Atlantic Canada provider Eastlink still offer unlimited access for speeds of 20Mbps or slower, but the fastest speeds now come with usage caps and overlimit fees, as depicted on this sample invoice.

While broadband pricing in the United States depends primarily on whether one lives in a rural or urban area, in Canada, which province you live in makes all the difference.

Canadian broadband pricing varies wildly across different provinces. If you live in northern Canada, particularly in Nunavut or the Yukon, Internet access is slow and prohibitively expensive, assuming you can buy it at any price. Customers in Atlantic provinces including Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Labrador and Newfoundland pay the next highest prices in the country, often exceeding $60 a month. But Atlantic Canadians often find unlimited use, fiber optic-based plans are often part of the deal. In the west, fervent competition between dominant cable operator Shaw and telephone company Telus has given residents in British Columbia and Alberta more generous usage allowances, faster speeds, and lower pricing.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports the most significant gouging takes place in the Canada’s two largest provinces: Ontario and Québec, where Bell (BCE) competes with three dominant cable operators: Rogers and Cogeco (Ontario) and Vidéotron and Cogeco (Québec). Critics contend that “competition” has been more in name-only over the last several years, as prices have risen and usage allowances have not kept up.

“These disparities are influenced by the competition,” Catherine Middleton, a professor at the University of Ryerson’s Ted Rogers School of Management told CBC News. “For example, Bell competes against Rogers in Ontario, but against Vidéotron in Quebec, with different plans for different markets.”

(Coincidentally, in 2007 the University of Ryerson accepted a gift of $15 million from the late Ted Rogers, founder of Rogers Communications, which won him naming rights for the Ted Rogers School of Management.)

Rogers and Cogeco charge Ontario residents more money for less access. Vidéotron treats their customers in Québec somewhat better, so Bell has plans to match.

“Ontario gets the worst when it comes to competitiveness,” Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law told CBC News. “It tends to be the least competitive when it comes to getting bang for your buck.”

Prices start to moderate in the prairie regions. SaskTel and MTS Allstream are the largest providers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Both offer customers unlimited service plans, something of a shock to those further east. But unless you live in a larger city where the two companies are upgrading to faster fiber-based networks, DSL at speeds averaging 5Mbps is the most widely available service.

Nearing the Canadian Rockies, usage-restricted plans are a reality once again. In Alberta and British Columbia, Telus and Shaw competition means more generous usage allowances, and Telus does not currently enforce their usage limits. Shaw raised its own usage limits significantly beyond what a customer would find from Rogers back east. Prices are often lower as well.

The CBC notes unlimited broadband from cable operators has become a rarity. Eastlink, which provides service in Atlantic Canada, has phased out unlimited access on plans above 20Mbps. Rogers has a temporary “unlimited use” offer for customers paying for its premium-priced 150Mbps plan, and only until March 31.

The most significant recent change for eastern Canada was Bell’s decision to offer an unlimited-use “add-on” for $10 extra a month for Bell customers in Québec and Ontario who choose at least three Bell services (broadband, television, phone, satellite, or wireless service). Rogers has matched that offer for its own triple-play customers. Those who only want broadband service from either provider will pay three times more for unlimited access — an extra $30 a month.

The mainstream Canadian press often ignores third party alternative providers that offer an escape from usage-capped Internet access.

But there are other alternatives, often ignored by the mainstream media.

A growing number of third-party independent providers buy wholesale access from large Canadian networks and sell their own Internet plans, often with no usage limits. TekSavvy, Distributel, Acanac, among many others, provide Canadians with DSL and cable broadband at prices typically lower than one would find dealing with Bell, Rogers, Shaw, or other providers directly. Some discount plans still include usage caps, but those limits are often far more generous than what the phone or cable company provides, and unlimited access is also available in most cases.

One website allows consumers to comparison-shop 350 different providers across Canada. Despite the growing number of options, the majority of Canadians still buy Internet access from their phone or cable company and live under a regime of usage caps and high prices, if only because they do not realize there are alternatives.

Usage caps have cost Canadian broadband consumers both time watching usage meters and money paying overlimit penalties. But the cost to innovation is now only being measured. While online video has become so popular in the United States it now constitutes the largest percentage of traffic on broadband networks during prime time, usage limits have kept the online video revolution from fully taking hold in Canada. That is a useful competition-busting fringe benefit for large telecom companies in Canada, which own cable networks, cable systems, broadcast networks, and even satellite providers.

Netflix’s chief content officer called Canadian broadband pricing “almost a human rights violation.” The online video provider was forced to introduce tools to let Canadians degrade the quality of their online video experience to avoid blowing past monthly usage allowances.

Mountain Cablevision was owned by Shaw Communications but has been purchased by Rogers.

Rogers Communications, already Canada’s largest mobile-phone company, will grow even larger with the acquisition of Shaw Communications’ unused wireless spectrum and a Shaw-owned cable company making inroads in Rogers’ backyard in southwestern Ontario.

Rogers has agreed to pay $300 million for the spectrum and $400 million for Hamilton, Ont.-based Mountain Cablevision, Ltd. In return, Shaw will acquire a one-third interest in Rogers’ TVtropolis network.

Shaw is getting a premium price for the wireless spectrum it acquired in 2008 for $190 million. Shaw, like many American cable companies, originally planned to launch competing mobile phone service but aborted the effort in 2011, deciding to invest in its broadband service and construct a Wi-Fi network in western Canada instead.

Rogers CEO Nadir Mohamed told Bloomberg News the spectrum is needed to meet growing demands from Canadian wireless broadband customers.

“The wireless business is defined by what I would describe as an explosion in terms of usage,” Mohamed said. The new spectrum “will help us meet that demand in terms of capacity and speed.”

Rogers is by no means finished acquiring spectrum. The company plans to borrow as much as $800 million to purchase more at the next Canadian spectrum auction later this year.

Rogers Communications customers have a New Year’s surprise arriving in their mailboxes as eastern Canada’s largest cable company announces it is boosting rates effective Jan 24.

Many Rogers broadband customers will be paying an additional $3 a month for usage-capped service. Some of the steepest rate increases are reserved for budget-minded customers who only want the basics.

Those subscribed to Phone Essentials, Cable Digital Plus and Internet Lite face a 6.7 percent rate hike, which translates into $8 a month or $96 a year. One thing not increasing is Rogers’ usage allowances.

Rogers Rates Up, Up, and Away

• Phone Essentials up 7.0%
• Phone Favorites up 5.2%
• Phone Deluxe up 4.6%

• Cable Basic up 2.9%
• Cable Digital Plus up 5.7%
• Cable VIP up 2.9%

• Internet Lite up 7.8%
• Internet Express up 6.1%
• Internet Extreme up 4.8%
• Internet Extreme Plus up 4.2%

Rogers Communications isn’t exactly hurting. Their profits have been accelerating every quarter over the last year:

• Q4 2011: $327 million profit
• Q1 2012: $356 million profit
• Q2 2012: $400 million profit
• Q3 2012: $466 million profit

Image courtesy: Rick

Rogers’ customer Sunfox, who lives in Markham, Ont., and provided the breakdown, is purely tongue-in-cheek about Rogers’ quest for more of their customers’ money.

“I mean clearly something had to be done,” he writes on Broadband Reports’ Rogers Forum. “Any reasonable person can see that $1.5 billion profit in 12 months isn’t anywhere near enough, so it was time to significantly increase rates for their customers.”

Customers who want out can follow these instructions provided by Rogers:

Affected customers who wish to respond to the rate increase notice may call us at 1 888 ROGERS 1 (764-3771).

Residents of New Brunswick who do not wish to accept any applicable rate increase may choose to cancel the service(s) affected by the rate increase(s). Any applicable early cancellation fee, device savings recovery fee or service deactivation fee will apply.

Residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and Québec who do not wish to accept any applicable rate increase may choose to cancel the service(s) affected by the rate increase(s) without any early cancellation fee by sending us a notice to that effect no later than 30 days after the rate increase(s) take effect, as indicated in the rate increase notice.

Residents of Ontario who do not wish to accept any applicable rate increase may choose to cancel the service(s) affected by the rate increase(s) without any early cancellation fee, device savings recovery fee or service deactivation fee, as applicable, by sending us a notice to that effect no later than 30 days after receiving the rate increase notice.

In spring of this year, rural Canadian access to the Inukshuk Wireless system was terminated, forcing many to usage-capped wireless plans from companies like Rogers Communications that cost a lot more.

Kevin, a Stop the Cap! reader dropped us a line this week to remind Canadians they don’t have to pay Bell, Rogers or Telus big dollars for a small wireless usage allowance.

“After a bit of shopping, I signed up for WIND Wireless and it has been a positive experience,” Kevin writes. “Their customers service is leaps and bounds better than the big three and I get 10GB of usage for $35 a month.”

Once Kevin exhausts his usage allowance, he keeps right on browsing because Wind does not charge overlimit fees — they throttle speeds downwards, but not to the punishing dial-up-like speeds of most other providers.

“I’ve streamed music and video after I’ve hit 10GB,” Kevin writes, although he admits YouTube can be a bit problematic with buffering issues at the slower speeds.

Kevin says if he stuck with Rogers he would be paying them around $195 a month for the same usage he pays $35 for with WIND.

“Who cares about the speed of Rogers’ LTE network when you pay that much,” Kevin adds.

WIND Mobile is one of a handful of upstart independent cell phone providers challenging the dominance of incumbent telecommunications companies that have set the standards for high Canadian broadband pricing and low usage caps. Kevin wishes more Canadians would consider switching away from dominant providers to send them a message they have to compete with lower prices and better service.

Share and share alike is a concept unfamiliar to Rogers Communications, at least in the eyes of the independent Internet Service Providers who have wholesale bandwidth agreements with eastern Canada’s largest cable operator that are supposed to guarantee speed parity.

The Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC) last week announced it filed a complaint with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) accusing Rogers of withholding speed increases from independent ISPs.

In 2006, the CRTC made it clear that cable companies must treat its wholesale customers fairly:

The Commission determines that should a cable carrier introduce a speed upgrade to one of its retail internet service offerings with no corresponding price change, it is to issue at the same time, revised [third-party ISP access] tariff pages that match these retail service speed changes with no corresponding price change.

According to CNOC, Rogers wants independent ISPs to pay higher prices for the faster speeds it is providing its own customers for no additional charge.

That leaves providers like TekSavvy at a competitive disadvantage, according to the provider.

Peter Nowak explains Rogers is attempting to hurry independent ISPs to move to “aggregated points of interconnection,” part of the foundation of the CRTC’s earlier decision on usage-based billing. Independent ISPs were given two years to complete the transition and Rogers wants that change to move at faster pace:

Rogers wants indie ISPs to move onto the aggregated method, something it says the CRTC essentially ordered at the conclusion of the big usage-based billing fiasco a year ago. Here’s what a spokesperson told me:

We are not denying TPIAs access to our new speeds provided they have moved to a single point of connection, called an aggregated point of interconnection (POI). As part of the usage based billing rulings in November of last year, TPIAs were given two years to move from a disaggregated POI to an aggregated POI. The sooner this happens, the sooner we can provide those speeds to these third party ISPs.  Rogers will continue to provide access at existing speeds on the old network architecture until November 15, 2013.

The dispute, as usual, boils down to whether or not Rogers’ move can be considered anti-competitive. The small ISPs argue that it is, since Rogers’ own retail customers are getting the benefit of higher speeds without higher prices, yet the indie companies – and their own subscribers by extension – are being expected to pay more.

If it’s uneconomical for the indies to sell the faster speeds, they won’t, in which case the big network owners like Rogers will hold a distinct advantage since internet access is sold largely on speeds. Since they’ll simply perish if they can’t keep pace, the indie ISPs will ultimately have no choice but to accept the higher prices being pushed on them – and that effectively neutralizes the entire point of their existence, which is to provide a competitive check to the big guys.

CNOC has asked the CRTC to make an expedited ruling on the controversy as soon as possible to mitigate competitive damage.