CRTC Denies UBB Hearing Request

March 14, 2011 -

The CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) has denied requests to hold a hearing on the broad practice of usage-based billing in the retail sector. Any decision the CRTC makes on UBB will not affect customers already affected by it such as Rogers, Bell, and Shaw Internet customers. Ultimately, it will only affect smaller internet service providers that get their bandwidth from the big aforementioned service providers.

In a letter, the CRTC said the following:

"PIAC/CAC also requested that the Commission expand the scope of the proceeding to allow parties to comment on the use of UBB in the retail Internet market.

The Commission notes that it has forborne from the regulation of retail Internet services on the basis that there is sufficient competition in the retail market. The Commission also notes that no parties provided evidence to justify a re-examination of this forbearance directive. Accordingly, the Commission denies PIAC/CAC’s request for expansion of the scope of the proceeding to allow comments regarding the use of UBB in the retail Internet market."

There is a lot more to that letter, which you can check out at the link above.

We will continue to follow this story as it develops, but this turn of events does not bode well for consumers.

Source: Jason Koblovsky


Comments

Re: CRTC Denies UBB Hearing Request

"The Commission notes that it has forborne from the regulation of retail Internet services on the basis that there is sufficient competition in the retail market. The Commission also notes that no parties provided evidence to justify a re-examination of this forbearance directive. Accordingly, the Commission denies PIAC/CAC’s request for expansion of the scope of the proceeding to allow comments regarding the use of UBB in the retail Internet market."

So, they're basically covering their ears and going "LALALALALALALALA"?

Re: CRTC Denies UBB Hearing Request

Yeah pretty much. They did this 10 years ago when DSL started to really hit the market in Canada and the CRTC did not see fit to regulate it. This move took Indie ISPs from 25% market share to less than 5% market share. I would know, we ran one out of our house just outside Ottawa. The CRTC board is made up of people who worked in or have money in the industry, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that they don't actually care about consumers (or small businesses for that matter).

Thankfully, this move will only piss off the Progressive Conservatives even more, and they have stated several times they want to look into "restructuring" the CRTC. I doubt they'd want the CRTC to win this right before an election, so I doubt the current members will make it to the summer.

Re: CRTC Denies UBB Hearing Request

We need to get rid of the CRTC.

We ABSOLUTELY need to re-examine UBB in the retail space.  Not just that, we need to repeal it... we need to show the greedy corporations that not only will we not let you get away with your shenanigans but we will go back an undo shenanigans you have already pulled.

Hopefully, the UBB incident with the CRTC has awaken the people... but I'm not holding my breath.

 

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: CRTC Denies UBB Hearing Request

But the basic assumption they're making is that there are a sufficient number of entities offering retail broadband that if the consumer really wants to get away from UBB, it should be possible to do so. And that's true, ish, if you look at the cellphone market -- which is largely dominated by the same companies, and managed by the same commision.

It's true that captialist intent will get rid of UBB eventually, but not until after Rogers and Bell gouges the customers for another two or three decades. 

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will we ever get Half-Life 3?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
NeenekoI only got a short way into HL-1, but enjoyed HL-2. Probably because I do not like PC FPS games and HL-2 I got on console.10/02/2014 - 12:28pm
Andrew EisenI have a confession to make: I didn't really care for Half-Life.10/02/2014 - 12:27pm
Papa MidnightI don't think I've used the forums since the Wordpress days.10/02/2014 - 12:13pm
NeenekoI keep forgetting we even have forums.10/02/2014 - 11:48am
ZippyDSMleeA shame we can't have good convos in the forums, seems to me its time to nuke and restart fresh on them.10/02/2014 - 11:45am
Papa MidnightOh, no problem! Just wanted to let you know that it's what we're discussing. By all means, join in!10/02/2014 - 11:36am
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, No problem. In juicy conversations, key points of discussion get pushed off quickly.10/02/2014 - 11:36am
NeenekoA rather scary censorship. I have known too many people and small companies destroyed by such pressure, so this unnerves me at a pretty personal level.10/02/2014 - 11:36am
NeenekoMy bad, I always have trouble working out what is going on in shoutbox10/02/2014 - 11:34am
Papa MidnightTo a point stated earlier, it very much is a form of indirect censorship. Rather than engage in rhetoric and debate, one side has instead chosen to cut-off opposing viewpoints at the knees and silence them via destroying their means of income.10/02/2014 - 11:28am
Papa MidnightNeeneko: the topic of Intel's dropping of Gamasutra is indeed part of this very ongoing conversation.10/02/2014 - 11:26am
NeenekoThis can't be good... http://games.slashdot.org/story/14/10/02/1558213/intel-drops-gamasutra-sponsorship-over-controversial-editorials10/02/2014 - 11:25am
Andrew EisenAnd there's also the consideration that the fact that a former IGN editor was one of the people who worked on the game's localization may be unknown (although in this specific case, probably not. Drakes been very visible at events IGN covers).10/02/2014 - 11:24am
Papa MidnightAlso, let's face it: people seem to believe that a conflict of interest can yield only positive coverage. Who is to say that Audrey Drake did not leave on bad terms with IGN (with several bridges burned in their wake)? That could yield negative coverage.10/02/2014 - 11:23am
Papa MidnightThat's a fair question, and it's where things get difficult. While Jose Otero may not have any cause to show favor, Jose's editor may, as may the senior editor (and anyone else involved in the process before it reaches publication).10/02/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenWould such disclosure still be required if Fantasy Life were reviewed by Jose Otero, who wasn't hired by IGN until sometime after Drake left?10/02/2014 - 11:19am
Papa MidnightIn that case, a disclosure might be in order. The problem, of course, is applying it on a case-by-case basis; As EZK said, what's the cut-off?10/02/2014 - 11:19am
E. Zachary KnightAndrew, a disclosure would probably be in order as she likely still has a strong relationship with IGN staff. My follow up question would be "What is the statute of limitations on such a requirement?"10/02/2014 - 11:09am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, my hyperbole was intended to illustrate the difference and similarity between direct censorship and indirect censorship.10/02/2014 - 11:07am
Andrew EisenOpen Question: Former IGN Nintendo editor Audrey Drake now works in the Nintendo Treehouse. Do you think it's important for IGN to disclose this fact in the review of Fantasy Life, a game she worked on? Should IGN recuse itself from reviewing the game?10/02/2014 - 11:07am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician