I sense we are doomed when we start looking to the Brits for technology tips. I’m also reminded by your column why ACTRA and the CMPA don’t call me anymore.

Maybe they’d like to sue the electricity suppliers next? Maybe we should short the utilities and go long on papyrus with a hedge on clay tablets? I’ve taken to leaving my mobile phone at home when I go to the States because I can’t afford roaming charges. Someone from Telus once told me years ago that 40% of their revenues come from roaming charges.

The main problem certainly here, as you continue to point out, is that the customers here are Canadian consumers. And increasingly the value proposition from media companies is preposterous. The margins are obscene given the service and the “risk” levels for companies.

Let’s face it, OTT will likely come to rest with the experts in aggregating audience. Might be Netflix, might be Verizon, might be Facebook or Google. I do have a feeling it won’t be a telco or a broadcaster. Which brings us in Canada to why they’re almost the only people in the room? It’s the same reason why the Occupy movement will never meet with any success in Canada. We are completely and totally colonized or co-opted by the gatekeepers of various controls in this country. It’s the norm. We get screwed and say gee thanks or grumble amongst ourselves and feel we have nowhere to turn. The real reason is that we are disenfranchised and generally ignorant. We are ignorant because “open kimonos” are the exception and not the rule. It’s just where they (gatekeepers) want us to be, outside of the room (ex camera?). Just units of consumption that’s what we are. Customers without choices or much service. I believe it’s called extortion. We get the government we deserve and the same goes for our communications.

My compliments also to your new art director. Cheers – Sam

In your article a few details were overlooked…

Some of the measures that you mentioned would involve government legislation and possible changes to the broadcasting act. Also pertaining to some of these measures the CRTC would have to monitor the internet and block certain sites which is a futile task.

Additionally, the CRTC only has jurisdiction over what happens in Canada. The regulator cannot dictate rules and regulations to other countries.

In response to Harper being one of the reasons against “reforming the CRTC”, even if the NDP or Liberals were in power there probably would not be much of a difference. Even though Layton, during the election campaign, stated that he and the NDP were against UBB he also talked about protectionist measures regarding OTT. As stated below…

The NDP platform also focuses on increased regulation of both Internet providers and online video services. Alone among the three parties, the NDP states it would consider requiring both ISPs and “over-the-top” video providers such as Netflix to contribute funding to support the creation of Canadian content. These policies would seemingly require reforms to the Broadcasting Act and force the CRTC to reopen its new media decision that takes a hands-off approach to Internet regulation.

Link to Geist

Other than the details that I pointed out, I thought your article was very insightful and informative.

The problem is that ISPs have framed the whole argument as a debate about disciplining “disruptive users” or “bandwidth hogs”, and when you debate that point directly, you are tacitly validating that framing. The CRTC is even more guilty of this.

It’s almost like engaging an intelligent design advocate in an argument about evolution. You lose by even starting discussion, because in order to do so you have to acknowledge that there IS a debate to be had.

It’s pretty clear from your analysis and that of others that ISP pricing structures have very close to zero correlation with costs. They are not designed to enforce fair internet usage practices in consumers, they are designed to maximize profit and create an artificial system of graduated pricing.

That’s the point that needs to be made. ISPs are flatly lying. It’s not about congestion, it’s about profit. They’ve even stated as much in their press releases to shareholders.

So that’s the real discussion that we need to have. Is it fair for the corporations that own key technical infrastructure to abuse that position to maximize profits? Even to the extent that it negatively impacts Canada’s standing in the technical world?

Unfortunately it seems to be something of a faux pas to even mention the idea of curbing profit-seeking in formal regulatory discussions. It seems to be assumed that infrastructure owners are entitled to abuse consumers, and now we’re just quibbling over the method of abuse. You can see that in the UBB->AVP->Capacity pricing. The whole focus was on the billing method, and the end numbers only changed very slightly.