more tripping, Emery

I'm really glad I have Shaw out west here. I went through a TB at least last month and haven't heard so much as a peep out of them. I always go over their limits and have not heard of anyone else having issues either.

Stanley Pain
Jun 16, 2001

In humility and with no need for Divine Guidance, I make this pledge.


I like how they sell it at a $1.00+/GB

Martytoof
Feb 25, 2003



Awesome.

Awesome to
the MAX.




Our internet is basically poo poo. That being said, since Cogeco started charging for overages up to a maximum of $20 or $30, we've gone over the cap every month and have yet to be threatened or disconnected. Until Cogeco calls and threatens me, I'm basically treating it as paying an extra $30 for an unmetered line.

I'm 100% certain this ride is coming to an end at some point though. I don't seriously expect to be able to buy my way out of lovely bit metering for $30 for a long time.

MelonDude
Oct 7, 2004

help I am knocked out by that faggot traitor his name is GEORGE MELONS

At those prices it's actually cheaper to fill up a hard drive and mail it to someone.

Nomenklatura
Dec 4, 2002

If Canada is to survive, it can only survive in mutual respect and in love for one another.


MA-Horus posted:

This poo poo has got to stop. But it won't as long as ISPs keep bitching "bluu bluu our customers are using too much bandwidth". I remember when Cogeco started first capping and cutting off at the limit, then switched to usage-based billing.

YES stop your customers from using the service they're over-paying for, wonderful idea. That will cause them to be loyal customers.
I think the big barrier is that SOMEBODY needs to price out exactly how much it costs them to provide it. As long as they can claim that they need to meter, and carefully avoid how much their profit margin per GB is, they'll get sympathy from people who think that bits should cost money. If somebody can prove that Rogers pays 0.01 cents per GB, and we pay two bucks a GB, then you just need to tell the public that Rogers get a 2000% markup. Pull out a number like that and they'll rampage through the streets..

Martytoof
Feb 25, 2003



Awesome.

Awesome to
the MAX.




MelonDude posted:

At those prices it's actually cheaper to fill up a hard drive and mail it to someone.

This might be a joke, but before Cogeco introduced overage charges with a monetary cap I used to do all my downloading on my campus machine. I'd ssh into my office, download what I wanted, then take my portable hard disk, drive five minutes to get on campus, start the copy while I brew a nice cup of tea.

Sojourner
Jun 6, 2007

Get In

Whiskey A Go Go! posted:

If it was a few years ago, it wouldn't matter since BellAliant was just in name with Bell and management really never had much say with the services in the Atlantic Canada. Nowadays, they will most likely shall follow suit with the rest of the company since they basically removed Bell Aliant's control of cell phone service to Bell Mobility in Toronto, and are currently going to move the Internet portion into Bell Firbe Ops' control since they been aggressively been trying to get customers Rogers didn't touch.

So Atlantic Canada are going to be hosed.....as usual.

Everyone in atlantic canada who has the option should be with eastlink. Way better prices per megabyte, and great customer service. This speaking from a consumer perspective and someone who had a 120 megabit connection for them for business.

Stanley Pain
Jun 16, 2001

In humility and with no need for Divine Guidance, I make this pledge.


Nomenklatura posted:

I think the big barrier is that SOMEBODY needs to price out exactly how much it costs them to provide it. As long as they can claim that they need to meter, and carefully avoid how much their profit margin per GB is, they'll get sympathy from people who think that bits should cost money. If somebody can prove that Rogers pays 0.01 cents per GB, and we pay two bucks a GB, then you just need to tell the public that Rogers get a 2000% markup. Pull out a number like that and they'll rampage through the streets..


You want to know something. For the most part, transfer of data across their peers actually costs nothing because of the peering contracts they have in place. That's the really big kicker there.

particle409
Jan 15, 2008

Thou bootless clapper-clawed varlot!


I have Verizon Fios (US) and I don't think we have caps. I don't even know how to see how much bandwidth I've used. I watch a ton of stuff on Hulu (I've basically given up on my tv), read a bunch of picture threads on SA, and play a ton of multiplayer games online. Do multiplayer games usually eat up a ton of bandwidth?

Frankly, this is karma for all your socialized health care. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nomenklatura
Dec 4, 2002

If Canada is to survive, it can only survive in mutual respect and in love for one another.


