News   Jul 15, 2024
 454     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 597     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 572     0 

Heavy web downloaders face broadband fees

unimaginative2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
10
Location
New York
I'm definitely never using Rogers as my ISP!

Heavy web downloaders face broadband fees

MATT HARTLEY

From Friday's Globe and Mail

March 27, 2008 at 9:42 PM EDT

Rogers Communications Inc. is gearing up to make Internet use more expensive for consumers who have a penchant for chewing up bandwidth by downloading movies or playing video games online.

The telecommunications giant already regulates the flow of traffic on its networks by giving priority to certain content; however, the changes are part of a blueprint to introduce tiered Internet service plans in June that will not only charge users for a designated connection speed, but also cap how much bandwidth they can use in a month.

Bandwidth hogs who exceed their allotted limits on Rogers's networks will face service-fee penalties of up to $5 a gigabyte, to a maximum of $25 a month.

It was the second time this week that one of Canada's largest Internet service providers proposed sweeping changes to the way thousands of consumers access the Web.

On Tuesday, it was revealed that Bell Canada is rolling out a new strategy that restricts certain types of online traffic on its own networks and those it provides to third-party ISP wholesalers.

As a result, questions are being raised about whether Canada's major service providers are prepared to handle the future of the Internet as bandwidth-gobbling activities such as downloadable videos, Internet television, voice-over Internet telephony and file-sharing go mainstream.

The exploding popularity of online video is causing headaches for ISPs. Much of that traffic is facilitated through peer-to-peer networks and BitTorrent, a file-sharing protocol once synonymous with piracy but which has developed into a legitimate tool for quickly delivering large amounts of digital content.

Just last week, the CBC announced it would be distributing its Canada's Next Great Prime Minister program via BitTorrent.

“The reality of the Internet is that people are using the Internet more and doing more online,†said Phil Hartling, vice-president of consumer services for Rogers Cable. “This is simply about customers' ability to exceed their usage allowance and pay for additional usage.â€

He said the new service fees are similar to those of other ISPs.

Both Rogers and Bell employ “shaping†techniques that slow down some kinds of Internet activity – mostly peer-to-peer and torrent file-sharing traffic transmissions of large files such as videos – and give priority to other data.

Mr. Hartling said Rogers's plans will not change the company's policies regarding traffic management.

The strategy employed by Canadian ISPs is in stark contrast to news yesterday from the United States, where Comcast Corp., the nation's second-largest ISP, bowed to regulatory and consumer pressure and announced it would begin treating all data travelling on its networks equally by the end of 2008.

The issue has boiled over in Ottawa and is now drawing the attention of opposition MPs on Parliament Hill.

Yesterday, Charlie Angus, NDP spokesman for copyright and digital issues, said that the federal Conservatives “can't sit idly by while Bell and other telecommunications giants are allowed to arbitrarily rewire the Internet.

“[Industry Minister] Jim Prentice cannot turn a blind eye while the telecommunication companies decide which lanes of digital traffic will be deliberately filled with potholes,†he said in a statement. “Protecting Net neutrality is a fundamental cornerstone in encouraging the development of a true knowledge economy.â€

University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist said traffic-shaping raises a crucial competition issue in Canada that the CRTC has largely ignored.

“Many up-and-coming broadcasters and even our own public broadcaster are using the Internet for their own video offerings, and that's competing directly with what … Rogers and Bell are offering, whether through cable or satellite [television services],†he said.

“In Canada we've had virtual silence from our regulator and virtual silence from our political leaders, while the U.S. has used the regulatory muscle to push the parties towards a more open platform.â€

The practice of traffic-shaping is similar to designating lanes on a highway for a certain kind of traffic, such as high-occupancy vehicles. The ISPs argue that peer-to-peer traffic clogs their networks, slowing down the experience for average users, akin to the way a lumbering tractor-trailer can impede the flow on a highway.

Advocates of the unwritten code of Net Neutrality contend that shaping is undemocratic and that all Internet traffic must be treated equally, and that ISPs should not be allowed restrict the flow of any online data.

Estimates vary, but most analysts agree that peer-to-peer and torrent-based file-sharing programs account for between 70 and 90 per cent of all online bandwidth use, and emanate from as few as 5 to 10 per cent of all users.
 
“Many up-and-coming broadcasters and even our own public broadcaster are using the Internet for their own video offerings, and that's competing directly with what … Rogers and Bell are offering, whether through cable or satellite [television services],†he said.

Nothing like the competition.
 
Guess we'll just have to start falling 5 years behind like our mobile and tv services compared to the rest of the world.

Then all these Canadian companies really stand a chance in the worldwide technology field.
 
I think it's really getting to be a serious problem. Canada was a leader in internet access for years, but Bell and Rogers really hold us back. They have absolutely no interest in investing for the future. They just want to milk as much as they can from from the infrastructure they already have. Look at Verizon. They're trying to bring fiber to the home, or at least to the node, for every customer. I hope it doesn't get to be as backward as our cell phones. We need real regulation.
 
We need competition!

We need to have a reasonable alternative besides Rogers (Red Devil) and Bell (Blue Devil). There are rumours that T-Mobile will be coming to Canada in 2009 to offer mobile phone service. Hopefully that will shake up the industry and leave waves in the other telecommunication markets.
 
Cable companies are a mix of negative and positive. Their pipeline is generally faster than DSL, but here in the US many providers (particularly the largest, Comcast) have been restricting what kind of traffic gets priority. Your 8 Mbps connection can quickly become 1Mbps or less for traffic deemed network intensive.

They have been doing it for years to the point where several lawsuits have been filed and we have net neutrality laws coming up for debate again and again here.

Its not just Rogers, its any large cable operator. They are getting bandwidth restrictive when they advertise the fastest rates available.

Most DSL providers simply have a smaller pipe and they will need to convert to fiber to the point for future upgradeability.

Someone needs to bring together a net neutrality bill to Parliament and stick it to the internet providers. It will keep them from limiting bandwidth and expand the market.
 
This is another way the CRTC protects big industry at the expense of the consumer. Not that CRTC had anything to do with this directly, but they've been blocking the entry of other players when the costs of entry weren't so high, and allowing the geographic monopolies or duopolies of cable/TV/mobile providers. The worst part is that the service providers (like Rogers and Bell) also control media/communication empires, and so have a big stake in avoiding net neutrality.

I think it is time to lower the barriers to foreign players in at least mobile phone service, and also television and internet. Bell, Telus and Rogers are big enough to play with the British and American big boys. I can't wait for T-Mobile to shake up that industry.

Canada needs a net neutrality law badly, but it's just not on the radar, despite the work people like Michael Geist do to raise awareness. The Liberals with Sarmite Bulte were not progressive on this front either.
 
Just be wary... The US does not have net neutrality so we essentially face the same problems as other nations, although net neutrality is only part of it.

To open up the market, the CRTC may need to approve another carrier.

In the US, we have an opposite effect going on. What used to be a plethora of providers in cellular and cable operations has been consolidating for many years. Comcast is the de facto national cable provider in all large markets, and Charter is the largest rural provider of cable services.

Same for cell phone services: Sprint merged with Nextel, Verizon merged 5 companies together to be where it is, the "new" AT&T Mobility used to be Cingular and AT&T Wireless, and that's about it for the real national US providers now: four companies. AT&T Mobility, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Went from nearly 10 companies to 4 companies in 5 years.

All the other providers like Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, and etc. really aren't cellular companies, they are marketing companies. Virgin uses Sprint and is just a re-branded product. US Cellular uses Verizon's network, and its not really independent per se.
 
Our Virgin Mobile piggybacks on Bell's network. It's not a bad deal for pre-paid cellphone service, but doesn't compete with the contracts of the big three. Solo is Bell, it just been decoupled from the Bell beaver brand. Fido is also Rogers, thanks to them buying Microcell. We also had Clearnet, which Telus scooped up back around 2000 or so.
 
Personally I think US cellular service sucks. The reception is so poor compared with European nations, although I have limited experience having visited England in 2000. After 8 years my memory is fading, but I do remember reception being far better in the UK and all the reports claim its still the case.

Canada ironically seems to be a hybrid, the reception is better, but the high bandwidth data services seem to be slightly more limited, but it all costs a little more. Most US providers have 400-600 minute packages (many without free mobile to mobile like T-Mobile's 600 plan) for $39.99, whereas Canadian providers tend to have 200-250 minutes for that same $39.99 price for similar service. That's about 100% more anytime minutes for the same basic rate in the US. Notwithstanding the difference in currency and everything...

But phone reception is always superior when I'm in Ontario vs US states. You get outside a select city or area, cell phone service in the US sucks bad... I've been with T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint and all three of them have their pros and cons. T-Mobile has the smallest footprint so its likely to go out if you're out of a city more often, but T-Mobile has higher network tower density in the areas they have coverage. So its a double sword: you won't get a large native network with T-Mobile, but you get higher quality coverage where they do offer service. With Sprint it seems like it works everywhere, but it has less quality. Drive a mile and your phone conversation becomes intelligible, but even in the countryside you'll get a weak signal if you keep going a few miles... But T-Mobile will be out for a good 200 mile stretch through the vast rural wonderland. LOL Verizon seemed to be a mix of both ironically, but its only strong in certain states (Verizon absolutely sucks in Michigan, but in Tennessee its the strongest network).

When I had T-Mobile, my phone would rome on "Microcell/Fido" networks as its GSM and with my current Sprint service it roams on Bell's network. Both Bell's CDMA and Rogers/Fido's GSM networks are far superior in Ontario than any service I've experienced here unless in a city center.
 
What I find funny about this is.....

Say you are on Express, like I am, and I have 60GB a month bandwidth. I do more than the 60GB a month of bandwidth, so I am told to upgrade to Extreme, which has 90GB of bandwidth. I pay $10 extra and need to exchange my current modem for a faster one, but I get 90GB of bandwidth.

Now, Extreme is obviously faster than Express, so won't I then be downloading more? When your connection is slower, the less you tend to download. The faster your connection, the more you will download. You can't win in the situation. It's all a gimmick.

These companies take us all for a ride and it's unfortunate there's nothing we can do about it. Like was mentioned, the CRTC protects big business and could care less about those people that make these companies the big money.
 
And why do you think Verizon would munificently choose to lower rates once they've bought out Bell? The goodness of their hearts? Even Milton Friedman and his ilk strongly believed in regulating collusion and anti-competitive practices by monopolies and oligopolies.
 
Our Virgin Mobile piggybacks on Bell's network. It's not a bad deal for pre-paid cellphone service, but doesn't compete with the contracts of the big three. Solo is Bell, it just been decoupled from the Bell beaver brand. Fido is also Rogers, thanks to them buying Microcell. We also had Clearnet, which Telus scooped up back around 2000 or so.
now we also have koodo mobile which is just another arm of telus.

http://www.koodomobile.com/index.shtml
 

Back
Top