Subscribe[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Raines Broadcasting CRTC Editorial 2-2-11.flv[/flv]
Chris Raines from Raines Broadcasting offered his take on Usage-based billing and Canada’s telecom regulator in this commentary. Raines calls Bell, Rogers, and Shaw bad actors in Canada’s broadband marketplace, caught throttling and overcharging their customers. (3 minutes)
Finckenstein at Thursday's hearing. Turn me over when I'm done on one side.
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission chairman Konrad von Finckenstein appeared before a Commons committee last Thursday to answer questions regarding the growing scandal of so-called “usage-based billing (UBB).” The Commission’s decision to enforce this pricing scheme, ending unlimited broadband service in Canada, has created major headaches for the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Seasoned political observers were shocked when Industry Minister Tony Clement earlier tweeted his support for overturning the CRTC decision. Thursday’s hearing at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology also suggested the decision was made without any prior consultation with von Finckenstein, who appeared to be learning most of the details of the Clement’s decision at the hearing itself or in the morning newspapers.
Facing a grilling from members from just about every major political party in Canada, from the Liberals to the Bloc Quebecois, von Finckenstein only managed to add fuel to the fire, blaming “heavy users” for forcing the end of unlimited usage plans, all to protect what he called “innocent users.” He also blamed online video services like Netflix for forcing new pricing policies on Canadian consumers, who were increasingly using their broadband connections for more than just “e-mail and Facebook.”
At times exasperated, the chairman seemed to rely on industry talking points to address concerns with MP’s in attendance, occasionally without fully understanding their meaning.
At one point, he insisted Internet Protocol TV (IPTV), was never delivered over the Internet. At another, he claimed that providers would certainly use all of the funds collected from new, higher-priced broadband plans to rebuild their networks, asking rhetorically, “how else would they use that money?”
The head of the agency that is tasked with protecting the interests of Canadian consumers regularly compared the Internet to a power, gas, or water utility, which he said justified usage pricing. But von Finckenstein ignored landline telephone service, which is most related to broadband — a service moving towards flat rate pricing. Instead, he relied on cell phone pricing, which caused several reporters to cringe, as they reflected on newly-introduced flat-rate calling plans among new wireless competitors.
At this point a reporter for the Globe & Mail bemused with all of the utility comparisons tweeted: “Main difference is I can’t watch movies on my furnace.”
Watch the entire 90-minute hearing by clicking here and choosing the English version, which provides simultaneous translation as the hearing moves back and forth from French to English.
The CRTC’s decision to ignore hundreds of thousands of petition signers across Canada while quickly acceding to Bell’s request for a 60-day temporary delay in implementing the pricing scheme brought an angry response from Openmedia.ca, a pro-consumer group highly critical of UBB.
“The CRTC’s stubbornness in the face of a mass public outcry demonstrates the strength of the Big Telecom lobby’s influence,” said founder and national coordinator Steve Anderson . “While government officials have recognized the need to protect citizens’ communications interests, the CRTC has made it clear that their priorities lie elsewhere. Now is the time for citizens to demonstrate that they, rather than incumbent ISPs, are the real stakeholders.”
Some media observers and consumer groups are also scoffing at the government’s suggestion the CRTC should be allowed to review its own, earlier decision, claiming it is a virtual certainty the regulator will find their original decision was the correct one.
In fact, von Finckenstein’s relentless defense of usage-based pricing, even in light of recent political realities, suggest the Commission’s authority could be swept aside to keep the matter from becoming an issue in future elections.
“I would like to reiterate the Commission’s view that usage-based billing is a legitimate principle for pricing Internet services,” the chairman told members attending the hearing. “We are convinced that Internet services are no different than other public utilities, and the vast majority of Internet users should not be asked to subsidize a small minority of heavy users. For us, it is a question of fundamental fairness. Let me restate: ordinary users should not be forced to subsidize heavy users.”
The CRTC also claims the UBB policy will only impact residential customers — business accounts are exempt. But several MPs questioned that statement, suggesting home-based businesses, farmers and other entrepreneurs would face Internet Overcharging schemes.
Canada’s Liberal Party is using the occasion to embarrass the Tories’ handling of what they’ve called an Internet fiasco. Liberal’s industry critic, Marc Garneau, used some of his seven minutes of question time to ask whether the CRTC first heard of the Harper government’s stance on UBB through social media network Twitter.
Quotes from the CRTC Chairman; Image by Vojtěch Sedlák & Openmedia.ca
[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Kabletown.flv[/flv]
Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy greet Kabletown — an oblique reference to Comcast — in this clip from NBC’s ’30 Rock.’ (Adult Language) (1 minute)
Prime Minister Harper's government is facing an open revolt by Canadian consumers over Internet Overcharging.
A full-scale revolt among consumers across Canada has brought the issue of Internet Overcharging to the highest levels of government.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the government is very concerned about a decision from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that has effectively forced the end of unlimited use broadband plans across the country.
Both the Liberal and NDP parties have made a point of protesting the CRTC decision, which happened under the Conservative Party’s watch. Harper’s Industry Minister Tony Clement stepped up his remarks this morning which hint the government is prepared to quash last week’s decision by the CRTC, which has already forced price increases for broadband service across the country.
“The decision on its face has some pretty severe impacts,” Clement told reporters in Ottawa after NDP and Liberal critics in the House of Commons repeatedly pounded the government on the issue of so-called “usage-based billing.”
“I indicated the impacts on consumers, on small business operators, on creators, on innovators. So that’s why I have to work through a process, cross my T’s, doc my I’s. When you’re dealing with a legal process, that’s what you have to do. But I will be doing that very, very quickly, and getting back to the prime minister and my colleagues very, very quickly,” said Clement.
As of this morning, more than 286,000 Canadians have signed a petition protesting the Internet Overcharging schemes.
The protest movement has now been joined by small and medium-sized business groups who fear the impact new Internet pricing will have on their businesses.
Richard Truscott, with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, normally a group that prefers less government action, said his members are demanding a stop to the pricing schemes before they get started.
“The vast majority of small businesses rely on reasonably-priced Internet service to conduct their operations,” he said. “Generally this is the sort of thing that hits the most innovative sector with higher costs.”
Most cable and phone companies are lobbying Ottawa politicians to keep the new usage-based billing schemes, and several are pretending the protest movement doesn’t exist.
AgenceQMI, a cable-company owned wire service, is also coming under fire for misrepresenting Clement’s positions on the pricing schemes in a news report issued yesterday. The wire service claimed Clement supported the CRTC’s position, something Clement adamantly denied this morning.
The National Post, a self-described conservative newspaper, this morning published an editorial supporting usage-based pricing, claiming a handful of users were creating a problem that light users should not pay to solve. But many readers leaving comments on the article strongly disagreed, claiming the newspaper is out of touch.
Although the regime of usage caps, speed throttles, and overlimit fees have been in place with most major providers for at least two years, the culmination of several events in the last six months have brought the issue to the boiling point:
Bill Shock
Kevin Brennan, a graphic designer who works from home and downloads large files from clients, was first hit with extra charges in November, which cost him $34 above his usual Shaw bill.
“I’d never been contacted about going over before,” he told the Calgary Herald, adding he was also over in December. “Thirty-four dollars doesn’t seem like much, but over the course of a year it adds up.
“What concerns me, outside my own business, is the lack of innovation people will be able to do. And it makes Shaw a monopoly. . . . if you watch TV or the Internet, you pay more to them.”
Shaw reduced its usage allowance for customers like Brennan late last year from 75 to 60GB on its most popular broadband plan. It also now enforces a $2/GB overlimit fee.
John Lawford, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, told the Herald the concern isn’t just that smaller companies can no longer offer unlimited plans, which reduces competition.
“The phone and Internet and cable companies of the world are playing it both ways. They’re saying, ‘Well, there’s these big data hogs that are using too much, we’ve got to punish them to keep the price down.’ On the other hand they’re buying media companies so they have stuff to shove down the wires, which doesn’t count toward your cap,” Lawford said. “That’s anti-competitive.”
Most Canadian media companies are now tightly integrated with large telecommunications companies. CTV, Canada’s largest commercial network, is now owned by Bell, the country’s biggest phone company. Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron — the largest cable companies in Canada own cable and broadcast stations, newspapers, and magazines. They also control cellphone companies, Wi-Fi networks, and have interests in satellite providers as well.
When a competitor like Netflix arrives to challenge the companies’ pay television interests, turning down consumers’ broadband usage allowances discourages cord-cutting.
The CRTC’s decision to allow Bell to charge usage-based pricing for wholesale accounts was the final death blow to unlimited Internet according to several independent service providers, because virtually all of them rely on Bell — a company that received taxpayer subsidies to build its broadband network — for access to the Internet.
Canadian Parliament
TekSavvy, a company that used to offer unlimited use plans, can do so no more. In a statement to customers, TekSavvy laid blame on regulators for being forced to increase prices.
“From March 1 on, users of the up to 5Mbps packages in Ontario can expect a usage cap of 25Gb (60Gb in Quebec), substantially down from the 200Gb or unlimited deals TekSavvy was able to offer before the CRTC’s decision to impose usage based billing,” read a statement sent to customers.
TekSavvy spokeswoman Katie do Forno said the CRTC decision is a disaster for Canadian broadband in the new digital economy.
“This will result in unjustifiably high prices and a reduction in innovation,” said do Forno. “I think it’s going to change behavior about how people use the Internet.”
The company underlines the point by including “before and after” pricing schedules on its website, an unprecedented move. Shaw, western Canada’s largest cable company, was heavily criticized for trying to hide their reduction in usage allowances.
Ottawa residents are planning direct action to protest the decision this Saturday. Shawn Pepin is organizing the protest rally.
“What they’re doing right now looks like a cash-grab scheme, and people aren’t going to take it,” he said.
[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Pay As You Go Tony Clement 2-1-11.flv[/flv]
Minister of Industry Tony Clement was pressed by CBC Television about the Harper Government’s stand on Internet Overcharging. The CBC asks why Canadians are paying some of the world’s highest prices for broadband and why Clement is finally getting involved. Watch as he mysteriously avoids stating the obvious: Canadians are in open revolt and politicians from competing parties are taking their side. (9 minutes)
NY City Council members are reviewing an application by Time Warner Cable and Cablevision to offer Wi-Fi services in 32 New York-area parks… for a fee that could bring the companies as much as $10 million dollars a year in new revenue.
The controversial proposal would frustrate efforts by the nonprofit group NYCWireless to find free Wi-Fi providers to deliver service in New York’s public parks.
In September, the city of New York renewed franchises for both Cablevision and Time Warner Cable that included a commitment to spend $10 million to install Wi-Fi service in area parks. But nobody said the companies had to provide the service for free.
Instead, users will only get free samples — up to three ten-minute sessions per month. Additional time on the network will cost 99 cents per day. Cable customers will get unlimited access for free.
Dana Spiegel, executive director of the nonprofit NYCWireless, says handing over the wireless space in public parks to private fee-based providers is “absolutely unconscionable.”
City council members don’t have a final say over the deal — a state commission does — but intends to investigate the deal and its fairness to New York residents.
Verizon FiOS has a growing presence in New York City, and those customers would be locked out of free Wi-Fi access on the proposed park network.
NYCWireless offered the council several reasons why relying on cable companies to deliver public park Wi-Fi was not a great deal:
First, the plan does not establish any form of “Free Public Wi-Fi”, an amenity of New York City parks since NYCwireless began our work, and one replicated by the Parks Department and many other organizations around the City. Free Public Wi-Fi Hotspots were a very significant recommendation of the Diamond Consulting “Broadband Needs Assessment Study,” and the “Free” part of these public hotspots are exactly the part of these amenities that make them so valuable and essential for local residents.
Make no mistake: DoITT’s plan establishes a $1 per day fee for internet service in parks. There may be a few free 10-minute blocks per month, and there may be ways to hide the $1 per day charge in a resident’s cable service internet bill, but with DoITT’s plan, NYC won’t have Free Wi-Fi. We’ll have $1 per day Wi-Fi, delivered to public spaces that are maintained by our tax dollars, paid to a couple of huge private corporations.
In fact, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable stand to make tens of millions of dollars per year providing this service. Central Park gets about 25m visitors per year, and if we ignore all other parks, and figure that fewer than half of those visitors buy one day of internet service per year, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision get paid $0.99 x 10 million visitors = $10,000,000.
Second, the industry standard for gaining access to such types of subscription service as are contemplated by DoITT and the cable companies requires that a prospective user of a fee-based Parks Hotspot will need to create an account and enter their billing information. This requires the submission of identity, address, and credit card information into a web form prior to gaining access to the hotspot. Essentially, by promoting this solution, DoITT is pushing NYC citizens and visitors to hand over deeply personal and secure information to a private organization over which neither the user nor DoITT has any control.
Contrast this to the way that NYCwireless offers free Wi-Fi to citizens: we do require registration of a user account so that we can track agreement to our Acceptable Usage Policy. However we require only a valid email address. No billing address, no credit card, no other identity information.
Personally, I am fearful of handing over such information to such private organizations, though I have in the past. But I am more fearful for the harm that will be done to those that depend more significantly upon Park Hotspots. How many city residents don’t have a credit card? How many children in playgrounds who couldn’t get a credit card even if they wanted to? Adults? How many city residents live in neighborhoods that are otherwise safe, but in which they would prefer not pulling out their wallet and a credit card just to get what should be Free Internet Access? How many city residents depend upon Free Wi-Fi because they live below the poverty line, and because they can’t afford or don’t want cable internet, cannot afford the $5 it would cost them to get internet access in a city park during the week?
Lastly, because of DoITT’s “whole package solution”, most NYC residents and visitors won’t see any Wi-Fi, for free or for fee, for years, since local organizations that would otherwise have sponsored the creation of a Free Public Wi-Fi Hotspot say “oh, well, the city is going to do this someday, so we won’t bother doing this now for our community.” If past experience is any predictor of future performance, it will be years before the first Paid Wi-Fi Hotspot is opened, and many more before many others are opened, if at all. Meanwhile, DoITT’s actions will have stopped in its tracks any plans for more hotspots that local organizations may be contemplating.
[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY 1 Time Warner Cable Offers Free WiFi Hotspots For City Customers 3-26-10.flv[/flv]
NY1 reported on Time Warner Cable’s expanded Wi-Fi hotspots in New York in this story from last March. (1 minute)
The "Massive News" theme by: Press75.com
