Comments on: Limbo Dance Redux: Bell Canada Lowers Usage Allowances on Customers, But Sells Usage Insurance for “Peace of Mind”

By: Stop the Cap! » Rogers Communications Takes Out a Contract On Customers’ Wallets: We’ve Doubled Our Overlimit Fee For Our Convenience

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:52:01 +0000

[...] some providers like Bell, the trick is to gradually reduce your usage allowance, exposing more and more customers to overlimit fees (the company even sells an insurance plan to [...]

By: Stop the Cap! » Comcast’s Meter Spreads Like a Virus Across the Pacific Northwest; Could ‘Consumption Billing’ Be Next?

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:29:51 +0000

[...] lower today’s 250GB limit? Perhaps, but there is no evidence of anything imminent. It has been done before in Canada and sold as a “money-saver,” offered with an “insurance policy” Bell had [...]

By: Stop the Cap! » Sun-Sentinel Runs Hit Opinion Piece On Net Neutrality, Forgets To Disclose AT&T and Embarq Helped Finance It

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:23:01 +0000

[...] to broadband, then throwing a penalty fee on your bill… unless you sign up and pay for their “insurance” plan to protect you from those [...]

By: Stop the Cap! » Astroturf Groups Try to Enlist Conservatives to Oppose Net Neutrality’s “Government Takeover of the Internet”

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:27:30 +0000

[...] online video around a model they own and control, or who simply want to throw a Money Party by inventing new ways to charge people more money for exactly the same service they get [...]

By: Phillip Dampier

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:23:29 +0000

Rogers asks for up to $25 in overlimit fees, Bell asks for $30 in overlimit fees. The reason I last heard for this was that Canadian federal law limits such fees, although I haven’t confirmed that. I am aware Canadian ISPs want to see such limits removed, so they aren’t doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

Keep in mind, these providers also actively throttle your speeds for applications they don’t like, particularly peer to peer, which can drop to 250kbps speeds as they see fit.

South of the border, there are no limits for overlimit fees, which is why no ISP trying to charge them seems to have limits.

Just as with “usage insurance,” once one gets the establishment of overcharging schemes in place, whatever tempering of them they do at the outset to make them more palatable can always be removed later. So what costs $5 today may cost $50 tomorrow. Once you let them get away with charging them in the first place, it’s only a matter of time before they’ll jack the prices up.

It’s FAR better to avoid ever allowing ISPs to engage in ANY Internet Overcharging schemes in the first place, versus arguing on their terms over what is supposedly “fair.”

Remember, no ISP is on the verge of Chapter 11 here. The large national ones remain insanely profitable. They just want to take it to the next level of profit pillaging.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:33:49 +0000

Am I reading this wrong or is this actually a better deal than that proposed by Time Warner as once you pay the $30 in overages you are unlimited and can freely download as much as you want. It actually sounds kind of fair only being 30 dollars more to download as much as you want, with those not needing to download as much as desired not needing to pay that fee. I wouldn’t actually mind the canadian system, sounds like they are getting good speeds and the overages are not that bad being a maximum of 30 and then the all you can eat buffet begins again. Time Warner should seriously consider this model as it would be fair to all users arguably, although the initial caps are a little low for what is being paid for the service.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:54:21 +0000

Seriously, Canadians need to organize and boycott these ISP’s up there. Hurt them where it really hurts, their wallets!!

By: Smith6612

Smith6612 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:16:23 +0000

Looks like Bell’s getting after everyone complaining about their caps. Cutting the caps almost by 80% is a very bad move. So to home users, this was a critical hit. To Bell, it was an instant win.

By: uks

uks — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:43:21 +0000

Usage Caps must be a dream to any provider who has established them. This gives them ultimate control over creating and charging consumer for all kinds of pseudo “products/services”.

By: Michael Chaney

Michael Chaney — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:19:35 +0000

this sounds like the same “insurance” the mob would charge you…..a.k.a extortion

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:44:50 +0000

OMG, talking about ridiculous. I think, if I were a customer of theirs, it would be better if they just pulled a gun on me and robbed me instead. That way, I wouldn’t feel bad about being robbed.

By: BrionS

BrionS — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:59:24 +0000

Usage insurance?!?! I ‘LOL’d!!!