Hmm, might have found something that covers that. From Ars:

quote:

In the middle of the controversy, TWC boss Glenn Britt told BusinessWeek something similar, though with less edible imagery. "We need a viable model to be able to support the infrastructure of the broadband business," he said. "We made a mistake early on by not defining our business based on the consumption dimension."

This basic argument has a compelling logic—pay for what you consume—and it came with a side order of "implied apocalypse." Unless a major shift in pricing happens in the near future, TWC's Internet business won't be "viable" and the infrastructure won't keep pace with demand.

This key assertion underlies numerous industry experiments with consumption pricing (AT&T just wrapped up a trial of its own tight data caps in a few test markets, and other ISPs have mooted the idea for years). Few consumers are in a position to judge such claims; maybe the sky is falling. Maybe home Internet use is unsustainable without far more caps or far less data. Maybe those Netflix and Hulu users really are pigs at the broadband trough.

But there's reason to doubt. Big ISPs usually rely on peered connections to other major ISPs, connections which incur no per-bit cost. As for the cables in the ground, they've been there for years. The equipment back at the headend must be installed once, after which it runs for years. Cable node splits and DOCSIS hardware upgrades are relatively cheap. Requesting one additional bit does not necessarily incur any additional charge to the ISP.

If most Internet costs are fixed (and the National Broadband Plan agrees that they are), and if bandwidth is dirt cheap, what "charges" are heavy Internet users ringing up for ISPs like Time Warner? As a New York Times writer summed it up in the middle of last year's debate:

quote:

I tried to explore the marginal costs with Mr. Hobbs. When someone decides to spend a day doing nothing but downloading every Jerry Lewis movie from BitTorrent, Time Warner doesn’t have to write a bigger check to anyone. Rather, as best as I can figure it, the costs are all about building the network equipment and buying long-haul bandwidth for peak capacity.

If that is true, the question of what is "fair" is somewhat more abstract than just saying someone who uses more should pay more. After all, people who watch more hours of cable television don’t pay more than those who don’t.

Mr. Hobbs declined to react to my hypothesis about how costs are almost all fixed costs.
Industry figures claim that costs are always going up, but critics disagree:

quote:

"Hogwash," says Free Press research director S. Derek Turner. "Their OpEx [Operating Expenses, which includes labor] is not growing; if anything, it's steady. Their CapEx is decreasing both in overall terms and as a percentage of revenue."

Turner has little patience for the "woe is me" arguments that ISPs trot out to defend a shift to data caps or per-bit pricing. Free Press, a constant critic of the big ISPs, says it has no philosophical problem with a move to a consumption model for broadband—but such a shift should accurately reflect costs, not serve as an excuse to gouge customers by companies already swimming in cash.

TWC's data capping trial in 2009 featured "literally ridiculous overage amounts that had no relation to underlying costs," Turner said. And the danger isn't just to consumer pocketbooks, it's to the entire Internet ecosystem. Who will start using the next high-bandwidth YouTube or Netflix when doing so results in big fees? If not done right, consumption pricing "will cripple innovation."

Turner concedes that networks cost money to build and maintain, but he argues that the costs are wildly overstated. For instance, Comcast is one of the ISPs furthest along with DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades, which do require a labor-intensive card swap at the headend and new modems in people's homes. But even as it makes this investment, the company's OpEx and CapEx are declining. As for node splits, many are "virtual" these days and don't require much labor.

Bandwidth has become dirt cheap; despite the fear-mongering about the "exaflood" and the "zettaflood" and (presumably) the "yottaflood," bandwidth costs drop significantly every year. As the National Broadband Plan noted earlier this year, international bandwidth has grown by 66 percent each year for the last five years—but the cost of IP transit has dropped 22 percent a year at the same time.

Congestion can happen even on networks with tremendous bandwidth, but consumption pricing doesn't generally care about congestion (if it did, ISPs could exempt all traffic in the middle of the night, for instance, when congestion is generally absent).

So why the push for consumption pricing? Turner has his own theory.

"This is nothing more than greed," he says. "The industry may be maturing, and therefore margins aren't rapidly increasing the way they were." Consumption pricing could be a way to boost margins. As for ISP complaints that heavy users cost them more money, those are just "excuses that they give."
So, yeah, I think we have it there. Their costs are primarily fixed, and there's no good reason for per-gig pricing. Except, of course, big profits.

And since they're Canadian ISPs, they can gouge their asses off.

Desjardy
Aug 11, 2010


Just went through this thread and can only really say wow... I'm in BC and subscribe with Shaw and have never had issues. I pay ~$100 a month for 50Mbps and (I think) 250GBs a month. I can honestly say that while I was on lower tier packages where I have gone over the allotted bandwidth they have never charged me, or even bothered to contact me for that matter. Sounds like you east coasters got the shaft.

Kreeblah
May 17, 2004

INSERT QUACK TO CONTINUE

Everything I've ever heard about the CRTC when it comes to telecommunications basically boils down to, "Well, they're loving us again, but it's run by ex-Bell/Rogers/Telus execs, so we can't do anything." So, I've always wondered: has there ever been any movement up there to reform how people are selected to be on it or how it's run or something?

Muslim Wookie
Jul 6, 2005


This is what happens when idiots decide to privatise a core piece of infrastructure that is a natural monopoly.

Lines in the ground should absolutely be now and forever a nationalised infrastructure, much like roads. When it's literally impossible for another company to run copper there is no excuse to keep the only possible line privately owned.

Oh wait, I'm talking about Telstra and Australia, you guys in Canada are getting shafted the same way now too? Fight it while you still can, get that infrastructure owned by the government.

Oh, also please don't trot out the tired old bullshit about inefficient government.

Crumbletron
Jul 21, 2006

KNÆLE.


particle409 posted:

I have Verizon Fios (US) and I don't think we have caps. I don't even know how to see how much bandwidth I've used. I watch a ton of stuff on Hulu (I've basically given up on my tv), read a bunch of picture threads on SA, and play a ton of multiplayer games online. Do multiplayer games usually eat up a ton of bandwidth?

Frankly, this is karma for all your socialized health care. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

yeah man i don't pay poo poo for health care ever

But really though, we don't even have access to legitimate websites like Hulu for TV streaming. Some networks are making their programming available online but a lot of it is still locked to US visitors so it's not even like everyone and their mom is using up hundreds of gigs a day streaming high-quality video.

Frankly, I'm surprised it's not the other way around and that you guys would be capped, where in the US there are tons of legal options for digital streaming and the opportunity to download large amounts of data.

Nomenklatura
Dec 4, 2002

If Canada is to survive, it can only survive in mutual respect and in love for one another.


Kreeblah posted:

Everything I've ever heard about the CRTC when it comes to telecommunications basically boils down to, "Well, they're loving us again, but it's run by ex-Bell/Rogers/Telus execs, so we can't do anything." So, I've always wondered: has there ever been any movement up there to reform how people are selected to be on it or how it's run or something?
99% of people haven't the faintest clue what it is or what it's for. Of the 1%, I suspect that many will be swayed by that "well, water is metered, electricity is metered, why shouldn't internet?" The fact that electricity needs to be generated and water needs to be pumped is the difference, but I think the only way people will get that is if somebody gives an actual number for how much it costs THEM.

The other big problem is that neither of the two big parties are necessarily going to want to push on this thing. The Tories won't because they're constitutionally incapable of criticizing a business, ever. And the Grits won't because until very recently they relied on telecommunications companies for a LOT of campaign money. It doesn't really work that way now, but habits die hard.

8ender
Sep 24, 2003

clown is watching you sleep


marketingman posted:

Oh wait, I'm talking about Telstra and Australia, you guys in Canada are getting shafted the same way now too? Fight it while you still can, get that infrastructure owned by the government.

Honestly I wish that the independents around here would band together and build some sort of alternate infrastructure but I suspect they just don't have the resources to do it yet. Bell struck at just the right time to crush any chances of an alternate network being created to compete with them. Its really frustrating as a taxpayer because this ongoing saga is the first time I've written my MP and the CRTC about anything. I can see already that this is going to turn out as bad as our mobile services are: Just a big oligopoly with all the players pretending to compete with each other.

8ender fucked around with this message at Nov 1, 2010 around 04:46

Bloody Hedgehog
Dec 12, 2003

Gotta' nuke something.


