Say goodbye to unlimited bandwidth plans in Canada

The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission has passed a new law that makes it impossible for companies like TekSavvy in Canada to offer unlimited bandwidth to customers.

On Saturday, the company sent out a mass email to all their customers warning them that as of March 1, 2011, all customers with 5Mbps speeds and 200GB and unlimited bandwidth caps will now only have a mere 25GB allowance. The new ruling by the CRTC prevents leasing companies from having unmetered bandwidth from Bell. Many companies in Ontario and across Canada lease from Rogers and Bell, but have since been allowed to offer unmetered Internet bandwidth caps.

TekSavvy has since updated their website to reflect the new changes. Their new plan offers customers 25GB for 5Mbps down and 800Kbps up, but now offers insurance up to 300GB for $55 extra per month. Rogers closest comparable plan offers customers 15GB cap with 3Mbps down and 256Kbps up for $35.99.

The CRTC's reasoning behind the sudden change is to prevent high-activity users from ruining the experience for other customers, who may not use as much bandwidth as their neighbour.

Fortunately for 'Cable' customers of TekSavvy, their current plans remain unchanged for now. The company is still offering one unlimited package with 15Mbps down and 1Mbps up for $54.95 per month, but TekSavvy is no longer accepting new customers, as they have run out of available IP addresses, another reason why IPv6 is important. Rogers offers no 'unlimited' plan on their website.

Thanks to Ken Barber for the tip!

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Wikipedia is a man's game

Next Story

Egyptians go old school in attempts to communicate

178 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Looks like even Harper is not amused by this tomfoolery. It's either CRTC breaks it, or the gov breaks it.

There's no way this could've gone over. Canada's image would've suffered.

And... elections are around the corner, conservatives need to refresh their image. Even with those ulterior motives, it works for me.

The thing about IUBB is that it affects less than 10% of internet users. Now i cannot speak for east coast ISP's but I have Shaw at home and I rarely go over my allocated 100GB. And if I did, I would gladly add a data pack. If i go over on my Water, Gas, or Hydro I have to pay. IMHO Bandwidth should be no different.

It's not like people complained when they had to pay for the dial-up overage when you would use more time then your plan alloted.

Also if the IUBB bill gets overturned it doesn't stop ISP's from shutting off your internet when you go over your limit. and which would you rather have; no internet for going over, or a slightly higher bill (depending on ISP)?

The Caps are indeed unreasonable. and the excuse the CRTC is saying is not true, they just want to make more money and by introducing these unfair practices, then they can gough the consumer even more but what will happen is many will either drop there connections or permit the CRTC to gough them. I am totally against this Crap and BS. "hey CRTC, go after the rich buggers who can easily afford your unreasonable rates but give the small guy(s) a big break" Stephen Harper(who is a cone head) ordered a review of it but i doubt that will change anything. If a big company wants something then nothing can stop them as they figure they own us and can introduce what they want so we will all pay more. besides this change affects more than the users, It affects companies such as NetFlix. WTG CRTC you just handed yourself a revolt.

soldier1st said,
The Caps are indeed unreasonable. and the excuse the CRTC is saying is not true, they just want to make more money and by introducing these unfair practices, then they can gough the consumer even more but what will happen is many will either drop there connections or permit the CRTC to gough them. I am totally against this Crap and BS. "hey CRTC, go after the rich buggers who can easily afford your unreasonable rates but give the small guy(s) a big break" Stephen Harper(who is a cone head) ordered a review of it but i doubt that will change anything. If a big company wants something then nothing can stop them as they figure they own us and can introduce what they want so we will all pay more. besides this change affects more than the users, It affects companies such as NetFlix. WTG CRTC you just handed yourself a revolt.

Don't worry - they will have a review panel in place by the time parliment resumes after summer and will spend 2 years reviewing it, before declaring any action or conclusions. If its found that Bell is indeed being a capitalistic company thats gouging its consumers to line the pockets of shareholders & investors Im sure Canada will not take any recourse to retrieve already spent monies people were charged on unfair overages, but future customers will not be permitted to be billed like that. Bell will then impose a 5-year contract agreement with system access fee of $14.95, a modem rental fee of $6.95 a month, and an insurance protection up to 40GB per month for an extra $18.95 to level the playing field and provide stiff competition.

spike21 said,
Quest 40gig down 20gig up,$40.00 a month,no capps.

So it is capped, or do you have a 40,000Mbit downstream connection?

From what I have read, most of the providers that are only in Atlantic Canada will not be enforcing bandwidth caps. Probably because there is barely anyone that lives out here.

SaucE said,
From what I have read, most of the providers that are only in Atlantic Canada will not be enforcing bandwidth caps. Probably because there is barely anyone that lives out here.

Theres only 2 real providers, the rest buy/lease from either Eastlink or Bell. BOTH of those providers are using UBB. Bell obviously does UBB, but eastlink only does it on their DOCSIS3 system/30 & 100Mbit accounts. Their 1, 5, and 15Mbit accounts are NOT going to be capped (for now) and their website & callcenters reflect that. Even with their cap, its 250GB per month which is very liberal at least compared to Bell's 170Mbit/25GB cap.

Eastlink is the absolute best internet provider, and holding their grounds with regard to caps just shows they are out to protect their customers. Theres no contracts, although the fee is $63CDN a month for their 15Mbit line its worth every penny - I talked to several people who download between 1200 and 1500GB per month and not a peep from eastlink. And with all this they still retain ~12ms pings, just awesome... Maybe they should tell Bell how internet REALLY Works.

They tried capping people at 30GB in the late 90's (still generous when the fasteast line was 1Mbit) and realized they lose customers that way, run up call center costs and can't keep enough techs to go pull modems and disconnect services. I had suffered that fate, and was reduced to 12KB/s speed from a 1Mbit line - for a month. the backlash almost ruined them as a business. Still more generous than bell's 9KB/s all the time speed. Guess they are doing well as they are expanding services into central Canada by buying persona.

Ruciz said,

Theres only 2 real providers, the rest buy/lease from either Eastlink or Bell. BOTH of those providers are using UBB. Bell obviously does UBB, but eastlink only does it on their DOCSIS3 system/30 & 100Mbit accounts. Their 1, 5, and 15Mbit accounts are NOT going to be capped (for now) and their website & callcenters reflect that. Even with their cap, its 250GB per month which is very liberal at least compared to Bell's 170Mbit/25GB cap.

Eastlink is the absolute best internet provider, and holding their grounds with regard to caps just shows they are out to protect their customers. Theres no contracts, although the fee is $63CDN a month for their 15Mbit line its worth every penny - I talked to several people who download between 1200 and 1500GB per month and not a peep from eastlink. And with all this they still retain ~12ms pings, just awesome... Maybe they should tell Bell how internet REALLY Works.

They tried capping people at 30GB in the late 90's (still generous when the fasteast line was 1Mbit) and realized they lose customers that way, run up call center costs and can't keep enough techs to go pull modems and disconnect services. I had suffered that fate, and was reduced to 12KB/s speed from a 1Mbit line - for a month. the backlash almost ruined them as a business. Still more generous than bell's 9KB/s all the time speed. Guess they are doing well as they are expanding services into central Canada by buying persona.

Bell Aliant in Cape Breton are not imposing UBB. I emailed them last night and their reply to me said they do not plan to follow the ruling.

I am on unlimited internet usage with them as well.. and yes it's unlimited.

iamawesomewicked said,

Bell Aliant in Cape Breton are not imposing UBB. I emailed them last night and their reply to me said they do not plan to follow the ruling.

I am on unlimited internet usage with them as well.. and yes it's unlimited.

No UBB at all on any plans, or just on their 170Mbit fibre lines they are testing?
I have already been told that from bell - no extra fees, no extra usage costs - then bam, without notice my cell phone bill was an extra $6 a month as they upped the system access fees.

Ruciz said,

No UBB at all on any plans, or just on their 170Mbit fibre lines they are testing?
I have already been told that from bell - no extra fees, no extra usage costs - then bam, without notice my cell phone bill was an extra $6 a month as they upped the system access fees.

From the email I got its no UBB for all.

I'm on their 5Mbps plan.

The CRTC's reasoning behind the sudden change is to prevent high-activity users from ruining the experience for other customers, who may not use as much bandwidth as their neighbour.

It's statements like this that bug the hell out of me. We all know it's for MONEY, not from "ruining" the experience. Our bandwidth caps in Canada already suck how it is, and they only get crappier and more expensive lately.

Guys, This is TekSavvy. We do accept customers and we haven't run out of IPs. I'm not sure where that came from.

Do you also care to explain if I am light user then why I am paying full price. If I pay more for using more than allocated bandwidth then why shouldn't I be paying less for my less usage. Even though why there is no option for carry forward bandwidth. If one month I use less bandwidth then why can't I roll it in next month. You might be using shaw for 10 years but you just check emails and nothing else while other people are using it for entertainment and other purposes which was not available 10 years back. You must be a person employed at bell or rogers thats why you are supporting such a stupid rule.

Auditor said,
Do you also care to explain if I am light user then why I am paying full price.

When you go to mcdonalds and buy a coke they offer a free refil. If you don't use it, you don't get a discount.

You must be a person employed at bell or rogers thats why you are supporting such a stupid rule.

I'm fine with usage-based pricing. I'm not fine with companies being allowed to market "unlimited" when they don't mean that, I'm unsettled on whether the price per gigabyte is reasonable, and I'm not okay with publicly-funded infrastructure being given away without fair access provisions.

If <company x> gets a right-of-way to lay fiber across the country that should come with either an obligation to allow third parties to have access for a 'reasonable' fee proportionate to the cost of providing that access (not to the profit that could otherwise be derived from the use of that resource) or it must be granted to other firms when they ask. The same is true for most copper cable which was paid for by tax-dollars through to the 90s when it was eventually privatized.

If some firm wants to use only private capital and resources to build their network infrastructure then then can charge whatever the heck they like without any additional requirements.

What is everyone's problem? I've been with Shaw for just about 10 years in Canada and never came close to my 60 GB cap. If I happened to go over then I would pay by the GB. Now, if you happen to stream all day and download illegal media all night then you can get their 100 GB cap plan for a little more every month. If you still go over that then it's $1 per GB. Seems pretty realistic and fair to me. Excessive users *should* pay more for their Internet access than light users.

C_Guy said,
What is everyone's problem? I've been with Shaw for just about 10 years in Canada and never came close to my 60 GB cap. If I happened to go over then I would pay by the GB. Now, if you happen to stream all day and download illegal media all night then you can get their 100 GB cap plan for a little more every month. If you still go over that then it's $1 per GB. Seems pretty realistic and fair to me. Excessive users *should* pay more for their Internet access than light users.

No they shouldn't. Plain and Simple. We pay almost 60+ a month for "High Speed" and we get 3.7Mbps download and 0.4Mbps upload. Tell me why I should pay more for downloading when i'm already getting raped with price to performance?

C_Guy said,
What is everyone's problem? I've been with Shaw for just about 10 years in Canada and never came close to my 60 GB cap. If I happened to go over then I would pay by the GB. Now, if you happen to stream all day and download illegal media all night then you can get their 100 GB cap plan for a little more every month. If you still go over that then it's $1 per GB. Seems pretty realistic and fair to me. Excessive users *should* pay more for their Internet access than light users.

iamawesomewicked said,

No they shouldn't. Plain and Simple. We pay almost 60+ a month for "High Speed" and we get 3.7Mbps download and 0.4Mbps upload. Tell me why I should pay more for downloading when i'm already getting raped with price to performance?

Have you contacted them for tech support? If there is a problem they are pretty good at solving it or booking a free service call to resolve the challenge.

look at all you nongs complaining about what you pay for your Internet usage you all need to come spend some time in New Zealand or Australia and see what prices we pay...
My plan
upto 24mbps (15.9 actual) down and 1mbps (890kbps actual) up 5gig + 25 gig add on = $66.95 per month

so you all need to stop with the whining would you like to know what it'd cost if I were to go through 300GB in a month..... @ $20*10GB blocks 295/10= 29.5*$20=$590

...but the company is no longer accepting new customers, as they have run out of available IP addresses...

And so it begins...

Ouch, this sucks for Canada.

The sad thing is, this is paving the way for usage-based billing to become the norm. Other Internet service providers will see that Bell is making a huge profit from this so they'll definitely want a piece of the pie. Once Rogers takes a bite, it won't be long for US ISPs to follow suit.

This doesn't show anything about Shaw or Telus, who at the time of this writing offer 15mbps/1mbps and 100gb-125gb transfer for $55 or $45 a month respectively. Since Telus offers IPTV, there's no way they could set the cap at 25GB, especially if they combined TV streaming bandwidth with download bandwidth (no idea if they do or not).

None Canadian here and this Neowin article doesn't really explain it well, but what I've understood actually happened here is the CRTC is simply granting additional rights to the residential infustructure owners to charge these third party companies additional amounts upto a percentage of what they would have charged, to make up for lot business, etc. So because Bell owns the line and has a cap in place on their own service, they are now able to force third party ISPs to pay upto a percentage of the amount Bell would normally receive if they provided the service themselves. So it's not the CRTC setting these limits, it's the line operators and it's left up to them if there's a limit or how much is charged for usage, and ISPs can still negotiate for lower prices and make arrangemnts if the line operators will cooperate.

Shaw.ca still shows 60 gig limit, which is what it was at before...So hopefully it stays...I've gone over that before, and never had to worry about fees...So I'm hoping it stays that way...Then again, since i never log into my account, I have no idea how much I use monthly...

ncc50446 said,
Shaw.ca still shows 60 gig limit, which is what it was at before...So hopefully it stays...I've gone over that before, and never had to worry about fees...So I'm hoping it stays that way...Then again, since i never log into my account, I have no idea how much I use monthly...

shaw just updated their website

# 60 GB/month data transfer
# $2.00/GB for each GB used above plan's limit

iamawesomewicked said,

Doubtful. Sympatico = Bell.

I know. but i had unlimited plan thus far, and i hope that wont change soon.

back to 1998. They do this to combat the piracy, dont they? Or maybe they have some business with the goverment, so they can make more money without any investment.
How about the HDTV?. You should pay more to watch the damn show in HD?. Thats a lot of traffic.

I hope this comes up in parliament or something, they are out of control and need to be stopped. Overturn this ruling or shut them down. Maybe this was a blessing, where theyve pushed too far and have shot them selves in the foot.

Beyon_Godlike said,
I hope this comes up in parliament or something, they are out of control and need to be stopped. Overturn this ruling or shut them down. Maybe this was a blessing, where theyve pushed too far and have shot them selves in the foot.

That's what I'm hoping for, but you're kidding yourselves if you think the Conservatives are going to do anything about this. Maybe the Opposition?

What a complete load of horse$#%@. It's only a matter of time until someone tries to pull this crap, successfully, in the US. I think the worst part, is the fact that if enough people had stood up, said NO, and phone spammed / snail mailed their elected officials this would not have passed.

People are too complacent or they're too violent, why isn't there ever an in between where people stand up before its too late and without resorting to destruction / violence?

thornz0 said,
What a complete load of horse$#%@. It's only a matter of time until someone tries to pull this crap, successfully, in the US. I think the worst part, is the fact that if enough people had stood up, said NO, and phone spammed / snail mailed their elected officials this would not have passed.

People are too complacent or they're too violent, why isn't there ever an in between where people stand up before its too late and without resorting to destruction / violence?

I think it's worth saying that the CRTC is not the government, but rather a committee. There is a bill in the Canadian Parliament now on the topic of metered Internet, and considering stopthemeter.ca has now had the largest number of Canadians sign a petition in Canadian history, it would be fairly foolish for the members of parliament to vote for this bill (and it still has to pass the Senate if and when it does pass Parliament). Just sayin'

Most of our major ISPs also offer TV and on-demand services, however new companies like Netflix offer similar services but at much better prices. So in order to "protect" their business, Bell got the government to lock down on the internet... which is bull****.

God I hope America doesn't follow suit. I'll be ****ed if I can't get online because some dorky prick has to stream Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Educated Idiot said,
God I hope America doesn't follow suit. I'll be ****ed if I can't get online because some dorky prick has to stream Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Are you referring to your family members who share your Internet connection? Cause otherwise, that statement makes no sense at all...

Rogers used to have a maximum bandwidth overcharge of $25/month but last March they doubled that to $50/month. Still, some of the very biggest downloaders may find that better than paying $2 per gigabyte for each gigabyte they go over a monthly 25GB cap.

Fred Derf said,
Rogers used to have a maximum bandwidth overcharge of $25/month but last March they doubled that to $50/month. Still, some of the very biggest downloaders may find that better than paying $2 per gigabyte for each gigabyte they go over a monthly 25GB cap.

Same for Videotron
50$ max for the standard High Speed deal, then every other plan that offers faster speed is unlimited overcharge if you go over your "monthly allowance" (It feels so freakin ridiculous just saying monthly allowance... it's like we Canadian lives in the USSR of the Internet world, Gb rationing everyone!!)

Bandwidth is dirt-cheap these days, wired ISP have no excuses for charging on a per-gigabyte or download cap basis.

The CRTC is totally out of control, and totally out of touch with what the actual Canadian public want or need. UBB is just another nail in the CRTC's coffin.

They need to be disbanded and run by people who ARE NOT former staff from Bell, Telus, Rogers, etc. That totally defeats the purpose.

