ZeroPaid.com » rogers

Canadian ISPs Start Rolling Out Bandwidth Caps, Higher Fees

Drew Wilson — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:52:36 +0000

If you download Linux ISOs, stream movies from Netflix, listen to podcasts, play online games, or are grabbing the latest open source software such as Open Office, Gimp or FireFox, and live in Canada, this next story will probably be of big concern for you. ISPs are starting initiating bandwidth caps and rolling out higher fees and the bills could be coming to a mail slot or inbox near you.

Just over three months. That all it took from the moment the CRTC ruled in favor of Bell to ISPs announcing that fees are going up. The CBC has found out that Primus, a re-seller of Bell, and Rogers are the first to announce these rate hikes. In some instances, they haven't even waited for the announcement before extra fees made their way to unsuspecting users no doubt blindsided by this. One user even complained of receiving a $100 extra fee. Primus, apparently isn't happy about this given that it was effectively Bell that forced them to charge more: "It's an economic disincentive for internet use," said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus. "It's not meant to recover costs. In fact these charges that Bell has levied are many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it." Some are likely to point out that the rise in fees for Primus in particular are a very obvious sign that ISP competition in Canada is virtually non-existent. The major ISPs have so much power, that they can dictate price to smaller companies. Indeed, ISP competition in Canada is quite grim. At most, Canadians have a choice between Rogers/Shaw, Bell and Telus/AT&T. In a number of cases, only two ISPs even exist in the marketplace - and all too often, none of the above are willing to enter the last mile markets, keeping those in smaller communities on dial-up to this day. There have been stories of small cities offering financial incentives to develop broadband in smaller communities, but some ISPs wind up either leaving the table or leaving the table with the incentives and skipping town. I've personally known one such instance of this happening myself. It's also why Canadian consumers can't just go on to a competing ISP when prices go way too high. It's sometimes a case of either one of these ISPs in that comfortable oligopoly, or dial-up. So really, there is no economical way to fight such rate hikes in the first place. The question for some might be, why now? What prompted this race to roll out bandwidth caps and send subscriber fees in to the stratosphere? Some are pointing to the arrival of Netflix, since some ISPs, like Rogers, have been trying to roll out their own online video streaming services. Critics argue that these rate hikes are a tool to push Netflix back out of the country, thus raising serious questions about competition in markets related to internet services and, more generally, network neutrality. The next question for some might be, how? Doesn't Canada have a regulator? Well, indeed, Canada does have a controversial regulator known as the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission - or as some have jokingly referred to it in the past, Can't Recognize True Canadian) which is suppose to regulate the industry such as internet services. One of the sources of contention is certain board members coming from companies like Bell. For instance:

LEONARD (LEN) KATZ was appointed Vice-Chairman, Telecommunications, on October 12, 2007. He joined the Commission in 2005 as Executive Director, Telecommunications, before assuming his most recent position of Executive Director, Broadcasting and Telecommunications. Mr. Katz has over 30 years of experience working in the private sector. [...] From 1974 to 1985, he acted in increasingly senior capacities at Bell Canada, including as Assistant Director of Policy Development and Regulatory Affairs. Mr. Katz has been involved in numerous industry and not-for-profit initiatives, including Founder and Chairman of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Clearinghouse for wireless carriers.

Effectively, the guy from Rogers and Bell. Another example:

MICHEL ARPIN was named Vice-Chairman, Broadcasting, on May 5, 2005. Before this appointment, he worked as Senior Regulatory and Governmental Affairs Advisor for the Astral Broadcasting Group. Mr. Arpin has been working in the television and broadcasting industry since 1963. In 1984, he was appointed Vice-President, Planning, and Corporate Secretary for Radiomutuel Inc. In December 1982, he was President of the regional stations of Mutual Broadcasting Canada Ltd. Mr. Arpin joined Civitas Corporation Ltd. as Director of Corporate Development in December 1979. From 1971 to 1979, he held a variety of positions within the CRTC, including Director of Operations (1977) and Director General, Programming (1978). He has also served as Vice-Chair and Chair of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), Director and Secretary-Treasurer of the BBM Bureau of Measurement, Director and President of the Association canadienne de la radio et de la télévision de langue française, as well as Director and Corporate Secretary of MusiquePlus.

Note that members of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters include Telus Business Solutions.

RITA CUGINI was appointed as Regional Commissioner for the Ontario Region on April 10, 2005. She has an excellent record as a broadcasting executive with wide experience in regulatory affairs, business development and external relations. Most recently she has served as Vice President, Public and Government Affairs, with Alliance Atlantis. She represented Alliance Atlantis on the Task Force for Cultural Diversity on Television, and developed and implemented the Alliance Atlantis Corporate Diversity Plan. Her expertise in diversity issues goes back to her work with Telelatino as Vice President and Station Manager, and before that with CFMT of Toronto (now OMNI), where she was Director of Diversity Programming. She chaired the CAB Joint Societal Issues Committee

So, another person from CAB.

TIMOTHY DENTON began his term as Commissioner on August 1, 2008. He has broad experience in legal and policy matters in the areas of telecommunications, broadcasting and the Internet. Most recently, Mr. Denton has been involved in the governance of the domain name industry through his work with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and as a director, from 2002 to 2004, of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. Between 1996 and 1998, he served as the first solicitor of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers.

So, someone from the Canadian Association of Internet Providers.

CANDICE J. MOLNAR was appointed Regional Commissioner for Manitoba and Saskatchewan, effective January 7, 2008. Having spent over two decades at SaskTel, she brings to the CRTC a wealth of knowledge and experience in telecommunications and broadcast distribution regulatory affairs. In her most recent role as General Manager of Customer Service Operations, she led a team of more than 800 service and technical employees. She also served as General Manager of Regulatory Affairs from 1999 to 2005. During this time, she notably guided SaskTel’s transition from provincial to federal regulation.

And finally, someone who comes from Sasktel. So, overall, you have someone who worked at Bell and Rogers, two members from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters which has ISPs as members, someone from the Canadian Association of Internet Providers and someone who comes from Sasktel. These people are probably a key component in decision making for a regulator that is suppose to regulate ISPs in the first place. Little wonder why some have cried foul here. While some would argue that there is next to no competition in Canada and some are even arguing that the regulator of the ISPs are basically run by the ISPs, anger about what has transpired over bandwidth caps and higher fees is not likely going to go away any time soon. What we do know is this, trying to innovate on the internet in Canada will likely get a whole lot more difficult. Perhaps, at this point, one might go so far as to say that internet innovation will be best suited for people in countries like China where ISP competition is much more real. After all, it'll eventually be ridiculous to say that Canadians won't have a handicap in the market. [hatip: /.] Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Canadian ISP Lowers Monthly Data Caps

Jared Moya — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:41:28 +0000

Rogers drops limit on broadband subscription packages like its Lite service from 25GB to 15GB with $4 per GB in overage fees.

Rogers, Canada's second largest ISP after Bell Internet, has decreased the monthly data limits of its broadband subscribers, in some case by as much as 60% Those who sign up for Internet service after July 21st will face, in the case of its Lite service, a drop from 25GB to 15GB p/mo or in the case of its Extreme service, a drop from 90GB to 80GB p/mo. Those who signed up before July 21st are exempt from the changes. What is likely to make costumers particularly is the rise in overage fees from $2.5 ($2.42 US) per GB to $4 ($3.9 US) per GB! Accidentally downloading a DVD-R copy of a game or movie could set you back as much as $16. "It’s a good way to make more money from overage fees,” John Lawford, a lawyer for the consumer watchdog group Public Interest Advocacy Centre, told The Star. “It’s driving people to higher-limit packages, which are faster but more expensive. So, if you want to use the Internet in the video-streaming kind of way, (Rogers) is going to make you pay more, especially now.” That's where the plan really hurts consumers' pocketbooks. As people stream more and more content online it'll become easier and easier to surpass your monthly data limit. Rogers insists that new data caps “reflect the changing nature of customer’s online behavior" and that it allows those "with higher demands the option to choose more speed or bandwidth while ensuring those whose needs are not as great to have lower priced tiers." But, at $36 ($35 US) bucks more month it's hardly doing anybody any favors. For that much p/mo one ought to get at least the 25GB p/mo that customers were getting prior to the change in policy. It seems to hint at a possibly disturbing new trend whereby ISPs, enjoying virtual regional monopolies, can raise prices and lower data caps at whim, maximizing profits with no concern for its subscribers. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Are ISPs The Biggest Obstacle to a Three Strikes Law?

Drew Wilson — Sun, 16 May 2010 00:07:10 +0000

With a big push for a three strikes law, many people have a seemingly unlikely ally - ISPs. Yes, it's the same ISPs that want to throttle users, charge on a usage basis and end network neutrality.

There was an interesting note on Michael Geist's blog. Rogers was apparently asked about their position on a three strikes law and ACTA in general. Rogers apparently responded saying that they were, like other ISPs, concerned about ACTA. Rogers also appeared to not be happy about the idea of playing traffic cop on the internet. While the minutes of that meeting is currently available, we are still waiting for the transcript to be posted. Rogers is far from the first ISP to not be a huge fan of a three strikes law or acting as a traffic cop at all and being asked to monitor their own networks. There were instances in the past where AT&T in the US expressed reluctance to implementing a three strikes law. The story was the same in the UK with TalkTalk appearing to be resistant to becoming the internet police. Why are ISPs so resistant to becoming the internet police? There are plenty of reasons for this and one of those reasons is resources. Resources was one thing that was brought up during the 2005 CRIA vs. Does case in Canada. At the time, AT&T put forth the idea of offloading the cost of searching through their vast networks to help prosecute file-sharers on to rights holders. Rights holders were not thrilled and have since been pushing for copyright reform instead in Canada. The question then becomes, why can't rights holders bare the costs to pay for the resources that would be required to police the networks? Simple reason is that they'd rather ISPs carry the cost and resources instead. They want a silver bullet that would magically make file-sharing go away. The problem is that such a silver bullet simply doesn't exist and even if a solution were found that would impede file-sharing, file-sharing developers would simply find a work-around and continue on as usual. A dead end to say the least. Little has changed with a three strikes law - rights holders want ISPs to simply carry whatever cost that comes with a three strikes law. Only this time, it's more of a money issue. What a three strikes law really amounts to is one industry asking another to reduce their revenue in the end. What sane industry would just reduce their revenue stream at the request of another industry anyway? You disconnect internet users, ISPs will make less money on subscriber fees. Not a surprise then why ISPs don't like the idea of a three strikes law. Another thing ISPs are faced with is the idea of blocking access to various sites. There are cases where some sites do need to be blocked, but the slippery slope of a problem is, where do you stop? You have rights holders that demand that ISPs block file-sharing, then you have political activists demanding ISPs block their idealogical opponents, then you have companies demanding to block the competition and sooner or later, there won't be much of an internet left. How is an ISP suppose to sell internet access when everything on the internet is blocked exactly? An internet with everything blocked amounts to snake oil and it's hard to see how ISPs can sell access to an internet with everything blocked. At the end of the day, an ISP that opposes a three strikes law is making a business decision - and a logical business decision at that. The last thing an ISP wants is their subscriber base dwindling and if anyone, let alone rights holders, can arbitrarily disconnect users without court oversight of any kind, then it's impossible to see an internet industry flourishing in any way. How can an ISP increase profits from a subscriber base that went from 1,000,000 to 100,000? Ultimately, ISPs have an obligation to themselves to do everything in their power to stop a three strikes law. While ACTA and a three strikes regime is a huge threat to online freedoms, it is interesting to know that rights holders have an even steeper hill to climb to get what it wants - if it even makes it at all. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

CIPPIC Requests Investigation Over Deep Packet Inspection

Jorge Gonzalez — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:14:33 +0000

Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) hasn’t been getting many headlines these days, but that could change – at least in Canada. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) is requesting the privacy commissioner to investigate major telecom companies in Canada like Rogers, Shaw and Eastlink who use DPI to profile their customers.

Deep Packet Inspection has frequently been sighted as the solution to tracking and throttling users who use file-sharing applications – regardless of legality. The idea of DPI hasn’t been seen much outside of Sandvine claiming that 44% of all bandwidth consumption is P2P related despite counter-evidence that shows a different story.

Bell, one of Canada’s largest ISPs have been under fire in the recent past for throttling its customers. Comcast has received a fair share of headlines for similar actions.

While it may, at first, seem like DPI is strictly a p2p related issue, the issue raises many concerns that spans farther beyond simply whether or not a person is able to download RadioHead’s ‘In Rainbows’. There’s one particular issue that may grab the attention of more than the Canadian file-sharing community – it’s a privacy related issue.

Should ISPs be able to profile it’s customers internet usage? It’s a topic currently being handled in a number of countries. In Britain for instance, there’s been no shortage of controversy surrounding the infamous Phorm technology being rolled out. In the United States, similar actions are being taken by ISPs. the most recent case is an ISP known as Embarq being pressured to admit to spying on their customers for the purpose of profiling and targeted advertising. Sweden is currently dealing with privacy related to web use through the FRA wiretap law that was passed a little while ago.

So clearly, the concerns of eavesdropping is justified when one looks internationally. In a press release issued by CIPPIC the other day:

“Behavioural targeting raises a number of serious privacy concerns and may violate
federal privacy laws.” said CIPPIC Director Philippa Lawson. The CIPPIC analysis
concludes that behavioural targeting by ISPs likely violates the Personal Information
Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”), alleging that ISPs engaging in the
practice often fail to provide sufficient notice to users, do not obtain meaningful consent
from users, and do not offer users effective ways to control such uses of their personal
information.

“Most users are not comfortable with the idea of being followed around online,” said CIPPIC Staff Counsel David Fewer. “Canadians would be surprised if their ISP not only started profiling them for its own purposes, but used that information to sell advertising.”

Along with the call for an industry-wide investigation regarding behavioural targeting,
CIPPIC filed company-specific privacy complaints against Rogers Communications Inc.,
Shaw Communications Inc. and Eastlink Inc. for their use of Deep Packet Inspection in
the context of “traffic-shaping”, another controversial ISP practice that is currently the
focus of another CIPPIC complaint against Bell Canada (as well as a CRTC proceeding
initiated by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers against Bell Canada).

So, pretty much every ISP other than Telus/AT&T is being brought under fire for such technology, though a precedent setting case that affects all ISPs could be made as a result of all of this. It could very well make it more difficult in the future to roll out programs as seen in Britain where the MPAA among others are getting ISPs to police their networks.

While there is an emphasis on privacy concerns, there is definitely the issue of throttling certain protocols as well that could easily be affected by this movement. It will be interesting to see where all this goes.