Kreeblah posted:

Everything I've ever heard about the CRTC when it comes to telecommunications basically boils down to, "Well, they're loving us again, but it's run by ex-Bell/Rogers/Telus execs, so we can't do anything." So, I've always wondered: has there ever been any movement up there to reform how people are selected to be on it or how it's run or something?

No, they like to keep things "business as usual". Canada may be this figuratively "little" unassuming country filled with polite people, but basically all levels of our government and big business are fabulously corrupt.

I'm not sure I can even recall a Prime Minister, Premier, or big business in recent memory that wasn't involved on some scandal or another. We as Canadians are far too apathetic about how our country is run, and the guys at the top take full advantage of it. gently caress, look at Gordon Campbell. Guys got single-digit approval ratings, and although people talk about ousting him, he'll likely just run out the clock till the next election because most people don't want to bother doing anything actually effective.

"Hurrr, I hate dat fucker Campbell, but as long as I get my Timbits and can watch hockey, I'd just rather ignore the situation. Hurrrr."

The Gunslinger
Jul 24, 2004

Do not forget the face of your father.

marketingman posted:

This is what happens when idiots decide to privatise a core piece of infrastructure that is a natural monopoly.

Lines in the ground should absolutely be now and forever a nationalised infrastructure, much like roads. When it's literally impossible for another company to run copper there is no excuse to keep the only possible line privately owned.

Oh wait, I'm talking about Telstra and Australia, you guys in Canada are getting shafted the same way now too? Fight it while you still can, get that infrastructure owned by the government.

Oh, also please don't trot out the tired old bullshit about inefficient government.

Oh but you see competition is possible according to the CRTC, you just need 5 billion in capital asset investments to get started. The reality is that the government has created sponsored duopolies that are not competing with each other on services and prices, just advertising. It's especially amusing because prices continue increasing but usage decreases with regularity, if there was any true competition going on then they would be looking there as both telco/cablecos don't have much else to throw at each other these days. Smaller competitors are basically forbidden from entering the market due to the ridiculous costs involved in even laying fiber and backhaul equipment.

The hilarious part is that we were so far ahead of other countries a decade ago. It's a pretty sad day when I am moving in a few weeks and I am choosing ISPs based on who has the lowest overage fees.

quote:

We as Canadians are far too apathetic about how our country is run

I mean, on some level this is true but not with regards to Internet. The truth is that this issue won't affect the overwhelming majority of Canadians who just use Facebook and maybe download some lovely telesyncs through some limewire clone. People aren't apathetic, they are just ignorant. It's hard to get people to march on parliament when they are seemingly unaffected by the issue in question. It will definitely affect them in the future but they won't really find out until it's too late. People are simply too ignorant to understand how this can harm innovation going forward. I try to dumb it down for my family when we get together once in awhile but their eyes just kind of glaze over unless I use very broad talking points and stick to things like "internet/cell phone bills are too much!".

I don't know what the solution is other than the resellers banding together and basically making another medium to large sized competitor but that's just a bandaid for the larger problem. Politically it's a dead issue that doesn't incite people so Bell/Rogers/Cogeco/etc can get away with whatever they want. Honestly if I was single I would just up and move, it's gotten to the point where internet has stagnated here and I use it enough(TV/etc) that I actually care. No one seems to give a poo poo that legitimate usage is now affected, forget about piracy. You can easily run through the average usage caps now just by playing videogames and streaming poo poo.

Anyways it's extremely frustrating to feel so helpless to affect the situation. I've tried talking to my local MP, writing the CRTC and even attending that rally last year. The more people do the harder the CRTC seems to come down on the side of the telcos, it's like backwards world up here. I don't think a single positive thing has come out of the resellers vs Bell CRTC summit type stuff.

The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at Nov 1, 2010 around 13:39

The Gunslinger
Jul 24, 2004

Do not forget the face of your father.

Oh and the best part is that Bell still doesn't have to match speeds. They filed an appeal and the CRTC said ok no problem fellas and it's tabled until whenever the gently caress they want. I mean at this point it's just become absurd. The CRTC seating needs to be reformed or the organization itself dissolved entirely. It's biased to the point of almost ludicrous transparency.

kuddles
Jul 16, 2006

Like a fist wrapped in blood...

