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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician