CRTC Ruling

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Jenni - posted on 02/03/2011

5,928

34

393

There are still phone and cable companies who do not charge through usage billing. I don't believe the real issue is the charging by usage billing it's that Bell Canada wants to dictate how much should be charged. The cap is incrediably low. 11% of our original service. We did not have unlimited we had 200 gigs. and with the cap it would be going down to 25 gigs. Anyways, no point into going into much detail. The federal told the CRTC they must overturn the ruling or they will be forced to step in. There is a reason this is not practiced anywhere else in the world. One company cannot force smaller companies to charge the same as them.



http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/0...

13 Comments

View replies by

Amanda - posted on 02/03/2011

2,559

3

366

So I got nosey and looked at my bell bill. Seems bell thinks its ok to up the cost without notifing their customers, now its $60 max if you hit your cap OUCH! Unfor thanks to bell's other insane rules I am stuck with them for one more month, then I will be switching to cogeco which is 120 dollars a month savings, even if I go over my cap!

Personally I dont like 3rd party DSL companys, I do web design, and do a lot of FTP useage, I need speed. My brother use to use Vonage (Horrible company). So I will stick to the main companys, but at least go to a company that offers up LARGER cap sizes. I find it interesting that for the same price Bell only offers 50 Gigs compared to Cogeco's 125 Gigs.

Now what you should be more considered about is the CTRC trying to lessen the regulations on false news reporting.

Jenni - posted on 02/03/2011

5,928

34

393

Ouch! Well, satallite inet should start becoming more affordable in the next 5 years.... still a long ways a way.

Jenn - posted on 02/03/2011

2,683

36

96

There is no cable available because I live out of town. It's not DSL either - it's even slower than that. It runs off of a cell phone tower I believe and is not connected to my home phone, nor is it linked to a cell phone. It's from a small business in town called Kwic Internet. I'm actually lucky that I even get that, as most of my neighbours couldn't get a signal - we just happen to have our house sitting high enough and have a really high tv antenna tower to put the receiver on.

Jenni - posted on 02/03/2011

5,928

34

393

So is the issue you don't have cable and can only get DSL? I lived on a rural road and also lived in a subdivision without cable. The company I'm with, Tekk Savvy, is a DSL provider so if you can get Bell you can find independent DSL providers. They use Bell's infastructure (that was the loophole Bell was trying to go for with this whole ruling). Like I said I pay $35 for 200 gig bandwidth and we NEVER come close to using that much and we download tons and tons of movies (blue ray), and watch streaming sites. So it's basically unlimited. All these smaller companies offer phone service as well. DSL is slower than cable, yeah... i know it kinda sucks that's all that's available in some areas.

Jenn - posted on 02/03/2011

2,683

36

96

I wish I could cancel my Bell home phone and be done with Ma Bell - they annoy me to no end! My Dad switched over his phone, cable, and internet and hasn't looked back since and pays MUCH less for all 3 services. Unfortunately where I live, there are no other options for home phone service at this point. And my internet has no cap - I am on a rural high speed service, which means it isn't "real" high-speed, but it's much better than the dial-up I was using. I pay $45 a month for unlimited usage and the only reason it's so much is because it's the rural plan. If I were in town and had "real" high-speed it would only be $35 a month for unlimited usage.

Jenni - posted on 02/03/2011

5,928

34

393

Amanda it's huge news and we know Bell already has a cap duh. They're the ones trying to force all other DSL companies to cap their inet.

Amanda since the CRTC ruling is overruled now. I would suggest switching to another inet provider like tekk savvy or the like. They offer 200 gigs for $34 a month. If the ruling would have passed they would be forced by bell to offer 25 gigs for $34 a month. Thank god the feds stepped in. Seriously boycott Bell they're trying to force the market into a monopoly. They're use to being top company and although they CAN offer the same prices as their smaller competitors they prefer to rape us for services. They're idea was to force all their smaller competitors to charge the same as them so they could steal all their old customers back from these companies and protect their original profit margins when they were the only provider.

Amanda - posted on 02/03/2011

2,559

3

366

This isnt new news, bell has had caps for years. My family and I pay an extra 30 dollars a month due to going over our useage every month. Interesting thing though when I UPPED our cap, the next month we went over that cap, even though I researched our net usage for the past year, and never once before did we ever hit the that cap limit. Bells is total con, and next month we will be going back to cable (even though they also have caps, but their caps are much higher).

Jenn - posted on 02/03/2011

2,683

36

96

I think if you changed the title of this thread you'd likely get more responses - something along the lines of Usage Billing Internet. Just a thought.

Anyway, I think it's BS and I've signed the petition. However, they do have a valid argument as their reasoning: is this not what is already happening with cable and phone companies? Do they not already bill for usage rather than a flat rate? Yes. So isn't it fair that internet is billed in the same way? Or is it perhaps time for change in other services. That to me would be the most logical solution. One flat rate across the board - cable, telephone, cell phone.

Jenni - posted on 02/01/2011

5,928

34

393

Yes, both myself and my husband signed "a few" petitions, wrote our MP, the CRTC and our inet provider Tekk Savvy.

Distributal (a cable provider) is offering free installation, free modem and no contract until Mar 31st. They are unlimited bandwidth and "assures us" they will not be affected by the CRTC's ruling.

Bell has pushed too far with this one. It's disgusting how much our government is in it's back pocket. What ever happened to a competetive market? Forcing smaller companies to close because they cannot afford this type of internet access. Squashing all the competition and then watch..... offering amazing promotions that no one can turn down in order to steal back their customers..... it's evil.

We received an email from our provider warning us against youtube use as it may cause us to go over our bandwidth.... pffft. What's the point in having inet at all?? This is unheard of in other countries..... for a reason! And what gives? Our cap is 25 gigs while Quebec get 60 gigs? Probably because they fear a serperative movement.

This ruling just opened up a can of worms throwing us leaps backwards into a monopoly ruling market structure.

I really do hope the feds do take this seriously and aren't just giving us lip service.

I hate to talk ill of us Canadians but our fickleness and passiveness may be our undoing in this battle. They wouldn't even attempt this in the US because they'd know they wouldn't get away with it.

Lady Heather - posted on 02/01/2011

2,448

17

91

I guess I'd better enjoy my Netflix while I still can. Must be sure to watch the rest of Mad Men before March 1. Although as far as I know right now Telus isn't going beyotchy at that point. I'm sure they will follow suit some time though.

Marylea - posted on 02/01/2011

236

3

35

I signed the petition against usage based billing. I actually blogged about my opinions on the CRTC ruling yesterday.



www.me-myselfandbaby.blogspot.com



The government is now looking into the ruling and trying to decide if it should be over turned. Fingers crossed.



Marylea~

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms