print email stumble Digg

Usage-Based Billing: Solving the Bandwidth Wars

Tony Wanless

| February 4, 2011

Image by: Flickr / Jason Rogers

Should people using the Internet as a plaything pay for this privilege?

No matter what happens regarding the current argument over internet bandwidth restrictions, limits are coming. Someone has to pay for the increased use of the Net.

Hands up everyone who’s ever used the phrase “I don’t have the bandwidth for this!”

You know you have. It’s become part of the business lexicon. Well, now it appears it’s going to actually be true. Unless something is done soon, you may really not have the bandwidth, period.

I’m referring, of course, to the current fight going on in Ottawa over bandwidth restrictions the big Internet infrastructure providers want to impose on the resellers who use their bandwidth to provide Internet services.

Companies like Shaw, Rogers, and Bell want to install caps on the bandwidth the resellers use, and charge a goodly sum for anything over the caps. The resellers are screaming, naturally, and even the federal government is getting in on it by demanding an accounting from the Canadian Radio Television Commission (CRTC), the telecommunications regulator, for approving the move.

Right they should. The move is a gouge, pure and simple, and an attempt to corral all Internet use through their own systems.

But it also raises other issues. Such as, should infrastructure providers be expected to provide unlimited use of their systems by an increasing number of Internet users who are merrily downloading movies, television shows, games, and other bandwidth-gobbling activities?

And there's also the sticky little issue of who's going to pay for it all.

Oh, that. Get used to it. This decision only put the ball in play and, despite what happens this time around, the issue is going to come up again and again as ever more uses are found for the Internet.

This isn’t a popular issue for debate. The general thinking is that if we’re to be a modern country with a strong telecommunications system that fosters innovative business, the Internet should be unrestricted for all. Certainly, the columnists have been weighing in against the “evil” providers.

So here’s my proposal. If it’s a national asset, then the government should control it.

Legislate that providers offer unlimited Internet use to everybody who wants it. But tax it at a certain rate of provision. When more is used, then the providers get some tax relief. The relief can then be recovered from those who use more than others.

To me this is the only fair way to regulate internet use. Like many people, I never break my bandwidth limits because I’m not downloading and watching movies on my computer a couple of times a day.

My proposal doesn't mean the government should become the gouger instead of the private corporations. There will have to be some sense about it all so as not to stifle Internet use.

The Internet is essential to our business and communications structures, and it will be ever more so in future. But those who insist on using their computers as playthings, or entertainment, or because they're completely addicted, should pay for the privilege.

Bandwidth is a national asset, and it should be controlled by the people, who are represented by the government. Not by a select group of corporations who are fighting over the spoils, or by a few users who out-use everybody else.

Tags
- tony wanless,
- Shaw,
- Rogers,
- CRTC,
- Bell,
- Telecom,
- Policies and Issues,
- Technology

Dan, you are clearly

Submitted by Tony Wanless on Thu, 2011-02-10 13:03.

Dan, you are clearly ignorant of me and of my message. Anyone who knows me will tell you very quickly that STFU is not going to happen in my case. And who cares whether I know how internet routing works? The post wasn't about internet routing, it was about the entire internet provision system. If you had crawled out of your technical hole long enough to read farther you might have noticed that I'm actually against usage based billing. But I do recognize that the internet distribution system has to be paid for by somebody. Who that will be should be a subject for discussion, not this kind of knee-jerk invective. Me, a shill for Shaw? Now that is funny! Tony Wanless

Mr. Wanless; "...should

Submitted by Dan (not verified) on Thu, 2011-02-10 09:59.

Mr. Wanless; "...should infrastructure providers be expected to provide unlimited use of their systems by an increasing number of Internet users who are merrily downloading movies, television shows, games, and other bandwidth-gobbling activities?" This, right here, shows that you are unabashedly ignorant of how internet routing works. Would you agree that cable TV users should be billed, in addition to a monthly access fee, a per-minute charge for the TV they actually watch? You clearly need to read up on the subject or just STFU. 'Usage Based Billing' is a crappy misnomer for oligopoly rents and clearly shows that the internet/cable/telephone conglomerates are engaging in anti-competitive tactics to run smaller companies like Novus and Teksavvy out of the business. It's shameful that you would write such idiotic drivel for a respectable (or so I thought) publication like BCBusiness. I hope you get fired for writing such garbage. Maybe then Shaw will hire you as a marketing shill!

The Telcos have raped and

Submitted by pbmoore (not verified) on Wed, 2011-02-09 22:41.

The Telcos have raped and pillaged the consumer for as long as they have existed. The charges on POTS (plain old telephone service) have been astronomical given the cost to provide the service. Remember the monthly charges for each feature on top of the monthly rental - the central offices had been in place for years, the wires were everywhere - but each new customer was charged as if they had to do something new to accommodate them. Pure profit and each year they asked and got permission to increase their rates. Then with competition, rate wars started but they were all build on a high profit model. The Internet fees (not to speak of the extortionate cellular fees) are all related to what the Telcos argue are their costs + profit requirements and we are paying far too much for services that should decrease over time as the infrastructure costs have been well paid down. New technology and increasing bandwidth demand demands a new pricing model. Fewer users historically may have justified marginally higher charges but the profit stream from incremental growth leads to huge profits at the expense of providing what is now a business and consumer basic requirement like the telephone or electricity. To add governmental tax credits to the profiteers mocks the end user and models the horrors of the American system of subsidizing the richest 10% by increasing costs to the most needy 90%! My 2c worth.