 rg2
@38.121.253.x | Stay away from BravoTelecom! CRTC non-compliance! TLDR: ISP throttles speed by 75% by citing a nebulous term of the contract, while advertising the full enjoyment of its "unlimited" service on its website. Clearly violates CRTC's guidelines on displaying info about its technical traffic management practices.
Recently, I realized that my connection speed had been reduced by 75%. Indeed, the download speed is now 5 Mbit/sec instead of 20 Mbit/sec. After a bunch of lies, the ISP finally admitted reducing the profile as it judges that my monthly consumption is “abnormal” (~500 Gb). Refusing to restore the speed for which I pay, I am referred to the contract (freely translated from French):
Article 8.3:
“Restriction on usage patterns:
Even for so-called unlimited packages, Bravotelecom reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate, limit or suspend your Services in cases where your usage profile would significantly exceed the average profiles of customers under similar packages.”
However, the definition of "average use" is not communicated at any time to the customer, whether during advertising, purchase, or the contract. In short, it is a flexible and arbitrary definition that can be and is, in my case, exploited by the merchant.
Even today, one can read on the ISP’s web site: “With our unlimited plans, you can relax! Take full advantage of your internet connection in downloads, sharing and streaming without ever worrying about your use.” The ISP highlights the fact that its service is without limitations of use and enjoyment. The ISP never mentions that it will make any modifications to the purchased plan based on usage, and it certainly never mentions that it will reduce your speed by 75%!
According to the CRTC:
"Your service provider must display the following information about their technical traffic management practices clearly and prominently on its website, in customer contracts, and in Terms of Service documents:
- Why the Internet traffic management practice is being used
- Who is affected by the practice
- When it will apply the practice
- The type of Internet traffic—for example, peer-to-peer file sharing—subject to the practice
- How the traffic management practice will affect your Internet experience, including the specific effect on the speed of your Internet connection"
Yet, BravoTelecom does none of that. So the question is: are they within their rights to throttle my connection when they do not abide by the CRTC's rules to do so? If not, how does that affect all current contracts? Are they to be throttle-free, as the ISP did not abide by the CRTC's rules of displaying the information to the customers?
I sincerely believe that this practice is unfair and that the ISP should be asked to change it.
The CRTC is currently studying their case.
¹: 6424 rue Jean-Talon Est Suite 206, Saint Leonard, QC, H1S 1M8 -- 514-227-4647 -- »www.bravotelecom.com |
|
Reviews:
 ·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX
| This is the kind of thing that irks me about so called "unlimited" plans. I don't know if Rocca/Paul are going to see this or not, but all of those times we "debated" your terms of "unlimited" internet, this is the exact situation I was talking about.
Calling something unlimited when it's not unlimited is just plain wrong and this is the perfect example as to why. I know Paul/Rocca would never pull this crap on their customers, but other ISP's see the way "unlimited" is being used so they do the same, only as an avenue to screw over their customers.
If there is any possibility of consequences for over-using and "unlimited" subscription then all ISP's should be most definitely barred from using the term unlimited anywhere in reference to any accounts.
Sorry guys, that's just my opinion. It's just too slippery a slope. |
|
| "unlimited" simply means that you won't be charged extra for going over a certain threshold - it's purely a marketing term and is currently (usually) legal - check with the competition bureau |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to rg2
said by [rg2 :]are they within their rights to throttle my connection when they do not abide by the CRTC's rules to do so? IIRC, throttling certain types of traffic isn't kosher, but throttling the entire connection is
...and 500GB is not "normal" residential usage |
|
rg2
@38.121.253.x
1 recommendation | >...and 500GB is not "normal" residential usage
[citation needed] |
|
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX
1 edit | reply to LostTheGame
said by LostTheGame:said by [rg2 :]are they within their rights to throttle my connection when they do not abide by the CRTC's rules to do so? IIRC, throttling certain types of traffic isn't kosher, but throttling the entire connection is ...and 500GB is not "normal" residential usage 500 GB most definitely is "normal" in this house and in many others. Normal is a subjective term that is widely open to interpretation without examples. There is 1 guy on these forums where 1TB/month is "normal."
As far as what you say about unlimited. That is nowhere near anyone's definition of unlimited. Here is the definition for you:
quote:
un·lim·it·ed
Not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent.
Using it the way the ISP's do is, at best, deceptive and at worst, outright false advertising, as in the OP's case. It could also be claimed as fraud in that case where they state outright
quote:
With our unlimited plans, you can relax! Take full advantage of your internet connection in downloads, sharing and streaming without ever worrying about your use.
And then say something exactly opposite in their TOS and enforce the TOS.
Companies like Start, although I find their's a touch complicated, and Acanac are completely open about their policies, however that still doesn't mean they are using the term "unlimited" correctly and it opens the doors to shady outfits such as the "Bravo Telecom" to screw over it's customers completely.
Unlimited should never allowed to be used when there are strings attached. It's just wrong, even under the best meant intentions. |
|
Nitra
join:2011-09-15
Montreal Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX
13 recommendations | reply to LostTheGame
said by [rg2 :...and 500GB is not "normal" residential usage
I call bullshit on this. Myself, my household and all my friends use 500GB easily. Not everyone is a light user. And no, there's no torrents running on our connections, we just use the technology as it's designed. |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
1 edit | reply to rg2
The CRTC reported last year that the average residential broadband usage on a 40+ Mbps connection was ~75GB/mth across all users - lets factor in "inflation" and say that average has climbed to between 100-125GB/mth since last year with the climb in HD video content - high user would be classified as over 200GB/mth - yes, some of you exceed 500GB/mth, however that would relate to what? ~5% of all Canadian broadband users?
Same goes for Long Distance and mobile data - Wind's "unlimited" data will throttle you after 10gb and most LD providers will force you to change plans, or outright cancel your service after 80 hours |
|
rg2
@38.121.253.x | said by LostTheGame:The CRTC reported last year that the average residential broadband usage on a 40+ Mbps connection was ~75GB/mth across all users [citation needed]
Moreover, the CRTC also states that Canadians watch an average of ~28 hours of TV per week [1]. Suppose a single individual uses Netflix HD, at 2.8GB/hour [2], during four weeks: that's ~313GB per individual.
Can you now see how ~500GB is not abnormal for a household in this age of HD content?
[1] »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2013/r···MftLIV4Q
[2] »support.netflix.com/en/node/87
said by LostTheGame:Same goes for Long Distance and mobile data - Wind's "unlimited" data will throttle you after 10gb and most LD providers will force you to change plans, or outright cancel your service after 80 hours I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't throttle you. What I'm saying is what the CRTC is saying: if you throttle, you have to be transparent about it and let the customers know. Anything else is deceptive.
In my particular case, with this particular ISP, I find myself paying for the 20 mbps plan while being serviced the 5 mbps plan. |
|
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to LostTheGame
said by LostTheGame:Same goes for Long Distance and mobile data - Wind's "unlimited" data will throttle you after 10gb and most LD providers will force you to change plans, or outright cancel your service after 80 hours
Again, just because they call it unlimited, doesn't mean they are using the term correctly. I'm well aware that everyone uses this term. Wrong is wrong, doesn't matter how many people use it incorrectly. Your statement just enforces my argument that the term "unlimited" should be outlawed from use unless it coincides with the actual definition.
Wind is also up front about their policy and spells it out how they implement it. They don't tell you to download as much as you want and not to worry about it and then cut your feet out from under you.
As for the average use, see rg2's stats. We are not in the 90's any longer and it doesn't take long to rack up 500GB of usage in a month. More and more people are streaming online, heck even my inlaws (who are the least computer savvy people in the world) watch netflix regularly now. |
|
|
|
TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
5 recommendations | reply to rg2
said by [rg2 :]
Moreover, the CRTC also states that Canadians watch an average of ~28 hours of TV per week [1]. Suppose a single individual uses Netflix HD, at 2.8GB/hour [2], during four weeks: that's ~313GB per individual.
Can you now see how ~500GB is not abnormal for a household in this age of HD content?
[1] »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2013/r···MftLIV4Q
[2] »support.netflix.com/en/node/87
No, actually it is abnormal.
You didn't cite that the average person is watching EVERYthing in Super HD on NetFlix or the equivalent on other streaming services. I don't have any facts on hand so I'll go with personal and professional interactions. But from when I spoke to friends, family or clients at work, the vast majority of people still don't care for the different between HD and SD (or BluRay and DVD). 1GB/hour would be closer to he norm with SD content (probably a bit over).
Also in my employment roles, I have gotten to see what typical data usage is by the average consumer, and most don't use the type of usage you are citing.
Just because the norm for some folks is to use their internet for all media, and view in the highest quality possible, does not mean it is the social norm (which you are trying to argue).
Now I'm not saying restrictive caps such as what the incumbents impose are fair, but your argument about usage isn't very well founded. |
|
rg2
@38.121.253.x | said by TypeS: You didn't cite that the average person is watching EVERYthing in Super HD on NetFlix Pardon my ignorance; what exactly is Super HD?
If I understand correctly, your "counter-argument" can be summed up as: "Most people don't care for HD media, thus most people don't consume that much". Is this right?
said by TypeS:Just because the norm for some folks is to use their internet for all media, and view in the highest quality possible, does not mean it is the social norm (which you are trying to argue). Can you cite where I tried to argue that my usage was a social norm? FYI, my intention was to show how a "modern" household's residential usage can indeed hover around ~500GB/month.
Moreover, have you taken a moment to think about IPTV? Anyone who has Bell's Fibe TV (HD content around the clock) is in that usage range, if not more.
That being said, the main point of this thread wasn't to debate what the average household consumption is, but rather to state that:
ISPs should abide by the CRTC's rule which ask for transparency if/when throttling. |
|
TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| By saing its a "modern household's [...]" usage, you are implying it is the social norm.
Also, Bell Fibe TV is NOT the same as an OTT streaming service. Might want to check your facts there, it is a carrier service. Usage on Fibe TV has no correlation what so ever on internet usage with Fibe Internet.
Nice try, but again, just because YOUR normal usage is high doesn't mean everyone else uses as much. |
|
rg2
@38.121.253.x | said by TypeS:By saing its a "modern household's [...]" usage, you are implying it is the social norm. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. For the second time, I am NOT implying that it is a social norm. Are we clear? Again, to further drill it into your brain: all I'm showing is that a modern household's residential usage can indeed hover around ~500GB/month [and this, without any torrents]. I invite you to read again that sentence. From a debating perspective, it holds water, as I only need one case for it to be true.
said by TypeS:Also, Bell Fibe TV is NOT the same as an OTT streaming service. Might want to check your facts there, it is a carrier service. Usage on Fibe TV has no correlation what so ever on internet usage with Fibe Internet. You seem to have an itch for hasty conclusions. I am presenting a modern-day example that shows how a household, albeit through IPTV, can consume bandwidth in the ~500GB/month range. Is it scandalous that I also do so over a similar infrastructure, while using my preferred OTT instead of the providers' IPTV service? Bandwidth is bandwidth.
said by TypeS:Nice try, but again, just because YOUR normal usage is high doesn't mean everyone else uses as much. See, you keep telling yourself that my intention is to state that everyone else uses as much as I. Yet, I have done none of that. If you believe that I did, please present a citation. |
|
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX
3 edits | reply to TypeS
said by TypeS:By saing its a "modern household's [...]" usage, you are implying it is the social norm.
Also, Bell Fibe TV is NOT the same as an OTT streaming service. Might want to check your facts there, it is a carrier service. Usage on Fibe TV has no correlation what so ever on internet usage with Fibe Internet.
Nice try, but again, just because YOUR normal usage is high doesn't mean everyone else uses as much.
Exactly!
This whole argument and back and forth reinforces exactly what I am saying. "Normal" is subjective depending on the person using the term. Normal to me and a few others is not normal to you and the average person is not going to look up stats and numbers to define what an ISP thinks is "normal." Even if they did, said ISP might not even agree with that definition.
The term "normal" has no business in a TOS without clarification and definitions as to what they define "normal" as being so they set the expectations to their customers.
Bottom line is that Bravo Telecom push in their advertising that they offer truly unlimited internet:
quote:
With our unlimited plans, you can relax! Take full advantage of your internet connection in downloads, sharing and streaming without ever worrying about your use.
However they then go and penalize someone for adhering to the expectations set out in their advertising. They lie on one hand and then bury their true expectations in their TOS where almost no one will read it until they run into trouble. It's blatant false advertising.
Whether RG2 uses 100TB per month or 100GB per month is irrelevant. The subject at hand is how they advertise one way and enforce a completely opposite way.
Just an FYI though, he never said that a modern household's usage is such and such, the CRTC/Netflix did. RG2 just quoted their stats. I would consider the CRTC/Netflix an authority on such matters, would you not? AND a sd stream on netflix will easily run 2+ Mbps. HD sometimes spikes as high as 5 or 6 and run around 4 Mbps, based on DUmeter on my HTPC. I've never tried SuperHD, so I can't comment on that. |
|
| I agree to disagree. Regardless of what constitutes "normal" usage, the practice employed by Bravo should be brought to the attention of the Completion Bureau, not the CRTC. Mind you, they don't settle disputes between customers and their providers, but they should be able to investigate the practice (again) |
|
TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to rg2
You keep saying YOUR home is a "Modern" home, as if to imply your home is some model of technological use. Sorry to burst your bubble but your home is simply your home. You like to chew up lots of data, hey, that's your choice.
You also clearly failed to see the difference still between Bell's IPTV and OTT services but oh well. |
|
System | (topic move) Stay away from BravoTelecom! CRTC non-compliance!Moderator Action
The post that was here (and all 8 followups to it), has been moved to a new topic .. »Stay away from BravoTelecom! CRTC non-compliance! |
|
| reply to rednekcowboy
Re: Stay away from BravoTelecom! CRTC non-compliance! said by rednekcowboy:This whole argument and back and forth reinforces exactly what I am saying. "Normal" is subjective depending on the person using the term. Normal does not need to be subjective: there is a little bit of magic called statistics that lets every ISP can calculate what their normal subscriber usage is since they have access to unbiased usage data on a per-subscriber basis. Calculate the average and calculate the standard deviation, now you have a fully qualified normal distribution by mathematical definition.
In most applications, "normal" is defined as average +/- two standard deviations. |
|
jtl999CEO of Team Classified
join:2012-11-24 | reply to Nitra
I used 499.99GB this month. Going to download more tonight. |
|
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by rednekcowboy:This whole argument and back and forth reinforces exactly what I am saying. "Normal" is subjective depending on the person using the term. Normal does not need to be subjective: there is a little bit of magic called statistics that lets every ISP can calculate what their normal subscriber usage is since they have access to unbiased usage data on a per-subscriber basis. Calculate the average and calculate the standard deviation, now you have a fully qualified normal distribution by mathematical definition. In most applications, "normal" is defined as average +/- two standard deviations. Yes, but not specifying what they define as "normal" in their TOS leaves it subjective. |
|
| said by rednekcowboy:Yes, but not specifying what they define as "normal" in their TOS leaves it subjective. The problem/catch with quantitatively defining what 'normal' is in the TOS is it probably would incite many low-usage people to try catching up with the average and that could significantly increase it. Rinse and repeat.
So, instead of having traffic growth proportional with what people want or need to do on their own, you get a traffic growth that is proportional with people trying to catch up with average by doing stuff they wouldn't otherwise have bothered doing.
IIRC, in one of Bell's CRTC filings, Bell disclosed that average usage in 2010 was 35GB/month per wholesale subscriber vs 14GB/month for their own retail subscribers. The last time TSI published usage statistics for their subscribers, unlimited accounts averaged ~95GB/month while others averaged ~45GB/month. |
|
loyd
join:2012-09-24
Niagara Falls, ON | reply to rg2
1. they spelled it out in the contract that they can terminate or limit you. There is no law that can force an ISP to keep a client if they decide not to serve the client anymore.
But.
2. Advertising the service as unlimited is deceptive. Any discussions about what is normal usage or not is irrelevant, unless "normal" is quantified on a visible place. |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to TypeS
said by TypeS:You also clearly failed to see the difference still between Bell's IPTV and OTT services but oh well. Just to establish The Only Difference between Bells IPTV and Normal OTT is that bell establishes a Second Ppoe session on the line So the traffic it generates is not Counted as Normal Internet traffic.
Bell Chooses not to Bill Usage on the "fibe TV" login is all. But The traffic and usage is still occuring its Just not being metered. and Surprisingly It goes over the exact same Last mile that the Internet Login does..
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.
|
|
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by rednekcowboy:Yes, but not specifying what they define as "normal" in their TOS leaves it subjective. The problem/catch with quantitatively defining what 'normal' is in the TOS is it probably would incite many low-usage people to try catching up with the average and that could significantly increase it. Rinse and repeat. So, instead of having traffic growth proportional with what people want or need to do on their own, you get a traffic growth that is proportional with people trying to catch up with average by doing stuff they wouldn't otherwise have bothered doing. IIRC, in one of Bell's CRTC filings, Bell disclosed that average usage in 2010 was 35GB/month per wholesale subscriber vs 14GB/month for their own retail subscribers. The last time TSI published usage statistics for their subscribers, unlimited accounts averaged ~95GB/month while others averaged ~45GB/month. I know what you are saying, but unless they define their version of normal, then there is no way to set the expectation of it. You, yourself, by the numbers you have given, have shown that "normal" varies by a vast amount between ISP's even.
So what version of normal does Bravo Telecom go by? Is it TSI's version of normal, Bell's version of normal, the CRTC's version of normal, Netflix's version of normal?
These are all authorities in the field and all have vastly different views on what "normal" usage is. Without it being spelled out specifically for the end-user, it becomes to vague to be enforced.
At any rate, as I've said and loyd has said, this is irrelevant to the discussion as they clearly state that they truly are unlimited in their advertising, telling you to use as much as you want and not to worry about your usage. |
|
| said by rednekcowboy:Without it being spelled out specifically for the end-user, it becomes to vague to be enforced. And if "normal" is spelled out and people below that end up going out of their way to get within "normal" range, network load increases more than projected amounts and ISPs end up using that to justify higher prices and/or lower caps.
Not really that much better off IMO. |
|
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX
| said by InvalidError:said by rednekcowboy:Without it being spelled out specifically for the end-user, it becomes to vague to be enforced. And if "normal" is spelled out and people below that end up going out of their way to get within "normal" range, network load increases more than projected amounts and ISPs end up using that to justify higher prices and/or lower caps. Not really that much better off IMO. Yes, but without defining limits, you can't penalize people for going over those limits. How are they supposed to know where the line in the sand is otherwise.
You can't enforce a rule without telling people what the rule is. I believe the CRTC even states that it has to be well-defined and clear.
Many ISP's do define it. I don't have their definitions on hand, but both Start and Acanac defines their policies precisely. You know exactly where you stand and what to expect.
Teksavvy defines their unlimited as well, by being unlimited. The reason people go with unlimited (and pay quite a bit extra for it, in some cases) is so they don't have to worry about the BS of watching a cap. If you are going to have unlimited but then say you can't go over XXX amount of usage in a month, it's not really unlimited then is it? |
|
| said by rednekcowboy:Teksavvy defines their unlimited as well, by being unlimited. Except that all "unlimited" plans are based on the premise that the vast majority of subscribers generate nowhere near enough traffic to become a financial liability. When costs rise faster than revenue from those subscribers does, prices go up and people at one end of the scale bitch about subsidizing the other end.
Someone always ends up paying one way or the other. |
|
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX
| said by InvalidError:said by rednekcowboy:Teksavvy defines their unlimited as well, by being unlimited. Except that all "unlimited" plans are based on the premise that the vast majority of subscribers generate nowhere near enough traffic to become a financial liability. When costs rise faster than revenue from those subscribers does, prices go up and people at one end of the scale bitch about subsidizing the other end. Someone always ends up paying one way or the other. What's your point? I don't see how anything you said there pertains to my post, the context it was said or this discussion over-all.... |
|
Nitra
join:2011-09-15
Montreal Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Unlimited, should be that, unlimited. At least with Acanac, they are open about their traffic shaping policies. Bravo Telecom is using smoke and mirrors hoping nobody will call them on it.
And honestly, if they're bitching that some user is coming close to 500GB, that's not the ISP I'd want to be with. |
|
