CanadianDownload fills the marketplace niche of delivering websites that are now too big to download under Canada’s Internet Overcharging schemes.

America, the home of the free and the brave… and the unlimited use Internet service plan, is coming to Canada’s rescue.

Want to watch the latest CRTC hearing about broadband or download a Linux distribution, but don’t want to blow through your puny usage allowance?  Let a new website do the downloading for you.

American-based CanadianDownload.com is part mission of mercy, part online embarrassment for Canadian officials who have allowed the country’s broadband to lapse into a highly expensive, slow, and irritating mess.

Justin Bowman and his business partner Matthew Neder Laden are behind the website, which fielded 130,000 visits on its first day of operation.  The two run a security camera outfit that has nothing to do with Canadian broadband, but considering their headquarters are in the mountains of North Carolina, one of the hotbed states for Internet Overcharging experiments south of the Canadian border, they strongly sympathize with the plight of ordinary citizens paying too much, for too little service.  And because many of their customers want to remotely access the cameras they sell, their business could ultimately be impacted by paltry usage limits, too.

“The initial idea was just a protest of the ludicrous bandwidth caps that [Canadian ISPs] have placed on their customers,” Bowman told the Financial Post. “But the other part of it was just to provide a service.”

“We had no idea it would actually catch on and that people would actually give a rat’s ass about [the site], but they did,” he said.

Considering most Canadian cable and phone company Internet service plans are limited to 60 or fewer “rat asses” per month (and dropping), their surprise might be unwarranted.

Visitors are invited to enter the URL of the website they want shipped north, and the service will mail the discs at no charge using the cheapest possible shipping method, which you learn more from ArdentX.

Bowman and Laden

The two have spent countless hours burning DVD’s for consumers across Canada since the site launched earlier this month.  But there are limits.  Nearly 90 percent of the requests are “not serious,” according to Bowman.  Requests for “Google” as well as racy online content can’t be fulfilled, and the service is careful to avoid running afoul of copyright law.

“I don’t want to mess with that, having the FBI on my ass because I’m shipping bootleg items across international lines, I’m just not going to do that,” Bowman said. “Basically we’re keeping it to open source software, a lot of those data files are pretty massive.”

All in all, CanadianDownload.com exists to make a point — that broadband service in Canada can never be a success story with Internet Overcharging schemes hanging over its head.  Just as a carrier pigeon in South Africa proved it could deliver faster service than the overpriced broadband incumbent, an American website has called out the current Canadian broadband nightmare of high prices and usage caps.  The scariest part of the story is that mailing DVD’s with web content could eventually become financially viable.

At least the United States Postal Service and Canada Post, who will reap the revenue delivering all those discs, hope so.

“We’ll [continue] for as long as we can,” Bowman told the Post. “So long as we can still make rent and feed ourselves… yeah we’ll keep on mailing you guys stuff.”

From CanadianDownload’s blog:

The metered bandwidth decision was and always has been about Netflix, iTunes, torrents, and other threats to dying media business models. From CRTC to Comcast, here in the states, the international business community must fight back against the monopolies who (for the most part) ran their cables on the back of public subsidies and now want to dictate how these pipes are used. We broke up big-Bell, it’s time to do the same here.

Here at SCW, we have been very concerned with bandwidth caps. We’ve been called [innovative] for our work with CanadianDownload.com, but we aren’t; we just hearkened back to old school business models. Bandwidth caps reduce innovation; they don’t increase it. Also for all the talk of “smarter way to ship data,” we have to state that we want this business model to fail. Although there is a need for this type of service in places like South Africa, Australia, and many other parts of the world, more innovation will be possible with an open and accessible Internet than with the “innovation” associated with bottling it up and shipping it.

The actions by ISP monopolies puts all online business at risk – and not just services like Netflix, imgur, and iTunes. In a world of metered bandwidth, low bandwidth versions of sites will have to be created — which squashes rather than creates innovation. Furthermore, this puts any site that serves online advertising at risk. If you bandwith is metered, who could blame someone for using tools such as ad-block-plus to take more control of your bandwidth allowance. This translates to a direct reduction in revenue for sites that support themselves via advertisement. The saddest part of this is that even the portal sites for ISPs, (where you can see your bandwidth usage), show ads.

Phillip Dampier: The Blizzard of BS from Canadian ISPs is getting salted and plowed by Canadian media and outraged citizens.

A major ongoing Internet Overcharging campaign by Canadian Internet Service Providers to extract more revenue from consumers has sailed under the radar for more than two years now in most of the Canadian press.  Although some newspapers have occasionally covered various telecommunications atrocities related to cell phone pricing, lagging broadband speeds, and an overall lack of competition in the country, specifics about efforts to curtail broadband usage (or monetize its claimed “overuse”) has been a topic mostly discussed on online forums.

No more.

As Stop the Cap! turns more attention to Canadian Internet Overcharging schemes, let this be an object lesson to our American readers about how the game is being played.  What starts in Canada could finish American flat rate broadband as well.

CRTC Ruling Lights the Flame

This week, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) finalized rules that will effectively end unlimited broadband service in the country.  Remarkably, the Commission’s ruling completely ignores the one group such “usage-based billing (UBB)” impacts the most: individual customers.

The game-changing rules, found in the obliquely-named “Telecom Decision CRTC 2011-44,” effectively establish false usage-based pricing on both the wholesale and retail levels.  No provider will actually sell broadband packages that charge only for what a consumer actually uses.  Instead, each provider will set arbitrary usage allowances — usage limits — on their broadband accounts.  Any remaining unused allowance is forfeit at the end of the month, but “overuse,” at the discretion of the provider, will be penalized with overlimit penalty fees running several dollars per gigabyte.

The CRTC acknowledges, and big providers admit, these Internet Overcharging schemes are all about getting consumers to change their online activities.

[Providers] submitted that UBB rates shape end-user behaviour and that different UBB rates would lead to different behaviours by carriers’ and competitors’ end-customers.

Perish the thought.  Without such pricing, Canadian broadband could ultimately offer an alternative to overpriced cable-TV and telephone packages sold by the very providers that advocate limited use plans.  Providers insist on predictable, uniform usage.  The Commission apparently agrees.

The Commission even acknowledges today’s unlimited use plans in Canada almost always recover the actual costs incurred to provide them, and then some:

The Commission also notes that the flat-rate component of the carriers’ retail Internet service rates recovers most, if not all, of the associated retail UBB costs. In the Commission’s view, this situation provides carriers with the flexibility to adjust or waive retail UBB rates on a promotional basis.

With this in mind, why the CRTC felt radical changes were warranted is only a mystery until you realize most of the commissioners were former employees of the various telecommunications companies themselves.

Birds of a feather….

The only audience the CRTC listens to.

All of the falderal about the merits of UBB aside, in the end the CRTC threw a small bone to independent service providers not affiliated with super-sized players like Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron — the Commission ordered they be given a “whopping” 15 percent price break off wholesale rates.

Major carriers were outraged even by this token amount, arguing that providers forced to charge correspondingly higher prices (higher than major carriers charge) could still eke out a place in the market by offering other services or better support.  They didn’t need, or deserve a discount.

But independent competitors warned without discounts approaching 50 percent, many will be gone within five years.  Many providers argued the major companies, some who received taxpayer subsidies to construct national telecommunications networks, would be able to set wholesale prices artificially high to drive them out of business.

Canada’s Media Reacts

The effective end of flat rate service across Canada finally sparked significant national media coverage of the imminent death of Canada’s broadband revolution, soon to be relegated to a nickle-and-dime metered pricing scheme that will give providers the monetary power to control usage, limit innovation, and have their hands into picking marketplace winners and losers.  Don’t like Netflix?  Slash usage allowances.  Want to protect your cable-TV revenue?  Exempt your own online content from the meter as long as you keep your subscription.  Want to drive down Canada’s broadband standing in the world?  Turn the marketplace over to a handful of companies dreaming of revenue opportunities afforded by monetizing broadband usage.

The Globe and Mail — A metered Internet is a regulatory failure: The CRTC has decided to allow Bell and other big telecom companies to change the way Canadians are billed for Internet access. Metering, or usage-based billing (UBB), will mean that service providers can charge per byte in addition to their basic access charges. The move is sure to stifle digital creativity in Canada while the rest of the world looks on and snickers.  […] So there you have it. Just as the world is ready to feast on what Canadians might cook up in the way of multimedia 3.0, Canada decides to meter the Internet, tilting the table sharply towards old-school TV networks and big corporations that can absorb the higher cost of doing business.

Canadian newspapers have covered the story in the greatest detail, but now — finally — Canada’s television news has discovered the story, which for many media critics mean the story is actually “real.”

“If you don’t see it on television, it didn’t really happen,” writes Jim from Halifax, Nova Scotia.  “A lot of Canadians don’t read newspapers, and the magazines certainly are not covering this story, so it has been an online-only event  until CBC, CTV, and Global put it on their newscasts.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Extra Billing for Internet 1-18-11.flv[/flv]

CBC Television reports on the Internet Overcharging controversy.  (2 minutes)

Some critics say much of Canada’s commercial media is already in the hands of a tightly controlled, vertically integrated empire.  Most of the cable and phone companies have ownership in many major commercial broadcasters, cable networks, and even newspapers and magazines.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Vertical Integration.mp4[/flv]

30 Rock’s Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy explore the concept of “vertical integration.”  Then see how it relates to Canada’s media.  (3 minutes)

But even a controlled media environment cannot stop outrage over UBB going viral, as ordinary Canadians realize they are about to pay much higher prices for a service they depend on more and more.

Outrage Commences

Charlie Angus (NDP) -- "This pricing is a ripoff."

While these pricing schemes have been around awhile, now that they are getting well-publicized exposure, consumers have realized the implications of counting how many YouTube videos they watch.

Tens of thousands have signed Openmedia.ca’s online petition, others are complaining to the media and writing their members of Parliament, demanding action.

That will only get louder when consumers start receiving bills for double, triple, or even higher for the exact same quality of service they used to pay less to receive.

“There will be a huge wake-up call for many customers,” said Jared Miller, president of Youmano, a provider based in the Town of Mount Royal.

Charlie Angus, the NDP member of Parliament who speaks about digital issues, said he he thinks the entire pricing scheme is a ripoff that will lead to huge increases in customers’ bills.

“What we need to have is clear and transparent rules so it’s being used in a measured capacity, and it’s not just instituting the principle that every time you turn on the Internet, they can ding you for fees like they do with cell-phones,” Angus said. “We’ve seen this before; when we were told that deregulating cable rates would give customers a big benefit. We were paying 60-to 100-per-cent more in no time.”

“Canada is already falling behind other countries in terms of choice, accessibility and pricing for the Internet,” Angus added.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV British Columbia – Canadians rank among most enthusiastic web users 12-28-10.flv[/flv]

CTV British Columbia explores Canada’s love affair with technology and how its integration has dramatically changed the social lives of many families.  That’s no surprise, considering Canadians are North America’s most enthusiastic net users.  (2 minutes)

After weeks of delays, Time Warner Cable says it will finally open access to ESPN’s multi-channel streaming service Monday, Oct. 25th.  The service will be available to Time Warner Cable subscribers, and is free of charge.

ESPN’s streaming service was included in a deal signed in early September between the cable company and Disney-ABC, which owns the sports network.

Time Warner Cable has been working with ESPN’s website technical staff to build and test the online verification system that is the foundation of Time Warner Cable’s implementation of TV Everywhere.  The cable company plans to offer a library of on-demand video and live streams of many cable channels free of charge, but only to authenticated, current customers.

It is all part of an effort by the cable industry to stop cable customers from canceling their cable-TV subscriptions.  An increasing amount of online content produced by cable networks is expected to eventually be placed behind the TV Everywhere system.  Existing cable subscribers will get access to streamed live channels and on demand programming for free, but non-subscribers will be locked out.  Cable networks can decide how much of their programming will be a part of the project, but cable industry insiders predict there will be increasing pressure on them to keep most of their shows off the open Internet.

While the channels will be free-to-stream for subscribers now, several cable networks are exploring whether to charge cable companies extra programming fees for online viewing rights.  If that becomes popular, online viewing options may eventually carry monthly fees of their own.

ESPN says most of its online streaming will contain no advertising until the network builds enough viewers to justify selling ads targeting online audiences.

Verizon Inc. reached a similar agreement with Disney in October for its FiOS TV service. The originally planned launch date for Verizon customers was Jan. 18th, but if authentication tests with Time Warner Cable are successful, FiOS customers may get access much sooner.

Reardon is fine with this vision of your online future.

Marguerite Reardon confesses she’s confused.  She doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about regarding Google and Verizon teaming up to deliver a blueprint for a corporate compromise on Net Neutrality.  In a column published today, Reardon is convinced she’s on a debunking mission — to deliver the message that rumors of the Internet apocalypse are premature.

As I read the criticism of Google and Verizon’s supposed evil plan to demolish the Internet, and as I hear about “protests” of several dozen people at Google’s headquarters, I scratch my head and wonder: am I missing something?

The Google-Verizon Net neutrality proposal I read last week doesn’t sound nearly as apocalyptic as Free Press, a media advocacy group, and some of the most vocal critics out there have made it sound.

In fact, most of proposal sounded a lot like a plan FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski offered nearly a year ago, which many Net neutrality proponents seemed to support.

In short, Google and Verizon say they agree to a set of rules for the Internet that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or degrading lawful content on the Internet. Broadband providers would also not be allowed to take action to impede competition.

This is pretty much what Genachowski has proposed.

OK, terrific. There is agreement.

But wait, Net neutrality zealots are still unhappy.

Hmmm… “zealots?”  Reardon probably just angered the majority of CNET’s readers, who now find themselves labeled as crazed Internet online freedom fighters — net fundamentalists who want absolute protection against big Internet Service Providers tampering with their Internet Experience.

Where can I get my membership card?

Reardon’s “debunk” consists of her narrow, inaccurate definition of Net Neutrality pounded into a pre-conceived notion of what is and is not possible in a competitive broadband marketplace.  In short, she’s satisfied we can all move along… there is nothing to see here:

What Free Press and Public Knowledge don’t seem to realize is that AT&T and Verizon already offer differentiated services today with enhanced quality of service to business customers. Verizon’s Fios TV and AT&T’s U-verse TV services are also examples of managed Internet services that are delivered to consumers. And the last time I checked, no one, other than their cable competitors, has complained about AT&T and Verizon offering competition in the TV market.

The truth is that if Verizon and AT&T wanted to cannibalize their broadband business with premium broadband services, they’d already be doing it. But they aren’t, because there hasn’t been a market for it.

The reality is that consumers are in control of what type of services are offered. If the public Internet can adequately deliver a service for free, then there’s no need to pay for it. But if someone can provide a better service over a dedicated network and there are consumers willing to pay for it, then why shouldn’t it be offered? Isn’t that why some people subscribe to a 768Kbps broadband service for $15 a month, and others pay $100 for a 50Mbps service?

So let’s debunk the debunk.

First, Net Neutrality is not about stopping broadband providers from offering speed-based tiers of service.  In fact, that’s the Internet pricing model we’ve all come to know and love (although those prices are just a tad high, aren’t they?)  Free Press and Public Knowledge do not object to ISPs selling different levels of broadband speed tiers to consumers and businesses to access online content.

Net Neutrality isn’t about stopping ISPs from selling some customers “lite” service and others “mega-super-zippy Turbo” service — it’s about stopping plans from some ISPs to establish their own toll booths on the Internet to charge content producers twice — once to upload and distribute their content and then a second time to ensure that content reaches a particular ISPs customers on a timely, non-speed-throttled basis.  Consider this: you already pay good money for your own broadband account.  How would you feel if you sent an e-mail to a friend who uses another ISP and that provider wanted to charge you 20 cents to deliver that e-mail?  Don’t want to pay?  That’s fine, but your e-mail might be delayed, as paying customers enjoy priority over your freebie e-mail.

A lot of broadband customers may never understand the implications of giant telecom companies building their own toll lanes for “preferred content partners” on the Internet because they’ll just assume that stuck online video or constantly rebuffering stream is the fault of the website delivering it, not their provider intentionally pushing it aside to make room for content from companies who paid protection money to make sure their videos played splendidly.

Second, Reardon need only look to our neighbors in the north to see a non Net Neutral Internet experience in Canada.  There, ISPs intentionally throttle broadband applications they don’t want users running on their networks.  They also spank customers who dare to try what Reardon insists Verizon would never stop — using their broadband service to watch someone else’s content.  With the application of Internet Overcharging like usage limits and consumption billing schemes, cable companies like Rogers don’t need to directly block competitors like Netflix.  They need only spike customers’ broadband bills to teach them a lesson they’ll not soon forget.

Within days of Netflix announcing their imminent arrival in Canada, Rogers actually reduced the usage allowances of some of their broadband customers.  If you still want to watch Netflix instead of visiting Rogers pay-per-view cable menu or video rental stores, it will cost you plenty — up to $5 per gigabyte of viewing.

Reardon seems to think giant providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast care about what their customers want and wouldn’t jeopardize the customer relationship.  Really?  She herself admits she hates paying for hundreds of channels she never watches, yet providers are deaf to complaints from customers demanding an end to this practice.  What about the relentless price hikes?  Wouldn’t that drive off customers?  Perhaps… if customers had real alternatives.  Instead, with an effective duopoly market in place, subscribers pay “the man,” pay an almost identical price from the “other guy,” or go without.

Providers understand their power and leverage in the marketplace.  Until serious competition arrives, it would be a disservice to stockholders not to monetize every possible aspect of broadband service in the United States.

The check against this naked aggression on consumers’ wallets is from consumer groups who are fighting against these big telecom interests.

Before dismissing Net Neutrality “zealotry,” Reardon should experience the Internet in Canada and then get back to us, and more importantly those consumer groups she flicks away with disdain, and join the fight.