Canadians: Please submit a comment to the CRTC on 2011-77(services.crtc.gc.ca)
services.crtc.gc.ca
Canadians: Please submit a comment to the CRTC on 2011-77
http://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default.aspx?Status=Open&PubArea=Tel&PubType=NofConsul&PubSubType=All&Lang=eng
6 comments
>- UBB is anti-competitive
So far as I am aware, for something to be "anti-competitive" it must restrict the (otherwise non-criminal) actions of extant or would-be competitors in a market. From what I've been able to glean about the UBB brouhaha, the change is a removal of such a restriction, thus would be quite the opposite of "anti-competitive."
Perhaps the deeper issue is that relaxation of this anti-competitive restriction would reveal the negative effects of actual anti-competitive CRTC regulations. To paraphrase Henry David Thoreau, instead of hacking at the branches of "anti-competition," perhaps you should strike at the root.
So far as I am aware, for something to be "anti-competitive" it must restrict the (otherwise non-criminal) actions of extant or would-be competitors in a market. From what I've been able to glean about the UBB brouhaha, the change is a removal of such a restriction, thus would be quite the opposite of "anti-competitive."
Perhaps the deeper issue is that relaxation of this anti-competitive restriction would reveal the negative effects of actual anti-competitive CRTC regulations. To paraphrase Henry David Thoreau, instead of hacking at the branches of "anti-competition," perhaps you should strike at the root.
It's anti-competitive because they're using a monopoly in one area to gain a competitive advantage in another area.
Bell's IPTV service would not be subject to the UBB pricing while Netflix would be.
Bell's IPTV service would not be subject to the UBB pricing while Netflix would be.
>they're using a monopoly in one area
Then it would be the regulations granting monopoly that are anti-competitive. Again, removing restrictions on extant and would-be competitors cannot be anti-competitive; words mean things.
Then it would be the regulations granting monopoly that are anti-competitive. Again, removing restrictions on extant and would-be competitors cannot be anti-competitive; words mean things.
Actually, the uproar about UBB specifically is that Bell is allowed to enforce it's own retail UBB on companies who use their last mile lines to user homes. Aka, it forces competitors to charge the same prices as bell does. That's why it's anti competitive.
> Bandwidth is not a limited resource, therefore charging by total use is incorrect
That's... not true at all. It's not limited (in practice) in the sense that there is only so much we will ever have, but it is definitely limited in the sense that there are costs associated with getting more.
It is, however, generally true that the incremental cost of a gigabyte consumed by a residential user is dwarfed by the up-front cost of getting reasonable bandwidth to their door.
That's... not true at all. It's not limited (in practice) in the sense that there is only so much we will ever have, but it is definitely limited in the sense that there are costs associated with getting more.
It is, however, generally true that the incremental cost of a gigabyte consumed by a residential user is dwarfed by the up-front cost of getting reasonable bandwidth to their door.
Link doesn't work.. use this one instead:
https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/Intervention/Submission-Soum...
https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/Intervention/Submission-Soum...
The link does work... usually. The CRTC's site is pretty slow. Thanks for providing an alternate.
I want to be absolutely clear that I'm "voting" properly. If I'm AGAINST UBB being applied to indie ISPs, should I choose "support" or "opposition"?
I've tried to read through the specific notice (http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-77.htm) but when it comes to legalese subtle wordings can make all the difference. If I say "oppose" I want to make sure I oppose UBB and not oppose repealing/investigating UBB. And vice versa with "support"
I've tried to read through the specific notice (http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-77.htm) but when it comes to legalese subtle wordings can make all the difference. If I say "oppose" I want to make sure I oppose UBB and not oppose repealing/investigating UBB. And vice versa with "support"
This is actually specifically about comments, so there's nothing to oppose or support for the moment. You should just choose the option "comment".
This is regarding Usage Based Billing, and is a comment round soliciting feedback from Canadians.
Made my comment, and mentioned all the groups who were affected by UBB in general.
I made sure to place an emphasis on how anti-competitive this was for everyone outside of the big ISPs.
I made sure to place an emphasis on how anti-competitive this was for everyone outside of the big ISPs.
One may also send a comment through openmedia.ca:
http://openmedia.ca/crtc
-UBB is anti-competitive
-Bandwidth restrictions harm the adoption of modern technology in Canada
-Bandwidth is not a limited resource, therefore charging by total use is incorrect
-Bell doesn't charge for bandwidth use on its own IPTV solution.
-Most ISPs aren't "resellers" but simply using the last mile connections to consumers.
-The growing rate of internet use means that 25gb in a month will not be considered "a heavy user" for long.
And feel free to embellish as you see fit. But please avoid hyperbolic arguments like "This is a matter of free speech" or "Internet is a human right." We need serious well reasoned arguments, not knee jerk marching slogans.