Canadian Government Promises Review of Usage-Based Billing

February 3, 2011 -

Update: while writing this story it came to my attention (thanks to HarmlessBunny) that Canadian Industry Minister Tony Clement has called on the CRTC to reverse its decision to end unlimited internet access plans offered by smaller internet providers. If the CRTC does not back down from its decision on usage-based billing, Clement says the government will intervene. Further Clement said that the CRTC must "go back to the drawing board" on the issue - more from CBC here.

Original Story: Canadians have fought the good fight and the government is now acting on it. Following a loud and angry protest from Canadians and an appeal by one major ISP over usage-based billing, Canada’s Minister of Industry, Tony Clement, said the there would be a review of the policy implemented by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The CRT recently approved Bell Canada's usage-based billing plan for its Gateway Access Services (GAS) customers.

"I am aware that an appeal has been initiated by a market participant," said Clement. "As Canada’s Industry Minister, it is my job to encourage an innovative and competitive marketplace and to ensure that Canadian consumers have real choices in the services they purchase. I can assure that, as with any ruling, these decisions will be studied carefully to ensure that competition, innovation and consumers were all fairly considered."

"The Harper Government is committed to encouraging choice and competition in the wireless and Internet markets," added Clement. "Increased competition can lead to more choice, lower prices and better quality services for Canadians. We have always been clear on our policies in this regard and will continue on this path."

Some Canadians wonder why it took Clement until now to act. Some commentators that live in the region point out that he waited until ISPs rolled out data caps and usage plans before acting. The other problem is that Bell Canada is a major player in Canada’s broadband market that sells chunks of its bandwidth to smaller, regional companies that provide internet in the country. This means that there is no real competition in pricing because Gateway Access Services (GAS) customers have to defer that cost somewhere. This means that consumers are on the hook for it.

We will continue to follow this story as it develops.

Source: Zero Paid

 


Comments

Re: Canadian Government Promises Review of Usage-Based ...

The Canadian government is forcing the CRTC to reverse the decision after 375,000 people signed the petition... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/03/crtc-internet-clement.html

 

Who'da thought that kinda thing would actually work, eh?

 

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: Canadian Government Promises Review of Usage-Based ...

Win!

I'd like to think that US ISPs will take a hint, but they'll just see it as encouragement to move forward with their own plans to bend everybody over.

Re: Canadian Government Promises Review of Usage-Based ...

All things considering, Canada has a population of 38,000,000 to 40,000,000.

When nearly 10% of your population gets pissy, the government better listen :P

--------- James Fletcher, member of ECA Canada

Re: Canadian Government Promises Review of Usage-Based ...

I think you have an extra zero in either the population or the percentage. 

Re: Canadian Government Promises Review of Usage-Based ...

Small typo.  It's 357,000 signatures.

More importantly it was enough.

===============

Chris Kimberley

===============

Chris Kimberley

Re: Canadian Government Promises Review of Usage-Based ...

Keep at! Continue to fight the good fight! :)

However I am waiting for Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Telus (big Canadian telecom companies) to find new ways to screw us *sigh* Shaw already put a cap...thankfully I don't have to fear switching now. Off to get internet from an unlimited provider now!

---------

James Fletcher, member of ECA Canada

Re: Canadian Government Promises Review of Usage-Based ...

 George Mason from TekSavvy made an excellent analogy on that. He pointed out that, at one point, we had absolutely ridiculous costs for long-distance calls. You could end up paying a buck fifty a minute to call from Toronto to Montreal. Ninety dollars for a hour-long call! (For Americans, that's a pathetically small distance in a very, very big country.) Bell said that those price were necessary then, and nobody could compete, since cell phones were something you carried in your car, and who could string up their own phone lines? It took the government stepping in and opening up the wires to competition to prove that they were wrong and that they were simply acting like monopolists. 

That's happening once again. You can't string up your own phone lines or bury your own cable lines. The telcos got access to government-owned right-of-ways that let them do that. The only way we're ever going to have real competition among ISPs is if companies like TekSavvy are allowed to fairly compete, without having their prices set by Bell et al. They don't "resell" the Telco's Internet access, despite what you may have heard; they basically just rent access to that last monopolized mile of copper/cable that nobody else could possibly lay down. If groups like TekSavvy are providing a better service at a better cost, then that's a GOOD thing for Canadians, not a bad thing.

Re: Canadian Government Promises Review of Usage-Based ...

A good point being that companies that place caps are basically handing the advantage to companeis that don't.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenSleaker - Who the heck are you reading that is claiming "all gamers are bad," we "need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers," that if "you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem," or that gamers are "obligated to stop harassment"?09/20/2014 - 9:44pm
erthwjimhe swatted more than just krebs, I think he swatted 30 people http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/teen-arrested-for-30-swattings-bomb-threats/09/20/2014 - 9:31pm
Craig R.Btw, the guy who swatted security expert Brian Krebs? He got picked up recently. It can be done.09/20/2014 - 8:55pm
Craig R.Such things are not done in a vacuum... hence why the 4chan and other logs show what fools you've all been, tricked into doing the trolls' work09/20/2014 - 8:49pm
Sleaker@Technogeek - How do you call someone out that anonymously calls in a SWAT team, or sends threats to people?09/20/2014 - 7:04pm
Technogeek"It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so." I'd say you're certainly obligated to call them out when you see it happening.09/20/2014 - 5:17pm
SleakerNow if you disagree with anything in my last 2 posts then we obviously have a difference in world view, and wont come to any sort of agreement. I'm fine with that, maybe some people aren't?09/20/2014 - 5:09pm
SleakerIt also doesn't mean that just because a news outlet says that Gamers are the problem and you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem. It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so.09/20/2014 - 4:59pm
SleakerJust to re-iterate: People getting harassed is wrong. Just because someone is harassed by so called 'gamers' doesn't mean that all gamers are bad. nor does it mean that you need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers.09/20/2014 - 4:56pm
SleakerAnd furthermore just because someone doesn't 'crusade against the evil' that doesn't make them the problem. You can have discussion with those around you. There's a thing called sphere of influence.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
Sleaker@Conster - one person getting harassed is a 'problem' only so far as the harassee's are doing it. Just because a select few people choose to act like this doesn't make it widespread. Nor does it immediately make everyone responsible to put an end to it.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
james_fudgeno worries09/20/2014 - 4:15pm
TechnogeekI misread james' comment as "we can't have a debate without threatening" there at first. Actually wound up posting a shout about death threats and "kill yourself" not technically being the same thing before I realized.09/20/2014 - 3:59pm
james_fudgeDon't hit me *cowers behind Andrew*09/20/2014 - 3:20pm
ConsterYou take that back right now, james, or else. *shakes fist menacingly*09/20/2014 - 3:00pm
james_fudgeOur community is awesome. We can have a debate without threatening to kill each other.09/20/2014 - 2:50pm
Andrew EisenNo one's crossed a line but I just want to remind you all to keep discussions civil.09/20/2014 - 1:54pm
Craig R.tldr: I'm a gamer, and imo those who support GamerGate should feel free to take a flying leap off a cliff.09/20/2014 - 1:27pm
Craig R.Not only that, I'm pretty sure that if actual studies were done, you'd still deny them, Sleaker. After all, it's not what you'd want to hear to support your rose-colored view of GamerGate.09/20/2014 - 1:18pm
Craig R.There IS an issue. Nor do we need a study to show that if you deny it then you're part of the problem.09/20/2014 - 1:17pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician