NDP slams CRTC's approval of usage-based billing for Internet service

Internet with no limits across Europe.

UBB is stupid, and you are being screwed.

I don't see how usage-based billing can be considered with the likes of netflix and hulu becoming prominent in Canada. Streaming tv shows and movies is going to use a fuckton of bandwidth, to the point where everyone is going to be going over their limit.

For a country that uses the internet the most per capita, how is it that we also pay the most?

same reason we have the highest cell phone rates in the world, it's called a monopoly. And, like the telecommunications industry in Canada, this monopoly is also government sanctioned.

I'm really torn on this one.

On the one hand, the internet is a great democratiser - everyone has the same access to the same information as everyone else, and everyone pays the same price. It's hard to imagine a more equitable situation than that.

On the other hand, and to turn the information superhighway analogy 180°, the roads are also a great democratiser, and anyone who can afford a car can drive anywhere they like. But we don't sell gas subscriptions at $X per month no matter how much you use.

Until recently, people used the internet for predictable things - file sharing, pornography, and hey even a little actual dissemination of information. Now as Tricks says, we've got streaming video - sending hundreds of megs an hour down the pipes, for hours on end. Used to be the people who did that were the few nd far between pirates, but now they're everyone with a TV, an Xbox/PS3/Wii, and $8 per month for netflix. It's like cars can suddenly go 1000kph and you can drive across the country on a whim for a day trip, but the fuel economy hasn't improved and we're charging people $50/month for gas. Add to that the fact that there are hundreds of barren kilometers between any two major cities across most of the country and there's a significant infrastructure investment that's been made here for a relatively small customer base relative to the US / Europe.

I use netflix. I still have my cable subscription though because nteflix's selection still mostly sucks. If there's anyone my Netflix subscription has hurt it's the video store up the street. So the cable companies don't get much sympathy from me on theo whole loss of customers bit.

I can see the arguments from both sides. It doesn't make it easy on me to pick one given that even with Netflix I only use a little over half my proposed cap so I'm not even affected. I guess I would probably land on the anti-UBB side mostly becuase I don't believe that the Bells and Rogerses and Shaws and Videotrons and Teluses are hurting - I think they're just trying to capitalize on a sudden surge in usage, but the cause of the surge is so anathematic to the lofty aspirations of what the internet should be that it's hard to get worked up...

Jan 21, 2011

The Legislative Committee on Bill C-32 (CC32)
Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Dear Ministers,

I would like to to take this opportunity to convey to the Legislative Committee charged with studying Bill C-32, The Copyright Modernization Act, my concerns and suggestions for points of revision and amendment.  Although Bill C-32 appears to be more flexible than the previous attempts at copyright reform, this Bill is flawed to its core by the inclusion of strict, anti-circumvention provisions.  As a Canadian, I am both concerned and disheartened by how easily my rights are trumped by the overriding and all encompassing protection for digital locks contained in the legislation.

The anti-circumvention provisions included in Bill C-32, unduly equip corporate copyright owners and distributors in the music, movie and video game industries with a powerful set of tools that can be utilized to exercise absolute control over Canadians’ interaction with media and technology and may even undermine Canadians’ constitutional rights.

A solution to Bill C-32‘s contentious core problem and the means to avoid the unintended consequences generated by the broad protection for digital locks is to amend the Bill to permit circumvention for lawful purposes.  Not only is this approach compliant with the WIPO Internet Treaties, but it also provides legal protection for digital locks while maintaining the crucial copyright balance.  I urge this Committee to either add an infringing purpose requirement to the prohibition of circumvention or add an exception to the legislation to address circumvention for lawful purposes.

I strongly believe that in addition to linking the prohibition of circumvention to the act of infringement, it is also paramount for consumers to have commercial access to the tools required to facilitate such lawful acts.  It is imperative that the ban on the distribution and marketing of devices or tools that can be used to lawfully circumvent be eliminated by removing paragraph 41.1(c) and any associated references to it or any paragraphs in the Bill that would be rendered irrelevant by this change.

Some have suggested that market forces will decide the fate of digital locks in Canada and that codifying strong protection for such measures in Canadian law is simply good interim policy.  I disagree.  Rather than handing control of Canadians’ digital rights over to corporations, the Government must consider regulating how digital locks are implemented to ensure they are not simply used to deny user rights.  I put forward to the Committee that adding a labelling requirement to disclose the use of digital locks on consumer goods be considered.  A requirement as such, would permit Canadian consumers to make informed decisions about the products they purchase and the access and usage rights, or lack thereof, they can expect with the ownership of a given product.

In review, I believe it is in the best interest of Canadian consumers and creators alike to amend Bill C-32 to clearly link the act of circumvention to infringement, remove the all-encompassing ban on circumvention tools and to establish a new TPM labelling provision.

Sincerely,

Scape

CC: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
CC: The Honourable Tony Clement Minister of Industry
CC: The Honourable James Moore Minister of Canadian Heritage
CC: The Honourable Michael Ignatieff
CC: Legislative Committee Members (Charlie Angus, Sylvie Boucher, Peter Braid, Gordon Brown, Serge Cardin, Dean Del Mastro, Marc Garneau, Daryl Kramp, Mike Lake, Carole Lavallee, Dan McTeague and Pablo Rodriguez)
CC:  Martin.K@parl.gc.ca

Very nice.

Gas and internet infrastructure are not really comparable. Gas is a consumable resource which depletes as you use it, whereas routers and servers provide exactly the same amount of service no matter how much you use them - you just have to keep adding more, the more people there are using them and the more content there is to be viewed. All Bell has to do is upgrade their infrastructure as bandwidth needs increase. As a billion dollar company, that shouldn't be too difficult for them.



It's not the cars, but the road they travel on. There are more cars on it.

Why should Telus or Bell have to build the infrastructure so NetFlix can make money?
Maybe they should bill NetFlix $5 for every movie someone downloads.
You pay extra for the sports package on tv. You pay extra to call long distance. You pay more per kw when you exceed your cap on Hydro.
Should a guy who drives a Hummer pay the same flat rate to fill his tank with gas as the guy who drives a Vespa?