6 ms·

Canadians: Please submit a comment to the CRTC on 2011-77

61 points by mrcharles 16y ago

mrcharles 16y ago
This is regarding Usage Based Billing, and is a comment round soliciting feedback from Canadians.
unreal37 16y ago
The Service Canada web site has timed out. Awesome web infrastructure, guys!
- jbrennan 16y ago
  They probably used up all their bandwidth for the month.
joetek 16y ago
Link doesn't work.. use this one instead: https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/Intervention/Submission-Soumission.aspx?lang=e&EventNo=2011-77&EventType=Notice#Step1 https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/Intervention/Submission-Soum...
- mrcharles 16y ago
  The link does work... usually. The CRTC's site is pretty slow. Thanks for providing an alternate.
  - OmarIsmail 16y ago
    I want to be absolutely clear that I'm "voting" properly. If I'm AGAINST UBB being applied to indie ISPs, should I choose "support" or "opposition"? I've tried to read through the specific notice (http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-77.htm http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-77.htm) but when it comes to legalese subtle wordings can make all the difference. If I say "oppose" I want to make sure I oppose UBB and not oppose repealing/investigating UBB. And vice versa with "support"
    - mrcharles 16y ago
      This is actually specifically about comments, so there's nothing to oppose or support for the moment. You should just choose the option "comment".
JonLim 16y ago
Made my comment, and mentioned all the groups who were affected by UBB in general. I made sure to place an emphasis on how anti-competitive this was for everyone outside of the big ISPs.
mrcharles 16y ago
Cheat Sheet for writing a letter: -UBB is anti-competitive -Bandwidth restrictions harm the adoption of modern technology in Canada -Bandwidth is not a limited resource, therefore charging by total use is incorrect -Bell doesn't charge for bandwidth use on its own IPTV solution. -Most ISPs aren't "resellers" but simply using the last mile connections to consumers. -The growing rate of internet use means that 25gb in a month will not be considered "a heavy user" for long. And feel free to embellish as you see fit. But please avoid hyperbolic arguments like "This is a matter of free speech" or "Internet is a human right." We need serious well reasoned arguments, not knee jerk marching slogans.
- ataggart 16y ago
  >- UBB is anti-competitive So far as I am aware, for something to be "anti-competitive" it must restrict the (otherwise non-criminal) actions of extant or would-be competitors in a market. From what I've been able to glean about the UBB brouhaha, the change is a removal of such a restriction, thus would be quite the opposite of "anti-competitive." Perhaps the deeper issue is that relaxation of this anti-competitive restriction would reveal the negative effects of actual anti-competitive CRTC regulations. To paraphrase Henry David Thoreau, instead of hacking at the branches of "anti-competition," perhaps you should strike at the root.
  - forensic 16y ago
    It's anti-competitive because they're using a monopoly in one area to gain a competitive advantage in another area. Bell's IPTV service would not be subject to the UBB pricing while Netflix would be.
    - ataggart 16y ago
      >they're using a monopoly in one area Then it would be the regulations granting monopoly that are anti-competitive. Again, removing restrictions on extant and would-be competitors cannot be anti-competitive; words mean things.
  - mrcharles 16y ago
djorgensen 16y ago
One may also send a comment through openmedia.ca: http://openmedia.ca/crtc http://openmedia.ca/crtc

61 points by mrcharles 16y ago

mrcharles 16y ago

This is regarding Usage Based Billing, and is a comment round soliciting feedback from Canadians.

unreal37 16y ago

The Service Canada web site has timed out. Awesome web infrastructure, guys!

jbrennan 16y ago
They probably used up all their bandwidth for the month.

joetek 16y ago

Link doesn't work.. use this one instead: https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/Intervention/Submission-Soumission.aspx?lang=e&EventNo=2011-77&EventType=Notice#Step1 https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/Intervention/Submission-Soum...

mrcharles 16y ago
The link does work... usually. The CRTC's site is pretty slow. Thanks for providing an alternate.
- OmarIsmail 16y ago
  I want to be absolutely clear that I'm "voting" properly. If I'm AGAINST UBB being applied to indie ISPs, should I choose "support" or "opposition"? I've tried to read through the specific notice (http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-77.htm http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-77.htm) but when it comes to legalese subtle wordings can make all the difference. If I say "oppose" I want to make sure I oppose UBB and not oppose repealing/investigating UBB. And vice versa with "support"
  - mrcharles 16y ago
    This is actually specifically about comments, so there's nothing to oppose or support for the moment. You should just choose the option "comment".

JonLim 16y ago

Made my comment, and mentioned all the groups who were affected by UBB in general. I made sure to place an emphasis on how anti-competitive this was for everyone outside of the big ISPs.

mrcharles 16y ago

Cheat Sheet for writing a letter: -UBB is anti-competitive -Bandwidth restrictions harm the adoption of modern technology in Canada -Bandwidth is not a limited resource, therefore charging by total use is incorrect -Bell doesn't charge for bandwidth use on its own IPTV solution. -Most ISPs aren't "resellers" but simply using the last mile connections to consumers. -The growing rate of internet use means that 25gb in a month will not be considered "a heavy user" for long. And feel free to embellish as you see fit. But please avoid hyperbolic arguments like "This is a matter of free speech" or "Internet is a human right." We need serious well reasoned arguments, not knee jerk marching slogans.

ataggart 16y ago
>- UBB is anti-competitive So far as I am aware, for something to be "anti-competitive" it must restrict the (otherwise non-criminal) actions of extant or would-be competitors in a market. From what I've been able to glean about the UBB brouhaha, the change is a removal of such a restriction, thus would be quite the opposite of "anti-competitive." Perhaps the deeper issue is that relaxation of this anti-competitive restriction would reveal the negative effects of actual anti-competitive CRTC regulations. To paraphrase Henry David Thoreau, instead of hacking at the branches of "anti-competition," perhaps you should strike at the root.
- forensic 16y ago
  It's anti-competitive because they're using a monopoly in one area to gain a competitive advantage in another area. Bell's IPTV service would not be subject to the UBB pricing while Netflix would be.
  - ataggart 16y ago
    >they're using a monopoly in one area Then it would be the regulations granting monopoly that are anti-competitive. Again, removing restrictions on extant and would-be competitors cannot be anti-competitive; words mean things.
- mrcharles 16y ago

djorgensen 16y ago

One may also send a comment through openmedia.ca: http://openmedia.ca/crtc http://openmedia.ca/crtc