I wrote a passionate and hasty post on Sunday evening about Usage Based Billing and a controversial ruling made by the CRTC for the Internet in Canada.
After thinking about the subject for a few days and having a couple of interesting conversations, I’ve revised my view on the matter somewhat.
Some time back in the 90s, the CRTC mandated Canadian telecom companies that owned network infrastructure to sell network access to 3rd part ISPs at a particular wholesale cost. This situation seems to favour the 3rd party providers. It created a false economy where 3rd party ISPs reaped a lot of benefits and really profited from the networks without having to maintain or upgrade a network of their own. It created false competition in the Canadian market. And, most importantly, gave no incentive for other companies to develop competing infrastructures.
Now this new CRTC ruling swings things to the opposite extreme, giving too much market power to the big telecoms. I still think this is bad for the future of Canadian Internet access, bad for consumers, and particularly harmful for small business owners, educational institutions, and application developers.
Today there were some announcements that Ottawa will review the ruling. Political parties also chimed in on the issue.
In an ideal world, I’d like to see a new CRTC ruling which pressures and facilitates the development of new network infrastructure by 3rd party ISPs. The world is increasingly consuming audio and video content over the internet. Not having Internet access that is independent of conglomerates with stakes in ‘classic’ television service seems contrary to the interests of Canadian consumers.
Usage based billing, as a concept isn’t bad. If prices per gigabyte are fair it should dissuade people from running quasi-commercial web servers on residential internet services. But it shouldn’t hold people back from learning about the most current possibilities and innovations that today’s high-bandwidth Internet allows.
Fair and affordable access to broadband fits with mobility of digitally connected populations who want to consume their favorite podcasts, shows and films as downloads on portable devices. It supports digital distribution of video games via Steam and other software from similar services. As well as IPTV and streaming services like Netflix, remote file and media sharing services, and other new high-bandwidth services.
Canada’s adoption of broadband is some of the widest in the world, but the level of service we enjoy is not in the same class. This is partly because we’re a big country, geographically speaking, but a small country in terms of our widely dispersed population.
What do you think? Is Usage Based Billing a threat to Canada’s ability to remain competitive in a world becoming more digitally connected? Could a well developed plan bring Canada’s Internet service beyond the service levels seen in other geographically large and diverse countries, creating excellent conditions for both ISPs and Canadian consumers?
I think the rates we pay, for the service we get, isn’t fair. Ideally there would be a limit set to how much ISP’s are able to charge for overages, a 10% markup on costs perhaps?
Additionally the power of the telco’s lies in owning the lines, I’d like to see not only third party investments, but public infrastructure being built for everyone to use.
Kudos Rick, for having the balls to revise your POV. What I have not heard in this debate yet is much mention of the fact that there are still areas of this country that do not have adequate web access of any kind or at any cost. My father lives in a tiny community, an hour outside St. John’s Newfoundland. When he complained that he could not get decent internet access a couple of years ago he was informed that since he lived in a “suburb” of the city he should not be encountering any difficulty. When they found his suburban community boasted 15 families they asked him why he thought he should get any service, at all, anyway??
There are places in Alberta where residents are waiting to get telephone lines (that’s right – old fashioned telephone lines). Why? Because that technology was privatized and there’s not much profit in providing service to rural customers.
So – if you’re a kid in rural or remote Canada, or from a poor family, will your chances of success be equal to those of a child whose parents can afford to download everything from National Geographic documentaries to ADHD counseling from the best doctors in the world? And if in fact these things are the advantage that we believe they are, does it not behoove a civilized country to ensure it cuts long-term social costs by making them available to all (again to your health care analogy).
It’s an interesting debate, but having been a fiscally challenged parent of a child with ADHD who got exactly zero help from the ‘system’, I think we’d be missing a huge opportunity for social equality if we start deciding that there are classes of people who may benefit and classes who may not. For now, this isn’t about ordinary users, but if you look at the UBB system in New Zealand, where internet access is so expensive hotels don’t offer it, you can see where this is headed.
A