O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > FYI: Email sent to clients about Usage Based Billing....

FYI: Email sent to clients about Usage Based Billing....

I just got it.

I got two of them.

I applaud the idea, but this email should have been sent out at least a week before the deadline, not 11 hours before.

Ahh.. anyone have a template I can follow or copy/paste?

I'm super swamped today.. no time to make my opinion known, unless someone else wants to voice it for me and I can copy/paste lol

Like all of you.. I don't like it, bad idea.. yadda yadda.

reply to Ares45
There are many other things on the go right now and the UBB one is one of many others that are happening at the same time.

We weren't going to send one as its one of those potentially "confusing" emails.... but we opted to do it anyway this morning.

I think the timing we currently have will help sufficiently to get the point across, but lets not waste it discussing timing debates.

Lets use this opportunity to make our thoughts known on this.

Edit: typo

Rocky
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.

Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )

reply to R0CKY
Yeah seriously, why was this just sent today and not well in advance?

reply to R0CKY
I got it, and this is what I submitted:

I do not support what Bell is proposing, I believe it's anti-competitive and in poor spirit for them to try and control the entire internet industry in Canada.

Canada was once deemed the leader in broadband penetration and coverage on the entire planet, now, because of Bell's reluctance to change with the times and advance technologies, Canada has been thrust out of the top 10 and we trail far behind many developing countries!

I don't understand how our government can be so blind as to allow bell to walk all over them, and when the other major countries on this planet have TRUE broadband access (by the likes of things such as FiOS), Canada is left in the dust. If bell is allowed to introduced UBB, it will only further hinder Canada's place in the global online market.

I urge our government to finally take a stand and stop bell from running the CRTC. The throttling argument was bullied into submission because of Bell, and now I fear that this will destroy any notion of net neutrality that Canada could ever hope to achieve.

reply to R0CKY

Re: FYI: Email sent to clients about Usage Based Billing....

reply to R0CKY

Re: FYI: Email sent to clients about Usage Based Billing....

quote:

---

What Bell is trying to do is cut out all resellers who add extra value by adding more bandwidth and services. If they are allowed to charge unlimited amounts of money for traffic which costs them nothing then they will put all of these 3rd party ISPs out of business which would be anti-competitive and monopolistic.

Bell needs to be honest and provide these ISPs with the access they already pay for. If Bell's internal network cannot handle the load then they should upgrade it with the money they get every month from these ISPs.

I also wonder if Bell's own Sympatico service will be subject to these fees of if they will write them off internally. If they hide the fees then they violating the law and the spirit of the CRTCs rulings.

I implore you to look at the evidence and talk to some of these 3rd party ISPs to find out what is really going on.
Thanks very much

---

reply to R0CKY
Comment submitted.

reply to R0CKY
This is what I am submitting to the CRTC. I havent sent it yet so if you have any suggestions please let me know:

reply to R0CKY
Done. My Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------
I am finding that competition in Toronto is a joke. We as the consumer don't have many options for Internet Services. We have either Rogers, Bell or a flavour of Bell DSL services (Teksavvy, Primus, etc).

By permitting Bell to charge Usage Based Billing, this will effectively reduce our options down to two; Bell or Rogers.
The small "mom and pop" operations / wholesalers can't compete when the CRTC allows Bell and Rogers to slowly diminish the service offerings of the competitors.

It used to be that wholesalers were able to compete on Speed, Price, Quality (uptime), and bandwidth caps. Over the years, all the competitive advantages wholesalers had, have diminished. We can no longer use P2P, as we are being throttled. Speeds on protocols such as HTTP and FTP (standard protocols for browsing) are also being throttled – therefore wholesalers cannot compete on Speed / Throughput. As for Price, there is very little difference - Bell and Rogers charge about the same for services they advertise up to 6Mbps and 8Mbps respectively. I am not sure if wholesalers have large margins, however considering all services in Toronto are priced at the same price point, from the consumer perspective, there really is no option. We have to pay 45.00.

As for Quality and bandwidth caps, there are differences in today’s market, however if the CRTC allows Usage Based Billing, those competitive advantages wholesalers have, will certainly go the way of the Dodo Bird. Introducing UBB will level the playing field and do to the sheer size and resources of the incumbents, wholesalers do not stand a chance.

If Usage Based Billing is passed, please specify that Rogers and Bell CANNOT change their wholesaler model . I say let Bell and Rogers charge UBB, however don’t force it upon the wholesalers – as this may be the last option that differentiates them from the incumbents.
----------------------------------------------

reply to R0CKY
Here's my reply.

Subject:
File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 - Bell

Comments:
Bell's request to implement Usage Based Billing will increase the cost of Internet usage for customers who use more than 60GB download/upload per month on Ontarians. I use more than this per month as my wife and I are heavy internet users that watch videos and listen to music online. Bell is "stifling" the Internet by imposing caps. There's no reasonable alternative given Cogeco, our local cable provider, does not provide service for more than 100GB. As a residential customer, I feel I should have the right to more bandwidth, especially Unlimited bandwidth if my wholesale provider is providing the service. Teksavvy is my provider and leases the last mile connection. Bell should have no right to limit the last mile connection to households if there's reasonable alternative access for wholesalers to provide service. Furthermore, wholesale providers such as Teksavvy purchase wholesale bandwidth from non-Bell providers that provide the connection neccessary to interface with other peers on the Internet. I believe caps should exist at the peer inferface level imposed by the wholesale provider, but not at the last mile connection.

reply to R0CKY
This is what I wrote

quote:

---

I would like to write in opposition to Bell's filing TN 7181. It's a blatant attempt to stifle whatever little competition remains in Canadian Internet market.

Bell wishes to cap wholesale ISP's at 60GB and does not want to allow higher speeds (ADSL2+), while their own retail service has speeds up to 16mbps, and the wholesale end is stuck with an archaic 5mbps.

By allowing Bell to cap wholesale to 60GB, it will create an advantage for Bell, because their cap limits will not be regulated and they can raise them at any time, therefore putting wholesalers at an even greater disadvantage. Bell already offers 10mbps/100GB tiers. How is that not anti-competitive if all that wholesale ISP's are allowed to offer is 5mbps/60GB?

I ask the Commission to recognize this would be a fatal blow to the competition in the Internet market and deny Bell's request, and also Bell should be forced to implement a FAIR tariff to allow the wholesale ISP's to access its ADSL2+ network so they may fairly compete with Bell's retail sector.

Thank you.

---

reply to Jay G Vee
If folks want to drop their replies/example letters in the comment section on stopthecap.com's article on this, it might help anyone else looking for the right words. We are adding coverage of this story this afternoon.

»stopthecap.com/2009/04/14/canada···-quebec/

reply to R0CKY
I wish you would have warned of this on your site before I ordered one of your packages days ago. I never knew about this issue, now I have deal with a 4 times slower connection (which I was willing to live with with the higher cap) and spent over $100 on modem, splitters and recabling my home.

All you seem to care about is getting new customers. You must have laughed your ass off seeing all those Cogeco customers switching over to your company like me who didn't know about the issue...sigh. Sorry, but me and my wife are both pissed off!