interweb freedom

(formerly Stop Usage Based Billing)

Posts Tagged ‘Teksavvy’

UBB is Bad

Posted by Laurel L. Russwurm on February 6, 2011

“Usage-Based Billing: A last-ditch effort to kill the competition.

By forcing all the small ISPs to cap usage and operate just like Bell, the CRTC has effectively buried any strategic advantage that small ISPs can use in competition against Bell and other major telecoms.”

Andy MacIlwain: CRTC & Usage-Based Billing (UBB): Canada Needs Telecom Competition!

Financial Post: Seeing red over metered Internet gets some of it right, but thinks there can actually be justification for UBB.

“if users do find that their usage is being metered, they are going to change their habits.”

Ottawa Citizen: The CRTC and friends

“There is a huge conflict of interest here being seemingly ignored by the CRTC. Bell-Rogers are limiting their competitors’ ability to compete with their cable divisions, by using their Internet divisions to discourage increased Internet usage. Why is this not discussed more often? Maybe one company should no longer be allowed to own both?”

— Corey Flemming Letter to the Editor, Big carrier Internet conflict

“Although large incumbent operators such as Bell Canada have put in usage caps of between 20 and 60 gigabytes, competitive ISPs like TekSavvy either offer 200 gigabyte caps or even unlimited use. If the rules go into effect, competitive carriers would have to enact similar bandwidth usage limits on usage.”

India Telecom Tracker: Canada’s CRTC postpones implementation of usage-based billing rules

It’s not over yet.

Regulating Canada into the last century will not help our digital economy survive in this one.
We need to Stop Usage Based Billing before it starts.



If you haven’t already, sign the petition. There are only 14414 signatures.

If you have already signed, who else should you be asking to sign?

That’s easy: anyone who uses the Internet.
Because Usage Based Billing will harm not only Canadians, but our Economy.

http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/

You can also call or write your MP, MP postal code look-up

Heritage Minister James Moore – email: Moore.J@parl.gc.ca

Industry Minister Tony Clement – email: Clemet1@parl.gc.ca

Prime Minister Stephen Harper – email: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

After all, they work for us, don’t they?

STOP Usage Based Billing

STOP Usage Based Billing



Advertisements

Posted in Changing the World | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Responsibly against Internet Throttling *and* UBB

Posted by Laurel L. Russwurm on February 3, 2011

or, Why David Eaves Is Wrong about Usage Based Billing

David Eaves is a smart guy. The problem is that there is so much misinformation about Usage Based Billing,  like so many others, he is terribly misinformed:

“One thing that has bothered me about these complaints is that they have generally come from people who also seem to oppose internet service providers throttling internet access. It’s unclear to me that you can have it both ways – you can’t (responsibly) be against both internet throttling and usage-based billing. “

—David Eaves, Why the CRTC was right on Usage-Based Billing

It’s understandable, really. UBB is difficult to understand, describe and explain. Because it’s so complex.
For instance, try explaining that Bell is a backbone carrier as well as an Internet service provider competing with their own wholesale customers.
It’s kind of like a song i heard when I was a kid, something about being your own grandpa….

First, the jargon is so new, much of it isn’t even in Wikipedia.

That’s one of the things I struggled to address when I started this blog. But it gets worse. Bell doesn’t use the words of jargon the same way other ISPs in other parts of the world do.

Let’s look at “throttling”:

The short version is that Bell’s version of “throttling” consists of deliberately impeding traffic, which actually artificially inflates bandwidth consumption. Worse, they use DPI to discriminate against specific traffic. When you add UBB to throttling, the result looks very much like fraud. Which is why the American ISP Comcast was slapped down by the FCC when they did it.

Understanding Bell Throttling, excerpt from C: Deep Packet Inspection

POLICING

Policing

Policing traffic above a certain rate simply consists of allowing dropped packets when there is Internet congestion. Using the infamously overused highway analogy, if there were two westbound lanes of traffic and the lead car in the fast lane has a blow-out and slams on the brakes and skids to a stop, the other cars in the fast lane can either rear-end this car or overflow the highway into the center ditch. Or both. The traffic in the slow lane just keeps moving along and none of it is lost.

So if the Internet truly is congested, some of it will go through fine but whatever doesn’t fit will simply be discarded, and become “lost” or “dropped” packets. The traffic that is not dropped moves as smoothly as ever. Without an acknowledgment of receipt, the dropped packets will eventually be resent when the recipient system places a “resend” request after the congestion has cleared up. Because this method of clearing up Internet congestion does not target any particular type of Internet traffic, it does not require the invasive deep packet inspection process.

Traffic Management: Forced Through A Bottleneck

Traffic Shaping or Throttling

The practice known as “Traffic Shaping” can also be called “throttling”.

Traffic Shaping is applied to Internet congestion by forcing all the traffic to slow down and conform to a certain speed by pushing it through a bottleneck.

In this process, no traffic is lost, it is simply delayed in a huge queue. Your computer’s packets will take longer to cross the Internet, and generally your computer will slow down its demands until the congestion is cleared. Revisiting the highway analogy, if we funnel four lanes of traffic into one, everyone gets to where they’re going, but the trip might take an hour instead of fifteen minutes.

This process called interchangeably Traffic Shaping or Throttling does not require the invasive Deep Packet Inspection process either, again for the same reason: it is not targeting a specific type of traffic, it slows down everything.

“ ‘Policing’ drops packets when a bandwidth threshold is exceeded, while ‘traffic shaping’ queues packets during high bandwidth use and releases them when bandwidth use reduces. No data is lost with ‘traffic shaping’. (Cisco, Comparing Traffic Policing and Traffic Shaping for Bandwidth Limiting)

‘Policing’ and ‘traffic shaping’ are protocol agnostic; all traffic is equally affected. Neither ‘policing’ nor ‘traffic shaping’ requires DPI.

Bell Canada’s throttling does neither.”

–Bob Jonkman, Sobac Microcomputer Services

What Bell Canada calls “throttling” is not the same thing as what the rest of the world calls “throttling”.

What Bell Canada means by “Throttling”

“ Bell uses Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) to identify peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic (CRTC filing), and most likely the Bittorrent protocol in particular. Bell Canada uses Sandvine’s equipment for DPI and throttling. With throttling, a forged reset is sent to the client for a percentage of transmitted packets. The client needs to re-establish the connection, as well as re-transmit the lost data (Robb Topolski first discovered the use of forged reset packets). Since Bittorrent transmits as much data as it receives, the re-transmission costs are significant.

BELL Logo

In the US, this practice was ruled illegal by the FCC .

‘Policing’ and ‘Traffic Shaping’ sound like industry weasel words to make it sound like they’re doing a good thing. ‘Policing’, ‘traffic shaping’ and ‘throttling’ all degrade service for the party being policed, shaped or throttled. Of the three, Bell has chosen to use ‘throttling’, the technique that’s most disruptive to its customers.”

–Bob Jonkman, Sobac Microcomputer Services

RESET

Bell Canada gets to decide the fate of our packets.

In 2008 Bell Canada acquired Sandvine‘s Deep Packet Inspection equipment with the intention of charging their own customers for their bandwidth usage. Using the DPI process to peel back the packet layers, Bell Canada is able to acquire a lot of information from the packets that make up our Internet traffic. Unfortunately, DPI also shows the Carrier what the content is, unless the content is encrypted. If the content IS encrypted, DPI lets Bell Canada know it’s encrypted. Essentially Deep Packet Inspection gives Bell Canada the capability of reading any unencrypted packets we send across the Internet.

The original application of DPI was to allow Bell Canada to keep track of their customers’ bandwidth use. This necessarily requires information about both senders and recipients, because you can’t reasonably charge Usage Based Billing without knowing which customers used what amount of bandwidth. Bell Canada did not require permission to do this to their own retail customers, because the CRTC does not set Internet pricing. The CRTC allows the ISPs freedom to charge what they want, since the CRTC believes Canada enjoys competition. The idea here is that customers who are dissatisfied with the price or the service terms they are getting are able to change ISPs.

Interestingly enough, at the same time that Bell was busily “throttling” customers, it seems that Bell Canada had begun a new business enterprise: The Globe and Mail: Bell launches video download store. Although customers using Peer to Peer file sharing protocols for downloading were being throttled, it seems subscribers to Bell Canada’s own download service were not.

The problem began when Bell Canada took things too far. After deploying their Deep Packet Inspection package, it wasn’t long until Bell Canada took it a step further– Bell Canada began to use DPI to “throttle” their wholesale customers’ Internet traffic as well.

Congestion

Certainly there is congestion. If you were using a 15 year old computer you would find it much slower than the one you’re using now.

The Canadian Internet infrastructure seems to be rather like that. At the beginning, Bell infrastructure was state of the art. It isn’t state of the art any more. This isn’t because of anything Bell has done, it seems to be what Bell has not done. It’s the same infrastructure they had back then.

Is that the fault of consumers? No. We pay some of the highest Internet rates in the world.

Non-discriminatory traffic shaping (slowing everything down, rather than singling out the traffic you don’t like) is the accepted practice in parts of the world where citizen privacy and equality is valued. DPI is illegal in many parts of the world because of its capacity for abuse.

Artificial Scarcity

The Internet is NOT full. The technology is not getting more expensive. Far from being a genuinely scarce resource, technology is getting faster and storage capacity is increasing while costs drop. Had Bell upgraded the infrastructure to leading edge five years ago it would have much cost far more more than it would cost today. And it would only be half as good.

I remember when my sister’s 2 gigabyte hard drive was unimaginably large. Today you can get a 2 Terabyte drive for around $100 and a 2 GB flash drive is barely adequate for my kid’s school work.

Canadians have been paying inflated costs all along that more than pay for infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, yet if there has been any of the latter I’ve not heard a peep about it. So long as the CRTC allows Bell to charge the customers of their competition UBB there certainly is no incentive for Bell to increase capacity.

People Don’t Understand Bandwidth

What is bandwidth? How much are you using? How can you reduce it?

The first thing to realize is that we are paying for our Internet connection. I pay TekSavvy, my ISP, the agreed rate. My ISP pays the Carrier, Bell, the agreed rate. UBB is an additional cost added to an already profit generating price structure. It over rides contracts.

When TekSavvy buys bandwidth from Bell, they have bandwidth they can redistribute at their discretion.

If you buy a basket of apples from a Farmer, and then give one apple to Tom, three apples to Dick, and 14 apples to Harry, the farmer can’t charge more because Harry took too many apples.

Yet one of the most persistent fallacies floating around is the idea of “bandwidth hogs.”

hogwash

Hogwash

Actual usage costs range from less than a Canadian penny a gigabyte to possibly as high as three cents/GB.

Yet the big telcos want to charge a range from one to five dollars per gigabyte.

The Independent ISPs have contracted for finite blocks of bandwidth. They pay Bell what they have contacted — prices set by Bell — to pay for these blocks of bandwidth. UBB is a bonus that will be paid to Bell in exchange for providing zero in additional value. Without, say, having to upgrade.

Ultimately, unlike paying for a glass of water, Canadians don’t even know what bandwidth is. The CRTC claims that they support choice. Yet when the Internet first opened up, Canadians chose not to get involved. Originally, the Internet was all Usage Based Billing all the time, charged by the minute. Aside from Technophiles and the rich, Canadians stayed offline. It wasn’t until we could get the Internet at flat rates that Canadians jumped on board with enthusiasm.

Even Bell can’t reliably offer more than a “range” of what some internet activity will actually cost.
There is no meter we can see. Right now I could walk outside and wade through the snow and write down the numbers on my hydro meter. The federal government guarantees the accuracy of the equipment.

Yet there is absolutely no oversight for UBB.
Bell could pull figures out of the air, and consumers have no recourse.
Nor does Bell actually undertake to deliver speeds that they claim to offer.

And the CRTC allows this, instead of looking out for the best interests of consumers.

It’s not over yet.

Regulating Canada into the last century will not help our digital economy survive in this one.
We need to Stop Usage Based Billing before it starts.



If you haven’t already, sign the petition. There are only 13974 signatures.

If you have already signed, who else should you be asking to sign?

That’s easy: anyone who uses the Internet.
Because Usage Based Billing will harm not only Canadians, but our Economy.

http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/

You can also call or write your MP, MP postal code look-up

Heritage Minister James Moore – email: Moore.J@parl.gc.ca

Industry Minister Tony Clement – email: Clemet1@parl.gc.ca

Prime Minister Stephen Harper – email: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

After all, they work for us, don’t they?

STOP Usage Based Billing

STOP Usage Based Billing



Posted in Changing the World | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Number Crunching UBB Bandwidth

Posted by Laurel L. Russwurm on November 17, 2010

No Usage Based Billing

When the Internet was first opened up to consumers, Canadians we had to pay Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) usage fees in order to connect. We paid by the minute.

Using the internet could be quite expensive that way. So many Canadians did not.

When Bell and Rogers entered the ISP market, they offered Unlimited packages for a flat rate. This was much much more economical for consumers. This is one very important reason why such a high proportion of Canadians went online. Which has unquestionably been very good for Canada’s digital economy.

This caused two huge changes. 

  1. All the Independent ISPs went out of business (or switched to doing something else).
  2. Canadians logged on.   Knowing what the Internet would cost per month made it more accessible.

So what’s the problem?

Once all meaningful competition was gone, even the Canadian Government was able to see that no meaningful competition was a bad deal for consumers.

Now that they shared the market, the phone and cable ISPs rejigged their services, and stopped offering “unlimited” packages. And they introduced “caps.” Prices went from being some of the lowest in the word to being some of the highest. In the few major markets where consumers had the option of choosing between Phone based Internet or Cable based Internet, it seems after a while that the two took turns being the higher priced. Adding insult to injury if you decide to cancel your service you get kit with cancellation fees. My guess is that it averages out over the year.

I don’t know if Bell suspends service when their customers hit their “cap” but I have been told that Rogers does this. By university students.

Being overcharged is bad, but being cut off is unacceptable. Because the Internet is a necessity of life. And I would think that is more true for a University student than anyone else.

Canadian Flag CC-BY lothlaurien.ca

So the Canadian Government mandated competition.

The new Independent ISPs offered unlimited packages. When I switched to TekSavvy I opted to pay a little less for a capped amount of 200GB per month. But my Indie ISP doesn’t cut me off even if I go over a little. They average it over two months, so the next month is likely to be under. I have yet to be hit with an overage charge. So 200GB seems to be a reasonable monthly bandwidth allowance. But that is much higher than the caps Bell is imposing.

One of the biggest problems with the introduction of this type of Usage Based Billing is that consumers can’t see it or measure it ourselves. We don’t understand it. Back when Canadians rejected Minute based UBB at least we understood how much a minute was, so we could understand how much we were being charged.

This is why the knee jerk response– particularly after getting clobbered by an overage bill or two– will be for Canadians to severely curtail our online activity.

Doing the Math

I’m not a math person, but even I can understand this:

“Bell offers 25 Mbps (million bits per second) download speeds, with a 75 GByte cap. 75 GBytes is 600,000 Mbits,

so at 25 Mbps it takes only 6 hours and 40 minutes to use up all your bandwidth for the month…”

Bob Jonkman,
Comment on: Why Do Bell and Rogers Have Customers?

Stop Usage Based Billing



 

If you haven’t already, sign the petition. There are only 11320 signatures.

If you have already signed, who else should you be asking to sign?

That’s easy: anyone who uses the Internet.
Because Usage Based Billing will harm not only Canadians, but our Economy.

http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/

You can also call or write your MP, MP postal code look-up

Heritage Minister James Moore – email: Moore.J@parl.gc.ca

Industry Minister Tony Clement – email: Clement1@parl.gc.ca

Prime Minister Stephen Harper – email: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

After all, they work for us, don’t they?

STOP Usage Based Billing

STOP Usage Based Billing



 

Posted in Changing the World | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Why Did the CRTC approve Usage Based Billing?

Posted by Laurel L. Russwurm on November 6, 2010

No Usage Based Billing

I’ve been doing this blog for well over a year. I’ve learned an awful lot. It all started because there was no place where I could go to find out about this stuff. The only people who knew about UBB were tech people and for the most part since they understand this stuff they don’t realize what non-tech people don’t know. In order to be able to explain this stuff, I’ve had no choice but to learn about a lot of tech stuff that is WAY over my head.

That said, the most powerful reason I began this blog was that I simply could not believe that Usage Based Billing could be approved by the CRTC because it is such an incredibly bad deal for Canada since:

The real price we’ll pay is the curbing of Canadian internet use.

This is what I wrote in my very first post about UBB:

This is really dangerous.

It will not hurt the internet.
It will just compromise Canadian internet access by artificially inflating the transaction costs.
Which will hurt Canadian Citizens and Business alike.
Talk about acting contrary to the public good.

—A Disservice to Canada

But what is even more in credible is that is why Usage Based Billing was approved.

Bell didn’t even attempt to sell the CRTC on the idea that they were adding value, because clearly they are not.
Red Maple Leaf graphic
All that is being added is an ADDITIONAL entirely different price structure (and caps).

Bell told the CRTC that they needed Usage Based Billing as a way to artificially inflate internet costs on purpose.

The REASON the CRTC approved UBB was to allow Bell to deliberately inflate the cost of the Internet

to discourage Canadians from using up the Internet.

Bell claimed it was necessary for Traffic Management.

The CRTC Chairman Konrad Von Finckenstein believes Bell’s story that the Internet is congested and this is a reasonable “traffic management” method.

CRTC green lights usage-based internet billing

Canada ALREADY has some of highest Internet costs in the world. For mediocre service. BEFORE Usage Based Billing.

Check out Jesse Brown’s Search Engine TekSavvy interview to get an inkling of how this insanity will impact on the Independent ISPs.

Stop Usage Based Billing



If you haven’t already, sign the petition. There are only 11270 signatures.

If you have already signed, who else should you be asking to sign?

That’s easy: anyone who uses the Internet.
Because Usage Based Billing will harm not only Canadians, but our Economy.

http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/

You can also call or write your MP, MP postal code look-up

Heritage Minister James Moore – email: Moore.J@parl.gc.ca

Industry Minister Tony Clement – email: Clemet1@parl.gc.ca

Prime Minister Stephen Harper – email: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

After all, they work for us, don’t they?

STOP Usage Based Billing

STOP Usage Based Billing



Posted in Changing the World | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Stacking the digEcon Deck

Posted by Laurel L. Russwurm on July 22, 2010

[My digEcon problems are covered in this three part series, first, digEcon Backstory (Bill C-32) is in the wind, the second, digEcon scandals in Oh! Canada and the conclusion here in StopUBB]

Canadian Flag

The two month public Canadian Digital Economy Consultation ended last week. Canadians were asked for input on how we want our Government to proceed with Digital Economy policy.

Weren’t we?

The Digital Economy Homepage seems pleased so many Canadians participated:

“Between May 10 and July 13, more than 2000 Canadian individuals and organizations registered

to share their ideas and submissions. You can read their contributions — and the comments from other users — in the Submissions Area and the Idea Forum.”
digitaleconomy.gc.ca

Sounds great.

Until you contrast that figure with the more than eight thousand Canadians who made submissions to last year’s Copyright Consultation.

What happened? Why was there so little participation for this public consultation?

Probably the single biggest turnoff to citizen participation– the thing that kept Canadians away from the Government’s Digital Economy Consultation in droves– was Bill C-32. When this so called “Copyright Modernization” legislation was introduced in the house of Commons, it’s similarity to the American DMCA made it instantly clear that this Government chose to ignore the majority of citizen input from the Copyright Consultation. As a result, the prevailing feeling among Canadians seemed to be “why bother?”

Making it Hard to be Heard

The complexity of the Digital Economy Consultation leads me to the conclusion that it wasn’t put together in a day, rather it had been in the works for quite a while.   Yet I didn’t see any publicity build up.   It was announced and launched with lightning speed.   By the Federal Government.

Was the timing a deliberate attempt to to distract Canadians from our outrage about “Bill C-32: the Copyright Modernization Act” ?

NO Canadian DMCA

The Digital Economy Consultation made it emphatically clear that copyright would not be considered a valid topic. People who used the discussion forums complained that any copyright discussions were quickly shut down.

This position would have been perfectly reasonable if the Government kept of copyright and the digital technology issues separate. But the Government’s own draft copyright legislation Bill C-32 strayed from the realm of copyright into the world of digital locks– and in fact subjugates all copyright to DRM/TRM. First the Government dissolved the division between the two areas and then they refused to allow discussion of the ramifications. Clearly copyright should have been an acceptable topic for discussion in the Digital Consultation. Disallowing it resulted in a credibility loss.

After all, the magnificent response to the Copyright Consultation was not what the Government wanted to hear. Certainly they didn’t want to hear it all again in the Digital Economy Consultation. Did they set out to make this Digital Economy Consultation deliberately difficult, precisely to discourage ordinary Canadian citizens from speaking up? Certainly the Government raised barriers to participation for the Digital Economy Consultation.

First Barrier: almost no lead time.

The Digital Economy Website was announced and then it was underway.

Second Barrier: Quantities of prerequisite reading.

A lot to read onsite, beginning with the Consultation Paper Improving Canada’s Digital Advantage: Strategies for Sustainable Prosperity. Copied into Open Office it ran 32 pages. The digitaleconomy.gc.ca site was bursting with links to reference material (much of it government web pages). It listed rules and regulations, defined the terms of the consultation, provided News, FAQ’s and forums, although I never saw them since there just wasn’t enough time.

There was a fair bit to read and think about before participating in the online forums or making a submission. Which would have been fine except for the time limit.   Either the consultation period should have been substantially longer, or the reference and background material should have been made available online for at least a couple of weeks before the Consultation even began.

Third Barrier

The last problem was the submission form itself. Unlike the Copyright Consultation where you could answer all the questions in one submission, the Digital Economy Consultation was segregated into different categories. You had to choose one category or another. Some people made submissions in more than one category, and some answered questions for all the categories in one submission. Either way the very process was awkward, and more difficult than it had to be.

Did they actually want submissions?

The Submissions Page

My submission was the first posted after the extension. I could have made it in under the wire– there was an hour left to submit when I finished– but once I saw the Consultation had been extended I chose to take the time to proof read.

When my submission was posted it was disappointing to see my summary wasn’t included. Instead a portion of the submission was extracted. So I uploaded it a second time. When my resubmission appeared it was added to the submission page without replacing the original.

Multiple drafts of the same submission appear to be separate submissions. A few submissions were made in both official languages, and both these appear as individual submissions to a casual perusal, again making it look as though there were more submissions.

Wayback Machine Screenshot

It took quite a bit of effort just to separate the organizations from the individuals. Initially I thought it would be a simple matter to scroll through the submissions page. In many cases the extract didn’t clearly indicate if the submission was on behalf of an individual or an organization, making it necessary to read the entire summary, or even the submission. And even then there were some I still wasn’t entirely sure of.

When I noticed new submissions being added, I was curious if any submissions had been expunged, so I ran the URL through archive.org’s the WayBack Machine. This is an excellent online tool that makes digital snapshots of the web for safekeeping, and allowing for web searches into the past. But it seems the Canadian Government doesn’t allow this kind of oversight since they’ve elected to disallow robot searches.

The Government’s decision to lock out the Wayback Machine means Canadians have no way to tell if submissions have been quietly removed. Or not.

Even so, you don’t have to be a statistical analyst to see that there weren’t very many submissions at all.

Looking at the Submissions

Discounting duplicates, only 52 submissions were submitted before the original deadline.

Which sounds like an excellent reason to extend the deadline. After all, over 8,000 Submissions were made to the Copyright Consultation.

At the eleventh hour, the Government extended the deadline for four days.

During those four days another 206 submissions were made, bringing the grand total up to 258 submissions.

Before the deadline, individuals made 18 of the submissions while organizations made 34. Around half.

After the deadline extension, individuals made an additional 18 submissions, while organizations made an additional 188 submissions. That’s a stunningly different ratio, with only ten percent of post deadline submissions being made by individuals.

extension

Four days was an odd amount of time to choose for an extension. Last year’s Copyright Consultation announced a 48 hour “grace period” to allow all the submissions to get in. Of course, the government site was being overwhelmed by the volume of last day submissions which resulted in an enormous backlog.

In a perfect world I would have liked a week to make the best submission possible, because I think it would probably have taken a week — full time — to do it properly.

So four days wasn’t really enough time for most people to come up with a comprehensive full fledged submission from scratch. But four days might be just enough time for a team.

Clearly this isn’t the case for organizations because they can spread the work around. I have to wonder why so many of these organizations came in after the initial deadline. Is it possible that some organizations didn’t even start a submission before the deadline?

Was the deadline extension to allow entities government friendly entities an opportunity to whip up quick submissions to slant the results of the Digital Economy Consultation in the direction the Government always intended to go?

Or perhaps some submissions came in deliberately too late for discussion in the idea forum? The Digital Economy Idea-Forum on the website was shut down at the same time as the submissions deadline, leaving no official place for discussion of these late submissions. Perhaps some of the late submitters hoped to avoid public scrutiny.

I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I am curious. Was this consultation doomed from the beginning by stacking the deck?

Stacking the deck?

A small trickle of additional submissions are being added. A new one today. There was one yesterday, none the day before, one the day before that. Why are submissions being added after the Consultation closed?

This is the digEcon, not the copycon. It isn’t like the government is snowed in under the response– far from it. The amount of digEcon registrants was a quarter the number of submissions made for the copycon.

Not only that, the copycon didn’t post submissions locked in PDFs (with the exception of the SOCAN submission, which asked for and received special treatment), they converted them to html so they could be easily read by anyone online without forcing citizens to use the proprietary Adobe reader. (And although PDF is quasi-open source, only the proprietary Adobe reader reads Adobe PDFs properly.)

It was plausible that it would take some time to get all of the copycon submissions online. That is certainly not true here.

If these submissions were actually submitted before the (extended!) deadline, there doesn’t seem to be any legitimate rationale as to why it’s taking so long to include them. Particularly as submissions were accepted via the digEcon site’s online form.

What possible justification is there for these submissions to be posted one at a time? The most reasonable supposition is that they are still being submitted. Is it possible that some organizations made these late submissions because the Government asked them to?

If submissions are closed they should be closed to everyone. If the consultation is open, it should be open to all. Doing it this way at the very least gives the appearance of impropriety: it appears that submissions are closed unless they says what the government wants to hear.

This simply further undermines any credibility of the consultation may have had.

Shuffling the Deck

Going back to the digEcon submissions page again tonight (Thursday 22, July, 2010) things have again changed. Duplicate submissions– or at least some of them, including my initial submission — have been removed.

I can’t say either way if there are more or fewer submissions, but my numbers seem a wee bit off. There are also menu options at the top of the submissions list which allows selection of a listing of submissions by Individual or Organization as well as by “most recent”, which may or may not have been there before. It would have been extraordinarily helpful had it been there/had I noticed before.

At this time I don’t have any more time to sink into this article, so I think it’s time to cut to the chase.

Who submitted?

The strangest submission I looked at was this: The Minister of Industry’s Advisory Committee on Assistive Devices for Persons with Disabilities, or ACAD. The digEcon is supposed to be a public consultation, but this submission was made by an Minister of Industry’s Advisory Committee. Don’t they already have access?   Even more troubling, this Government Committee didn’t actually write the submission, it was made by an outside PR firm. What’s up with that?

My vote for the most incredible submission made by a corporation is the one made by Adobe Systems Canada Inc.. This submission caught my eye as one of the very few submissions made in plain text rather than sealed into an Adobe PDF requiring the use of the proprietary Adobe reader. It seems Adobe knows when it is appropriate to use PDFs.

Of the small number of submissions that were made, there does seem to be some variety.

Individuals made submissions.

Online News Media, Educational Institutions and Library Associations made submissions.

Industry Associations, Professional Organizations, Citizen Lobby Groups, Special Interest Groups, Corporations and Content Creators made submissions.

Carrier/ISPs and Independent ISPs

Carrier/ISPs

The Internet “backbone” is made up of “Carriers”, or the companies that control the wire that the Internet travels across, namely telephone and cable wire. Internet Service Provers, or ISPs connect to the Internet through the carriers.

Some ISPs are branches of the same companies that are carriers. In addition to being Internet carriers and ISPs, many if not all of these corporations are involved in other businesses as cell phone providers, broadcasters and content creators. This certainly seems to be a recipe for anti-competitive practices at the very least, and certainly is Canada’s largest barrier to net neutrality.

Bell in particular is appears to be many different companies on paper, but in reality these are a family of Bell companies, who share similar if not the same goals. I’ve included CTVglobemedia in the Bell/Telus group since Bell is a major shareholder.


Bell/Telus Submissions

Cogeco Submission

Rogers Submission

Shaw Submission

Videotron Submission


Independent Internet Service Providers

Independent ISPs acquire Internet access through the same carriers and the same wire as the carrier ISPs. The Independent ISPs compete directly with the carrier/ISPs.

Independent Internet Service Provider Submissions

Canadian Association of Internet Providers

MTS Allstream Inc.

TekSavvy Solutions Inc.

Xittel The Coalition of Internet Service Providers inc. (CISP): The future of telecommunications competition in Canada


Total Bell related submissions: 8
Total Carrier/ISP submissions: 12

The disproportionately large volume of input from the Bell/Telus group in particular worries me.

No Usage Based Billing

Currently, Canadian Internet users are living under the threat of Bell introduction of Usage Based Billing. Although not yet implemented, UBB has been approved by the CRTC with the specific intent of discouraging Canadian Internet use. The CRTC approved this as a way for Bell the carrier to practice Internet “traffic management”. The CRTC approved Usage Based Billing because Bell Canada convinced them that the best way to manage the Internet was to curb customer use by imposing caps and high prices

Because Bell thinks decreased Canadian Internet participation is a good idea.

This seems like the absolute worst thing that Canada could possibly do in terms of growing a Digital Economy. Any proposal on how the Canadian Government should manage Canada’s Digital Economy from a corporate entity that believes reducing Canadian Internet participation is a good thing makes me very nervous indeed.



Back to digEcon scandalsBack Navigational Arrow



If you haven’t already, sign the petition. There are only 10897 signatures.

If you have already signed, who else should you be asking to sign?

That’s easy: anyone who uses the Internet.

Because Usage Based Billing will harm both Canadians and our Economy.

http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/

STOP Usage Based Billing

STOP Usage Based Billing



Posted in Changing the World | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Speculation not Prophecy

Posted by Laurel L. Russwurm on January 4, 2010

No Usage Based Billing

Stop Usage Based Billing

Usage Based Billing in a Nutshell

In August of last year research for my personal blog in the wind first brought Usage Based Billing to my attention. UBB is a technical issue filled with jargon so new much of it isn’t even in wikipedia, making it hard for ordinary people like me to understand. I’m not a programmer, I’m a mom, an artist and a writer, but I thought it important enough to create this public service blog to share the things I’ve learned to try to help other Canadians understand Usage Based Billing.

The left side bar lists of all the blog posts as an index to allow this blog to serve as a reference. I’ve tried to cover issues and technologies in as much depth as I can handle. (The glossary is probably the best place to start.) There is also a listing of websites and blogs there. The right side bar is loaded with links to specific articles which may also help understand the issue.

But for today’s purposes, we’ll just do a quick recap:

Fifteen years ago Canada was an internet technology leader and Canadians could connect to the internet at reasonable rates. Today we pay some of the most expensive rates in the world for mediocre service. The reason is simple; the internet carriers (Bell/Rogers) chose to make only minimal infrastructure re-investment.

kids at a computer

Families upgrade when they can.

As a mom I know that computer systems are obsolete after about six months.

As a mom I know it is important to buy the best system I can afford so that it will last the longest.

I need the best value for the family. Moms have to keep computer systems running far longer than programmers or corporations because families can’t afford otherwise.

Even so, there is not a single component on my desktop that I had 15 years ago. My system has changed many times over in the last 15 years. Because I have re-invested in my infrastructure.

Bell Canada has told the CRTC that Usage Based Billing is necessary. They say they need more income or they can’t improve their infrastructure. But what they did NOT tell the CRTC is that any infrastructure problems Bell Canada may be experiencing is because Bell Canada chose not to reinvest in infrastructure improvements for the past fifteen years.

Canadian customers have been paying premium prices for a steadily declining service. In order to encourage ISP competition the Canadian government mandated Bell Canada to make wholesale bandwidth available to Independent ISPs. The Canadian government encouraged these Independent businesses to set up shop so Canadian consumers could have Internet competition. Bell Canada was allowed to set the rates charged (astronomical) but in spite of that, the Independent ISPs have not only survived, they are now at the point of offering meaningful competition. They have a loyal customer base. But Bell Canada does not want to have to compete.

Canadian Independent Internet Service Providers include:

MTS Allstream, Primus, Yak, SureNet, Electronicbox, Skywaywest, MNSi, apexia, START CommunicationsAccelerated ConnectionsEgate, AEBCWightman, Caneris, AcanacVianet, Interlink, Lightspeed, Execulink, Telnet, Auracom, The Internet Centre, goZOOM, Diallog, KOS, Telinet, Compu-SOLVE, Merge Internet, NINA-IT, Broadline Networks, ISP.ca, OdynetAirnet and of course the Independent ISP I am happy to use, TekSavvy.

easier than competition

Bell Canada LogoBell Canada was caught “throttling” the internet service of the customers of the Independent Service Providers. Over strenuous protests from both customers and Independent ISPs, the CRTC actually gave Bell Canada permission to continue to interfere with internet service of their competitors customers.

This is a business practice unprecedented in any nation aspiring to free markets and democracy.

That wasn’t enough for Bell Canada. Now they want to additional levels of billing, again, not just for their own customers, but for the customers of the Independent ISPs. In addition to the near highest internet rates in the world Canadians are already paying, Bell wants us to pay them Usage Based Billing and apply usage caps which will double the rates of moderate internet users and exponentially increase the rates paid by heavy users. This will certainly harm Canadian internet customers.

Implementation of Usage Based Billing will most likely put the Independent ISPs out of business because these CRTC rulings will have removed their ability to compete. Since the Independent ISPs will merely be able to offer inferior rate packages as dictated by Bell Canada, they certainly won’t thrive.

Canadians don’t understand computer numbers

Although I’ve used computers since the 1980’s, I am a user, not a technical person. We users do not understand things like bandwidth (particularly since it means different things… see glossary again). A long time ago there were bits and bytes. Kilobytes. Megabytes. Now there are are Gigabytes and Terabytes. These words sometimes mean big and then all of a sudden they don’t. I remember when my sister had a computer with an incredibly big hard drive… two whole gigabytes. Today my digital camera has an 8 gigabyte memory card.

My essential point is that since most Canadians do not understand how much bandwidth is required for the the things we do online, we won’t know what we will need to do to cut back our internet use so that we can continue to afford it. This means that the biggest worst effect of Usage Based Billing will certainly be that after paying the first huge internet bill, Canadians are going to use the internet as little as possible. Anyone who doesn’t think that this will do serious damage to the Canadian economy is in denial.

The internet stopped being a luxury some time ago. It has become a key economic tool.

Ajax and Cassandra painting

Solomon Joseph Solomon′s painting of Ajax and Cassandra

Pretty big nutshell.

Now what?

RobertX asked what my predictions for UBB in the New Year would be.

I’m no Cassandra (which is just as well, actually) so I can’t predict what will happen to Usage Based Billing in 2010.

What I can do is speculate.

What might happen if they implement Usage Based Billing?

Since the CRTC has provisionally approved Usage Based Billing– on the basis of Bell Canada presentations unsubstantiated by evidence– Usage Based Billing could very well be implemented. Although the CRTC chose to ignore all of the dissenting voices, the CRTC did ask Bell Canada for some clarification, as well as the legal challenges the Independent ISPs have offered, so Usage Based Billing is still not a foregone conclusion.

Implementing UBB on the Quiet?

Because the bulk of the mainstream media “news” outlets haven’t actually informed Canadians that UBB is an issue– let alone one that they need to be concerned about– most Canadians still don’t know anything about Usage Based Billing or what it will mean to them.

It would be very possible, ridiculously easy even, to implement Usage Based Billing quietly. Even if the Independent ISPs forward a warning to customers, most people don’t read all the junk mail routinely include with our invoices. So implementation might well be slipped into effect without warning.

Since there isn’t likely to be a big outcry before UBB implementation, the CRTC might allow implementation of UBB thinking it won’t cause much of a fuss.   After all, Bell Canada says its necessary.   Bell Canada has many investors.   Bell Canada has many employees.   Which is why Bell Canada is so powerful. Rich.   Canadian consumers aren’t.

There will be a fuss. But it will come AFTER UBB implementation.

When most Canadians get the unhappy surprise that their internet bills have gone through the roof– for no reason other to enrich Bell Canada— there will most certainly be a fuss.

Usage Based Billing will cause untold damage to Canadians and the Canadian economy. Usage Based Billing may in fact be the tipping point for Canadian consumers.   Once implemented Usage Based Billing won’t be in the dark any more, and although slow to anger, Canadians will be angry. Very Angry.

Any or all of the following could well result from implementation of Usage Based Billing:

  • independent Internet Service Providers put out of business due to CRTC interference
  • Independent ISP class action lawsuits brought against Bell Canada, the Government of Canada, and the CRTC
  • media coverage as Canadians angrily demand to know who is responsible for Canadian overcharging
  • Canadians will want to know why we pay the highest rates in the world for mediocre internet service
  • cabinet overturning the ill advised CRTC decision to allow implementation of Usage Based Billing
  • Government dissolution of the CRTC because of the public outrage over CRTC decision to allow implementation of Usage Based Billing
  • Canadian class action suits brought against the so-called Canadian “backbone” ISP carriers for fraudulent charges for levels of service they don’t deliver because of throttling
  • Royal Commission to investigate malfeasance or corruption of CRTC
  • political upheaval, elections
  • the Pirate Party of Canada might well form a majority government and ensure Canadian Net Neutrality through laws prohibiting ISPs from being content providers

It would only be reasonable for the Independent ISPs to defer any CRTC orders allowing implemementation of Usage Based Billing in the absence of a sitting government. Certainly it is reasonable that a Minister of Industry might over-rule bad decisions made by the CRTC. After all, it happened for Wind Mobile.

Particularly since implementation of Usage Based Billing will require mammoth outlays of investment for usage monitoring equipment. If I ran an Independent ISP, I would not be willing to lay out funds before exhausting every possible avenue.

Implementation of Usage Based Billing cannot possibly be undertaken until the Measurement Canada holds a consultation with stakeholders. It would be incumbent on Measurement Canada to establish approved Marketplace Monitoring, Standards Calibration, Traceability, Delegation of Authorities, Complaint Investigation, Accreditation and Auditing standards just as they do for the natural gas industry.

Implementation of Usage Based Billing should not be undertaken without a framework of rules, as well as enforcement and auditing by the Privacy Commissioner.

What might happen if the CRTC reverses the decision and rules against Usage Based Billing?

I would happily wind down this blog.

The Independent ISPs would be able to get back to the business of providing excellent internet service to Canadians.   Now freed from frittering away their profits in court, they would be able to continue to expand and grow.

Those of us customers who have been aware of the Usage Based Billing threat would be happy, even though we are paying some of the highest internet rates in the world for mediocre service.

Pretty much everyone would be happy.

Everyone except Bell Canada.   The Bell Canada dream of eliminating the competition would have failed, so Bell Canada would not be happy.

Perhaps Bell Canada would start acting like a real company.   They would need to lower the dividend payments they make to their investors and instead reinvest in infrastructure.   Instead of using their “loyalty department” to offer quarterly bribes, maybe Bell Canada would treat their customers better overall in an effort to keep them, by offering good service for fair value.

It isn’t that Bell Canada has not been paid more than enough to upgrade the infrastructure, it’s that Bell Canada has spent large quantities of money on other things… like trying to start up a music downloading channel. (#fail)

You just never know.


Since Prime Minister Harper has chosen to prorogue government, things are different now.   It is unlikely that the petition to Dissolve the CRTC will be presented to Parliament before an election is called.

STOP Usage Based Billing

This makes it all the more important for Canadians to sign the petition.   If you haven’t yet, sign the petition, and encourage everyone you know who uses the internet to sign the petition at http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/.   Lets keep the heat on.  Spread the Word.


Posted in Changing the World | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Usage Based Billing: CRTC Complaints Department

Posted by Laurel L. Russwurm on September 2, 2009

No Usage Based Billing

No Usage Based Billing

FIRST: I mentioned in Psst… Pass It On: Stop Usage Based Billing that everything in the Stop Usage Based Billing blog was in the public domain. It occurred to me that it might help to make this announcement a little more formal. So I have now officially registered this blog with a Creative Commons CC0 listing to place my Stop Usage Based Billing blog in the public domain. This will allow everyone the right to borrow any bits of this blog they may find useful. For letters of complaint, for example. You’ll find the creative commons badge at the bottom of this post, but applies to the entire Stop Usage Based Billing blog.

Of course the downside of registering a Creative Commons CC0is that supporters of Usage Based Billing people may attempt to use material provided in this blog in their continuing misinformation attempts.

You might ask: who in their right mind would support Usage Based Billing?

Sadly, the answer to that one is easy, the main pro-UBB lobby is of course those who expect to profit from Usage Based Billing. That is to say primarily Bell Canada, but can include everyone and every company associated with Bell Canada, including CTVglobemedia and every one they can control either through economic plums or economic sanctions. I’m sure that this type of manipulation is a lot easier during a world wide recession.

The only others supporting UBB are those who have bought into the misinformation being spread and promoted by pro Usage Based Billing lobby. There is no shame in that, after all you can’t beat the talented writers and advertising folks employed by CTVglobemedia. It’s even conceivable that some of those talented people don’t really understand the jargon and might not realize why this is such a big problem. I’d expect controlling the jargon would make it a lot easier to put your own spin on it.

I know we think of a lobbyists making a big noise to sell their cause, but when you’re lobbying for acceptance of something like Usage Based Billing which can’t possibly be supported by any rational argument, lobbying for a silence would certainly be the way to go.

If you’ve already signed the http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ online petition, and are looking for something else to do to try and stop UBB, as a concerned Canadian it is always within your rights to make a complaint to the CRTC.

CRTC

CRTC

Even if you have already submitted your comment or complaint to the CRTC specific to CRTC Ruling File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 – Bell Canada – TN 7181 to protest the CRTC’s extremely bad decision to allow Bell Canada to implement Usage Based Billing, you are still well within your rights to place another complaint through the CRTC complaints page I’ve just stumbled across on the CRTC website.

These pages offer you advice and explain the complain procedure to make it easy for Canadians to submit specific customer complaints to the CRTC in the areas of :

  • television and radio (Broadcasting complaints: TV and Radio | CRTC),
  • phone (Telephone service: making a complaint) including both land lines and cell phones, and
  • internet service in Canada (rates, quality, access, legal actions and complaints)

I would venture a guess that a completely different group of CRTC staffers deal with the complaints made through this web form. In fact there would probably be different CRTC complaints staff sections to deal with each of the three different areas the CRTC is supposed to regulate.

At any time you can go to the CRTC online complaints department and submit a complaint here:

Ask a question or make a complaint
Send us your question or complaint about television, radio, telephone, cellphone, Internet or other services. CRTC responds to most questions within 10 working days. Find out more about how we handle complaints for Television and Radio, phone and internet.

1. Make a Complaint about Broadcasting

Perhaps you might wish to make a complaint about broadcasting. The CRTC first recommends that you complain to your broadcaster before complaining to the CRTC. This is reasonable. So first you should contact CTV and ask them why they are not covering Usage Based Billing. Remember, the CRTC first announced UBB in April, but just approved it in August. In all that time, why has CTV not covered Usage Based Billing? My most recent CTV web search came up with this:

Screenshot: CTV Usage Based Billing Search

Screenshot: CTV Usage Based Billing Search

The fact that more than six thousand Canadians have already signed the online petition calling for the dissolution of the CRTC– in spite of the apparent news blackout of Usage Based Billing– hasn’t raised a single microphone at CTV. Isn’t that a strong indication that Canadians are very are interested in the CRTC Usage Based Billing decision? Six thousand concerned Canadians would trigger CTV coverage of any other story. Yet CTV is not covering Usage Based Billing. Why?

CTV is covering the CRTC and CTV is covering news about the Canadian Internet. Here is an example in a CTV online article about the multi-billion dollar revenues generated by Canadian internet services CTV: Telecom Growth. But they are doing it selectively.

Could it be that Bell Canada isn’t allowing CTV news to cover this news? You can ask CTV news yourself. Send in your questions directly:

When that doesn’t work, you may send your complaint along to the to the CRTC about the fact that CTV is only selectively reporting the news to Canadians.

2. Complain about the Telephone Company

It would not be unreasonable to wonder about Bell Canada’s “confidentiality of customer records” I certainly would not trust any company who read their customer’s mail without permission, which is essentially what Bell Canada is doing with its internet “deep packet inspection”. Maybe they really are only reading the bits that say what kind of packets they are. Personally, I wouldn’t take Bell Canada’s word for it.

(Actually, its even worse than just reading their customer’s mail, they’re interfering with it too.)

Like everyone else in Canada, I’ve had issues with Bell Canada over the years. Even though they were incredibly high handed in the days of monopoly, the influx of competition seemed to make them ease up. After all. Bell Canada has always been there. Why not trust them?

Hmmmm. Not too long ago I had a problem with Bell Canada, and I ended up talking to someone in their “loyalty” department. To smooth my feathers he fixed the problem and gave me a $30.00 discount on my next bill. Then he actually told me that if I called back in three months and asked for the loyalty department and said I was going to switch to a different telephone carrier, they would give me another $30.00 discount. He also told me that Bell Canada would give me this “discount” every three months if I kept calling back.

What kind of business is Bell Canada running? I think that policy is twisted. In the first place Bell Canada is essentially bribing customers from switching to the competition. Class action suit anyone? Adding insult to insult, Bell Canada has such a low opinion of Canadian consumers that they don’t even trust us to stay bought.

If Bell Canada can afford to do this it strikes me that they are making too much money already. Lets look at this as a business practice. The first thing that really bothers me is that the Bell Canada Loyalty department is actually penalizing Bell Canada’s loyal customers. The granny who would never dream of switching doesn’t get that annual $120.00 savings because she is loyal to Bell. Call me crazy, but I just can’t figure out why Bell Canada doesn’t just improve service? Reduce charges? Compete fairly? Maybe they are so sure that they are going to get to be a monopoly again that they would rather bribe customers piecemeal as needed than clean up their act.

Personally. I would rather not deal with a company that treats its customers so shabbily. I’m going to be switching my land line to Teksavvy. The savings (yes, in fact they offer better deals than Bell Canada for telephone service too) will help my family budget for the increased internet costs that Usage Based Billing will cause us.

Warning: If you decide to do the same, make sure you call Teksavvy or whoever your new carrier is going to first. Arrange with the NEW CARRIER to arrance the transfer of service. If you do this, you will be able to port your existing Bell Telephone number to the new service. If you call Bell first and tell them you want to cancel, they are likely to disconnect you before your new service is in place, which means that you will not be able to keep the same phone number. (Just another way Bell Canada likes to mess with us

So, after you’ve talked to the phone company, you are supposed to go to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS) and find your telephone companytheir list on , you are supposed to deal with them in an effort to clear up the problem.

If you don’t get satisfaction through this process, or if your company is not on the list, you can always go back and make your complaint to the CRTC.

3. Complain about Internet Service

I wouldn’t think there would be any limitation on how many complaints any one citizen is allowed to submit, so long as the topics are different. For example you could reasonably complain to the CRTC about:

  • the fact that CRTC is allowing Bell Canada to implement Usage Based Billing at all
  • the fact that the CRTC would rule in favor of Usage Based Billing in the absence of any meaningful public consultation
  • the fact that the CRTC would rule in favor of Usage Based Billing without making sure that the Canadian public was informed of this sweeping change before the fact
  • the fact that CRTC is allowing Bell Canada to charge you for Usage Based Billing if you (like me) are not a Bell Canada internet customer
  • the fact that CRTC’s ruling will allow Bell Canada to increase your costs in accessing the internet
  • the fact that CRTC has jeopardized your privacy by allowing deep packet inspection of your internet usage, and
  • the fact that CRTC is allowing Bell Canada to “throttle” internet use by inflating customer bandwidth, and
  • the fact that this CRTC decision to allow Usage Based Billing will allow Bell Canada to fraudulently bill internet users for the Bandwidth which the customer has not actually used but which has been deliberately inflated through Bell Canada “throttling”
  • the fact that CRTC is allowing Bell Canada to implement Usage Based Billing in addition to what customers are already paying without providing any additional service to the customer to justify this increase
  • the fact that CRTC is allowing Bell Canada to implement Usage Based Billing in spite of virtually unanimous opposition from the public (the small segment of the public that found out about UBB)
  • the fact that CRTC allowed Usage Based Billing will make Canadian internet the most expensive in the world, and therefore unreasonably expensive, which is the opposit of &ldrquo;affordable&rdquo’
  • the fact that CRTC allowed Usage Based Billing which will make internet access less accessible to Canadians due to these excessive new costs
  • the fact that CRTC allowed Usage Based Billing will damage the Canadian economy by limiting Canadian internet access for purposes of education, technology, art, music, writing, resarch, film, science, research, business etc.
  • the fact that there does not appear to be any good nor auditable way vouched for by Measurement Canada of measuring the usage in order to assess “Usage Based Billing” charges.
  • the fact that CRTC allowed Usage Based Billing will interfere in the internet consumer market to the extent of eliminating the independent ISP’s ability to compete, and
  • the fact that CRTC allowed Usage Based Billing will interfere in the internet consumer market to the extent of forcing Bell Canada’s (Sympatico) competition, the independent ISP’s, to break contractual agreements with their customers, and which will certainly damage and possibly destroy these companies, which will
  • effectively neutralize and wipe out all Bell Canada (Sympatico) competition.

CRTC would like you to go through the same process as with the telephone complaint, where you try to resolve the problem with the service provider. So if you are in fact a Bell Canada (Sympatico) customer, you can direct your questions and complaints directly to Bell or the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc. (CCTS) first.

Of course my problem is not with my ISP, my problem is with Bell Canada’s interference in my business relationship with my ISP and with the CRTC’s ill advised approval of Usage Based Billing. So for me, it is a case of going back to make your complaint to the CRTC. Perhaps if enough Canadians ask enough questions we will actually get real answers. Perhaps if enough Canadians complain, the CRTC will be clever enough to quash the Usage Based Billing regulation, and then consider actually adhering to their mandate.

It should be more difficult for CRTC to ignore these complaints as these complaints are supposed to be handled by a staff member within ten days. THESE consumer complaints are supposed to generate a human response. Perhaps if we help to use up their budgeted resources they might be able to grasp why it is bad to allow implementation of Usage Based Billing which will certainly affect the budgets of the Canadian citizens they are supposed to be looking out for. Maybe then the CRTC wouldn’t be so eager to completely ignore the wishes of the citizenry, as did in making this bad decision in the first place.

To the extent possible under law, Laurel L. Russwurm
has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to Stop Usage Based Billing.
CC0

This work is published from Canada.

Posted in Changing the World | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

How will they bill the “USAGE” in the Usage Based Billing?

Posted by Laurel L. Russwurm on August 29, 2009

No Usage Based Billing

No Usage Based Billing

If the CRTC is actually going to allow Bell Canada to implement usage based billing, the question is: How?

If we are being charged per packet, how is that going to be itemized?

Itemized Internet Bills?

To figure out how much internet individual users are using Bell Canada will need an army of bean counters to keep track of each packet that is being used by each user. Interesting. Then all of this data will need to be sorted out and itemized. This will generate a huge invoice each month. This is also going to dramatically increase Bell Canada’s actual cost of doing business. (We’ll look at “Marginal Costs” in the next blog post… I am still learning about that.)

slashdot.org: iPhone Bill a Whopping 52 Pages Long
PoliTech writes “iPhone bills are surprisingly large – ‘Xbox Large’, according to Ars technica: ‘AT&T’s iPhone bills are quite impressive in their own right. We’re starting to get bills for the iPhone here at Ars, and while many of us have had smartphones for some time, we’ve never seen a bill like this. One of our bills is a whopping 52 pages long, and my own bill is 34 pages long. They’re printed on both sides, too. What gives? The AT&T bill itemizes your data usage whenever you surf the Internet via EDGE, even if you’re signed up for the unlimited data plan. AT&T also goes into an incredible amount of detail to tell you; well, almost nothing. For instance, I know that on July 27 at 3:21 p.m. I had some data use that, under the To/From heading, AT&T has helpfully listed as Data Transfer. The Type of file? Data. My total charge? $0.00. This mind-numbing detail goes on for 52 double-sided pages (for 104 printed pages!) with absolutely no variance except the size of the files.’ You would think that a data company would have a more efficient billing process.”

Bell Canada

Bell Canada

I am curious as to how Bell Canada will handle this.

If they do itemize the packets, how will we know they aren’t just making these numbers up?

Measurement Canada

Measurement Canada

I contacted Measurement Canada on August 21st via their online form to inquire as to how they will monitor Bell Canada’s measurement of individual internet use to safeguard Canadian consumers when Usage Based Billing is introduced.

Because of course they cannot possibly allow Bell Canada to just pull “Usage” numbers out of the air. If they are going to be billing us for what we are using they need to be able to back up their claims of what we are using.

And Bell Canada certainly can NOT be allowed to Bill Canadian Users for the packets that they deliberately discard when they throttle Canadian internet use (see UBB Glossary). I mean really, if Bell Canad is going to deliberately inflate the figures of what bandwidth Canadians are using, they cannot then bill us for this inflation. That would be FRAUD. So Measurement Canada will certainly need to be right on top of things to ensure fairness and honesty.

No wonder Measurement Canada hasn’t responded. I expect that THEY have no idea of how to oversee Usage Based Billing. Or the manpower to even begin to monitor Bell Canada’s auditing of internet usage. Personally I don’t trust Bell Canada to tell me how many packets I’ve used. I expect independant government oversight.

Privacy Laws

Another thing to consider is the question of how Bell Canada is going to bill Internet users who are NOT their customers. Since I have never had a business relationship with Bell Canada’s Internet arm, they don’t have a business relationship with me. So how are they going to know who to bill? They can’t force Teksavvy to hand over secure billing information. We do have Privacy Laws in Canada…. don’t we?

And of course privacy laws should also protect Canadian consumers from having Bell Canada’s telephone branch from giving up customer information to the Bell Canada internet wholesaling division who will want the information on who to bill.

So if Bell can’t get my billing information from Teksavvy, does this mean that Teksavvy will be forced to hire the army of administrators needed to perform the internet useage audit necessitated by introducing UBB? That doesn’t seem fair.

Putting aside the question of where this internet auuseage audit will take place, who will pay for this whole new layer of accountants? The consumer will.

So not only will we be paying extortionate fees for internet access which includes, but is not limited to

  • surfing the web…
  • along with the website ads we will now have the privilege of paying Bell Canada to enjoy
  • email
  • all of the spam that the spammers get to send us for free
  • all the software we download,
  • freeware which developers make available FOR FREE will now earn Bell Canada new profit
  • shareware which developers make available for customers to tryE will now earn Bell Canada new profit
  • commercial software we purchase,
  • inxluding of course all those Windows updates…

BUT we will also be paying the costs of the massive new buraucracy which will be necessitated by the very fact of Usage Based Billing.

That isn’t all…. Canadian tax dollars will now have to pay for Measurement Canada staff to both figure out how to oversee and police this practice of Bell Canada Usage Based Billing.

CRTC

CRTC

Talk about adding insult to injury.

From everything I have read, there is currently no technology in place to meter internet bandwidth (in the usage sense).
These are all issues and questions which should have been answered before the CRTC even considered Bell Canada’s request for Usage Based Billing.

Certainly before the CRTC approved Bell Canada’s implementation of Usage Based Billing.

Canadian internet users CAN do something about this travesty.

http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/

Posted in Changing the World | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »