Open Media's blog

OpenMedia.ca's picture

OpenMedia.ca is a non-profit organization that safeguards the possibilities of the open and affordable Internet. The groups works towards informed & participatory digital policy.

What does Usage-Based Billing mean for Net Neutrality?

| November 11, 2010
Usage-based billing -- More than excess charge

Two weeks ago, the CRTC pushed Canada’s broadband policy a step backward by major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Shaw and Bell to put the Internet on a meter, and charge both individual and wholesale customers (i.e. independent ISPs) based on the ways they use the medium.

There are at least two major problems with this decision: The first is outlined in a post to OpenMedia.ca’s Policy Watch blog, which described the decision as “a blow to consumer choice, to access, and to diversity in telecommunications in Canada”.

Independent ISPs, such as TekSavvy, pay incumbent telecoms like Bell for access points in their networks that can be controlled more or less autonomously. In applying usage-based billing (UBB) to these indie ISPs, the CRTC has allowed Bell to determine and limit how many gigabytes of usage their independent competitors can provide to their customers. Say goodbye to diversity in the telecommunications market.

The SaveOurNet Coalition and OpenMedia.ca hold that diverse ownership models help to ensure more diversity of voices, and therefore of content, in the media landscape. This brings us to the second problem: the implications for Net Neutrality (the open Internet).

It was established early on, in the 2008 controversy surrounding Bell throttling peer-to-peer file-sharing, that discrimination against types of content is no different than discrimination against content itself. Bell is once again discriminating against forms of information, insofar as it will be charging consumers more for content that requires the use of a large amount of gigabytes, such as audio and video.

The CRTC has demonstrated a low level of consideration for these issues, and a lack of respect for the principles set forth in the Telecommunications Act (see 7C). This is unacceptable.

 

Advertising

--

Read the full text of the CRTC decision.

Sign the petition against usage-based billing at http://stopthemeter.ca/

embedded_video

Comments

...afraid it was just a matter of time the cable gods and other complicit political/corporate class to find a way into screwing up a promising open forum  for the masses ...not unlike what has happened to tv and radio in the hands of a few vested interests that prop each other up and "legitimize " a system that is corrupt to the core...sadly, so called "Capitalism" and Party politics trumps "democracy" almost every time

I don't understand why this is buried at Rabble instead of being screamed on the front pages.

 

This is the most urgent threat to activists,artists, citizen journalists  and the ability of lower income people to organize and/or to make a few dollars that's happened in a long time.

 

Why?

 

  1. How many uploads from the G20 could NOT have happened by financially disadvantaged people if there were caps? Video files and the ability to mash video files, vlogs etc. take large amounts of space. Any good quality 10 minute well-edited video is in the area of half a gig.
  2. How many websites by activists cannot happen if they cannot upload video/music etc. files with these bandwidth restrictions?
  3. How many financially disadvantaged people use their internet to watch the news? A great many I know, and streaming video eats bandwidth. I can't afford a TV nor the costs of service provision. And there are hundreds of thousands just like me. YouTube alone can easily eat up 30 gig in a month--just watching 2 hours a day for news and activist videos.
  4. What about our ability to get news via video from the rest of the world? What about our choice in which news services we want to see?
  5. What about the impact of being unable to access all the free documentaries available online?
  6. What about the needs of Canadian citizen jouralists to upload their content?
  7. Has anyone estimated the amount of unemployment this will cause? Small business web designers, social networking people, vloggers, bloggers, small business people who sell online, private internet providers. Are these blind Bell/Rogers shills trying to increase the unemployment rate in the middle of a depression?
  8. What about streaming video chats? Shall we isolate the financially disadvantaged even more from their sources of support?
  9. What about the needs of students? What about those who have internet classes? How will they pay for 2-3x the fee?
  10. How many internet cafes and places that let customers plug in for free are going to be out of business over this?

It's easy to see where this is going. Many dsl providers don't charge much for a telephone and their internet services are reasonable and the service is much, much better than Bell or Rogers.

 

This is the most ill-concieved, biased-against-the-disabled and classist piece of legislation to be enacted in years.

 

Disband the CRTC. They allow Faux News then cut us off from choosing what we want. This is about a service that is rapidly turning the financially disadvantaged and their children into generational non-contenders in the political arena.

 

 

Login or register to post comments