Ruklo Burosee posted:

I think Rogers feels very threatened right now since Netflix could take away a lot of revenue from their movie rentals either from B&M or from their On Demand. Hell, the day Netflix announced they were coming to Canada the bandwidth caps for all of Rogers' tiers was lowered.

To me that is the most baffling thing that I don't understand why it has ever been allowed by the CRTC in the first place. Not only do the same two companies providing the internet infrastructure also provide most of the competition in terms of video content delivery, but they even own some of the channels being provided in that delivery service. How that isn't determined as a massive conflict of interest confuses the hell out of me.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Yeah, sorry. I accidently hit the reply button before I finished my post.

kuddles fucked around with this message at Nov 1, 2010 around 14:22

The Gunslinger
Jul 24, 2004

Do not forget the face of your father.

kuddles posted:

To me that is the most baffling thing that I don't understand why it has ever been allowed by the CRTC in the first place.

It's not the CRTCs job to regulate that kind of thing individually. If Rogers wants to offer the shittiest packages known to man with 10GB usage caps then it should be free to do so. The CRTC should however monitor and ensure that Canadians in general are not getting screwed by everyone doing it which IS happening. The usage caps for most companies continually decrease while prices increase. People are literally paying more money for the same service they've always had or even receive less in specific features.

Rogers owns zip.ca last time I checked too so they shouldn't get away with the whole "but but our video rentals are dying!" crap when they are obviously positioned well for service replacements.

edit: just saw your edit, sorry.

Squibbles
Aug 24, 2000

Mwaha ha HA ha!

Godinster posted:

I'm really glad I have Shaw out west here. I went through a TB at least last month and haven't heard so much as a peep out of them. I always go over their limits and have not heard of anyone else having issues either.

Shaw's limits seem to be extremely area dependent.

4 or 5 years ago when I had Shaw in the New West/Burnaby area they sent me a warning letter for downloading too much in a month. I think our cap was 60gb at the time. Then a few months later they actually shut down our service for a week. When I called them up they said we had downloaded about 120gb in the last month and even the highest end plan they had only allowed 100gb so there was nothing they could do and the suspension could not be lifted even by upgrading to a higher plan. That's when I cancelled and went to Telus.

I'm back on Shaw now that I don't have a roommate who downloads all day every day and I live in a different area. Haven't had any problems or warnings from Shaw since signing up again.

Nomenklatura
Dec 4, 2002

If Canada is to survive, it can only survive in mutual respect and in love for one another.


The Gunslinger posted:

I mean, on some level this is true but not with regards to Internet. The truth is that this issue won't affect the overwhelming majority of Canadians who just use Facebook and maybe download some lovely telesyncs through some limewire clone. People aren't apathetic, they are just ignorant. It's hard to get people to march on parliament when they are seemingly unaffected by the issue in question. It will definitely affect them in the future but they won't really find out until it's too late. People are simply too ignorant to understand how this can harm innovation going forward. I try to dumb it down for my family when we get together once in awhile but their eyes just kind of glaze over unless I use very broad talking points and stick to things like "internet/cell phone bills are too much!".
You'd be surprised. Not so much about the "bills are too much!" thing, but about bandwidth usage. "Regular people" ARE using more bandwidth as they start using things like streaming services; netflix alone can chew up one of those 'lite' offerings in a day or so.

But, yeah, that's why I was focusing on percentages. People aren't going to understand if you break down all the different technical issues involved or the threats to innovation. They WILL pay attention if you say "they're charging you A THOUSAND TIMES what they pay themselves". Canadians tend to get a hair in their butts about perceived "fairness", and nobody's too fond of the big telecoms.

The problem is that the innovation stuff should be aimed at a more educated audience, but most Canadian elites could give a poo poo about innovation. Our R&D spending has gone DOWN, and continues to go down. Our corps just want to dig poo poo out of the ground, and our banks want to finance digging poo poo out of the ground. You don't need innovation for that, you need big machinery, strong backs, and a province or two that's willing to look the other way when it comes to the environment. "Innovation" is just a buzzwords intended to get progressives off the backs of the telecoms.

Blistex
Oct 30, 2003

"When I see someone tilting my tables, I shoot the Bastard. That's my policy!"


***Some words of warning for people leaving Bell!***

Last year I signed up with Bell High Speed DSL and I'm sure most of you know the scam. ~$20 to get a connection that gives you 2GB of bandwith a month. Go to $25 a month and you get something like 20-30 GB a month. Add another $5 and you get another paltry sum of bandwidth. Yah, same old racket, plus throttling, call centre people who are only able to tell you, "Sorry sir" or how lovely life is in their part of India. Well I digress.

Here is the scam!

I signed up for one year, and after reading the contract I found some minuscule print that said something along the lines of, "We require one month's notice before ending your contract or we will continue to bill you after your 1 year contract is over!" Sounds like some kind of porn site operating procedure. Well 11 months passed and I called them up, told them I wanted to end my contract at the one year date, "blah blah blah, are you sure you don't want to keep your service. . . late fee for sending the modem back late."

"What was that?"

"Oh if you don't mail your modem back in time there is a late penalty fee".

The contract was over a month later, the modem connection light went out, and I waited for them to send the modem mailing box. I waited a week, send them an email, got a reply that it was in the mail. A day later I got the box, had my reciept stamped at Canada Post, and all was good!

Next month (this past October 1st) there is a $133.00 fee on my mastercard. "Early cancellation penalty". I had to spend something like 2 hours on hold throughout the course of 4 phone calls to them, and finally they reversed the charges. NO WAIT! They said they will send me a cheque for $100.00 that will arrive in 6-8 weeks. Ok, It will take a while, but I can wait for it to . . . . HEY!!!! They never refunded me the tax! 2 more phone calls and they agree to give me the $13.00 in tax back as well.

"What? you don't want to leave a tip?"

I'm still waiting for the cheque and at the end of October (27th I think) I see another charge on my Mastercard for $75.00. This one is some weird code that turns out to be a Modem Late Fee! Three more calls, another hour on hold and they agree to mail me a cheque for that as well, (6-8 weeks).

I'm sure this was intentional, and that Bell were making the process to get that money back as hard and drawn out as possible, hoping some people just give up and say, "Keep it Bell!" Hell I bet thousands of people don't even notice the charges or don't bother to fight them, resulting in Bell making free money. Those that do fight it are still paying bell since they will be making interest off that money while it sits in their accounts for 6-8 weeks.

Long story short, gently caress BELL.

On a lighter note, when I canceled my Rogers account 2 years ago they said, "Ok, have a nice day!" And that was that! No charges, no hassle, and a guy actually came to my door to pick up the modem.

Arsten
Feb 18, 2003


Blistex posted:

Mastercard Charges

If it's a bank mastercard (Debit MasterCard), charge back the first one and get a new card.

If it's a real credit card, charge back both charges. Visa/MC is really good about consumer protection.


I've done this so many times when dealing with cable/sat/telcom providers that it's kinda funny.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

less than three
Aug 9, 2007

Fire Sights and LED Lights

ESC 2010 Never Forget

Blistex posted:

Long story short, gently caress BELL.

Bell makes money from "billing errors" all the time. (At least in Mobility where I worked.)

They'd make "errors" and bill people for things, and refund the charges if/when clients noticed. Anything other than 100% of clients catching it is free, unwarranted money for them.

Example

Bell set up a new tower in Calgary, but coded it in their systems as Edmonton.

What happened? Anybody in Calgary who placed/received a call while connected to that tower was billed long distance.

quote:

CTV's Lea Williams-Doherty contacted both the western regional customer service department and the technical solutions department but neither had heard of the problem in Calgary.
For days we were told to tell clients "No, you're wrong. Our billing system doesn't make mistakes." (Still current policy is the customer is always wrong.) before we finally admitted we were at fault for this.

Did Bell proactively adjust the billed charges? No. They'll only refund if the client catches it and calls in. They go as far as being up front about it in the CTV article.

quote:

Anyone who was closest to that tower when they were making, or taking, a call may have some of the incorrect charges on their bill ... We do encourage our customers to review their bills during that time period and contact us if they do see any incorrect charges," says Smithers.

I have so much hate for telcos and all the borderline illegal poo poo they get away with.

less than three fucked around with this message at Nov 2, 2010 around 03:19

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«116 »