Wow. Ridiculous. How is 25GB enough for anyone, in this day and age? Especially for the amount we have to pay for this garbage. We live in a world where everything we do is pretty much downloaded or streamed. The situation with our ISPs and cellphones is so messed up.

What the F?
I haven't seen limited plans for years in my country. It's unlimited or nothing. No one is interested in limited bandwidth. I push more than 1TB with 80Mbps line per month. It would be unbelievable to live with limited networks.

It's suck for Netflix user in Canada altought they offer in Canada is crap (i was a member for like 3 days). We use (2 peoples) about 70 gig per month, playing Minecraft, WOW, Steam download, a LOT of Youtube. I don't stream anything or download any torrent in my case, but imagine 25G.. wow ... it's very very little for a Family..

I've been saying this for years and none of the "chest thumping patriotic Canadians" saw the crony capitalism snowball into what we have now and it's gonna be hard and painful to undo.

The CRTC is nothing but a platform to regulate and insulate the incumbent telcos while blocking foreign competition from coming in, all in the name of "protecting Canadian businesses." of course, why should we protect Canadian businesses? if they suceed, they'll stay and if they don't, they leave the market. But then, a lot of Canadians don't get it and think that protecting Canadian businesses is some kind of mandate of the government while grinding their teeth everytime there is a price hike on cell phone bills or internet bills.

I hope some of these people wake up NOW and understand that the long term method to having a vibrant internet, cell phone service or whatever is to get the government strip the CRTC of their powers, except to regulate property (ie. cell phone bands or any infrastructure that is legally belonging to the telcos).

supersaiyanjericho said,
I've been saying this for years and none of the "chest thumping patriotic Canadians" saw the crony capitalism snowball into what we have now and it's gonna be hard and painful to undo.

The CRTC is nothing but a platform to regulate and insulate the incumbent telcos while blocking foreign competition from coming in, all in the name of "protecting Canadian businesses." of course, why should we protect Canadian businesses? if they suceed, they'll stay and if they don't, they leave the market. But then, a lot of Canadians don't get it and think that protecting Canadian businesses is some kind of mandate of the government while grinding their teeth everytime there is a price hike on cell phone bills or internet bills.

I hope some of these people wake up NOW and understand that the long term method to having a vibrant internet, cell phone service or whatever is to get the government strip the CRTC of their powers, except to regulate property (ie. cell phone bands or any infrastructure that is legally belonging to the telcos).

I remember reading a few studies that looked at Canada as being a good place to host server farms due to the savings in cooling costs. So much for that. Nobody is going to want to host a server farm where the internet will cost that much...

ILikeTobacco said,

I remember reading a few studies that looked at Canada as being a good place to host server farms due to the savings in cooling costs.

A change to residential ISP's pricing policy is going to warm up the country?
I reverse my opinion on this: best change ever!

I was planning on switching my internet from rogers to teksavvy in mid march when my contract with rogers was up. guess i am screwed now since they arent accepting any new customers anymore. anyone know of any other leasing company that uses rogers cable line in ontario?

Damn. Right now I'm with Novus in Vancouver and am paying $32.50 per month for 20 Mbps down & 10 Mbps up with 125 GB download limit and 125 GB upload limit. I'm hoping Novus is not subleasing from the likes of Rogers/Bell/Telus (which I doubt) since Novus also offers a 200 Mbps residential plan for $268.95 per month with 750 GB download limit. http://www.novusnow.ca/services/internet.php

Canadians who wish to petition against these reduced transfer caps should sign http://stopthemeter.ca

"The CRTC's reasoning behind the sudden change is to prevent high-activity users from ruining the experience for other customers, who may not use as much bandwidth as their neighbour."

lolwut?

every day i hope some article gets published about Canada instead of usually China or U.S then today this happens. how ironic...

A few years ago after Bell sent me a nastygram, and I asked them for a clarification of their definition of "unlimited" (I was paying at the time for such a so-called "unlimited" plan). I emailed the CRTC asking them what their position on this sort of thing was, and they simply responded that they don't have any jurisdiction over internet service providers.

Now they've given Bell free reigns. Well, CRTC, which is it?

_dandy_ said,
A few years ago after Bell sent me a nastygram, and I asked them for a clarification of their definition of "unlimited" (I was paying at the time for such a so-called "unlimited" plan). I emailed the CRTC asking them what their position on this sort of thing was, and they simply responded that they don't have any jurisdiction over internet service providers.

Now they've given Bell free reigns. Well, CRTC, which is it?

The problem is the internet is unregulated by the CTRC in Canada- to stimulate competition... Go figure that one out, when they now effectively control the competition's pricing and featureset. They (ctrc) can make rulings on HOW communication takes place, and that anything that comes from BELL (DSL/fibre) can be limited on the customers end as well as a wholesale provider. It used to be only customer, this is where it bites as bell thinks that 25GB is enough for any single home internet connection.

5min video in 720p on youtube is approximately 100MB, or 0.1GB
so in a home of 5, everyone can watch one 5min 720p HD video on youtube a day, before facing an increase in their bill. I don't know about most canadian homes, but I have 3 computers streaming HD content from hulu, youtube, vivo, and movie/gaming review sites for minimum of 3 hours a day. thats an easy 4GB/day.

the leasee company (like techsavvy) still gets a discount of 15%, but this cap is going DIRECTLY through them into the pockets of megacorps Bell and Rogers.

It makes less and less sense, and more and more to completely dissolve the CTRC and the stupid regulations as they are 100% for the rich stockholders, investors and bankers. My cell phone has 6GB of data - but my internet connection, which could be shared by more than 5 other people, has not even 4x the capacity. This is remarkable gouging at its best, and should this take hold - a 5KB/s dialup account will provide 12GB of data a month. I feel ridiculous to say this, but I would be going back in time in a 'free' country. Absolutely ridiculous, and yet another nail in the Bell books for me.

I don't get what all the fuss is about. Both Rogers and Bell haven't had unlimited plans in quite a while. Check Rogers listing of residential plans, not one of them is unlimited:
http://www.rogers.com/web/link/hispeedBrowseFlowDefaultPlans

The article is confusing too, how can you say " all customers with 5Mbps speeds and 200GB unlimited bandwidth caps will now only have a mere 25GB allowance. " isn't 200GB a bandwidth cap? how can you say it's then "200GB unlimited", maybe if you don't know how to count higher than 200 then 200 might seem unlimited, but that sure sounds like a limit to me.

Am I missing something here? What's changed? I'm in Ontario, maybe other provinces have unlimited plans and we've been screwed over for a while already?

Err i'm not sure if you are trolling, however the plan is generally called "200GB unlimited" we know its not unlimited thats just how the isp labels it and what they believe is unlimited (which they were mistaken)

the issue is the massive decrease from 200GB to 25GB with no change in cost, thats a 87.5% drop in bandwidth at the same cost so yeah plenty to fuss about

This only applies to leasing companies though. ISPs that own their own networks can do whatever they want. This isn't the end of the world.

RTFA. EVERYONE is using the same Bell lines behind the scenes...and those are where the prices are being jacked through the roof.

So, no...no ISP in Canada will be able to "do whatever they want". EVERY CANADIAN is screwed directly and in the future by this provision.

excalpius said,
RTFA. EVERYONE is using the same Bell lines behind the scenes...and those are where the prices are being jacked through the roof.

So, no...no ISP in Canada will be able to "do whatever they want". EVERY CANADIAN is screwed directly and in the future by this provision.

no. Theres more than bell in Canada. Everyone who uses telephone line (DSL) or fibre internet is screwed as bell ran all those lines so they have last say on what happens on themm as its their network they run and control. Companies with their OWN infrastructure can still do WHAT THEY WANT (eastlink for example) This ruling was only in favor for bell to limit competition of people who use their lines.

best thing to do is for their customers to cancel their service and/or switch to another company. i dont know how feasible that is though.

Jdawg683 said,
best thing to do is for their customers to cancel their service and/or switch to another company. i dont know how feasible that is though.

It's not very feasible. I live in a town where it's Bell Aliant, or Acadian Communications Satellite High Speed.

Neither are great, but at least with Bell, I don't lose internet in crappy weather.

Jdawg683 said,
best thing to do is for their customers to cancel their service and/or switch to another company. i dont know how feasible that is though.
Most places in Canada you only have the choice of one or two providers. Like were I live there are only two and we only can get service from one which is bell.

Jdawg683 said,
best thing to do is for their customers to cancel their service and/or switch to another company. i dont know how feasible that is though.

How long until 'the other guys' say - holy ****, they are making money hand over fist - screw it we can do a 25GB cap too and reap the rewards

Jdawg683 said,
best thing to do is for their customers to cancel their service and/or switch to another company. i dont know how feasible that is though.

You'd think it's feasible even in a major city, but it's not. Options here are
1) The Big Two - Bell or Rogers
2) Smaller DSL ISPs - there are many
3) Small cable ISPs - two of them in this city

But if you consider what is being said in the article... there's no way out of this no matter who you switch to. That's why people are hopping mad.

recursive said,
Will this affect Sasktel? Guess my days of running my own email / web server are over.

I dont' see it happening to us, although internally the rumour mill is busy churning out unsubstatiated rumours.

i'm not too worried, my ISP (Eastlink) has 15 megs down unlimited, but, they are pushing their "new" 30 meg with 250gig cap a lot!!

djnv2010 said,
i'm not too worried, my ISP (Eastlink) has 15 megs down unlimited, but, they are pushing their "new" 30 meg with 250gig cap a lot!!

Thats rich, they increase speed and put a cap so you hit it sooner than ever.

djnv2010 said,
i'm not too worried, my ISP (Eastlink) has 15 megs down unlimited, but, they are pushing their "new" 30 meg with 250gig cap a lot!!

They're probably phasing out the unlimited cap.

djnv2010 said,
i'm not too worried, my ISP (Eastlink) has 15 megs down unlimited, but, they are pushing their "new" 30 meg with 250gig cap a lot!!

Thats because its DOCSIS3 and not (as) flawed, they want to kill DOCSIS2. This will effectively force everyone to a 250GB cap as high speed 15 will not be available any longer, and the modems will stop working. As of now eastlink does not enforce their 250GB cap tho on any plan, so you could essentially download 30TB+ without a peep said, on 100Mbit at $160 a month - until their software is developed and distributed.

25GB/mth is effectively 9KB/s continuous.. an insult to everyone in Canada and theres no way in hell i'll be paying $70 for that when a $5-9 dial up account will give me 12GB.

iamawesomewicked said,

They're probably phasing out the unlimited cap.

Nope, they just confirmed that the Unlimited was here to stay for the wireless/5/10/15mbit services..

The 30 and 100mbit have 250gb "caps" but these are not enforced, as there is no way to monitor your usage yet ( according to them, they have no way setup to monitor an individual accounts usage.. was never an issue before ), and last I talked, they were not in a rush to implement it.

25GB flies up real quick with Netflix streaming, video chat, Pandora, and several computers in the house. Not to mention Steam, Xbox live or PS3 gaming services. On average our house hold usage is around 270GB per month.

The future is MORE data streaming to and from the homes...not less.

Sounds like an EXCELLENT reason to nationalize the Internet infrastructure and kick these corporate raiders out.

Edited by excalpius, Feb 1 2011, 9:45am :

Thank god I'm with Videotron. They actually have been increasing their caps the last few years, compared to Bell and Rogers who keep lowering them.

RageOfFury said,
Thank god I'm with Videotron. They actually have been increasing their caps the last few years, compared to Bell and Rogers who keep lowering them.

Yeah, I love Videotron *knock on wood* lol

RedMike said,

Yeah, I love Videotron *knock on wood* lol

Same here.. 50$ a month extra if I pass my cap, but I can watch all the netflix, youtube and World of warcraft I want.. And shared with 2 others. Can ya imagine monthly caps for families that have 2-3 kids and each have a PC in their room? This is becoming a reality and soon, it will be gone as caps will hinder the internet almost useless. Technology prices are dropping and internet bandwidth is the cheapest its been in years, so why are the caps becoming smaller? Can't wait to see netflix go bankrupt here as no one will pay 8$/month to watch 1 movie a month on a cap.. Blockbuster has become cheaper again it seems if your on a rediculous cap, and they are too almost gone due to netflix.. Is Bell and Rogers having that hard of a time keeping customers on their cable and satellite services this is a way to make money back? Maybe they should fix their rates and be on par with our friends of the south..

Edited by Lord Zog, Jan 31 2011, 9:10pm :

RageOfFury said,
Thank god I'm with Videotron. They actually have been increasing their caps the last few years, compared to Bell and Rogers who keep lowering them.

...Still Videotron impose ridiculous bandwidth caps like any other telecom companies in the rest of Canada. Do you people realize how backward Canada is on this level? Bandwidth cap, throttling, etc... We NEED more competition CRTC needs to dies
PLEASE, to all fellow Canadians, please sign this: http://www.stopthemeter.ca

Draconian Guppy said,
Does this affect only companies that lease off major companies? Like Bell -> teksavvy?

since bell owns all the line to your house any company that uses that line is effected even when they pay for their own transit

Draconian Guppy said,
Does this affect only companies that lease off major companies? Like Bell -> teksavvy?

There are very few companies who don't run off of Bell/Rogers lines. Most companies do run off of Bell/Rogers though.

I don't know if Cable internet is going to be affected or if it's just going to be DSL/ADSL users.

iamawesomewicked said,


I don't know if Cable internet is going to be affected or if it's just going to be DSL/ADSL users.

Rogers has filed for the cap on other ISP so give it 6 months

iamawesomewicked said,

There are very few companies who don't run off of Bell/Rogers lines. Most companies do run off of Bell/Rogers though.
.

Maybe that is true in Ontario but it's not true in the rest of the country.

Looks like the ******* at Shaw have already jumped on the bandwagon. They've updated their site with caps pricing. **** those guys.

Edited by ahhell, Jan 31 2011, 8:22pm :

I'm outraged at their decision. They seriously screwed over advanced users that use the Internet for services like Steam (games), iTunes (music), and Netflix (movies).

Anaron said,
I'm outraged at their decision. They seriously screwed over advanced users that use the Internet for services like Steam (games), iTunes (music), and Netflix (movies).

But they were ruining it for people who use it for email!

Wow, passing a law to say you can't have unlimited access seems a bit draconian. Most companies simply change their plans putting caps in place, but to actually have a law...

Shouldn't it be the responsibility of ISPs -- and not a government organization as I understand the CRTC to be -- to ensure that their network can handle the high-bandwidth users?

Paulz0r said,
Shouldn't it be the responsibility of ISPs -- and not a government organization as I understand the CRTC to be -- to ensure that their network can handle the high-bandwidth users?

weeeell well.....

Yes.

GS:mac

They are just doing what the US ISPs are doing, maximizing profits by reducing hardware infrastructure investment and increasing prices. Also since the ISPs here are also usually cable TV providers, they are trying to stem the flow of EVERYONE under the age of 30 canceling their cable TV...since no one needs it if you have broadband Internet.

Moves like this are going to force municipal wifi and broadband development and push the ISP dinosaurs right out of existence if they don't back off and go back to spending more of their money on infrastructure.

Paulz0r said,
Shouldn't it be the responsibility of ISPs -- and not a government organization as I understand the CRTC to be -- to ensure that their network can handle the high-bandwidth users?

Their networks can handle high-bandwidth users. I mean, they have this entire time right?
Get the facts straight: it's for the MONEY. Not customer experience or any other BS excuse.

I should add though, crappy Internet isn't a reason to move. Let's face it, you guys saying "I will never move here" or "that's it, I won't move" - that's all BS unless your life or well-being was at risk.

That said, something really has to change.

rm20010 said,
I should add though, crappy Internet isn't a reason to move. Let's face it, you guys saying "I will never move here" or "that's it, I won't move" - that's all BS unless your life or well-being was at risk.

That said, something really has to change.

I base my decision on where to live based on safety, access to broandband, taxes, cell service, and now the quality of broadband. I am not alone in this. Though I do not know if id move countries.

ObiWanToby said,

I base my decision on where to live based on safety, access to broandband, taxes, cell service, and now the quality of broadband. I am not alone in this. Though I do not know if id move countries.

Good, we don't need more immigrants here!

Breach said,
Sounds like socialism is making a come back.

Mind to explain? It seems proto-capitalism at its best to me.........

Fritzly said,

Mind to explain? It seems proto-capitalism at its best to me.........


The government would not be involved in regulating the businesses for businesses if it were a capitalist society. On the downside, the government would not be regulating for consumers either - but as we can see - the CRTC is not in the interest of the consumer anyways. People think that governments are altruistic, forgetting that governments are ran by self-interested people like ourselves.

Case in point: end government regulations and allow businesses to compete in a cut-throat manner se we the consumers win.

DClark said,

The government would not be involved in regulating the businesses for businesses if it were a capitalist society. On the downside, the government would not be regulating for consumers either - but as we can see - the CRTC is not in the interest of the consumer anyways. People think that governments are altruistic, forgetting that governments are ran by self-interested people like ourselves.

Case in point: end government regulations and allow businesses to compete in a cut-throat manner se we the consumers win.

