Canadians will learn at 4PM whether their Internet future will be unlimited or rationed with usage-based-billing (UBB) plans that could potentially charge consumers for every website they visit.

The much-anticipated decision from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) comes months after last winter’s hearings on how Internet service is priced in Canada.  It pits the largest phone company in the country — Bell — against small independent providers that are fighting to stay in business offering customers unlimited usage plans.

Most independent Internet Service Providers in Canada ironically buy wholesale access directly from Bell.  These upstart competitors like Primus and TekSavvy deliver unlimited DSL service at attractive prices.  In fact, some Bell customers have found them attractive enough to switch providers.  Bell’s wholesale division indirectly competing with its own retail business has proved unsatisfactory to Bell management, who proposed repricing wholesale access to resemble what Bell charges its retail customers.  But more importantly, Bell would demand that their competitors impose usage-based billing themselves, which would make unlimited Internet service in Canada a thing of the past.  The CRTC initially agreed with Bell, which sparked outrage among independent providers and consumers who faced the prospect of paying inflated prices for Internet service with no unlimited usage options in sight.

The backlash brought a half-million Canadians together to demand an end to unfair Internet pricing through a petition from Openmedia.ca.  That in turn attracted the attention of Canadian politicians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government’s Industry Minister Tony Clement.  Clement told reporters on Feb. 3 if the CRTC didn’t reverse its approval, and fast, the government would probably overrule the commission.

A day later, outgoing CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein said the commission would review its decision, the first in a series of backpedals in response to government pressure.

Even Bell, accustomed to having its way with the CRTC, has backtracked, now offering a compromise proposal that would charge independent ISPs 17.8c per gigabyte.  Many providers consider that excessive, too.

The CBC explains how Internet access is sold by independent providers in Canada.

Since the hearings, several marketplace changes have deflated some of Bell’s arguments that UBB was necessary to control over-eager users congesting their network.  Providers in western Canada — Shaw Cable and Telus, have dramatically boosted their respective usage caps, which call into question just how much of a congestion problem exists on Canada’s Internet networks.  The Canadian Network Operators Consortium, the voice of independent service providers, has offered its own proposal to charge wholesale customers based on peak network traffic.  MTS Allstream, itself a smaller player in Canadian telecom, proposed wholesale service be sold much like retail Internet in the United States — based on the speed/capacity of the service level selected.  If an ISP underpredicted usage, traffic would slow for everyone until the line was upgraded.

What ultimately gets approved by the CRTC may still be subject to government review, especially if the decision proves unpopular with consumers.  In a CBC online poll being conducted this afternoon, consumer sentiment is clear.  More than 91 percent of voters want the option of unlimited Internet access.

Whatever the CRTC decides will be reviewed by new Industry Minister Christian Paradis, who has managed to keep his head down and views to himself since he replaced Clement.  He may be hoping more than most that the CRTC will ultimately placate everyone, just so he doesn’t have to weigh in on the thorny issue.  But the CRTC’s track record representing consumers has been pretty dismal over the last few years, so we will not be surprised if the commission ultimately acquiesces to Bell’s substitute plan unaffectionately dubbed ‘GougeLite’ by Bell critics.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Internet pricing ruling expected from CRTC 11-14-11.flv[/flv]

The CBC reports on today’s expected ruling from the CRTC and what it means for Canadian Internet consumers.  (3 minutes)

(Courtesy: Glasbergen)

Shaw Cable customers in Langley and Aldergrove, B.C., waited as long as four hours on hold to speak to a customer service representative trying to learn when their cable and broadband service would be restored after vandals cut a fiber line.

Days later, hundreds of customers were still without service… and answers.

“When I called [Shaw], I was told there was a four-hour wait to talk to customer service,” area resident Candace Hopkins told CBC News.

That four hour hold time was hardly an isolated case.  Several CBC viewers reported similar experiences, and many simply gave up calling even though their cable service was out for days.

Shaw Cable suspects the vandals were would-be copper thieves, unhappy to discover their efforts would only net them fiber optic cables which have almost no resale value.  But customers suspect the cable cuts have not been a priority for Shaw, leaving customers in the dark about when service would be restored.

CBC News called Shaw customer service and only managed to get a recording, which said nothing about how large the problem was or when it would be fixed, saying only that some service was restored and crews were working on the rest.

Other calls to Shaw’s media relations department from CBC News have not been returned.

Shaw customers are not amused, invading the company’s Twitter account with repeated complaints. Other outages have left customers with similar experiences.  One customer on the Outer Gulf Islands told he’d be waiting up to four hours for help managed to leave his number for a call back.

“The kicker is that after about four hours we received a call from something approximating Shaw,” the customer explains. “I believe that it was a call center in India. To add insult to injury, the voice on the other end of the phone line told me that everything was fine with my line. And, it was. Service had been restored 10 minutes before the call back. When I tried to explain this and asked what the earlier service disruption was about, the voice on the line simply kept repeating that everything was fine on my line.”

Shaw’s hold times are infamous in western Canada.  It is not uncommon to wait at least an hour to speak to a customer service representative as we reported back in September.  Some customers find it quicker to drive to the nearest cable office to arrange for service calls or manage their accounts.  So far, Canadian regulators have done little to pressure Shaw into making improvements.

When service was restored, some customers were brave enough to call Shaw to request outage credits.  “A big mistake,” shares one of our readers.

“The automated voice said there was a two hour hold time and when I finally got through, I was told I couldn’t get a credit because I didn’t report the outage during the outage,” says Stop the Cap! reader Jules who shared this story over his restored Internet service in Aldergrove.

“They didn’t seem to have a good answer when I suggested how difficult that would have been since it took out my Shaw telephone line as well. I got my credit.”

After nearly a half-million Canadians expressed outrage about Bell’s Internet Overcharging practices, the company is responding.  This week, Bell sent a letter to their wholesale customers announcing it plans to end the practice of speed throttling peer-to-peer file traffic (at least for them):

Effective November 2011, new links implemented by Bell to augment our DSL network may not be subject to Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMP).  ITMPs were introduced in March, 2008 to address congestion on the network due to the increased use of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications during peak periods. While congestion still exists, the impact of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications on congestion has reduced. Furthermore, as we continue to groom and build out our network, customers may be migrated to network facilities where Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMPs) will not be applied.

Peer-to-peer traffic, once all the rage for swapping music, movies, and software (legally or otherwise), has been declining as a percentage of Internet traffic and legal online entertainment services (Netflix, et al.) have become available.  Copyright crackdowns and usage caps manage to further restrict customers from leaving P2P software running continuously as it can rapidly eat into usage allowances.

With increased capacity of Bell’s networks and decreased interest in file swapping software among customers, the practice of throttling such traffic (along with the unintended collateral damage to online gaming), means such network management practices have outlived their usefulness.

Providers these days are far more likely to blame online video for congested networks.  But once providers attach a speed throttle to an application, it can be difficult to remove.  Even as Bell announced it would no longer throttle their wholesale clients, retail customers will still suffer with reduced speeds during “peak usage times” — 4:30pm-2am local time.

Michael Geist, who covers Canadian broadband issues, wonders if Bell’s throttles are actually in violation of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s traffic management guidelines:

While Bell says its congestion has been reduced, its retail throttling practices have remained unchanged, throttling P2P applications from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am.  Given the decline in congestion, a CRTC complaint might ask whether the current throttling policy “results in discrimination or preference as little as reasonably possible” and ask for explanation why its data cap policies “would not reasonably address the need and effectively achieve the same purpose as the ITMP.”  In fact, the same can now be said for many other ISPs who deploy broad based throttling practices (Rogers, Cogeco), which may not be reasonable under the CRTC policy.

Cogeco customers in the Niagara Region watching their neighbors further north in Hamilton and Toronto enjoy faster broadband service can finally obtain faster Internet access from incumbent cable provider Cogeco, who this week unveiled three new faster speed packages in Niagara Falls and St. Catherines.

Cogeco’s Turbo 20, Ultimate 30 and Ultimate 50 High Speed Internet packages are all powered by DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which allow cable operators to bond multiple “channels” together to deliver faster Internet speeds.

Unfortunately, while download speeds of up to 50Mbps can be enticing, Cogeco’s upload speeds, even on their DOCSIS 3 network, are downright stingy.  Thanks to Cogeco’s relentless Internet Overcharging schemes, so are the usage caps.  The Turbo 20 package tops out at 20/1.5Mbps and offers only 80GB of included traffic.  After that, pony up $1.50/GB, up to a maximum of $50 in overlimit penalties.

The Ultimate 30 package includes 30/2Mbps with 175GB of data transfer capacity.  The Ultimate 50 pack delivers 50/2Mbps service with a 250GB cap.  But customers entranced with the extra speed should watch their wallets.  Cogeco’s overlimit fee is $1/GB on these packages with no maximum limit on those charges.

At least Cogeco is satisfied with their newest offer.

“We always strive to offer our customers more flexibility, speed and choices. Today, the whole family can use the Internet at the same time for online banking, video gaming, shopping or for downloading videos or films, and all with the same service. Cogeco’s HSI packages Turbo 20, Ultimate 30 and Ultimate 50 meet those needs perfectly,” said Ron Perrotta, vice president, Marketing and Strategic Planning.

The new Turbo 20 package is currently on promotion and offered for $44.95 per month for 12 months for customers who also subscribe to Cogeco’s Television and/or Home phone services, and for $54.95 per month for 12 months for those who only want to subscribe to the High Speed Internet service. Turbo 20’s regular price is $49.95 if bundled with other Cogeco services and $59.95 on a standalone basis.

For customers who subscribe to more than one Cogeco service, Ultimate 30 is offered for $59.95 per month and Ultimate 50, for $99.95 per month. Ultimate 30 and Ultimate 50 are also available on a standalone basis for $69.95 and $109.95 respectively.

Upcoming wireless spectrum auctions are critically important for some of Canada’s newest players in the cell phone marketplace.  Most are working hard to make sure they have plenty to spend to secure new frequencies for advanced wireless services that will help them remain competitive with larger players.

Globalive Holdings, the parent company of Wind Mobile, has convinced backers to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in financing, so long as all of the money is spent on acquiring wireless spectrum.

Wind’s nearly 400,000 customers will appreciate the additional room for growth, and new customers may keep Wind in mind for advanced 4G networks most Canadian providers intend to build and expand into the new spectrum they acquire at an auction next year.

Much of the funding, estimated to approach nearly a half-billion dollars, is coming from Wind’s parent entities, Egypt-based Orascom Telecom and the European conglomerate VimpelCom that acquired Orascom earlier this year.  Because the Canadian government is expected to set-aside some of the valued 700MHz spectrum exclusively for bidding among new entrants in the market, Wind could walk away a big winner, particularly if other similar-sized competitors Mobilicity and Vidéotron Ltee./Quebecor have trouble raising enough money to remain competitive in the bidding.

As far as Canada’s largest cell companies are concerned, set-asides are unnecessary and they prefer a winner-take-all auction.  Rogers, in particular, has been lobbying hard to convince Canadian officials it needs access to the 700MHz spectrum up for auction to roll out service in rural communities and upgrade networks in larger cities.

Those who feel Canada’s cell phone marketplace is already too concentrated have little sympathy for Rogers’ point of view, and expect an auction free-for-all will mean the largest incumbent players will walk away with everything they can bid on.

Among smaller players, assuming the set-asides are in place, analysts expect Wind will probably secure the most spectrum, but Vidéotron is expected to stay competitive and walk away with at least some frequencies for use in its home province of Quebec.  Big losses among the smaller players could fuel calls for additional mergers and acquisitions among those carriers deemed to have been left behind.

The Canadian government is expected to be the biggest winner of all, netting a potential $3-4 billion from the spectrum sale.