Stop the meter on your Internet use: Sign the petition against usage-based billing
The CRTC just decided to let your Internet Service Provider put a meter on the Internet!
Bell Canada and other big telecom companies can now freely impose usage-based billing on independent Internet Service Providers (indie ISPs) and YOU.
This means we're looking at a future where ISPs will charge per byte, the way they do with smart phones. If we allow this to happen Canadians will have no choice but to pay more for less Internet. Big Telecom companies are obviously trying to gouge consumers, control the Internet market, and ensure that consumers continue to subscribe to their television services.
This will crush innovative services, Canada's digital competitiveness, and your wallet.
We need to stand up for the Internet.
Sign the Stop The Meter petition! *Choose from of the options below or do all three!
Do it! Do it! Do it!
A bit of drift, but I didn't know where else to put this:
Net neutrality: US expected to ratify new rules on internet access
Framework may allow mobile internet service providers to charge content firms for delivery to US homes
excerpt:
Al Franken, the Democrat senator, said the vote would decide "the most important free speech issue of our time".
"Imagine if Comcast customers couldn't watch Netflix, but were limited only to Comcast's video-on-demand service. Imagine if a cable news network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your favourite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their own agenda could decide who wins or loses online," Franken said on Monday. "The internet as we know it would cease to exist."
This is new? Currently my Internet plan allows me a certain amount of bandwidth per month, and if I exceed that, I pay extra. Thus has it ever been.
Now if you really want to put a few bucks back in my pocket, how about we get rid of usage-based hydro bills?
I can't find a current active thread on this topic so I'll place this here:
By David Beers, 26 Jan 2011, TheTyee.ca
Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losersexcerpt:
NDP digital affairs critic Charlie Angus gets what's at stake. "We've seen this all before with cellphones," he said last week. "Allowing the Internet Service Providers to ding you every time you download is a rip-off. Canada is already falling behind other countries in terms of choice, accessibility and pricing for the Internet. We need clear rules that put consumers first."
What a great business to be in. They could charge $2 and $5 bucks a GB for transmission costs that were 12 cents years ago and about $0.03/Gbyte today. It looks like a really good time to threaten telcos and cable companies with nationalisation. If only we weren't stuck with these corporate stooges in Ottawa, we'd really show 'em where to go fuck themselves.
Right on, Fidel!
Since metering is being implemented, are there any software developers who would like to face big Telecom head on?:) Be a "net scape" to Microsoft's attempt once at monopolizing on platform?
Don't you find it odd that while complaints were piling up about throttling the internet, this was Telcom developing the software in which to control Usage Based Billing, and all the while being investigated by our Government, imagine what Big Telecom was doing. They were setting it up, for what was to happen today?
So you want to add a cost too, above and beyond.....well, would you like to create a bank? Can it be done? If you do not use your amount of data transfer why not develop the soft ware to off load that difference? Remember we are not here to make money but trying to find a way in which to create a "zone for internet traffic that comes from the amount of time that you have not used."
Any ideas?
160,000 Strong Petition to Stop Internet Metering to Become Largest Online Action in Canadian History
One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Canadians Protest New Internet Fees
January 31, 2011 – The citizen engagement group OpenMedia.ca has announced that an unprecedented 160,000 Canadians have signed the Stop The Meter petition. The petition calls on Canadian political leaders, including Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff and Conservative Industry Minister Tony Clement, to take action to stop new Internet usage fees, or "Internet metering".
The Stop The Meter campaign is shaping up to be the largest online action in Canadian history.
After the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) made a decision that allowed Big Telecom to control the cost of the Internet, the number of citizens involved with the Stop The Meter campaign began to grow at the rapid rate of over 15,000 per day, and is quickly coming to represent a significant portion of Canada’s voting population.
Though the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Canada did recently come out in opposition to Internet metering, the Liberal and Conservative Parties have remained awkwardly silent.
“Considering the historic public outcry on this issue, we expect the other parties to be scrambling to endorse the Stop The Meter campaign,” said OpenMedia.ca founder Steve Anderson. “If they aren't, they probably should be.
“Canadian voters appear to be unanimous in their distain for greedy big telecom corporations, and the CRTC's role in enabling them to gouge out citizens’ pocket books, and unfairly hogtie competing independent ISPs. They know that these unnecessary fees will stifle innovation, ground-up entrepreneurialism, and social progress ”
Via Facebook, Twitter, and email, OpenMedia.ca has heard from business owners, media producers, and citizens who have expressed that Internet metering will impede their lifestyles and livelihoods. They are now waiting to see whether their government will represent them, and overturn the CRTC’s usage-based billing decision.
-30-
Contact
Lindsey Pinto
Communications Manager, OpenMedia.ca
778-238-7710
lindsey@openmedia.ca
A point people are often unaware of-- with metered internet the worse your service is the more you pay.
The way it works is a series of handshaking and verification. So when you connect to the internet everything is sent in tiny packets and verified on delivery. If something is wrong because of the quality of the internet the packet is resent. This happens countless of times a minute in ways you can't see. On the other hand there are larger ways you can. If you are downloading a youtube video and it times out, it will reload until it gets it right-- buffering, rebuffering.
So if you have a crappy Bell connection for the amount of internet you actually experience the metre will click over a lot more than if you had a better connection. With low caps here is a disincentive to plow any of that money back in to upgrading lines because they will actually metre and therefore make less money.
So where are the guarantees of information transfer, if information is being resent going over, then they cannot charge extra because of their shitty service? Just trying to wrap my head around it.
Shaw is stating the amount of data you are charge on price per month.....okay buffering.... using up....shitty connection, whose fault from the source? So where is government to make sure quality of information transfer is at a rated level. So this is not standardize how can they give the okay for metering?
Today Finland officially becomes first nation to make broadband a legal right
As we reported last year, Finland was the first nation in the world to pass this type of legislation, followed by Spain in November.
The Finish government has promised guaranteed speeds of 100Mbps by 2015 for all of its citizens, and currently about 97% of Finns already have access to broadband connections.
As our @Zee mentioned last year: “the fast growth of technology has led the European Commission to bring forward a review of the basic telecoms services Europeans can expect.”Today Finland officially becomes first nation to make broadband a legal right
http://www.testinternetspeed.ca/canada-internet-speed-test/
I did three tests and got an avg of 8 Megabits/s on download - 0.5 Megabits/second on the upload. And I'm using Shaw cable.
I'm using Telus Globetrotter dialup, 48 kbps. It occasionally goes down to 28 kbps. I pay for 250 hours per month. I have no idea what changes may lie ahead for me, if any.
My goodness that's dialup. I feel your pain, Boom Boom.
Here in Quebec Labrador, there's no digital service of any kind - just land lines.
ETA: big mistake!!!! We all have satellite TV receivers, and there's a satellite Internet connection now available here, but it's really expensive - something like $800 just to start up, and almost $75/month afterwards.
I'm pretty sure that's a violation of basic human rights to digital service, or something pretty close. I'd raise heck and send them a strongly worded letter about it.
Federal government to look into usage-based Internet pricing
In this high speed global economy, broadband internet service should be as basic a service as the telephone.
Unpacking The Policy Issues Behind Bandwidth Caps & Usage Based Billing
excerpt:
As virtually every Canadian Internet user knows, the Canadian market is almost uniformly subject to bandwidth caps - the OECD reports that Canada stands virtually alone with near universal use of caps. The scale of the Canadian caps are particularly noteworthy - while Comcast in the U.S. imposes a 250 GB cap, Canadian ISPs offer a fraction of that number.
Just posted on DSLreports...
Stop The Meter' Rally Toronto
Friday, February 4 · 9:00am - 3:00pm Peak Time 12PM Noon
Location Yonge-Dundas Square
Print out the petition and bring it with you.
1046 attending, 884 might attend.
Stop The Meter Rally: Ottawa
Time Saturday, February 12 · 10:00am - 2:00pm
Location Parliament Hill
Again, print out the petition.
260 attending, 167 might attend.
Rally Against UBB - Montreal
Time Saturday, February 5 · 12:00pm - 3:00pm
Location Dorchester Square, Montreal, QC
Insert the appropriate text here. (I should have just written out to bring the petition, it's shorter anyway)
Stop the Meter! -Chatham-Kent Essex Rally
Time Friday, February 4 · 10:00am - 2:00pm
Location In front of Dave Van Kesteren's main office
6 King Street West
Chatham, ON
http://www.testinternetspeed.ca/canada-internet-speed-test/
I did three tests and got an avg of 8 Megabits/s on download - 0.5 Megabits/second on the upload. And I'm using Shaw cable.
You see, I think this must be part of the software development I am referring "as a add-on" to sent data shortfalls on a monthly basis to a bank. This is of course if the Federal government does not reconsider.
While nationalization would be the preferred method, we know that is not going to happen with a Progressive Conservative Government, so all we need is the Quebecois "to raise the motion in the house, " and this will unseat the conservative position of Clements. Especially now that the Liberals are on board with the NDP.
Imagine going to a election on this issue?:)
Also, smaller ISPs are reconsidering the issue of infrastructure in order to be competitive, I would suggest that a Non profit organization be set up to think about this infrastructure in order to accommodate "the consumer" as a competitor.
Net-scape, you remember?
Part of the software development is fully aware of the promises they make yet do not keep with regards to the download and upload speed abilities. While being now recognizable, and after corrections in the promised speeds, any data shortfalls on account would be accepted by this non profit organization as part of the software package that people agree to take on in metering while they browse the internet and use only so much according to the promise amounts of information data transfers?
I used to play around with a network analyzer(free for downloading), Ethereal when learning about ethernet packets and stuff. It's nice in that you can edit the code and recompile, and really get inside the protocol to see what's happening. I don't recommend this one for the average net user though.
I see there is a freebie bandwidth meter, bitmeter for Windows. And there are a number of similar ones for Linux at different sites on the web. With bitmeter I believe you could check your numbers with what your ISP bill says for comparison. Packet tracer 5.2. The newer PT5.3 is available from CISCO if you sign up for one of their online networking courses, which are free as well I think. Become a certifiable cisco network administrator for less time and money than it takes for a similar micro$oft certfication.
Some of the antivirus software will log internet usage statistics as well. Not sure which ones though.
Clement was saying on P&P that part of the problem is that companies like Netflix make their money the easy way - by using internet infrastructure that someone else has paid for. I think he called Netflix a 'rider'. Tough to be competitive when other companies don't need to invest, is what he was saying. I think he meant 'freeloader', using massive quantities of bandwidth provided by someone else.
I understand Clement well.
You see there is no sense of public anything or what is a public good. That the public invested in the infrastructure he is talking about seems irrelevant to him.
These are the same guys who would feel the same about the roads so public transit woudl be freeloaders... the roads should be sold and privatized...
Essential public services are not concepts these people consider important.
I'm not 100% certain, but I think Clement was referring to Netflix freeloading - with their huge bandwidth requirements - on internet infrastructure built by private companies in Canada. In other words, using private ISP structure to sell their product.
This begs the question, of course: does Netflix pay for internet carry in Canada? Or are they indeed getting a free ride?
ETA: later in the day I'll google around if no one has a quick answer to the question I asked. But it seems unlikely to me that Netflix can charge $8.00/month to hundreds of thousands of Canadians to provide movies with huge bandwidth needs on an ISP without having paid for the privilege.
No small ISP was already riding on the back of current infrastructure of the big three and were to add an additional charge(governement already ammended this to a reduction of 15% for competitive reasons?:)), and as been pointed out, the big three were once small ISP them self.
So this is not a far cry from understanding that small ISP would think about developing there own. Why I would postulate "a non profit" who would also been developed to push forward their own infrastructure and deficiency in service toward that Non-profit. Streamlining you see.
We've come a long way from the likes of Richard Stallman, or, from the idea of access to the digital world. The Federal government sold something that already was free and of public use in what was called Whitespace. You can see the evolution in link supplied.
You know why I am pushing this? My stance has never changed and I think people should be up in arms about the constraints applied toward knowledge enhancement and potentials within their societies.
Wouldn't NetFlix reasonably assume that that cost would be borne by the consumer?
As an analogy, if I buy my anvils and other heavy objects by mail order, wouldn't it be me that pays the cost of shipping? Certainly the vendor wouldn't need some special arrangement with Canada Post.
But Snert, if I am Bell, Telus, or some other company that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into building my ISP, why should I allow Netflix to make money from using my ISP without compensating me? My ISP is not a public service - it's a private-for-profit service.
ETA: I do understand what you're saying - that the ISP collects from the consumer for using the bandwidth. However, what I think Tony Clement has heard from the private ISPs is that they are being forced to provide huge amounts of bandwidth for companies like Netflix, and it's difficult for them to keep up. Sounds lame to me, but maybe that's what Clement is considering - the plight of the poor ISPs having to provide more bandwidth because of companies like Netflix. (sarcasm intended)
It's actually called something but I can't recall.....this would be similar to Netflix and Small ISP about riding current infrasructure of big three.
You got to remember "who put up that infrastructure."
Amended post above to indicate 15% reduction imposed on big three in regard to small ISP and Netflix, in regards to being competitive.
Seriously.
Wrap your head around Hydro metering and you will get a good sense of the whole issue. In BC they went from Hydro metering to Smart Meter which is a hardware application of a software idea. The BC Governement rolled it out in perfect timing with the issues of the INternet?
Sure, but if I own an ISP, and I've invested hundreds of millions of dollars in it, I have a say in how it will be used, yes? The consumer pays the ISP for the bandwidth used, that's understood, but if Netflix is using my product (bandwidth) to generate money, should they not have to pay a user fee or some kind of tax for using bandwidth that I provide? Otherwise I can decide not to carry their service.
ETA: In fact I wonder if the ISPs have said to Tony Clement is that they are going to use bandwidth caps to control the use of their bandwidth - because Netflix (and others) suck up so much bandwidth the ISPs simply don't want these companies on their ISPs at all, becaus eit means they have to increase capability, which they're too lazy to do - either that, or they don't want to make the investments required. Clement was saying there's another side to this that no one has considered - which I think is BS.
But Snert, if I am Bell, Telus, or some other company that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into building my ISP, why should I allow Netflix to make money from using my ISP without compensating me? My ISP is not a public service - it's a private-for-profit service.
At risk of banning, I'll admit that I'm not unsympathetic to Bell in this. But to continue my analogy, Bell would be the equivalent of Canada Post, and NetFlix the equivalent of OnlineAnvils.com, where I order my heavy anvils. Why would OnlineAnvils pay Canada Post for using their service when *I'm* going to be paying them for that? In this model, it's *me* that's receiving a service, not OnlineAnvils.com, and similarly, if I download a movie from NetFlix, it's me that's using my Internet service to download it. Why would NetFlix have to pay Bell for what *I* do with my service?
Huh. I think it makes more sense to say that their bandwidth demands are coming from their customers who choose to download from NetFlix. It's not like NetFlix has some kind of power to push video downloads on people.
And I think that when they say they cannot keep up, they mean "we cannot keep letting people download as much as they want for a lower fee than Bell charges". In other words, I think their ability to undercut Bell, using Bell's own infrastructure, was a key part of their revenue model.
It has always been "about privatization" so I need no further info to supply on that perspective. I think you know this. Capitalization is an competitive idea about pushing government toward creating profit for the very few. They have whole teams who are on research and development why wouldn't you increase once you have taken over public service? Clements is a tool to advantage capital positions.
Somebody better wake up.
A democratic society forced to be a competitor as a consumer? Something had to change and directing large segments of the population to "other ideas" forces changes in the governments position because they do not understand anything else while pushing that privatization agenda.
In the meantime, any news today from Clement or the ISPs on this issue?
Speaking of canada post...
They offer a cheaper and faster alternative to the internet in cananda.
I still don't understand why bandwidth caps in the USA can be so much higher than here. More competition? (Clement did suggest more competition here is needed)
It's all out there on the news wires.
Also study the whitespace issue and you will get a clearer understanding of the issues, that extends beyond borders.
If I'm the ISP provider, and I'm not happy with Netflix on my bandwidth, why don't I just refuse to carry them?
Why cut off money your getting while you know what's coming in additional charges?:)
If I'm the ISP provider, and I'm not happy with Netflix on my bandwidth, why don't I just refuse to carry them?
Because presumably your subscribers want to download from NetFlix, and presumably you don't want to lose them.
That said, if NetFlix is causing them a problem, it's only a problem because they're not charging their subscribers enough for what they're giving them. They're like an all-you-can-eat buffet that's discovering that people can eat a lot more prime rib than they thought, and while the $5.99 price is certainly drawing in the customers, it's maybe not sustainable.
Because Netflix is causing a surge in bandwidth demand that I am unable to provide? Because of Netflix I have to upgrade my service? Just guessing. Maybe the ISPs want Netflix to pay a tax or service charge for profiteering on their bandwidth.
That's the justification for low bandwidth caps - exceed the bandwidth cap, and you pay more. Except the caps are much higher everywhere else. The ISPs here however seem to be happy with low bandwidth caps, because it makes more money for them.
Nationalize ALL telecom infastructure, sell access at the cost of maintaining it. Tell Bell to get a real job. No more problem.
I think Netflix is keeping their prices low to steal customers from TV services like The Movie Network (TMN) which costs me about $25/month. Netflix is $8/month. That makes Netflix very appealing, and low bandwidth caps very profitable for the ISPs.
But I'm on dialup, so it's highly unlikely I'll ever use Netflix.
Nationalize ALL telecom infastructure, sell access at the cost of maintaining it. Tell Bell to get a real job. No more problem.
Under a neocon regime? Get real.
Plus, we have a nationalized postal service, yes? So why is it about 35% more expensive than U.S. Postal Service? I'm not sure that putting the government in charge necessarily means "better".
If you're a small ISP, it's not that you can't provide that bandwidth (properly speaking, it's data transfer we're discussing, but we seem to use "bandwidth" interchangeably, so as long as we know).
The problem is that the small ISPs are going to have to pay for the bandwidth that NetFlix or other very high-use customers use, and that's going to make them less appealing. Or, they can take a hit to their own bottom line (ie: pay Bell for all the bandwidth, but continue charging customers a low price for unlimited) and I'm guessing that neither option appeals much.
The best analogy I can think of is a "deregulated" supermarket, which is forced to sell you and me (small vendors) produce at a very low cost and to provide space for us in their facility. You and I price our vegetables below what the supermarket does, and when we say "a dozen ears of corn" we're really giving customers more like 18 ears. So we're popular! We're cheaper than the supermarket that supplies us and we can undercut them under their own roof. But then the supermarket wants to put a stop to it. If we want to sell people 18 ears of corn, we either have to charge them for 18, or we can charge them for 12 like always and eat the difference out of our own margin, but we don't want to do either.
Even though I'm on dialup and this debate over bandwidth caps isn't likely ever to affect me personally, I nevertheless believe internet access in 2011 is as basic to our needs today as the telephone was in the previous century. It ought to be designated an essential public service, and provided at very low cost with a public subsidy. I'm not calling for nationalization - which probably will never happen - but I see no problem with making superfast internet access an essential public service - provided by private companies as at present - but subsidized by taxes.
Well, that argument would be a wee bit stronger if the current debate were centred around users downloading massive datasets, or enriched learning materials, or pretty much anything other than The Love Guru.
They offer a cheaper and faster alternative to the internet in cananda.
Heck, I can go them one better. Using only my feet, and some excess calories, I can walk to the video store and back and "download" all 4.7 Gb of The Love Guru in fifteen minutes.
When people view Netflix, are they actually downloading or just watching? I've never used the service. If you download a DVD or VHS from the video store, is that legal?
They are downloading, just like you do when you watch youtube. Every Youtube video you watch is a download and counts against your download limit. (actually so does viewing webpages such as rabble but generally its negligible)
Thanks. I'm really behind the times when it comes to technology. I've never used a cellphone, DVD, blackberry, or indeed any digital service.
ETA: oops - I used broadband internet while I stayed at the motel in Sept-Iles, which I assume is a digital service.
Nationalize ALL telecom infastructure, sell access at the cost of maintaining it. Tell Bell to get a real job. No more problem.
We've subsidized every single centimetre of infrastructure anyway, spending a half billion of our tax dollars in deferral and direct subsidy to build out into rural areas in the last 5 years.
Nationalize it.
...I wish the NDP had the balls to say those words out loud.
Telcos and cable companies could be regulated a lot more. NTT DoCoMo was ordered by the government of Japan some time ago to simply build out telecom infrastructure in that country. There were no excuses with referring to market bullshit. They just did it. Our corporate stooges in Ottawa could do it, too. It's planned and enforced impotence. The stoogery in Ottawa is breathtaking.
First they came for Netflix and YouTube...
This sounds like the thin edge of the wedge for a downward spiral of caps in the future. At least half of the webpages that I visit already have colorful ads. I wonder what percentage of a webpage's data is made of ads? Will we be paying to see ads that are pushed on us in the future?
Well, that argument would be a wee bit stronger if the current debate were centred around users downloading massive datasets, or enriched learning materials, or pretty much anything other than The Love Guru.
And what about the public telephone system? Did telcos use the same excuse when Canadians wanted all that new infrastructure to make voice calls? If first rate countries can provide public switched telephone network to most of their citizens decades ago, then what's the hold-up with decent internet access for all Canadians? There are only 33 million of us not 127 million. With public telephone networks, telcos always built-out capacity over and above anticipated loads on the system. Why can't they do it now? Why are they crying poor mouth in Canada and not in other countries providing the same service and better for less cost to customers?
Exactly, Fidel. This country is being screwed with regard to Internet access, provision, and affordability. And the Cons don't give a fig.
And it's not like Canada is short of just telecom infrastructure since they handed off powers of resource allocation to the big six banks and currency manipulating money speculators around the world. The City of Vancouver has 80 year old water and sewer works than need replacing. No money and we will just have to endure through this $100 billion dollar infrastructure deficit across Canada while the Harpers feign spending on stimulus in a recession. No money for a world class subway system in Toronto either. I guess with all this dregulation over the last 30 years, Canadian cities aren't required to be world class anymore. At least not with big business running the show. Less is more, and we are free as long as we pay.
It's like Doctor-Professor Michael Hudson says about it. If toll booth junk economics is so good, then our politicians should shove it up their asses. Sideways!
Just in from Charlie Angus: Clement says the tories will reverse crtc on ubb.
Viva la Revolucion@Canada.ppl!
They're rilly good guys offering to back off on their threat to give carriers and cable companies a green light to clobber Canadians with UBB. And it didn't cost them a dime. Our idiots are very good at achieving exactly nothing after all is said and done.
What would we do without them? Imagine...
The CRTC must reverse its decision that ends unlimited internet access plans offered by smaller internet providers or the federal government will intervene, Industry Minister Tony Clement says.
Asked by the CBC's Rosemary Barton through Twitter whether it's true that Clement would overturn that decision if the CRTC does not back down, the industry minister replied: "True. CRTC must go back to drawing board."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/03/crtc-internet-clement.html#ixzz1CtluxK8F
I know pretty much zero about this apart from what I overheard at ideas meetings in Victoria. First of all, when shaw measures your download speed it is to their prefered link. So it is not really such a great measure, is it?
some of the ideas people are interested in developing a tool (many of them are into software development) which you can use to check your connection speed and at the same time send this info to a central info center run by one of the legal teams which works against the shaw telus bell rogers group. (Most of the people in those groups are lawyers).
One of the ideas victoria people is in one of those advocacy groups which is really helpful.
Their big problem is data. The internet providers have a "you can ask but we will never tell" policy. so nobody can check if there is internet congestion or not.
There probably isn't internet congestion. Some of the cable is not being used at all! The cables can now handle multiplex signals so they are many times more efficient than when they were laid. (I forget the figure 100 times maybe?)
I also brought up the figure for digital tv but so far nobody responded. Shaw digital tv pipes signals to your tv. How much bandwidth is it?
This is extremely important. Because they want to charge you and 3rd party internet providers based on bandwidth. Why should they be allowed to charge couch potatoes less so that their core business is protected? I have not been able to get this point across.
I guess people fear that their tv will get pricier too? If we let shaw do this, it WILL get pricier for tv. They will say, well it is digital and there is congestion so you have to pay more for your tv signal otherwise internet service will suffer. It uses the same "pipes" so if the internet is congested then tv signals should be congested too, eh?
The facts seem to be different. There is lots of bandwidth. They just want to charge the earth for it and keep netflics and everyone else out.
I am sure Harper fixed the crtc so that he would get the result he wanted. So now he has to backtrack. Nobody should doubt that.
The CRTC people are just his stooges. If anyone is working on a tool to measure and colate internet conection speed, perhaps they should get in touch with the ideas victoria people and work together. I think they did a "hackiton" on it last saturday.
Cable companies do what's known as tree and leaf type of networks. And there will most definitely be contention for bandwidth. Sometimes they promise certain average access speeds, but I can't see how they can guarantee anything in writing. Because with tree and leaf networks, there will be contention for bandwidth. As they add more customers to their tree-leaf networks, contention goes up, and that has to degrade performance for users somewhere in the network. My cable's usually pretty quick and no complaints here. Of course, I'm not downloading movies over the net or anything though and mostly surfing and email.
I think most of the caps per customer they are talking about for Canadian ISPs are something like 30 Gigabytes on average. Then they wanted to charge $1-$4 per GB over and above the cap. That's ridiculous when it only costs them anywhere from 1 cent to 3 cents per Gig to transmit. That's gouging and especially when you realize Comcast in the States sets caps for Americans at somewhere around 250 Gigabytes before extra charges factor in.
Comcast has a 300 GB limit before the extra charge kicks in.
Comcast has a 300 GB limit before the extra charge kicks in.
And it's not like decent internet service is a luxury anymore. Internet is worldwide and considered to be part of the modern globalizing economy. This is just a modern version of the public telephone system.
I think that telcos lobbying the feds for a licence to gouge us also happen to be owners of broadcast TV spectrum. They don't want to compete with Netflix and whatever. The writing is on the wall for broadcast TV I think.
heh, you can buy 180 GB solid state drive for $310 bucks.
That's about $1.72/Gigabyte.
Internet capitalists would charge $2/GB transmission over their stuff according to our internet feds in Ottawa.
It might cost $10 dollars to ship your hard drive cross country.
Conclusion?: It would be cheaper to mail your hard drive from Halifax to Vancouver travelling about 0.23 MB/second over nine days, and then throw the drive away, than it would cost to transmit the same amount of data over their goddamned network.
Does anybody know how much bandwidth shaw uses per tv channel?
Because if we get them to back down on internet rates, we should be able to get cheaper tv too!
Shock and AWE! Lets make them eat shit and die.
Use the public anger to put the cable monsters in cages.
Do it!
Is there nobody who knows on babble?
I use satellite TV (Bell ExpressVu) myself. $80/month, over 125 channels, including 7 dedicated movie channels. Extra charges apply only to PPV channels, which I almost never use. Why isn't everyone using satellite?
CRTC reversal may not improve internet service
Translation: We will wait for the coveted phony majority before alowing telcos to clobber Canadians with UBB. In the mean time, the Reformed Tories will ride it out while doing nothing to improve the situation.
Hey I didn't know that these countries all have faster upload access speeds to the inet than Canada ranked 64th:
Mozambique, ranked 62nd, at 1.41Mbps.
Swaziland, ranked 61st, at 1.43Mbps.
Kenya, ranked 58th, at 1.52 Mbps.
Kazakhstan, ranked 40th, at 2.10Mbps
Where are those Canada Action Plan guys? They must be goldbricking again. I've never caught one of them at work actually doing anything.
The CRTC guy said he is protecting the little guy who doesn't use the internet much from subsidizing the heavy users. Does that ring true at all?
I love the CRTC. And the feds would surely find replacements for them, if they could ever figure out what it is they do.
.
I've never had a problem with Bell ExpressVu, been using the same satellite dish for ten years, same receiver, etc... UBB would have no effect as it is not an internet service.
Looking at Canada Post's rates guide, it would appear that they too practice UBB, with larger packages costing more to mail than smaller ones.
Why can I not get away from being charged for what I use????
Shall we compare apples to apples in terms of costs?
As I understand it, Canada Post runs at pretty much break-even these days. I'm certain we'd all be happy to deal with our internet service providers on the same basis, paying less than a half-cent per GB during off-hours, and up to 3 pennies per GB at peak.
That would net Bell and Rogers about one-fiftieth of what they're currently being allowed to gouge us for.
The primary problem is that Paul Martin allowed 'convergence', permitting these players into the content market. Now they use our infrastructure (yes, ours, built entirely with public subsidy from day one) as a weapon to defend their other interests.
Let's remove the temptation. Nationalize it!
The CRTC guy said he is protecting the little guy who doesn't use the internet much from subsidizing the heavy users. Does that ring true at all?
No!
We've been using about 40-60gb a month in a house of 5. Well under my 200gb limit from teksavvy. So it's probably true lot's of people don't need 200gb a month. The fine point which makes the crtc argument seem silly is that the small isps pay for their bandwidth. Teksavvy is able to offer me 200gb and better customer service for the same price at which bell is only able to offer 25gb. I agree those who use less should pay less but this decision is all about leaving us in the hands of a ruthless poorly run monopoly and not the least bit about protecting the little guy. Prices should be lowered not raised.
Looking at Canada Post's rates guide, it would appear that they too practice UBB, with larger packages costing more to mail than smaller ones.
Why can I not get away from being charged for what I use????
And if Bell or Rogers want to offer me a free SSD and $40 dollars off the cost of every 180 GB, I might think more of the basterds.
A group of capitalist dogs rarely gather together under one roof without conspiring to crook and gouge the public. - Adam Schmidt, The Wealth of Friends in Low Places
From Charlie Angus:
The fix is in: James Moore has just appointed failed ADQ candidate Tom Pentefountas as the Vice Chair of the CRTC. He's a political crony of Dimitri Soudas and Housakos.
Where do they get these guys, Anyway?
In the G&M: Friend of Harper's communications director named vice-chair of broadcast regulator
CRTC appointment smacks of cronyism, NDP says
excerpt:
"There is a sort of glazed over effect that Canadians have with the outrageous behaviour of Harper but I this one pretty much takes it," NDP heritage critic Charlie Angus said.
from Boom Boom's link:
On the eve of that decision there will be someone with ties to the Conservative Party with no broadcast experience who is sitting as the vice-chair, Mr. Angus said.
“It’s a $60 billion industry,” he said. “You have to have credible people who have are seen as transparent and accountable. You can’t have the Prime Minister deciding he’s going to put political friends on there.”
Yup, they get them from anywhere and especially if well connected to the party.
Do you have link to this lecture?
This sounds about the right direction that is needed to me that will help direct perspective on download and upload speeds in the determination of the pricing system that is used and is faulty. Anything over a "faulty figure" cannot be justified to a value above?
http://www.ideasmeetings.org/wiki/Feb02,2011 is the minutes of a recent one. It is not a lecture. More of an open meeting and they often discuss ways of achieving what they want.
I think they did one 2 weeks ago too. So check the minutes for that too.
They had "awesome shit club" the previous week so no ideas meeting then.
Was the whole point of this to appoint that guy? Basically, I see the CRTC as Harpers way of getting his will done, without it seeming like he was doing it. He has it at "arms length" just in case he gets in shitty doo doo.
So he had buddy set up the net metering thing on his orders. Buddy keeps defending net meterings even though he is clearly the fall guy and harper just dropped him in the shit. I guess he is too thick to know? (well maybe he got orders, etc. from Rodgers too) because he sure does not sound impartial. But all this makes Harper out to be the good guy even as he gets closer to bringing in fox north.
In a couple of years, Flanigan will have a spot doing "assasination squad" and calling for the heads of separatists and socalists every week on his show. Baird will have a show on how to growl at pit bulls and harper will do a remake of the piano.
Gettin hosed in the Northern Puerto Rico. Gouging Canadians is like shooting fish in a barrel.
DAY-O!