Unfortunately is not so semplicistic as lots of people seems to think.
You can just look at your backyard: the US at the end of the 19th Century, begnning of the 20th one: Companies making huge fortunes while squeezing people like lemons, depriving them of the most elementary rights etc. etc.
Companies left uncheck do not compete with each other: it is much more simple to make arrangements among one another maximing the profits.
Check who are the members of the CRTC and their resume'; who are the people in Capitol Hill? People who were put there by the money of big corporations and therefore responding to the demands of their masters.
Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy itself are just utopias: at the end of the day everything is powered by human beings and this is where the utopia fails.......

Fritzly said,
Companies left uncheck do not compete with each other: it is much more simple to make arrangements among one another maximing the profits.

This is the biggest bone-headed assumption made by anti-capitalists.

A free market is "free" in the same since that citizens are free in a free country. Laws that businesses have to follow are a corner stone of a free-market.

What you attribute to capitalisim is in actuallity called crony-capitalism. And it is rampant. While anti-capitialists love to talk about the benefits of regulations they don't seem to realize that the majority of regulations are actually penned by the companies to be regulated. The ensuing result is that these regulations benefit the company by making it harder for newcomers to enter into their market and compete.

mikefarinha said,
What you attribute to capitalisim is in actuallity called crony-capitalism. And it is rampant. While anti-capitialists love to talk about the benefits of regulations they don't seem to realize that the majority of regulations are actually penned by the companies to be regulated. The ensuing result is that these regulations benefit the company by making it harder for newcomers to enter into their market and compete.

US Banking system, case in point.

mikefarinha said,

This is the biggest bone-headed assumption made by anti-capitalists.

A free market is "free" in the same since that citizens are free in a free country. Laws that businesses have to follow are a corner stone of a free-market.

What you attribute to capitalisim is in actuallity called crony-capitalism. And it is rampant. While anti-capitialists love to talk about the benefits of regulations they don't seem to realize that the majority of regulations are actually penned by the companies to be regulated. The ensuing result is that these regulations benefit the company by making it harder for newcomers to enter into their market and compete.

I did not call "capitalism" but "proto-capitalism" where "proto" from the ancient Greek "Protos" means first, still undeveloped, primordial. If nowadays you prefer to call it crony-capitalism feel free to do it but it seems to me that we are back to the infancy of Capitalism with a variation: then the means to obtain what they wanted were brutal and un-refined; Friedrich Engels' family owned a textile company in GB in the 18th Century and the working conditions of the time inspired him to co-author "Das Capital", today the means are more refined and the goals are obtained pouring money to have their own candidates grabbing as much power as possible.

DClark said,

Case in point: end government regulations and allow businesses to compete in a cut-throat manner se we the consumers win.

We'd be ever worse off today without the CRTC as the big telcos/cable giants would have negative option billed us to death by now.

This CRTC decision is clearly a lopsided victory for the telcos/cable giants and it may need to be reversed/revised/reconsidered.

"“I can assure that, as with any ruling, this decision will be studied carefully to ensure that competition, innovation and consumers were all fairly considered,” Mr. Clement said in a statement obtained by The Globe and Mail."
...
"Mr. Clement has previously thrown decisions back to the CRTC, most notably when the regulator ruled that Globalive Communications, which now operates cellphone company Wind Mobile, was not allowed to launch service because of foreign funding from an Egyptian billionaire."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...net-billing/article1889321/

DClark said,

The government would not be involved in regulating the businesses for businesses if it were a capitalist society. On the downside, the government would not be regulating for consumers either - but as we can see - the CRTC is not in the interest of the consumer anyways. People think that governments are altruistic, forgetting that governments are ran by self-interested people like ourselves.

Yeah, they are run by human beings like you and I.

Case in point: end government regulations and allow businesses to compete in a cut-throat manner se we the consumers win.

Yeah, we've seen just how well that has worked out for America when it comes to healthcare. [rollseyes]

BTW;

http://www.sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

Udedenkz said,
I no longer consider Canada a good nation to migrate to.

Mhh... I get your point, I'm not sure, but it definitely has lost a lot of its charm right now...
I used to think of Canada that it is a little bit what the USA claim but not want to be...

Now Canada is doing a handstand flipping upside down and I'm confused.

I live in Germany, seems more and more comfy here... well... then again we have "our moments with sh**e" politics, too, but mh...

GS:mac

Udedenkz said,
I no longer consider Canada a good nation to migrate to.

If internet is your biggest priority when moving to a country then you got your priorities ALL wrong.

Tha Bloo Monkee said,

If internet is your biggest priority when moving to a country then you got your priorities ALL wrong.

It *is* a big one, I have an immense addiction to the internet - I practically live on the net - with such draconic bandwidth limits I cannot father considering moving to Canada anymore (from a list of nations worthy of moving to).

Sawyer 99 said,
It's Bell Canada, not Rogers. TekSavvy Cable will still have 200GB caps and unlimited.
There shouldn't be any doubt that Rogers will soon follow suit.

Sawyer 99 said,
It's Bell Canada, not Rogers. TekSavvy Cable will still have 200GB caps and unlimited.

Rogers will soon follow suit, as mentioned above. No way Rogers will allow a third-party to undercut them and offer faster speeds, all for a cheaper cost.

Andrew Lyle said,

Rogers will soon follow suit, as mentioned above. No way Rogers will allow a third-party to undercut them and offer faster speeds, all for a cheaper cost.

That's exactly what's happening in Germany haha... (well with Vodafone versus Telekom at least... the rest of the providers are mostly bloodsucking traffic shapers... @_@)

GS:mac

Sawyer 99 said,
It's Bell Canada, not Rogers. TekSavvy Cable will still have 200GB caps and unlimited.

Yes, I have a 3rd party cable-based provider that gets their bandwidth from Rogers and I haven't heard from them about new cap limits. I logged into their webmail today to ensure the account was set to forward to my Gmail account.

i'm not sure anything will change but i'm glad to see this getting so much exposure. this is all because of services like netflix. why subscribe to cable when you have unlimited movies for $8/month.. well unlimited up until now. now you have to watch your usage.

For anyone in Canada.. please sign this http://openmedia.ca/meter who knows if it will work, but if not, it will only be 1 minute wasted. i posted this on my facebook as well

signalpirate said,
i'm not sure anything will change but i'm glad to see this getting so much exposure. this is all because of services like netflix. why subscribe to cable when you have unlimited movies for $8/month.. well unlimited up until now. now you have to watch your usage.

For anyone in Canada.. please sign this http://openmedia.ca/meter who knows if it will work, but if not, it will only be 1 minute wasted. i posted this on my facebook as well

"this is all because of services like netflix."
wrong, this is all because of a**es like those who try to rip your pants off (financially speaking).
DON'T put reasoning on proper use, put it on the sh**brains.

'nuff said.

GS:mac

ScottDaMan said,
People in Canada using NetFlix to stream or using steam to download purchased games are screwed.

Yup. HD on NetFlix uses about 2GB per hour. I've seen a 60GB rogers account exceeded in 15 days.

ScottDaMan said,
People in Canada using NetFlix to stream or using steam to download purchased games are screwed.

Digital-only distribution for games doesn't sound so tasty for the rest in all of a sudden.
Thanks, I'll stick to going into a real store and have something to put into my shelf.

GS:mac

ScottDaMan said,
People in Canada using NetFlix to stream or using steam to download purchased games are screwed.

It is not really stupid from a Canadian Government Perspective.. Would you rather people download everything and just ship all their money to the US or get their movies and games from local retailers.. Just saying

Lachlan said,

It is not really stupid from a Canadian Government Perspective.. Would you rather people download everything and just ship all their money to the US or get their movies and games from local retailers.. Just saying

I'm sure Netflix in Canada is via a Canadian subsidiary... Since they need license authorization from the media companies specifically for Canada.

ScottDaMan said,
People in Canada using NetFlix to stream or using steam to download purchased games are screwed.

Not a problem since there is nothing worth it in NetFlix Canada...

TruckWEB said,

Not a problem since there is nothing worth it in NetFlix Canada...

UBB was announced when netflix announced their entrance into Canada, I don't think it was a coincidence.

richardsim7 said,
Wow, way to step back 10 years. I'd probably move country if they did that here

And there was me wanting to move country TO Canada... *sigh*

Voice of Buddy Christ said,
I can guess who's been lobbying the CRTC.

Lobbying?

Why bother? The CRTC is run by former executives of the companies it's supposed to regulate. All they have to do is ask, and they get their way.

Kreuger said,
Someone needs to go postal on these aholes

No ****! What a bunch of douche bags... CRTC needs to rot in hell.
Because of them we are stuck with telecom monopolies and anti-competitive mesures, we're doomed

MattStocker said,
Haha, what a country /sarcasm

None of our plans were unlimited anyway. It's horrible, none of my American friends have anything to worry about downloading (or uploading for that matter!) too much. I have to restrict my f*cking *free* game downloads if I don't want to pay $60 in extra. And don't even get me started on torrenting...

Lazlo said,

None of our plans were unlimited anyway.

Speak for yourself. My ISP (dsl in western canada) still has unlimited. I run about 300GB/week. I haven't been metered or billed for overages ever.

Lazlo said,

None of our plans were unlimited anyway. It's horrible, none of my American friends have anything to worry about downloading (or uploading for that matter!) too much. I have to restrict my f*cking *free* game downloads if I don't want to pay $60 in extra. And don't even get me started on torrenting...

Comcast customers have 250GB cap in the US. So MANYYY people have to worry.

MattStocker said,
Haha, what a country /sarcasm

I have Telus Optik Internet in Canada and have a 150 GB "cap" but I checked my downloaded amount and they have not metered any of it.. Still says I have used 0 GB after using about 75 GB

Lachlan said,

I have Telus Optik Internet in Canada and have a 150 GB "cap" but I checked my downloaded amount and they have not metered any of it.. Still says I have used 0 GB after using about 75 GB

Times like these makes me glad that im actually on unlimited, albeit as slow as it is in the UK

thatguyandrew1992 said,

Comcast customers have 250GB cap in the US. So MANYYY people have to worry.

Yeah but that's not bad, personally I don't even get close to touching that cap, in fact my cap just reset and my max usage was 60GB or something to that extent.

Glassed Silver said,
HOLY LORD...

What a stack of BS...

GS:mac

Tell me about it Incredibly low usage caps and outrageous overage fees. CRTC needs to control these isps. Give them any control and this is what they do.

I urge everyone to sign this and hope they start listening.
http://www.stopthemeter.ca

yea i'm partial to bandwidth caps...

my major issue with the service we are getting is how low these caps are... they are set at unreasonable levels

Xero said,
Tell me about it Incredibly low usage caps and outrageous overage fees. CRTC needs to control these isps. Give them any control and this is what they do.

I urge everyone to sign this and hope they start listening.
http://www.stopthemeter.ca

You should read the article again. CRTC is the one controlling them telling them no more unlimited.

"The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission has passed a new law that makes it impossible for companies like TekSavvy in Canada to offer unlimited bandwidth to customers."

ILikeTobacco said,
You should read the article again. CRTC is the one controlling them telling them no more unlimited.

"The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission has passed a new law that makes it impossible for companies like TekSavvy in Canada to offer unlimited bandwidth to customers."

While the article is correct, it's only referring to TekSavvy. The CRTC approved usage based billing, it didn't enforce it. Bell immediately changed its service to force usage based billing both to its existing clients and those using a 3rd party like TekSavvy (assuming they use Bell's lines)

First they doubled the maximum fee. Then a month later they added this new $1/1GB crap.

DreadBoat89 said,
yea i'm partial to bandwidth caps...

my major issue with the service we are getting is how low these caps are... they are set at unreasonable levels

So true. They are just way too unreasonable. I have to spend the extra on a higher speed to get a higher cap. I spend $54 to get 125GB with 30Mbps Up/1.5Mbps Down. It's crazy what they charge us and then on top of that give us a really low cap.