I'm a little confused about the issue with metered internet usage. From what I understand, the issue is that the CRTC is going to allow larger companies to pass on bandwidth caps to the smaller companies that are leasing their infrastructure. This means that everyone with access to a service provider that gives "unlimited internet" (apparently 250gb/month counts as unlimited - I have friends who would probably disagree with that) for a low price is going to see rate hikes if they want to continue to consume a large amount of bandwidth.
So consumers don't want to pay more for what they are already getting at a low price right now. Fair enough. Say so. The issue I'm having with this whole 'debate' is the labeling of it as "A Strike Against Net Neutrality!".
Well, no, it's not.
We aren't talking about IP blocking or bandwidth throttling - and these are very real issues that are being lobbied against by many of the same people who are running the petitions against the CRTC's recent decisions regarding metering. This is the meat of net neutrality, but pricing of your bandwidth usage is not. Unfortunately, you do not have a right to cheap media.
Which brings up the next point: the cheap, unlimited bandwidth provided by smaller ISPs that exists now is an artifact of artificially-introduced competition. At some point in the past (and I'm too lazy to look up the specifics right now, so please correct me if I'm wrong) the CRTC decided that there was not enough competition between ISPs, so they allowed the introduction of smaller companies that use the infrastructure of the existing larger companies. This doesn't strike me as something the big companies happily went along with - after all, they do invest billions in all the tubes that bring the internet to your house.
This is where regulating things gets a little difficult. It is hard to ensure that these smaller companies will be able to exist without giving them some large unfair advantage. That's why the CRTC is mandating this 15% discount that the larger companies have to give to the smaller ISPs - they want the smaller companies to survive. Obviously the CRTC wants to maintain proper competition - claiming that these changes in law will prevent smaller companies from competing effectively demonstrates either a lack of faith in the CRTC's ability to regulate the marketplace, or ignorance of the fact that they exist to do so.
Taking a different tack, moving to a pure metering system (instead of the pay-for-overages system that the big companies use now) doesn't make less sense to me. You just end up paying for exactly what you use. Is it an excuse for a rate hike? I would expect the CRTC to force them to keep it revenue neutral, and I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise. As for price gouging and the supposed 100x markup!!!!!1!: The blogs and articles that I've looked at have not shown me convincing evidence of that. Maybe it costs 100x the electricity cost, but not if you factor in the costs of doing business. Telecom is a capital-intensive industry.
Oh, and for those of you who keep comparing Canada to Europe in terms of cost? Have you LOOKED at the size of our country compared to our population?
If you're going to complain that pricing is unfair, show me the proof. If you're with a smaller ISP: I know that it sucks to have your prices skyrocket, but if you want to complain that you're going to have to pay more please make it clear that you are doing so.
I'm tired of people dressing up their personal issues as noble causes.
