I'm with Rick on this one. Why should my mother who uses maybe a couple of Gig a month suddenly pay more for internet because somebody sits on their couch all day watching movies on Netflix ?

I think Rick's got it nailed -the big companies are looking to apply moderate rate increases across the board -and this will bring them MUCH more cash than simply billing the abusers. Of course, that detail will never see the light of day; they'll just point out that bandwidth usage is increasing all the time (and it is) and that everyone has to pay more.

I'll sign the petition because I know that's what going to happen and that's not right. However, I approve of (and would support) a proper initiative to see them cover their additional costs on abusers.

The problem is that small ISP's that resell DSL cannot compete on a level playing field. Bell set's the wholesale pricing and is free to under cut the little guy with individual promotions. This effectively wipes out the small players leaving you no other option but Bell or Rogers who are then free to impose tiny caps so you can't enjoy services such as Netflix without paying exorbitant band width charges. The actual cost of 1GB data transfer is about $0.02. Bell and Rogers will charge you $1-$2 per GB raking in huge profits and stifling innovation.

I can't remember a time when I didn't have a cap. I have no idea what unlimited use feels like anymore.

In the old days sympatico used to cap at 5 gigs up 5 gigs down!! I'd be done in a couple of days.

I'm now capped at 125 gigs which is pretty reasonable on rogers. The only problem is I can't use the bandwidth for what I want. My primary bandwidth use was sharing live (not copywritten) music on Bit Torrent. I realize the majority of BT traffic is for pirated stuff but there are plenty of legit uses for it too.

I was young and living at home and we had cadvision dial-up. I downloaded my first 2 gigs of mp3s...some were actually mp2s lol by secretly leaving the computer ON at night. My dad had this thing about us shutting it off at night. Anyways we all found out about the limits on the account that month and the next month I was the first of my friends to have their own dedicated high speed connections haha. My folks had dial-up upstairs for a couple more years.

This has the potential to be extremely bad for people in general in Canada. Who typically uses the most internet? Businesses! They already pay higher fees than personal consumers, so if they have a to a lot more, they are going to be raising their prices to their consumers. What it will amount to is inflation for the country as a whole.

Impossibe to abuse your ISP. ISP monitor every byte you download and upload,every website you surf on is logged. Why do you think hackers use proxies. If you abuse your ISP by hammering the server you will get a phone call from the Shaw police,if you continue they will shut you down.(been there done that). For the cost effective package on Shaw you have 70gb data transfer limit per month.
Shaw already offers different internet packages. I switched to the business over 10 years ago as I am a heavy downloader off the news servers.
It's faster and my transfer limit is alot more than the cheaper package they offer. I still pay less today then I did 16 years ago on dial up.
This is just an excuse to raise the rates. In reality it's because internet has become so mainstream and integrated in everyday life. Look how we access and use the internet via from 10 years ago.(ipods,iphones,wireless,utube,facebook ect). For most people the reason they have a computer is to access and communicate on the internet. With all the advancements there's a downside. Sure,the IPS make money,but costs alot of money to upgrade their system,upgrade the speed,and
maintenance. If ISP raise rates are you going to stop using the internet? At the end of the day it's going to be the consumer that has to pay. It's inevitable.:(

It's crack that's legal. Everyone will pay.

This is a crock of s--T.

Cable/media content providers should never be intertwined with ISP's. That's a serious conflict of interest and should never have been allowed in the first place.

Agreed. Because the CRTC is staffed with former telecom executives virtually every ruling will benefit the telcos and almost never the paying public. :twised:

One of the greatest examples was when the CRTC put Bell Canada in charge of the telemarketing do-not-call list. That is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house...

-TDF

Or Fox News in charge of keeping the American public informed... Oh, wait... That's a reality also. Rats.