CRTC Denies UBB Hearing Request

March 14, 2011 -

The CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) has denied requests to hold a hearing on the broad practice of usage-based billing in the retail sector. Any decision the CRTC makes on UBB will not affect customers already affected by it such as Rogers, Bell, and Shaw Internet customers. Ultimately, it will only affect smaller internet service providers that get their bandwidth from the big aforementioned service providers.

In a letter, the CRTC said the following:

"PIAC/CAC also requested that the Commission expand the scope of the proceeding to allow parties to comment on the use of UBB in the retail Internet market.

The Commission notes that it has forborne from the regulation of retail Internet services on the basis that there is sufficient competition in the retail market. The Commission also notes that no parties provided evidence to justify a re-examination of this forbearance directive. Accordingly, the Commission denies PIAC/CAC’s request for expansion of the scope of the proceeding to allow comments regarding the use of UBB in the retail Internet market."

There is a lot more to that letter, which you can check out at the link above.

We will continue to follow this story as it develops, but this turn of events does not bode well for consumers.

Source: Jason Koblovsky


Comments

Re: CRTC Denies UBB Hearing Request

"The Commission notes that it has forborne from the regulation of retail Internet services on the basis that there is sufficient competition in the retail market. The Commission also notes that no parties provided evidence to justify a re-examination of this forbearance directive. Accordingly, the Commission denies PIAC/CAC’s request for expansion of the scope of the proceeding to allow comments regarding the use of UBB in the retail Internet market."

So, they're basically covering their ears and going "LALALALALALALALA"?

Re: CRTC Denies UBB Hearing Request

Yeah pretty much. They did this 10 years ago when DSL started to really hit the market in Canada and the CRTC did not see fit to regulate it. This move took Indie ISPs from 25% market share to less than 5% market share. I would know, we ran one out of our house just outside Ottawa. The CRTC board is made up of people who worked in or have money in the industry, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that they don't actually care about consumers (or small businesses for that matter).

Thankfully, this move will only piss off the Progressive Conservatives even more, and they have stated several times they want to look into "restructuring" the CRTC. I doubt they'd want the CRTC to win this right before an election, so I doubt the current members will make it to the summer.

Re: CRTC Denies UBB Hearing Request

We need to get rid of the CRTC.

We ABSOLUTELY need to re-examine UBB in the retail space.  Not just that, we need to repeal it... we need to show the greedy corporations that not only will we not let you get away with your shenanigans but we will go back an undo shenanigans you have already pulled.

Hopefully, the UBB incident with the CRTC has awaken the people... but I'm not holding my breath.

 

------- 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: CRTC Denies UBB Hearing Request

But the basic assumption they're making is that there are a sufficient number of entities offering retail broadband that if the consumer really wants to get away from UBB, it should be possible to do so. And that's true, ish, if you look at the cellphone market -- which is largely dominated by the same companies, and managed by the same commision.

It's true that captialist intent will get rid of UBB eventually, but not until after Rogers and Bell gouges the customers for another two or three decades. 

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonmy god....... people need to play life is strange. its a very very dark version of twin peaks08/01/2015 - 12:56pm
DocMelonheadLook, I know that you guys wanted to study Gamergate; hell, one of your writers were Interviewing KiA on the subject (He's been banned from GamerGhazi). Sadly, the minorities veiwed Gamergate the same way as WBC at best, and Nazis at worst.08/01/2015 - 12:31pm
DocMelonheadIP wanted you to know that GamerGate is about Harassing minorities into submission, not "Ethnics in Journalism". It been a year since the Zoe Post was published and sparked a hate mob on Zoe Quinn.08/01/2015 - 12:28pm
DocMelonheadThat what's IP's goal is here in regard to gamergate: to get you guys to disassociate yourselves from the harassers that made all those claims up to threaten the advocates of social justice for minorities.08/01/2015 - 12:24pm
DocMelonheadIP tries to demonize all of GamerGate and it's supporters, along with those who didn't outright condemn it as a cover for a hate mob full of bigots.08/01/2015 - 12:20pm
MechaCrashNo, IP is trying to dehumanize you, I'm just pointing out that you're a hypocrit who makes bad faith arguments.08/01/2015 - 11:56am
Andrew EisenAnd I'm off too. Play nice, y'all!08/01/2015 - 11:33am
Andrew EisenIn short, discussions of ethics in journalism? Totally fine. Said indie dev's sex life? Not okay.08/01/2015 - 11:31am
james_fudgeTry talking when you have hundreds of people tweeting at you at the same time :)08/01/2015 - 11:30am
Andrew EisenAnd yet, when 30-seconds of research showed that there was no relevance to said indie dev's sex life, many people kept talking about. Hell, still do to this day. I had a guy on Twitter pester me about this nonsense for an entire day last weekend.08/01/2015 - 11:30am
james_fudgeWhatever dude, you're here posting. No one's stopping you.08/01/2015 - 11:30am
Goth_SkunkBe advised: In approximately 30 minutes I'm heading out of town for an obligatory family reunion. This is being stated so that none can interpret my upcoming 24 hour hiatus as a tail-tucking turn from discussion.08/01/2015 - 11:28am
Goth_SkunkEven now, IronPatriot, MechaCrash, and Craig R. continue to attempt to shout me down and dehumanize me.08/01/2015 - 11:25am
Goth_SkunkWhat transpired afterwards was a concerted effort to shout down and dehumanize those trying to bring these matters out into the open. I remain utterly convinced of this to this day.08/01/2015 - 11:24am
Goth_SkunkAnd yet the sex life of this indie developer tied right into the matter of journalistic ethics, as investigations uncovered a great number of breaches of ethical conduct, both related & not. That scandal is the orifice from which the balloon is inflated.08/01/2015 - 11:20am
MechaCrashI am reminded of the saying about playing chess with a pigeon.08/01/2015 - 11:13am
Andrew EisenThis is supported by, well, what actually happened, but also the text of the actual leaks. That was Tito's question and what he and a few (four total, I think) were discussing.08/01/2015 - 11:11am
Andrew EisenNo, it's not. What was generally prohibited was not discussion of journalistic ethics or other GamerGate topics, but threads that were, for example, discussing the sex life of an indie developer. THOSE are what were locked and removed.08/01/2015 - 11:10am
Goth_SkunkI don't believe you. Not for a second. Every major site with the exception of the Escapist prohibited discussion of GamerGate in its early stages. That is a fact.08/01/2015 - 11:04am
Andrew EisenNo, that's a fact. Don't believe me, read 'em yourself. No one was trying to censor discussion of GamerGate.08/01/2015 - 11:02am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician