dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
38434

JGROCKY
Premium Member
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON

1 recommendation

JGROCKY

Premium Member

FYI: Email sent to clients about Usage Based Billing....

Dear Valued Customer,

We are writing to you today as many activities are underway to shape/reshape Internet use as you all know it. Over the last year some of you have been made aware and/or have seen activities on throttling in the news or in your daily lives. Another proceeding relating to the Internet in Canada required Telecom providers (Bell/Telus/etc.) to provide ISPs with wholesale service speeds that match those that they offer to their own retail customers.
Specifically, Bell has been directed by the CRTC to provide matching speeds which would allow us all to have more flexibility in our day to day online requirements. Instead of adhering to these directives, Bell decided to take this issue to the federal Cabinet and at the same time file a tariff application with the CRTC proposing to introduce Usage Based Billing (UBB) on its wholesale customer accounts.

What does this mean for you, the consumer?

Bell provides TekSavvy with last mile, wholesale DSL access services, which TekSavvy uses to provide you with your Internet access. If Bell were to be allowed to introduce UBB on this service, a cap of 60GB would be imposed on all of its users, with very heavy penalties per Gigabyte afterwards (multiple times more than our current per Gigabyte rate of $0.25/GB on overages). This would inherently all but remove Unlimited internet services in Ontario/Quebec and potentially cause large increases in internet costs from month to month.

If you'd like to make your comments/concerns known about what Bell is attempting to do, please do so here:

»support.crtc.gc.ca/crtcs ··· x?lang=e

Select the word "Tariff" from the drop down list.

Add the following in Subject Line "File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 - Bell Canada - TN 7181" and make your thoughts known!

The deadline for filing your comments is today at midnight, so hurry!

Regards,

Rocky
18526190 (banned)
join:2009-01-07

18526190 (banned)

Member

I just got it.
Ares45
Premium Member
join:2007-11-14

Ares45

Premium Member

I got two of them.

I applaud the idea, but this email should have been sent out at least a week before the deadline, not 11 hours before.

codecx
join:2007-04-16
Mississauga, ON

codecx

Member

Ahh.. anyone have a template I can follow or copy/paste?

I'm super swamped today.. no time to make my opinion known, unless someone else wants to voice it for me and I can copy/paste lol

Like all of you.. I don't like it, bad idea.. yadda yadda.

JGROCKY
Premium Member
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON

1 edit

JGROCKY to Ares45

Premium Member

to Ares45
There are many other things on the go right now and the UBB one is one of many others that are happening at the same time.

We weren't going to send one as its one of those potentially "confusing" emails.... but we opted to do it anyway this morning.

I think the timing we currently have will help sufficiently to get the point across, but lets not waste it discussing timing debates.

Lets use this opportunity to make our thoughts known on this.

Edit: typo

Rocky

someguy1
@bigpipeinc.com

someguy1 to JGROCKY

Anon

to JGROCKY
Yeah seriously, why was this just sent today and not well in advance?

VectorBoy
@ek3.com

VectorBoy to JGROCKY

Anon

to JGROCKY
I got it, and this is what I submitted:

I do not support what Bell is proposing, I believe it's anti-competitive and in poor spirit for them to try and control the entire internet industry in Canada.

Canada was once deemed the leader in broadband penetration and coverage on the entire planet, now, because of Bell's reluctance to change with the times and advance technologies, Canada has been thrust out of the top 10 and we trail far behind many developing countries!

I don't understand how our government can be so blind as to allow bell to walk all over them, and when the other major countries on this planet have TRUE broadband access (by the likes of things such as FiOS), Canada is left in the dust. If bell is allowed to introduced UBB, it will only further hinder Canada's place in the global online market.

I urge our government to finally take a stand and stop bell from running the CRTC. The throttling argument was bullied into submission because of Bell, and now I fear that this will destroy any notion of net neutrality that Canada could ever hope to achieve.
Expand your moderator at work
Gerryw6
join:2009-03-13

Gerryw6 to JGROCKY

Member

to JGROCKY

Re: FYI: Email sent to clients about Usage Based Billing....

Comment made.
Expand your moderator at work
TFArchive
Premium Member
join:2003-02-03
Gloucester, ON

TFArchive to JGROCKY

Premium Member

to JGROCKY

Re: FYI: Email sent to clients about Usage Based Billing....

All we really want the CRTC to do is look at the 'evidence' and make a decision that is best for everyone in Bell teritory.

Here is what I sent in:
quote:
What Bell is trying to do is cut out all resellers who add extra value by adding more bandwidth and services. If they are allowed to charge unlimited amounts of money for traffic which costs them nothing then they will put all of these 3rd party ISPs out of business which would be anti-competitive and monopolistic.

Bell needs to be honest and provide these ISPs with the access they already pay for. If Bell's internal network cannot handle the load then they should upgrade it with the money they get every month from these ISPs.

I also wonder if Bell's own Sympatico service will be subject to these fees of if they will write them off internally. If they hide the fees then they violating the law and the spirit of the CRTCs rulings.

I implore you to look at the evidence and talk to some of these 3rd party ISPs to find out what is really going on.
Thanks very much
Etheric3
join:2007-04-16
Guelph, ON

Etheric3 to JGROCKY

Member

to JGROCKY
Comment submitted.
Robrr
join:2008-04-19

1 edit

Robrr to JGROCKY

Member

to JGROCKY
This is what I am submitting to the CRTC. I havent sent it yet so if you have any suggestions please let me know:
To Whom It May Concern

Re: File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 – Bell Canada - TN 7181

I am writing to you today to voice my concern with regards to the proposed Tariff that Bell Canada has submitted to the CRTC.

I have read over the proposed tariff that Bell Canada has submitted to you and I feel that this tariff will unjustly affect all Wholesale Internet Service Providers as they will be forced to offer the exact same service as Bell Canada’s own Internet Service thereby removing the little bit of competition that remains in the DSL Internet Service Provider marketplace.

The proposed tariffs requirements to remove all unlimited usage accounts as well as the need to impose 60 Gigabyte caps on every account would eliminate any form of competition in the DSL Internet marketplace. As such the consumer would not be able to identify any difference in the service of a Wholesale Internet Service Provider and the service of Bell Canada’s own Internet Service.

The lack of ability for the consumer to distinguish any difference between the services offered would ultimately mean an end to all Wholesale DSL Internet Service Providers as they would not be able to distinguish themselves from Bell Canada’s Internet Service.

As such, I request that the CRTC does not accept the tariff that Bell Canada has submitted to you so that competition in the DSL Internet Service Provider marketplace can continue to grow and offer consumers the best possible service and the best possible price.

Regards,



edit: I found an error in it while proof reading it.

Jay G Vee
@teksavvy.com

Jay G Vee to JGROCKY

Anon

to JGROCKY
Done. My Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------
I am finding that competition in Toronto is a joke. We as the consumer don't have many options for Internet Services. We have either Rogers, Bell or a flavour of Bell DSL services (Teksavvy, Primus, etc).

By permitting Bell to charge Usage Based Billing, this will effectively reduce our options down to two; Bell or Rogers.
The small "mom and pop" operations / wholesalers can't compete when the CRTC allows Bell and Rogers to slowly diminish the service offerings of the competitors.

It used to be that wholesalers were able to compete on Speed, Price, Quality (uptime), and bandwidth caps. Over the years, all the competitive advantages wholesalers had, have diminished. We can no longer use P2P, as we are being throttled. Speeds on protocols such as HTTP and FTP (standard protocols for browsing) are also being throttled – therefore wholesalers cannot compete on Speed / Throughput. As for Price, there is very little difference - Bell and Rogers charge about the same for services they advertise up to 6Mbps and 8Mbps respectively. I am not sure if wholesalers have large margins, however considering all services in Toronto are priced at the same price point, from the consumer perspective, there really is no option. We have to pay 45.00.

As for Quality and bandwidth caps, there are differences in today’s market, however if the CRTC allows Usage Based Billing, those competitive advantages wholesalers have, will certainly go the way of the Dodo Bird. Introducing UBB will level the playing field and do to the sheer size and resources of the incumbents, wholesalers do not stand a chance.

If Usage Based Billing is passed, please specify that Rogers and Bell CANNOT change their wholesaler model . I say let Bell and Rogers charge UBB, however don’t force it upon the wholesalers – as this may be the last option that differentiates them from the incumbents.
----------------------------------------------

salmonz
@rhcci.net

salmonz to JGROCKY

Anon

to JGROCKY
Here's my reply.

Subject:
File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 - Bell

Comments:
Bell's request to implement Usage Based Billing will increase the cost of Internet usage for customers who use more than 60GB download/upload per month on Ontarians. I use more than this per month as my wife and I are heavy internet users that watch videos and listen to music online. Bell is "stifling" the Internet by imposing caps. There's no reasonable alternative given Cogeco, our local cable provider, does not provide service for more than 100GB. As a residential customer, I feel I should have the right to more bandwidth, especially Unlimited bandwidth if my wholesale provider is providing the service. Teksavvy is my provider and leases the last mile connection. Bell should have no right to limit the last mile connection to households if there's reasonable alternative access for wholesalers to provide service. Furthermore, wholesale providers such as Teksavvy purchase wholesale bandwidth from non-Bell providers that provide the connection neccessary to interface with other peers on the Internet. I believe caps should exist at the peer inferface level imposed by the wholesale provider, but not at the last mile connection.

HiVolt
Premium Member
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON

HiVolt to JGROCKY

Premium Member

to JGROCKY
This is what I wrote
quote:
I would like to write in opposition to Bell's filing TN 7181. It's a blatant attempt to stifle whatever little competition remains in Canadian Internet market.

Bell wishes to cap wholesale ISP's at 60GB and does not want to allow higher speeds (ADSL2+), while their own retail service has speeds up to 16mbps, and the wholesale end is stuck with an archaic 5mbps.

By allowing Bell to cap wholesale to 60GB, it will create an advantage for Bell, because their cap limits will not be regulated and they can raise them at any time, therefore putting wholesalers at an even greater disadvantage. Bell already offers 10mbps/100GB tiers. How is that not anti-competitive if all that wholesale ISP's are allowed to offer is 5mbps/60GB?

I ask the Commission to recognize this would be a fatal blow to the competition in the Internet market and deny Bell's request, and also Bell should be forced to implement a FAIR tariff to allow the wholesale ISP's to access its ADSL2+ network so they may fairly compete with Bell's retail sector.

Thank you.
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY

Dampier to Jay G Vee

Member

to Jay G Vee
If folks want to drop their replies/example letters in the comment section on stopthecap.com's article on this, it might help anyone else looking for the right words. We are adding coverage of this story this afternoon.

»stopthecap.com/2009/04/1 ··· -quebec/
Wings
join:2006-10-16
Canada

1 edit

Wings to JGROCKY

Member

to JGROCKY
I wish you would have warned of this on your site before I ordered one of your packages days ago. I never knew about this issue, now I have deal with a 4 times slower connection (which I was willing to live with with the higher cap) and spent over $100 on modem, splitters and recabling my home.

All you seem to care about is getting new customers. You must have laughed your ass off seeing all those Cogeco customers switching over to your company like me who didn't know about the issue...sigh. Sorry, but me and my wife are both pissed off!

Angelo
The Network Guy
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18

Angelo

Premium Member

said by Wings:

I wish Teksavvy would have warned of this on your site before I ordered one of their packages days ago. I never knew about this issue, now I have deal with a 4 times slower connection (which I was willing to live with with the higher cap) and spent over $100 on modem, splitters and recabling my home.

All you care about is getting new customers. You must have laughed your ass off seeing all those Cogeco customers switching over to your company like me who didn't know about the issue...sigh. Sorry, but me and my wife are both pissed off!
Pardon, but how is this Teksavvy's fault this hasn't even been approved yet. They are fighting for you the end user to get a fair bill. Have you been billed $100+ for a internet bill you currently pay probably 30 - 40 for /mo... The answer is NO. They want to ensure they can continue to offer you the same great competitive service they currently do period.
Robrr
join:2008-04-19

Robrr to Wings

Member

to Wings
said by Wings:

I wish you would have warned of this on your site before I ordered one of your packages days ago. I never knew about this issue, now I have deal with a 4 times slower connection (which I was willing to live with with the higher cap) and spent over $100 on modem, splitters and recabling my home.

All you seem to care about is getting new customers. You must have laughed your ass off seeing all those Cogeco customers switching over to your company like me who didn't know about the issue...sigh. Sorry, but me and my wife are both pissed off!
Nothing with regards to this issue is currently definitive. There is every possibility that this tariff will not be accepted and everything will remain the status quo.

Even if this tariff does pass, don't expect the changes overnight.

For now I would suggest just simply continue to using your service as you would normally and then adjust if/when any changes are made.

Angelo
The Network Guy
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18

Angelo

Premium Member

this will be a huge blow to all third party ISP's trying to compete in any market if UBB is allowed.. It'll take them years just to recover :/

micheldc
join:2006-10-29
Montreal, QC

micheldc to JGROCKY

Member

to JGROCKY
Comment sent...
penguin318
join:2008-07-23
Smiths Falls, ON

penguin318 to JGROCKY

Member

to JGROCKY
Not that it will make a difference, but I submitted my comments, being stuck on dial-up its hard for me to feel your pain but I really do hope the CRTC can remove its head from its ass and stop the B.S. Bell is trying.
18526190 (banned)
join:2009-01-07

18526190 (banned) to Wings

Member

to Wings
said by Wings:

I wish you would have warned of this on your site before I ordered one of your packages days ago. I never knew about this issue, now I have deal with a 4 times slower connection (which I was willing to live with with the higher cap) and spent over $100 on modem, splitters and recabling my home.

All you seem to care about is getting new customers. You must have laughed your ass off seeing all those Cogeco customers switching over to your company like me who didn't know about the issue...sigh. Sorry, but me and my wife are both pissed off!
There is nothing to warning about. This is all may/could/might happen

You can always go back to cogeco.

Why would you need to recable your home? Unplug ethernet from cogeco modem, plug in ethernet to DSL modem. Poof DONE.
Radar73
join:2008-01-20
Ajax, ON

Radar73 to micheldc

Member

to micheldc
I made my comment. After the throttling campaign, I don't have high hopes it will change UBB becoming a reality.

No DPI
@teksavvy.com

No DPI to JGROCKY

Anon

to JGROCKY
The CRTC form only allows comments of under 2000 characters. Mine was over that so I had to submit it as an attachment. When I did the site came back with an error and gave me no confirmation that my submission was received.

AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.

AkFubar to JGROCKY

Member

to JGROCKY
Posted my comment..
----------------------------

I am writing to you today to voice my concern with regards to the proposed Tariff that Bell Canada has submitted to the CRTC.

Bell provides my ISP with last mile (wholesale DSL access services, which my ISP uses to provide Internet access to me). If Bell were to be allowed to introduce Usage Based Billing on this service, a cap of 60GB would be imposed on me and all other users, with very heavy penalties per Gigabyte over that limit. This would inherently all but remove unlimited internet services in Ontario/Quebec and potentially cause large increases in internet costs to ISPs and users from month to month. Second, this would virtually eliminate any differentiation between internet service providers and eliminate choice of service and pricing to Canadians.

The Tariff proposed by Bell, besides being predatory and anticompetitive, will be extremely restrictive to Canadians who have come to rely on the internet as a cost effective source of information and entertainment.

I therefore appeal to the CRTC to deny this proposed tariff and exercise a fundamental principle of its mandate (“to allow competition, not regulations, to drive the market”).

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my view on this important issue.
---------------------------

DR_JAY
join:2002-04-23
Verdun, QC

DR_JAY to JGROCKY

Member

to JGROCKY
I just made a comment; however I am very pessimistic that this will make any difference with CRTC's biased decision making towards Bell.

justanic
@angnet.ca

justanic to No DPI

Anon

to No DPI
No_DPI then it was never submitted and you will need to submitted once again, or try to make it shorter.