Canadians! Get Ready To Pay Bit By Bit!

[Hooch Tan]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/28/crtc-usage-based-billing-internet.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/...g-internet.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Metered internet usage is on the way, with the CRTC handing down its final decision on how wholesale customers can be billed by large network owners. The federal regulator on Thursday gave Bell Canada the approval to implement so-called usage-based billing to wholesale customers &mdash; usually smaller internet service providers that rent portions of its network &mdash; within 90 days."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1288364832.usr20447.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>I have seen reports that suggest that Canadians are among those countries that pay the most for their Internet access.&nbsp; Looking at what prices can be had elsewhere, I would tend to agree.&nbsp; The CRTC's most recent ruling though, leads me to think that prices are either going to increase, or Canadians will just have to settle with having limited Internet connections where they have to watch everything they do.&nbsp; I am not going to argue that Canadians should see the same prices as those posted in Japan or several nations in the EU, but I cannot see how the recent decision for Usage Based Billing will help foster a digital nation intent on innovation.&nbsp; People will be afraid of testing out new services available on the Internet, assuming they are even offered here (How long did it take for Netflix to offer streaming in Canada?&nbsp; And with what selection?) leading to a nation of people behind the times.&nbsp; It seems to have turned more towards profit over vision.&nbsp;</p>

[Jason Dunn]

Maybe I'm missing something, but in reading the article, it looks like this is about Bell's reselling of Internet access to smaller ISPs, and that they no longer have to offer unlimited bandwidth to those ISPs...it doesn't seem to speak to the customers, although I suppose if those ISPs were offering unlimited bandwidth to their customers, things would have to change.

[Fritzly]

The nefarious example set by the southern neighbor is spreading......... and pushing another Country more and more behind the rest of World.....

[Hooch Tan]

Maybe I'm missing something, but in reading the article, it looks like this is about Bell's reselling of Internet access to smaller ISPs, and that they no longer have to offer unlimited bandwidth to those ISPs...it doesn't seem to speak to the customers, although I suppose if those ISPs were offering unlimited bandwidth to their customers, things would have to change.

It isn't quite reselling Internet access to smaller ISPs but the DSL connection. Basically, what it comes down to is that because Bell owns the entire link for DSL, smaller ISPs have to use a certain portion of it until it gets to their own network. Bell is now allowed to charge all that data.

The end result is that prices are going to at best stay where they are, or more likely increase with little change in what we are offered.

I won't argue anything about the business sense of any of this, as it all depends on where you fall, but I think that the rates they have specified and the data caps are really low, and will hamper the adoption of new products and services on the Internet. VoD will pretty much be dead in the water because of this. Image/video sharing will be expensive. The list goes on.

[Jason Dunn]

The nefarious example set by the southern neighbor is spreading......... and pushing another Country more and more behind the rest of World.....

For what it's worth, I've had bandwidth caps on my Internet access for a couple of years now - and I've only ever bumped up against it once, and that was when I was doing a Mozy backup of a HUGE amount of data (200+ GB) in one month.

I don't *like* bandwidth caps, but I think they're far less of a big deal than some people think they are...I think most people doing the loudest complaining are the bit torrent users. :rolleyes:

[Jason Dunn]

I won't argue anything about the business sense of any of this, as it all depends on where you fall, but I think that the rates they have specified and the data caps are really low, and will hamper the adoption of new products and services on the Internet. VoD will pretty much be dead in the water because of this. Image/video sharing will be expensive. The list goes on.

What sorts of data caps are we talking about here? 20 GB? 200 GB?

[Hooch Tan]

What sorts of data caps are we talking about here? 20 GB? 200 GB?

It depends on the speed. At the standard 5mbps DSL connection, you'd be looking at a 60GB cap. After that, they ding you at a rate of $1.12 a gig up to $22.50 extra.

I personally think that is quite low, especially for a family. 200GB is a much more comfortable number in my book. That seems like enough that a family could enjoy several HD movies, hundreds of YouTube videos, some online console gaming and everything else a family could want with enough room to not worry about overages.

[Jason Dunn]

It depends on the speed. At the standard 5mbps DSL connection, you'd be looking at a 60GB cap. After that, they ding you at a rate of $1.12 a gig up to $22.50 extra.

Yeah, 60 GB is a bit on the low side, I agree...but I have to wonder if a family who's actively using VOD services and online a lot - with kids - would go for the presumably cheap 5mbps DSL package? To me that seems like an Internet connection for someone who doesn't do much online...

With Shaw, my cable Internet provider in Calgary, it breaks down like this:

$25/month = 1 mbps down, 256 kbps up, 13 GB cap
$37/month = 7.5 mbps down, 512 kbps up, 75 GB cap
$47/month = 15 mbps down, 1 mbps up, 150 GB cap
$97/month = 50 mbps down, 3 mbps up, 250 GB cap
$150/month = 100 mbps down, 5 mbps, 500 GB cap

I don't know where the bulk of Shaw customers are in this line up, but I'd guess it's in the 7.5mbps and 15mbps packages...75 GB and 150 GB caps respectively.

Personally, with Shaw as my ISP, I think the real problems are the prices and the speeds - they charge too much for too little speed - but the data caps are something that I never tend to care about because it's a non-issue for, and I suspect, most average people.

[Hooch Tan]

Yeah, 60 GB is a bit on the low side, I agree...but I have to wonder if a family who's actively using VOD services and online a lot - with kids - would go for the presumably cheap 5mbps DSL package? To me that seems like an Internet connection for someone who doesn't do much online...

That would be me. :-) Unfortunately, up until recently, other ISPs in Toronto (I can't say about the rest of Ontario) have not been privy to the higher speed connections such as Bell Fibe or the faster Rogers connections. I heard a few months back that the CRTC did mandate something about allowing other ISPs access to those systems, but as of yet, I have not seen anything. TekSavvy has also very recently started to offer a cable connection which goes as fast as 10Mbps. Anything faster than that and you're looking at Bell or Rogers only. I agree that whatever way you cut it, the speeds you get for what you pay is too much.

As for the data caps, I would turn it the other way around. Think of how much more benefit we could see if people suddenly saw cheap access to fast, unlimited Internet access? I would liken it to what happened when there was the shift from dial-up modems to cable/dsl. What things are we missing out on, or could be see a benefit from if we suddenly started making more use out of our connections. Why aren't we using more data?

[Jason Dunn]

That would be me. :-) Unfortunately, up until recently, other ISPs in Toronto (I can't say about the rest of Ontario) have not been privy to the higher speed connections such as Bell Fibe or the faster Rogers connections...Anything faster than that and you're looking at Bell or Rogers only. I agree that whatever way you cut it, the speeds you get for what you pay is too much.

I feel like I'm missing something; these smaller players who are leasing the network from Bell/Rogers...what advantages do they offer? Why do you get Internet access from them and not from Bell/Rogers? Is it a price thing? Or are they your only option?

As for the data caps, I would turn it the other way around. Think of how much more benefit we could see if people suddenly saw cheap access to fast, unlimited Internet access?

I agree completely that Internet access in Canada should be cheaper, and faster, but I still don't see what data caps have to do with anything. If people were constantly bumping into the data cap limits and THAT was the limiting factor on what they do online ("I'd love to download a movie on my Xbox, but I've hit the data cap for this month so I can't") I'd agree 100% that it was a problem. But I think the services available to Canadians (as in, less than what Americans get) and the upload/download speed are the real limiting factors in terms of what we do/don't do with our Internet connections.

It may seem like I'm being stubborn about this, but I've got to be in the top 5% of consumers-who-are-always-online and I've only bumped up against my data cap once in all the years I've had cable/DSL, and it was only from doing a massive online backup. Data caps are typically put in place to stop the tiny minority who abuse their service.

Let me flip it around: how often do you hit your data cap? What is your data cap, and how many GB a month do you use? Do you feel it's holding you back from using other services?

[Hooch Tan]

I feel like I'm missing something; these smaller players who are leasing the network from Bell/Rogers...what advantages do they offer? Why do you get Internet access from them and not from Bell/Rogers? Is it a price thing? Or are they your only option?

In part it is price, but also service. I have had both Rogers and Bell in the past, even at the same time. The ISP that I am with now, TekSavvy, provides me with the same DSL service that Bell offered (Bell dropped their DSL services in favour of Fibe. That's Fibe, not Fiber.) but with unlimited data transfer and of all the times I have had to call up customer support, they have been extremely knowledgeable. More so than what I experienced with Bell and Rogers.

It may seem like I'm being stubborn about this, but I've got to be in the top 5% of consumers-who-are-always-online and I've only bumped up against my data cap once in all the years I've had cable/DSL, and it was only from doing a massive online backup. Data caps are typically put in place to stop the tiny minority who abuse their service.

I'm trying to say that the data caps are a limiting factor in terms of imagination. With data caps becoming more common in the United States (Canada already pretty much having it) we may be dismissing ideas that could really offer new benefits. If there have to be data caps have them at least high enough for extra headroom. As I see it, services like OnLive, NetFlix, etc. are dead in the water in Canada.

Let me flip it around: how often do you hit your data cap? What is your data cap, and how many GB a month do you use? Do you feel it's holding you back from using other services?

I currently do not have a data cap. :) However, my router reports traffic usually around 100-150GB a month. I do expect that number to only go up as I hook into services such as Netflix, etc. If I had a data cap of 60, I would seriously consider whether or not Netflix is worth it. I'd reconsider whether I need SIP phone services. I would curse any updates that any online games I play would be pushed out. I'd even consider the practicality of doing Windows updates.

Yeah, I'm the kind of guy who because he has a set amount of minutes on his phone never uses it for social communication, only for quick notes like, "I'm at the restaurant." or "Are you sure you want me to pick up those diapers?" Data caps did the same thing for me with regards to the Internet.

A better alternative that I've seen proposed would be throttling. Not in the way that companies do so now, but proportional throttling. If a particular pipe is being saturated, split the connection speed between all those users equally, or even prioritize by those who have used the least. They already do something similar for some of the new wireless carriers here, Mobilicity and Wind Mobile. They offer unlimited 3G data plans with the warning that if you start using it excessively, they will throttle you.

[Jason Dunn]

I'm trying to say that the data caps are a limiting factor in terms of imagination. With data caps becoming more common in the United States (Canada already pretty much having it) we may be dismissing ideas that could really offer new benefits. If there have to be data caps have them at least high enough for extra headroom. As I see it, services like OnLive, NetFlix, etc. are dead in the water in Canada.

I started using Netflix in September; October was the first full month of use that I had it for. Over October, I watched 12 different shows - a total of 15 hours of programming (several movies, several documentaries, a few sub one-hour shows). My downstream bandwidth used in October was 31 GB. In September it was 24 GB. So an increase of 7 GB for 12 shows. I don't know if 12 shows in a month is more or less than average for users in Canada, but I don't think "dead in the water" describes the reality of the situation in my case. :)

Anyway, you're using about 2x more bandwidth than I am (which kind of blows me away!), so I can understand why you're concerned about this...but I don't think caps are something averages users know or care about.

[Hooch Tan]

So an increase of 7 GB for 12 shows. I don't know if 12 shows in a month is more or less than average for users in Canada, but I don't think "dead in the water" describes the reality of the situation in my case. :)

Wow, that is a much lower bitrate than what I expected with Netflix. How do you find the image quality? HD level or DVD level?

Anyway, you're using about 2x more bandwidth than I am (which kind of blows me away!), so I can understand why you're concerned about this...but I don't think caps are something averages users know or care about.

To be fair, I do use my connection for work as well, and also, I tend to house everything at home, so extra traffic that normally would be server to server gets added to my traffic. That and the Internet is my only form of entertainment now since I've cut cable TV. I can also accept that the current average user does not use a huge amount, especially if what ISPs post as their figures are to be believed. For me, I just find that disappointing.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

The thing about data caps, is that once you let them rationalise for you that it's ok, there's a danger towards a slippery slope where you'll end up paying a lot more than you should.

Though checking my own logs, I don't even break 50GB a month myself, so, hah! :P

[Jason Dunn]

Wow, that is a much lower bitrate than what I expected with Netflix. How do you find the image quality? HD level or DVD level?

I'd say DVD quality - most stuff looks quite good. It's not 1080p Blu-ray good, but it's quite good overall. I haven't watched anything via my Xbox 360 + HDTV yet though, so that will be the real test...

To be fair, I do use my connection for work as well, and also, I tend to house everything at home, so extra traffic that normally would be server to server gets added to my traffic. That and the Internet is my only form of entertainment now since I've cut cable TV.

I definitely think those things would contribute quite heavily to your data usage. ;) It seems to me that, given all the use you get out of your Internet connection, paying a bit more to move to a higher tier with a bigger bandwidth cap makes sense; no one likes spending more money for a service, but if you're using 4x more data than your neighbour, well, there should be a monetary factor attached to that in some way.

[Jason Dunn]

The thing about data caps, is that once you let them rationalise for you that it's ok, there's a danger towards a slippery slope where you'll end up paying a lot more than you should.

Yeah, I know what you're saying - but I'm guessing the vast majority of people pick the Internet plan they're on based on price and speed of upload/download...not the data cap. I'd love to find some statistics about that though...

[Hooch Tan]

I'd say DVD quality - most stuff looks quite good. It's not 1080p Blu-ray good, but it's quite good overall. I haven't watched anything via my Xbox 360 + HDTV yet though, so that will be the real test...

Do they provide you with an option? Considering the speeds that your connection is capable of, I think it would be nice to be able to make more use of it.



It seems to me that, given all the use you get out of your Internet connection, paying a bit more to move to a higher tier with a bigger bandwidth cap makes sense; no one likes spending more money for a service, but if you're using 4x more data than your neighbour, well, there should be a monetary factor attached to that in some way.

I'm not opposed to paying more for my usage when compared to other users, though I would prefer an option to pay a flat rate. (I know that flat rates generally tend to benefit the business more than the consumer. I just like predictable costs.) However, what I am objecting to is what I consider to be an artificially controlled market with controls built in such that it limits choice, competition and incentive for innovation. Owing to the nature of how we get our Internet connections at present, it makes little sense that every ISP would have to lay down cable to each person's house. So Bell and Rogers laid theirs and given effective monopolies over their respective services. In that, I am certain, though I admit I have no proof, that they were compensated to a degree, which in my mind, makes that "last mile" part public property. I do not like how, in this case, Bell, gets an overriding control over being both last mile provider and Internet provider.

[Jason Dunn]

Do they provide you with an option? Considering the speeds that your connection is capable of, I think it would be nice to be able to make more use of it.

Yes, on the PC side of things at least, when you start a stream if it's available in HD it automatically scales up to that, but you can turn it off if you're in a bandwidth-constrained situation. Not sure about the Xbox client - I suspect it's fully automatic.

I'm not opposed to paying more for my usage when compared to other users, though I would prefer an option to pay a flat rate.

But that's pretty much what it is now for most of us, isn't it? I pay "x" dollars a month, and I get "x" number of GB worth of transfer. If I routinely go over my data cap, I'd move up to the next tier. Wouldn't make much sense to pay a per GB charge every month; I don't think my ISP even offers that. I think most ISPs would tell you you'd have to move up to the next tier.

However, what I am objecting to is what I consider to be an artificially controlled market with controls built in such that it limits choice, competition and incentive for innovation. Owing to the nature of how we get our Internet connections at present, it makes little sense that every ISP would have to lay down cable to each person's house. So Bell and Rogers laid theirs and given effective monopolies over their respective services. In that, I am certain, though I admit I have no proof, that they were compensated to a degree, which in my mind, makes that "last mile" part public property. I do not like how, in this case, Bell, gets an overriding control over being both last mile provider and Internet provider.

I can't argue with you on that - but where we differ is that I don't see data caps as being a barrier to services adoption by Canadians. From what I've seen the data caps are fairly generous and allow for a lot of use by average users.

[Hooch Tan]

I can't argue with you on that - but where we differ is that I don't see data caps as being a barrier to services adoption by Canadians. From what I've seen the data caps are fairly generous and allow for a lot of use by average users.

I'm unsure as to where these guys (http://calvinayre.com/2010/11/13/business/worrying-limits-of-net-infrastructure/)get their data, but it definitely supports your point of view. If the numbers are anywhere near accurate, you're far more in the right than I am, which I have to say I am saddened by. I do think we should be making more use out of the Internet as a technology and at 4GB a household, that sounds downright anemic.

[Jason Dunn]

If the numbers are anywhere near accurate, you're far more in the right than I am, which I have to say I am saddened by. I do think we should be making more use out of the Internet as a technology and at 4GB a household, that sounds downright anemic.

4 GB seems low to me, but since it's an average across all customers, you know there's going to be people in rural areas still using dial-up or slow satellite connections that drag the average use numbers waaaaay down. But I'd be surprised if in major cities it was more than, say, 20 GB a month. Lots of factors influence that of course; family with kids of the YouTube viewing + Xbox using age? Double it. Retired couple just doing email and Web-surfing? 10 GB/month would be a stretch.

Ultimately people like you and I are ahead of the curve; many of the bandwidth-heavy services out there now are still relatively young. Look at the scattered, confusing nature of online video content - it's impossible to find everything you want in one place. And only now are we starting to see TVs and DVD players coming with Netflix and Youtube built-in; the "how do I get it to my TV" problem is finally only starting to get solved in an elegant way (and just barely).

All that stuff is going to to gel in the coming decade(s) and people born in the year 2000 and after will grow up thinking of high-speed Internet access as being the norm; they'll drive consumption of services in a way that we haven't yet seen.

[Hooch Tan]

4 GB seems low to me, but since it's an average across all customers, you know there's going to be people in rural areas still using dial-up or slow satellite connections that drag the average use numbers waaaaay down. But I'd be surprised if in major cities it was more than, say, 20 GB a month. Lots of factors influence that of course; family with kids of the YouTube viewing + Xbox using age? Double it. Retired couple just doing email and Web-surfing? 10 GB/month would be a stretch.

Interestingly enough, I recently read some stuff with regards to OnLive, and it sucks up bandwidth like you wouldn't believe. I guess certain "cloud" applications will have to wait.

All that stuff is going to to gel in the coming decade(s) and people born in the year 2000 and after will grow up thinking of high-speed Internet access as being the norm; they'll drive consumption of services in a way that we haven't yet seen.

Some countries are considering Internet to be close to a necessary utility. I am not sure whether that should be the case, at least in Toronto here, one can live without Internet without many issues. I am not sure that it will ever become a necessity, but it does make many things much more convenient. In the end, I think you're right where the younger generations will tend to rely much more on the Internet as the central communications medium and drive consumption. I wonder if there will be an upper limit in terms of what a person will typically use or will it increase further.

[Jason Dunn]

Interestingly enough, I recently read some stuff with regards to OnLive, and it sucks up bandwidth like you wouldn't believe. I guess certain "cloud" applications will have to wait.

I checked the OnLive FAQs and they don't mention bandwidth use anywhere, but ultimately it's a compressed stream of graphics, not that different from Netflix - the commands the user is sending back up to the server should be practically nil in terms of bandwidth. So while it would probably rank up there in terms of bandwidth use, I don't know that using this service would be out of the question for someone with a bandwidth cap.

If it makes you feel any better, my ISP (Shaw Cable) just boosted bandwidth caps by 25% - so I think they're aware of needing to stay ahead of the user curve.

Some countries are considering Internet to be close to a necessary utility. I am not sure whether that should be the case, at least in Toronto here, one can live without Internet without many issues.

I definitely think it's moving towards a necessary utility, but it's still too expensive for lower income families. It has to get cheaper - say, $20/month for a reasonable connection - not the $35+ that I see. I know a single mom with two kids that has no Internet access because she can't afford it; that really upset me when I heard about it because he kids are missing out on so much knowledge.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Some countries are considering Internet to be close to a necessary utility.

Like where I live... many Government services have moved to using the Internet, and if you don't have access, it's much harder to get things done. In fact for some cases, if you don't have the Internet, you might run afoul of a couple of laws if you're not careful...

The sucky part is that since we're a capitalistic welfare-less society, you're on your own if you can't afford Internet access!

[Jason Dunn]

I need to make a public apology to Hooch and do a 180 degree turn on this issue: I didn't realize the full extent of what UBB was trying to accomplish, and now am fully opposed to it. This is far more nefarious than I initially thought - and since I switched from Mozy to Carbonite and have been backing up lots of data, I've blown past my data cap THREE TIMES in the past three months. Grr. :mad: No charges or anything so far, and Shaw hasn't even contacted me, but it was a bit of an eye-opener for me.