Secret Squirrel has had his attention aroused by a second attempt,in Canada, by the CRTC( Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) at initiating a monopolisticly financially dictated cap on internet use, i.e. to have a dictated global provider plan for UBB,Usage Based Billing of the free Canadian Internet,to the behest of the heavily monopolistic consortium of Bell/Rogers to the detriment of the Canadian people, the Canadian internet user, we, the people.
Why does anyone need to make laws about the internet at all. Everything has been working fine up to this point, and the internet and all it's technologies that it's producing have been growing at a fantastic rate.Why do people need to work so hard to try and not only control the internet but to make a profit from it? This is getting to the point it's absolutely retarded!But so too is the system.Presently Bell/Rogers Canada's rather large media monopoly,controlling heavily cable and cable services(including internet access through cable,through Rogers)and Bell controlling the phone lines,used for interne(by Bell and anyone else) and including internet access via satellite services)wish to force on consumers what is called an internet cap, or UBB, short for Usage Based Billing, on all consumers basically, by attempting to go through the CRTC to achieve this, broadspectrum.You see, they could easily do it themselves,and so heavily line their pockets,quite obviously, and greatly increase their already humungous and guaranteed monopolistic profits,but if only they do it themselves, then their internet customers,who are not yet fed up with them already, and their conduct,would flee to other providers you see, the basic independents, and others who are in whatever fashion allowed by government to run internet services in direct competition with and against them,such as AOL.Competition allows for a good deal for the consumer, a choice,but The Bell/Rogers idea is to in a sense remove this and force ALL internet providers to go to usage billing through the dictates of the CRTC,whose members are appointed,SHOULD the government follow the ruling of the CRTC.So, who then really is the government watch dog,the CRTC really working for,Bell/Rogers, or Canadians?
This is not the first attempt at this,the Canadian government(Conservative at that time, and once again incumbent THIS time) reversed a controversial ruling that was seen as hurting Internet video and competition,which of course it is, especially forcing all internet providers to the same ends,as in applying usage billing.The policy, which would have then taken effect March 31, centered on the amount of data that consumers can view or download and for what expense. Not surprisingly, it’s the bigger ISPs that supported the new fees supported by the policy. Many have already been charging users in accordance with how much data they access – and now, the new law would have smaller ISPs do the same. That’s because smaller ISPs lease bandwidth from larger telecommunications firms such as Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, and Shaw Communications. Despite their small size, the lesser-known ISPs (Internet service providers) have typically been providing both greater bandwidth and lower fees than have the bigger ISPs such as Bell and TELUS. Following a Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission decision that would not only allow but in some cases require usage-based billing for independent Internet providers, the Conservative Party and Prime Minister Harper and Industry Minister Tony Clement had already settled on overturning the CRTC's new rule. The regulator would have a chance to do so voluntarily but would be forced to make the change if it disagreed.While the Conservatives have often been pro-business, the party is concerned enough about the anti-competitive nature of the ruling to take action. "A decision like this is clearly not in the best interest of consumers," the anonymous official said.Clement in a Twitter conversation with a CBC reporter suggested it was virtually certain the CRTC measure would have to go back to the "drawing board.",and so too it was and so too it did happen.
Public reaction also likely played a factor. A petition with over 200,000 signatures, along with tens of thousands of e-mails to Clement and increasingly high-profile media coverage, may have signaled broad public opposition. A federal election is considered a possibility this year and could have seen usage-based billing as a major platform issue. Both the opposing Liberals and New Democratic Party were the first to formally object to the CRTC's ruling.Imagine, all parties agreed that USB,Usage Based Billing was NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.The Public, yes, I,you,me,we all Canadians,NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,that said decision was monopolistic, anti-competition,not in the best interest of consumers,of we,the people.
Critics rightly argued that Bell/Rogers and other major ISPs have an anti-competitive incentive for usage-based billing rules. The approach prevents an independent provider from becoming a genuine competitor, even if it can fully afford to offer better service than its major rival. Incumbents have their own TV services and, after Bell's new CTV acquisition, now have their own TV channels as well. The conflict of interest can encourage them to impose artificially low bandwidth caps on themselves, and on independents,all done in efforts to make themselves appear more attractive,to the disadvantage of the independents and other competitive internet service providers.And so the decision was rejected, and sent right back to the CRTC where is was supposed to quietly die. But,strangely,the Jaberwocky still stalks the public,BELL/ROGERS have revived the dead monstrosity in CRTC committee and once again the CRTC is holding hearings.however.what has changed.not the arguments solidly presented against, not the government resolve,consider ALL THREE PARTIES ALREADY OPPOSED UBB,Usage Based Billing.
What really then is the point of these CRTC hearings,and yet another decision.The THREE PARTIES were firmly resolved,the government itself of the incumbent Conservatives had made a decision, taken a stand,and so too did the other parties, the opposition, the Liberals, and the New Democrat Party........so why must the Jaberwocky of USB be slain again..........quite simply regardless of the decision of the CRTC what with their second attempt, they simply HAVE TO BE TOLD MUST BE TOLD, UBB is dead.Quite simply Bell/Rogers are attempting the journey toward an Internet oligopoly or monopoly,in sum toto.
To understand the real impact, though, it is important to view UBB in context with other issues, which together:
jeopardize the sovereignty of our nation,
have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, and
threaten the privacy and democratic freedoms traditionally enjoyed in Canada.
“There is a huge conflict of interest here being seemingly ignored by the CRTC. Bell-Rogers are limiting their competitors’ ability to compete with their cable divisions, by using their Internet divisions to discourage increased Internet usage. Why is this not discussed more often? Maybe one company should no longer be allowed to own both?”
As we've been covering, Canadian regulatory agency the CRTC recently had their (or should we say Bell's) effort to impose usage-based billing (UBB) on Canadian wholesalers and consumers shot down by Canadian leaders for being anti-competitive, punitive, and generally just ridiculous. The review was demanded after immense public backlash to the concept of usage-based pricing, though the CRTC's inquiry is expected to be rather hollow.
The Harper/Reform/"Conservative" Party ,though it did state it would not allow implimentation of UBB,as too did the will of the other parties,Liberal and NDP,did nothing except send the decision back to the CRTC with instructions to review the decision,as in change their minds.But the time is now,to reaffirm that decision NOT to impliment or allow UBB,it is the time for the Conservatives, to, and for the Liberals and NDP Party to,force the reaffirmation of the original decision not to allow such UBB implimentation,in all direct honesty and integrity,it is the time for the government also to keep it's WORD, it's solemn vow,to the Canadian people.Opposition to the CRTC was massive.
The NDP’s digital-issues critic said any decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to allow usage-based billing threatens access to the Internet.
According to Timmins-James Bay MP Charlie Angus, usage-based billing is unfair to consumers and could be used by large Internet service providers to limit competition from third-party ISPs and online media sources.
“We’ve seen this all before with cell phones,” Angus said in a press release today (January 20). “Allowing the Internet Service Providers to ding you every time you download is a rip-off. Canada is already falling behind other countries in terms of choice, accessibility and pricing for the Internet.”
Angus called for “clear rules that put consumers first”.
The NDP’s release was applauded by OpenMedia.ca, a nonprofit organization that’s been campaigning against usage-based billing, also known as Internet metering.
OpenMedia.ca has collected more than 34,000 signatures on an online petition against usage-based billing for Internet service.
In December, Vancouver city council voted to take a stand against usage-based Internet billing and call on the CRTC to reverse its May decision opening the door to the practice.What makes these UBB approaches noteworthy when viewed from a Canadian perspective is that in other countries, there is the free market system,free enterprise,and there is sufficient competition such that consumers in other countries can typically choose between unlimited or UBB capped plans,depending on the provider, and any provider must make itself attractive to consumers, or else adopt a different market plan approach to attract consumers, in short, they can choose, they are not dictated to.Should a provider imagine a UBB cap plan is attractive to a consumer at say $35 a month, versus a unlimited plan at $35 a month,well so be it.The choice is there, for the people,the consumer, and for the provider as well.That is the free market system, the proper method of free enterprise.
It is also pointed out the basic Bell/Rogers monopoly,the very root of this present evil,with access of internet by use of their phone line,they also have internet over their cable line,which is fair, in that their cable is a monopoly,do you suppose,or else it is somewhat skewed,and, then is it not.BUT there is internet by satellite, that bypasses both their phone monopoly, AND their cable monopoly.would CRTC see to it that a satellite provider was blocked BY GOVERNMENT from either beaming said service to Canada, AND/OR not following USB but rather a free usage internet through THEIR system................and so.........not....It is sadly pointed out that Satellite providers must have permission to beam their signals in to Canada, and the CRTC would subject THEM ALSO to being forced to use UBB also,AND that any such UBB would also be subject to the definition of the CRTC/BELL/ROGERS in what a "deal" they could submit to the Canadian consumer, the Canadian Public.so this all most assuredly,as it did before,and so too as it does now,points to a direct cash grab made available to the massive monopoly, the Bell/Rogers..........Let freedom ring!Let there be free enterprise, let there be a competitive system,let there be laissez faire,let there be a democratic economic system, Or not.
Here's my suggestion. Everyone everywhere needs to back off and let the internet progress as it needs to. Right now all these new laws and regulations are only meant to one thing,Put money into some monopolistic providers( BELL/ROGERS) pockets, and really that has no place in the supposedly free market,free enterprise,democratic Canadian financial and economic systems.LET FREEDOM RING!!In Poland,the internet is.......free.
No comments:
Post a Comment