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 an M rating hurt Batman: Arkham Knight's sales?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenWe've been over this again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Sarkeeisan is not bending the truth.02/27/2015 - 4:31pm
ZippyDSMleeAndrew Eisen: Going to skip on how they like to bend the truth aren't you? I just might one take you up on finding each instance one day… whenever I have energy…and a brain. LOL02/27/2015 - 4:30pm
E. Zachary KnightZippy, Are you accusing Anita of simply complaining about games in order to make money rather than to actually improve the representation of women in games?02/27/2015 - 4:28pm
Andrew EisenIn the sense that they're both people who talk about things they're passionate about, sure.02/27/2015 - 4:24pm
Andrew EisenThe reasoning for criticism on how female characters are generally portrayed in video games is the same as any other criticism: generally, this is not being done as well as it could.02/27/2015 - 4:23pm
ZippyDSMleeAndrew Eisen:... so you see absolutely no similarity’s in between Rush and Sarkeesian?02/27/2015 - 4:22pm
Andrew EisenI'm familiar with both Limbaugh and talk radio. What the hell does that have to do with anything?02/27/2015 - 4:19pm
ZippyDSMleeWhat is the reasoning for the criticisms against how fictional characters are portrayed?02/27/2015 - 4:13pm
ZippyDSMleeAndrew Eisen: Reply to what industries. “The I can make money by A milking a niche base and or B saying crazy things industry.“ You’ve never listened to talk radio or heard of Rush Limbaugh have you?02/27/2015 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenWhat the hell are you talking about?02/27/2015 - 4:05pm
ZippyDSMleeAndrew Eisen: The I can make money by A milking a niche base and or B saying crazy things industry. Then what is the reasoning for the criticisms?02/27/2015 - 4:04pm
Andrew EisenAgain, nothing you say makes a lick of sense.02/27/2015 - 3:54pm
Andrew EisenNo one is saying the sexual objectification of female characters is causing people to be mean in real life.02/27/2015 - 3:53pm
Andrew EisenIndustries build around what? No one is confusing fiction and reality. No one is claiming fictional characters have feelings or rights or are they themselves speaking against their own objectification.02/27/2015 - 3:52pm
ZippyDSMleeresponsibility kick in to not treat others poorly and have enough self-worth to not be discouraged by the smallest of things?02/27/2015 - 3:42pm
ZippyDSMleeOne could stretch things pretty far and claim that mindsets shaped by fiction shape the real world treatment of real people but my question is which came first the chicken(mistreatment) or the egg(fiction) and where and when dose individual personal respo02/27/2015 - 3:42pm
ZippyDSMleeFrankly it looks more like people are getting fiction and reality confused, fictional characters have no feelings or rights thus to claim they can be objectified and treated poorly make for a somewhat disingenuous argument.02/27/2015 - 3:42pm
ZippyDSMleeIf there were not industries built around it I could agree but the same format that any political talking head uses or Jack Thompson used also supports less excessive critics…02/27/2015 - 3:41pm
Andrew EisenSo once again, nothing you say makes a lick of sense.02/27/2015 - 3:24pm
Andrew EisenCritics who offer suggestions on how their issues might be addressed are not bullies and no one is attempting to police anything let alone anyone's morals.02/27/2015 - 3:24pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician