Examination of differential pricing practices related to Internet data plans: Comments from Reddit

Canadians shared their views on the examination of differential pricing practices related to Internet data plans. The official Reddit thread was open between September 26 and September 30, 2016.

Violations of our User Submission Guidelines

3 comments were removed by the CRTC because they violated the User Submission Guidelines. These comments fell into the following categories: offensive language; threats; and/or insensitive comments.

27 comments contained a small amount of offensive language; in these comments, the offensive terms have been replaced by asterisks (*). Comments that contain these changes are marked with [note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks].

1,800 points (99% upvoted) I’m from the CRTC and we want to know what you think about differential pricing (or ‘zero-rating’)? | Je suis du CRTC. Nous voulons savoir ce que vous pensez de la différenciation des prix (ou le « taux zéro »)

this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2016

UPDATE (29-Sept-2016): We’re getting close to the end of the consultation and we’d love to hear your feedback on your experience. Please take a minute to fill out our quick questionnaire. It will help us figure out if/how we might use reddit in the future.

UPDATE (30-Sept-2016, 7:56pm): The thread is now closed. Thank you to everyone who participated. It’s been great reading the comments! A special thank you to the mods of reddit who have been really supportive throughout this whole process.


tl;dr: Influence public policy: tell the CRTC what you think about service providers exempting customers from data charges for certain data you download or upload (like music or TV shows) (what we call differential pricing).

Proof!

How does this work?

What’s differential pricing?

Questions: We need your opinion about differential pricing:

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?
  2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?
  3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?
  4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I’m here to field questions, if you need it, about the process but nothing else. We will not express views or provide comments on the matters being considered by the CRTC – so expect responses to be structured that way.

What’s Next? The thread will be locked September 30, 2016 (8pm EDT). Once that happens, every comment and every upvote will become part of the official public record. (This is our way of saying that your participation is not confidential. But there’s no need to worry – no one (including the CRTC) will see anything more than what normally shows up in your reddit posts.)

Just a reminder, your comments still need to follow the online discussion rules. We’ll be reviewing all moderated comments after the fact and anything removed by mistake will still become part of the record. Stay classy, reddit!

EDIT (26-Sept-2016, 6:04pm EDT): We are experiencing technical difficulties with our website, so some links might not work for now. We will keep you posted. However, please continue to post your comments!

EDIT (26-Sept-2016, 10:01pm EDT): Everything is back up now!



RÉVISÉ (29-sept-2016): La fin de la consultation approche. Nous aimerions avoir votre rétroaction à propos de votre expérience. Veuillez prendre quelques minutes afin de remplir notre questionnaire. Cela nous aidera à décider si et comment nous pourrions utiliser reddit à nouveau à l’avenir.

MISE À JOUR (30-sept-2016, 19 h 56) : Cette discussion est maintenant fermée. Merci à tous ceux qui ont participé. Ce fut un plaisir de lire les observations! Un merci tout spécial aux modérateurs de reddit qui ont fourni leur soutien tout au long du processus.


tl;dr : Influencez la politique publique : dites au CRTC ce que vous pensez du fait que les fournisseurs de services dispensent leurs clients de certains frais de traitement de données pour certaines données téléchargées ou téléversées, comme la musique et les émissions de télé? (Ce qu’on appelle la différenciation des prix).

La preuve!

Comment ça marche?

Qu’est-ce que la différenciation des prix?

Questions : Nous sollicitons votre avis au sujet de la différenciation des prix :

  1. Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix?
  2. Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix?

  3. Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques? Ou devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider?
  4. Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques?

Je suis ici pour répondre aux questions, au besoin, au sujet du processus, mais rien d’autre. Nous n’énoncerons aucune opinion et nous ne ferons aucun commentaire au sujet des enjeux qui sont examinés par le CRTC– veuillez donc vous attendre à ce que les réponses soient structurées à cette fin.

Et ensuite? Le fil sera verrouillé le 30 septembre 2016 (20 h HAE). Toute observation et tout appui feront alors partie du dossier officiel. (Ceci est notre façon de vous dire que votre participation n’est pas confidentielle. Mais n’ayez crainte, personne (y compris le CRTC) ne verra rien d’autre à part l’information qui est habituellement affichée lors de vos discussions sur reddit.)

Petit rappel, vos commentaires doivent respecter les Lignes directrices de nos forums de discussion en ligne habituelles. Faites preuve de classe gens de reddit!

RÉVISÉ (26-sept-2016, 18 h 05 HAE) : Nous éprouvons des difficultés techniques avec note site web en ce moment, alors certains liens pourraient ne pas fonctionner. Nous vous tiendrons au courant. Mais en attendant, vous pouvez continuer à afficher vos commentaires!

RÉVISÉ (26-sept-2016, 22 h 02 HAE) : Tout fonctionne maintenant!

Reddit Comments

medym Lest We Forget [M] [score hidden] Mon Sep 26 15:04:54 2016 UTC * stickied comment (11 children)

edit- the submission period has come to an end. As a result this post has been locked. Contest mode has been turned off. I encourage you all to send feedback on the CRTC'S questionnaire if you have feedback on this consultation process

Hi all,

We are really excited about this opportunity so we encourage you all you all to participate. If you commented in any of the previous announcement threads, please ensure to copy those posts and comments here if you want them to be counted.

If you have off-topic discussions, please try to isolate them to the child comments under this comment. This includes and "meta" comments or questions.

For new users, welcome! This thread will be moderated so you are all encouraged to review the rules on the sidebar. All comments will be provided to CRTC regardless. If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to ask.

September272016 14 points Tue Sep 27 17:42:04 2016 UTC  (1 child)

While I do commend this attempt to seek feedback from Canadians, and I do understand the need for open discourse and the balancing of competing concerns, I do also find this consultation somewhat odd.

Shouldn't the answers to those particular questions already be obvious to the CRTC?

Will the hundreds and hundreds of comments here repeatedly pointing out the many serious and well-known problems with "differential pricing" actually have an impact on whatever is (or isn't) eventually done about this issue?

nxtman123 Canada 7 points Tue Sep 27 23:04:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I don't really know how this all works, but if I were to guess, I'd say that the CRTC is going to exactly the right place to get an overwhelming response in support of net neutrality (reddit) so that they have something to stand up against the ISPs with when the hearing comes (because we all know they won't show up without a bunch of nice-sounding reasons why the CRTC should let them do this).

concernedtelecomuser 10 points Tue Sep 27 22:17:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? There are no consumer benefits. Any form will just open up game playing and complexities that will only confuse and irritate consumers. It would provide too many openings for service pricing which will make already difficult to understand internet billings even more confusing, resulting in a lot of heat being put onto ISP's and regulators as consumers are hurt by not understanding complex rules. We don't need regulators continually distracted by such instances. Stop the additional confusion before it starts.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? My concerns are expressed in the previous response.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? Please do not let the suppliers decide. We don't have enough competition in Canada to force suppliers to take a customer viewpoint. In the absence of effective competition, they will naturally maximize profits at the expense of customer satisfaction.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Make it illegal to differentiate data streams. Do not entertain any form of data caps. If you allow anything, regulation will become another nightmare.

-crtc- Canada [S] 4 points Mon Sep 26 22:09:22 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Just everyone sees it, please check the edit in the post: we're experiencing some technical difficulties at our head office.

PorkSquared 11 points Tue Sep 27 19:38:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I've reviewed the comments, and feel that my opinions are in line with those of others, and well stated below: Differential pricing should not be permitted.

That said, I wanted to comment on order to thank the CRTC for initiating this conversation here.

So, thank you.

roh8880 3 points Wed Sep 28 18:01:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Bonjour à tous

Nous sommes vraiment excités par cette opportunité, alors nous vous encourageons tous vous tous de participer. Si vous avez dit dans l’un des threads annonce précédente, veuillez vérifier que vous copiez ces postes et les commentaires ici si vous voulez qu’ils être comptés.

Si vous avez des discussions hors-sujet, s’il vous plaît essayer d’isoler les observations de l’enfant au titre de ce commentaire. Cela inclut et des questions ou des commentaires de « meta ».

Pour les nouveaux utilisateurs, Bienvenue ! Ce fil sera modéré donc vous êtes tous invités à consulter les règles sur la barre latérale. Tous les commentaires seront fournis au CRTC indépendamment. Si vous avez des questions ou des préoccupations, n’hésitez pas à demander.

Lucky75 Canada [M] 2 points Wed Sep 28 19:27:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Also just to reiterate, we will be locking this thread at the end of Sept 30th and sharing the FULL raw data dumps with the CRTC.

Thanks, everyone, for sharing your thoughts and participating in this exciting opportunity.

DubbuhDubbuh 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:28:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

you all you all

DSJustice British Columbia 1 point Thu Sep 29 17:49:17 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Meta: After you close the thread to comments, can you please expose the vote scores? The power of Reddit is really in the user-moderation, and I am particularly interested in reading the comments that float to the top.

medym Lest We Forget 2 points Thu Sep 29 17:58:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Yes. When the feedback period is over we will be turning off contest mode, locking the thread, and working with /u/-crtc- to provide them with the full breakdown of the comments made. From what I have seen only 2 comments have been removed from this entire thread. One made comments regarding the CRTC picture they provided as proof, and the other looks to be a spammer trying to promote an unrelated website.

Canadianman22 Ontario 172 points Mon Sep 26 18:54:36 2016 UTC * (gilded) (3 children)

Differential pricing should be banned completely. All traffic needs to be treated equally and no company should be able to abuse something like differential pricing to drive out competition and drive people towards their services.

The CRTC should create regulation forcing telcos to ensure all traffic is treated equally and not allowing for companies to pay for better access to the network that Canadian taxpayers have funded.


The CRTC should also look into banning the practice of regional pricing, which allows for telcos to offer special pricing based on the level of competition in a region. It should instead be that telcos require national pricing, preventing companies from offering different rates in each area. This will create competition and lower prices for Canadians.


The CRTC should block the sale of MTS to Bell as it is designed to reduce competition and ensure a cartel like monopoly in Canada which rips Canadians off.


EDIT: Thanks for the gold kind stranger

echolocat10n 2 points Thu Sep 29 01:24:57 2016 UTC  (2 children)

I like this point, but I disagree about regional prices. I do think that the cost of providing service can vary drastically from region to region. However, I don't think that companies that, due to the difficult barrier of entry, are essentially monopolies, should have the unrestricted ability to set these prices.

We're no longer in an age where data services are a luxury. There are many things for which you are required to have internet, job applications, government resources, bill payments, etc. Communication is vital to life in this day and age, if people can't communicate with you it hurts your job prospects, and certainly your personal life. Using public access points such as the library is about as viable of an option as telling someone to go to grocery store every time they want a drink of water. IMO, this utility should be treated like every other utility, but if we can't have that, then at the very least, then the oligopoly should be far more restricted. They shouldn't be able to charge a ridiculous price because the market allows for it. Of course he market allows for it. People will always pay whatever costs for necessities in life.

And for the record, no, I'm not poor and saying this because I feel entitled. The price of any of my bills dropping would not affect me in the least. However, the majority of Canadians are not as fortunate, and even a $100/month could be substantial.

Canadianman22 Ontario 5 points Thu Sep 29 01:48:00 2016 UTC  (1 child)

People in the Territories get better phone plan prices than people in Ontario do. So I am not sure I buy the "Different Areas cost more to service".

Ontario is the most populated province and yet we have the highest prices. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have a lot less population yet they get plans that are more realistic in both price and features. The reason is that in those places, you have competition which forces the major telcos to actually offer competitive rates.

echolocat10n 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:53:19 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Ontario's prices are certainly inflated beyond reason. With respect to different regions costing more, that has no reflection on the state of the current prices, but is more a reflection of the fact that it is more cost effective to have one tower service 100 people, then it is to have a tower service 10 people, and I could understand different regions having reasonably different prices.

killerrin Ontario 154 points Tue Sep 27 02:31:58 2016 UTC *  (2 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Absolutely nothing. We need to be upholding Net Neutrality, not tearing it away and inch ourselves back towards the Cable TV Model that Robellus salivates about

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

By allowing differential pricing (also known as Zero Rating) we would be effectively giving Robellus the ability to decide who wins and loses in the marketplace, ultimately giving Canadians less choice overall.

Do you think Robellus likes the fact that Netflix is legally operating in Canada? Hell no! They want to be able to control 100% of the content market so they can charge us whatever they want and bring us back to the model of Cable TV which the majority of Canadians HATE.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes they do. If we want the Internet to succeed and allow us to remain competitive in the Economy of the 21st century, we need to ensure that the Internet is as Neutral as possible. We need regulations in this matter or we will continue to fall even further behind the rest of the world.

Going by Statistics, we are currently lagging behind some developing countries in internet service because we don't regulate and punish Robellus enough when they screw over consumers.

Just one look at how often CBC does articles on Robellus screwing over Canadians is all it should take to know that we have a problem here.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

If providers are going to cap something it should be only a single element of "Speed" or "Bandwidth". No double dipping, one or the other.

Ultimately however if we want to compete in the economy of the 21st Century then we will need to remove the concept of Data Caps altogether. Your internet Speed has an inherent cap anyhow.

For broadband service (aka, a cable to your home) congestion as service providers like to argue is a non-issue due to the amount of infrastructure in place, and the amount that will continuously be put in place due to the requirements of tech going forward.

When it comes to Mobile service, we should have never sold off the spectrum, but we did and we can't solve that without spending billions of dollars. Going forward we should move to a model of leasing spectrum to providers for anybody to use while forcing cariers to share their towers at a near wholesale rate with anybody who wants to use them. That is how we introduce competition back into the market.

In addition, it would be wise to set a maximum price ISP's can charge for Data... because it only costs fractions of a penny to provide bandwidth, while ISPs are upselling that for tens of dollars

WabidWogerWabbit 27 points Tue Sep 27 13:51:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Welp, /thread. I wonder if the incumbents have sent their employees to downvote comments.

Not trying to derail things but this is tied in with UBB. With Rogers looking to get IPTV out to its customers, I have to wonder how traffic will be prioritized and billed should they be allowed to succeed here. This applies to all three.

Differential pricing and net neutrality are inversely related. If you want small business and entrepreneurship to succeed, you'll stop differential billing at the thought stage. If you want people's usage to be directed and controlled by the big three, you'll go ahead with differential pricing. I know this may sound Orwellian but imagine the day when a kid might be told, "hey, stop watching that YouTube video on physics by a credible source. Garbage physics show on Robellus.weownallcontent is free to watch. The internet, whether you care to agree or not, is a utility. Utilities should never suffer from differential pricing.

Thanks CRTC, for listening!

Rashaverak 3 points Wed Sep 28 19:43:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This, this, a thousand times this.

skeptic11 New Brunswick 139 points Mon Sep 26 16:25:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

They entrench existing monopolies. They stifle innovation. The run contrary to concept of an open Internet.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

Yes and yes.

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Never. Corporations will always have their best interest in mind.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Everything that goes through the pipe (connection) should be charged equally.

Further, if you can watch TV shows 24/7 via a cable subscription, then you should be able to download 24/7 via that same subscription at at least the same data rate. If you can talk for unlimited minutes on a cell plan, then you should be able to download at at least the same data rate for unlimited time.

NWmba 124 points Mon Sep 26 16:34:37 2016 UTC  (4 children)

Thank you for taking the time to ask.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Well the big boys get to ensure a lock-in effect for their content and services. It's a benefit to them I suppose. I know if I had a near monopoly on what should be a public utility I'd certainly like to be able to ensure that I could edge newcomers out of the market.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely. Any perceived benefit to the public is only surface level. Differential pricing allows the public to see "oh, now I have unlimited data if I'm playing pokemon or watching Bell-approved media channels". What they don't see is that competition gets strangled out of the market by data fees, and the public then has less choice resulting in higher fees.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absoluely the CRTC should step in. The internet needs to be treated similarly to other public utilities, not as something that large corporations can control. If a company has a monopoly or near monopoly on the phone lines through which the internet operates, that is because it's in the public interest to disallow hundreds of competitors to constantly be digging up the roads. In exchange for allowing that monopoly, the service has to be treated as a public utility. Imagine the electric company getting privatized, then raising prices, and putting caps on the amount of electricity you use, but allowing unlimited electricity for appliances branded by the electric company and its partners. They would have a monopoly and use it to further cement their hold on the economy, all while the Canadian public breathes a sigh of relief that there is a way to avoid the electricity cap... Then they see the cost of the branded appliances rise, and there would be nothing they could do because of the monopoly. This is the situation facing the internet with net neutrality.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The internet should be treated like electricity with regards to regulation. Rates should be set for internet access by the CRTC based on cost to provide, fair profit, and cost to improve infrastructure. No capping, no throttling, no preferential data.

jingerninja 35 points Mon Sep 26 22:02:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Imagine the electric company getting privatized, then raising prices, and putting caps on the amount of electricity you use, but allowing unlimited electricity for appliances branded by the electric company and its partners.

This is beautiful. Fridgidaire brand fridge? $0.21 per kW/h. GE brand fridge? Free!

Under a system like that how long until it's nearly impossible for Fridgidaire to sell a fridge in this country? And once that glimmer of competition is snuffed out how long before a GE fridge has a suspiciously coincidental rise in price?

icoup Ontario 2 points Wed Sep 28 12:58:01 2016 UTC  (2 children)

I completely agree with most of your comment and do really like your use of the electricity as a hypothetical. However I don't beleive that regulating prices in the way you suggest is the best way to address the issue. I do beleive that the CRTC should step in and regulate pricing to the extent that it doesn't allow ISPs to violate net neutrality with differential pricing. I think controlling pricing to the extent you suggest would remove any shred of completion from the market. Preventing caps and throttling I do agree with, just not regulating pricing that heavily.

ninetentacles 4 points Thu Sep 29 01:02:45 2016 UTC  (1 child)

There is no competition already, else they'd be lowering rates, not raising them constantly.

icoup Ontario 1 point Thu Sep 29 13:02:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Yes you are right - there is almost no competition in the market today. However introducing regulated pricing to that level would simply provide another reason for potential new competition not to get into the market.

The CRTC should be putting in place policies that incentivise new competition - not stifle it completely.

Vorter_Jackson Canada 110 points Mon Sep 26 18:02:14 2016 UTC *  (1 child)

What you call differential pricing is what I call violating network neutrality. It's clearly a violation of the Telecommunications and CRTC Act no matter what you want to call it. If a service provider is allowed to promote their own content and exempt it from usage charges, it's not just a result of vertical integration; that company is violating the law and the spirit of the law governing the Internet in Canada and attempting to use their control of the Internet to their own unfair advantage.

can_dry 29 points Tue Sep 27 17:50:19 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Completely agree!

The only reason we keep having this same bloody conversation over and over is that service providers are incessantly lobbying gov't to give them the same sweet deal they have with delivering cable television. They won't stop until they are allowed to get fees directly from content providers (e.g. facebook, youtube, etc, etc.) for not throttling or blocking their content. Of course, then will come bundling content and injecting their own never ending layers of advertisements.

hanexar 103 points Mon Sep 26 21:32:07 2016 UTC  (7 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

ISP will be able to ask money from content provider in exchange of being in a zero-rating package. They will be able to kill some content provider (let's say, those that compete from their own products for example) by not including them in any zero-rating. ISP will be happy.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

When the big telco are happy, it's bad news for customers.

If zero-rating package goes unregulated, we will have a cable-like internet in a few years. Here's what we will get as offer:

Here's your base package : 50gb data for 40$. In short, you get base internet without multimedia content.

Buy our zero-rating base-video package for 15$ : free youtube data, free ISP's content plateforms.

Add-on music for 10$ : free spotify and google music. (We hate rdio, so let it die on the base plan).

Add-on big movie watcher 20$ : GooglePlay, Cineplex and 3-competitors-i've-never-heard-of-that-produce-poor-content-that-I'll-need-to-pay-for-even-if-I-never-watch-it included.

Oh yea, we also have our "we hate Netflix unlimited package" for 35$.

Finally, for the big Linux distro downloader, here's your torrent package : 15$ for unlimited-50gb of transfer, add 1$ per gb after.

If you doubt this would happen, check out how much cable cost. I'm a cord cutter for those reason. Often, I've check how much it would cost me to watch Game of Thrones on HBO. For a single show, It's over 50$/months because of those packaging practice.

My concerns with this approach are the follow :

1- It would kill any new player.
2- It would kill my wallet. Let's no forget that we already pay to the content provider. I don't want to pay extra because I choose one content over the other.
3- It would give too much power to ISP.
4- It would kill a neutral internet where there's opportunity for everyone, and where customer are free to get the content they want at a neutral price (pay for speed, not for content).

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, please, step in.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

ISP are internet provider. Internet should be considered as an utility like electricity is. Electricity provider doesn't care if I power a light bulb or my electric car with their service They don't discriminate.

At the very least, it should be the same with Internet. It's not a luxury anymore. It has revolutionize knowledge and the way we communicate today, let's not let this revolution be controlled by a few corporation.

At best, you should also kill data cap, and let them charge only on speed. This is the real bottleneck for them, not the data. Data cap is only there to charge more money. There's no cost for them for more data, just for more speed.

Thanks for doing this.

dwild 0 points Wed Sep 28 17:43:59 2016 UTC  (6 children)

I haven't read all your comment, I stopped at your second point because I feel you misunderstood (or I did). When I will be on a computer I will read your comment again.

It's not about blocking a service, it's about allowing the service to be charged for you for the data. If there's no agreement, it will still be open and will only be charged to you directly.

They could still abuse and charge you even more for the data, but I guess that's why regulations are needed. It's just moving the charge over to the service. It's should still be the same cost and indirectly you will still pay it.

It won't allow blocking any service.

What it will allow though is service that work through advertising or any other revenue stream to be even more accessibl and grow bigger. Youtube for free seems great isn't it? Or even some donations based service like Wikipedia to be accessible to all (it's just some KB per page, won't cost much and often people wouldn't pay for data because other apps could use it and be way more expensive). Or anything sponsored by an external funding, like content from Film Canada. Theses could all be paid by someone else and allow everyone to access it.

MrChombo Ontario 3 points Wed Sep 28 20:52:34 2016 UTC  (5 children)

I believe you misunderstand OP's comment. They are not saying that content is blocked, but if you get 50gb and service A is zero-rated but service B isn't, service B is at a severe disadvantage as people will actively avoid it to not push their data usage ever closer to the cap.

dwild 0 points Wed Sep 28 21:22:11 2016 UTC  (4 children)

Here's your base package : 50gb data for 40$. In short, you get base internet without multimedia content. Buy our zero-rating base-video package for 15$ : free youtube data, free ISP's content plateforms. Add-on music for 10$ : free spotify and google music. (We hate rdio, so let it die on the base plan).

What? Can you explain me this please? That's where I stopped reading his comment and that's exactly what I understood. To get access to some service you require to choose a package. That's not what differential pricing allow and all the content will be accessible.

service A is zero-rated but service B isn't, service B is at a severe disadvantage as people will actively avoid it to not push their data usage ever closer to the cap.

Well if service A cost the same as service B, than without differential pricing service A will be cheaper than service B and if data is that expensive for theses services, it would be substantially less expensive.

In my mind, data cost for differential pricing will have to be regulated. It would also have to be global and not have any exclusivity.

hanexar 3 points Wed Sep 28 21:55:01 2016 UTC  (3 children)

Here's your base package : 50gb data for 40$. In short, you get base internet without multimedia content. Buy our zero-rating base-video package for 15$ : free youtube data, free ISP's content plateforms. Add-on music for 10$ : free spotify and google music. (We hate rdio, so let it die on the base plan).

What? Can you explain me this please? That's where I stopped reading his comment and that's exactly what I understood. To get access to some service you require to choose a package. That's not what differential pricing allow and all the content will be accessible.

Sorry if this wasn't clear to you, I'll try to break it down.

50GB is the cap in your base package before you get over charge (5$/GB). Compare it to base cable.

Light use of any multimedia service like Netflix will blow this 3 times over in a month.

Thus, watching my 150GB montly Netflix fix would cost me 550$ per month on this package. I think we can agree that this is not an acceptable price.

Right now, they sell the extra data (let's say 15$/month extra), but there's no reason they will keep the same pricing model, and price will probably go up if they can afford unlimited an alternate approach.

So if you can get, for a "small" 15$ unlimited access to certain service (their own), but not Netflix, for example, it would be the same as blocking Netflix out, and choosing which content I can access, and which one I cannot (60$ vs 550$). Also, keep in mind that we are already billed by content provider.

Telco have lost lots of control (and money) when people switch from cable to internet, they want it back. It's as simple as that.

Also, your vision of the thing is completely off :

Youtube for free seems great isn't it?

It will not be free, either you will be paying extra somewhere else for the "free" youtube, or you will be getting more ads.

Or even some donations based service like Wikipedia to be accessible to all (it's just some KB per page

Wikipedia on unlimited data plan is just plain nonsense, you said it yourself, it's just a couple of KB. But you are right, they will probably try to get another 5$ per month from grandma for unlimited access to Wikipedia.

dwild 0 points Wed Sep 28 22:19:50 2016 UTC *  (2 children)

Edit: Sorry I ignored "zero-rating" in my comment. I hope you haven't read it yet. I'm against "zero-rating". There shouldn't be a different cost based on the type of data.

If data for differential pricing is less expensive, than I will be happy to offer a VPN over it and charge you that cheap price directly.

That's where regulation is required. Any service should be able to get differential pricing (and if you do, you do it for any provider). You never see toll free number that only work on a partial list of phone provider. The price should be standard for the amount of data and that's what Netflix, or Illico on demands will pay, wether you do it on Videotron, Bell or whatever network that support differential pricing.

So what I get more ads? I would be happy to watch more believe me. Video hosting is older than Youtube but before that more often than not you had to pay for it. They made it mainstream by not only allowing it for free, but also because later they started rewarding people who posted videos. That allowed a huge market that simply didn't want to pay or simply couldn't (weren't you on the internet before you were able to get a credit card? How did you pay?... ). Ads are great and allow access to a market that can't pay. Pay if you want but not everyone can and you block them access.

Get another 5$ for access to Wikipedia? For god sake did you understand? Wikipedia will always be accessible. That won't change a thing.

You eon't pay to access diffenrital pricing and I sure hope the regulation won't allow provider to choose which service is allowed to use it or not and in which situation. You either do or don't and that should be the same for all provider.

MrChombo Ontario 3 points Thu Sep 29 00:03:07 2016 UTC  (1 child)

I'm not sure you fully grasp the hypothetical that /u/hanexar is proposing. I'm also not sure how or inclined to try and explain it further.

Suffice it to say, "zero rating bad, net neutrality good".

dwild 0 points Thu Sep 29 00:16:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm not for "zero-rating", I'm for sponsored content.

Letting them choose service that shouldn't be charged is nearly impossible to regulate correctly.

radapex New Brunswick 98 points Mon Sep 26 15:57:09 2016 UTC  (2 children)

Regarding online usage/pricing as a whole, the notion of charging for both bandwidth (speed) and throughput (data transferred) is ridiculous. We should not be charging people based on how much they're using their service.

To illustrate, let's suppose I've written a script that downloads 1 MB file every second of every day of September over a 150Mbps fibre connection. Treating this in a vacuum (absolutely no other usage) I'll have only ever used 5% of the bandwidth sold to me (8Mbps / 150Mbps), but I'd have transferred 2.47TB of data -- almost 10x the usage cap on the 150Mbps connection Bell offers in Ontario. This usage will have absolutely no negative impact on the quality of service to other users because it's never putting any significant strain on the network.

I understand that some ISPs have a history of overselling their infrastructure, causing quality of service problems for their consumers, but this doesn't get mitigated by the ridiculous throughput caps -- it's because they've oversold the bandwidth, and it's time for those ISPs to either adjust their infrastructure or adjust their plans to accommodate.

I also appreciate that there is a difference between ISPs and mobile providers. Mobile tower congestion is a very real issue, we've even experienced it in a small city like Fredericton. A model like Wind's, where users get throttled instead of billed for high usage, has always struck me as a very fair compromise.


Of course, the above rant is my long way of saying that zero-rating shouldn't be a topic because we shouldn't be charged for throughput to begin with.

moeburn Ontario 11 points Mon Sep 26 17:28:05 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This usage will have absolutely no negative impact on the quality of service to other users because it's never putting any significant strain on the network.

Well you make an excellent point there - if we are to believe that data caps are a cost reflective of the strain that high-consumption customers put on the network, then there should at least be some logic behind that.

A model like Wind's, where users get throttled instead of billed for high usage, has always struck me as a very fair compromise.

That's what Bell was doing for a while, throttling the torrent protocol between 4PM and midnight to 60kB/s, but they stopped doing that after class action lawsuits were filed. Probably because they didn't mention it anywhere in the contract.

TheBlueFalcon816 5 points Wed Sep 28 15:57:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

ISP's should provision their network to be robust enough that each individual customer should be able to use the full bandwidth of their line without compromising the experience of other users. The 1MB download once a second point is a very good one. Internet is not a finite resource, so it shouldn't be capped. Simple.

mikoul 94 points Mon Sep 26 18:15:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There is NO benefit for the customer only for the companies.

Ban it completely, it's unfair for every customer.

N-Bombb 92 points Mon Sep 26 18:48:18 2016 UTC  (1 child)

-1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think the only benefits are provider-facing. It's like if McDonalds charged for refills except Coke. I should also note that the entire existence of zero-rating makes a mockery of any claimed need for data caps. ESPECIALLY when the service being zero-rated is video, arguably the heaviest user of bandwidth.

-2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I am concerned that it will lead to different classes of applications and services, with one class being more favoured than the other, and putting up barriers to the success of newcomers.

-3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

In my opinion yes. Service providers should be service-agnostic. They shouldn't be curators or gatekeepers. Basically, it's not our responsibility to subsidize their business model.

-4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban the practice. There really is no middle ground.

Thank you.

Kirshy81 2 points Fri Sep 30 21:03:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I can't believe this is even a question you need to be asking consumers. You should ban the practice and move onto more important use of the CRTC's time like fixing the telecom price gouging that has been going on in Canada for the last 15 years.

TheEdster 95 points Mon Sep 26 22:23:41 2016 UTC  (5 children)

  • What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Incumbents: get to ensure a lock-in effect for their content and services.

Public/Consumers: None

  • Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely, violation of net neutrality, any perceived benefit to the public is only surface level. What they don't see is that competition gets strangled out of the market by data fees, and the public then has less choice resulting in higher fees.

  • Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Clearly, the CRTC should step in. The internet needs to be open and all traffic treated the same. If a company has a monopoly or near monopoly on the phone lines through which the internet operates, that is because it's in the public interest to disallow hundreds of competitors to constantly be digging up the roads. In exchange for allowing that monopoly, the service has to be treated as a public utility. Imagine the electric company getting privatized, then raising prices, and putting caps on the amount of electricity you use, but allowing unlimited electricity for appliances branded by the electric company and its partners. They would have a monopoly and use it to further cement their hold on the economy, all while the Canadian public breathes a sigh of relief that there is a way to avoid the electricity cap... Then they see the cost of the branded appliances rise, and there would be nothing they could do because of the monopoly. This is the situation facing the internet with net neutrality.

  • If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Rates should be set for internet access by the CRTC based on cost to provide, fair profit, and cost to improve infrastructure. No capping, no throttling, no preferential data.

the*****rake Ontario 4 points Wed Sep 28 00:03:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

I have upvoted many comments here, and this comment spells out my thoughts very succinctly. Let the public record stand that /u/TheEdster 's comment exactly echos my sentiments on the matter. If necessary, I will quote the comment in my own post.

TCL987 Canada 4 points Thu Sep 29 00:19:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

One solution I've seen is that ISP profits should be capped at a percentage return on infrastructure investment. That way the ISPs will be forced to continue to invest in new infrastructure which should lead to a continuous improvement in the quality of service while still allowing the ISPs to receive a reasonable profit.

The cap should be high enough to provide an attractive enough return on investment but low enough to prevent price gouging.

cayle 2 points Wed Sep 28 18:28:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

A good example to the monopoly situation is Ontario hydro. Terrible and unforgivable situation the Wynn government has put us in.

nguindon 2 points Wed Sep 28 20:10:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am a Canadian living in BC (grew up in ON) and I completely agree with this comment. It encapsulates my position perfectly. Il a complètement raison.

Brutal_Peacemaker 2 points Thu Sep 29 00:38:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is exactly what I came here to say.

varsil 90 points Tue Sep 27 08:05:43 2016 UTC  (3 children)

Questions: We need your opinion about differential pricing: What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Well, I don't own a telecommunications company, so I don't see any benefit to me. It would benefit the telecoms companies greatly because they can charge me for access to the internet, and then also turn around and limit what I can access based on whether or not other companies pay a fee. The notion that something being zero-rated is a benefit to me is false--I'm paying for the zero rating either way, it just greatly limits competition (which is always to the detriment of the consumer).

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Oh my yes. I am concerned that differential pricing will:

  • Lock in incumbents by making new entrants to various markets unable to compete due to various exclusive agreements.

  • Allow internet providers to charge me to access the internet, and then turn around and extort companies to pay them for what I have essentially already paid for--the connection between me and the outside world.

  • Allow internet providers to effect massive vertical integration--whether the consumers want it or not.

  • Essentially require ISPs to snoop on traffic, greatly reducing privacy of the average citizen.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely the concerns outweigh the benefits, and they not only justify your stepping in, they practically demand it.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Regulate is the wrong word. Ban is the correct word. It should be banned clearly, and unequivocally, and broadly. Internet service providers should not be allowed to discriminate between types of communication for the same reason that telephone companies are not allowed to degrade your call if you contact a competitor, courier/mail companies are not allowed to give you worse service depending on the contents of your mail (or to inspect it to discover these things), and so forth. This is essential if there is to be any competition in the market for internet sites/services, and if consumers are to have any real choice.

canuckleballer 6 points Wed Sep 28 03:30:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This sums up my feelings as well. Well said.

ICEFARMER 3 points Wed Sep 28 04:38:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Good post.

crackinfoxy 2 points Thu Sep 29 17:22:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Ban is absolutely the correct term, thank you for stating it!

moeburn Ontario 88 points Mon Sep 26 17:24:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The idea that an internet service provider themselves could ever decide which internet services get lower data costs than others, that is a very dangerous idea. Any ISP with a mind for profits would be quick to make deals with competitors seeking to find an advantage against Netflix and Youtube and the like. The internet would quickly become a game of "Who can pay the most ISPs for the most access". Please don't let Canada become the first grounds for this type of experiment.

Really, what we should be talking about is an end to data caps altogether, not more creative ways to charge them. My television provider never charged me based on how many hours I spent watching TV per week.

Ideally, what we really need is a publicly owned ISP. The internet has proven too valuable of a service to leave in the hands of a handful of conglomerates making little effort to appear to be in competition.

BittyNumNum 88 points Mon Sep 26 16:34:34 2016 UTC  (2 children)

I would like to see differential pricing banned. It will create a scenario where the user may not know if they are being charged or not for something. It could also result in too much consolidation of content providers if they can afford to arrange deals for their data to be free.

Data is too important to Canadian citizens at this point to be subject to the whims of corporate policy.

I'd like to see things go in another direction entirely, access to the internet and data is too important to leave to corporate interests, I'd like to see internet access made a right and provided by the government through tax revenue just as we have access to highways and isp's can charge for added value they bring beyond the data usage itself.

moeburn Ontario 24 points Mon Sep 26 17:30:47 2016 UTC  (1 child)

It will create a scenario where the user may not know if they are being charged or not for something.

Hey, now there's a good point too. It's already too easy to accidentally go over your data cap limit and get charged money, the last thing we need is a situation where accidentally having the wrong URL in your browser leads to data charges. I can only imagine having a data exemption set up on your Bell account for Netflix, only to be charged anyway because Netflix set up a new CDN server that wasn't registered with Bell.

tdot7 11 points Tue Sep 27 13:37:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

And what about third party ad networks? Just because website.com doesn't count against my traffic doesn't mean a majority of the traffic when visiting that website originates from it.

We measured the mix of advertising and editorial on the mobile home pages of the top 50 news websites – including ours – and found that more than half of all data came from ads and other content filtered by ad blockers.

josh_the_misanthrope New Brunswick 84 points Mon Sep 26 19:51:29 2016 UTC  (1 child)

As a staunch supporter of absolute network neutrality, please don't allow differential pricing.

  1. The benifit to the consumer is clear. It allows them to use certain services without worrying about bandwitdth. At face value, it seems like a good thing, however...

  2. My concerns are that it fosters an environment of exclusivity deals, removes incentives for larger data caps for regular "non differentiated" data and creates an uneven playing field where an incumbent service would have a major advantage over an emergent competing service. And we can't forget that one of the reasons that the internet functions so well is that all data is treated equally. It's a principle so fundemental to the internet we all know and love, and allowing telecommunication companies to interfere with this would be a net loss for modern society.

  3. Therefore, the concerns far outweight the benefits. The solution is clear, telecoms need to be improving their infrastructure to support higher bandwidth to allow people to use data as they see fit, rather than selling that right to the highest corporate bidder. This should very much be regulated by the CRTC.

  4. Don't let them do it. Be like Tom Wheeler of the FCC, and defend net neutrality. Something similar to Title II would be ok, althought it would need to be enforced. T-Mobile is essentially violating net neutrality in the US as it stands.

meanenoughworld 2 points Fri Sep 30 04:42:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you for eloquently expressing my opinion on the subject.

alexwilson 83 points Mon Sep 26 23:28:57 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I can't think of any.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

This is just an attempt to undermine Net Neutrality with a different name. The end result is no different than blocking or slowing down certain traffic, which the CRTC already made a lovely decision about with its Internet traffic management practices. Differential pricing is just another attempt to go around those rules.

Furthermore, any internet or phone provider that also produces or partners with the source(s) of this potentially differential data has a potentially huge and unfair advantage, or at the very least, a giant conflict of interest. It is not unreasonable that other providers will attempt to price competitors' data as high as possible. Consumers only lose.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely. The telcos have shown time an again they on pretend to compete on pricing (unless you live in Saskatchewan or Manitoba and can actually get some real competition, then surprise, they actually have lower rates for cell phone packages). I doubt there is Canadian who thinks any of the big telcos should be allowed to set their own rates for anything, especially internet data.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Don't allow differential pricing. Set a fair rate for all Canadians for all data, and hold the telcos to it. Nationalising the telcos would actually be my preference, but that might be beyond the scope of this consultation.

xhiggy 82 points Mon Sep 26 18:06:50 2016 UTC  (1 child)

1) I don't see any benefits for the end user, that couldn't be implemented in a cheaper way by the service providers.

2) This forces service providers to determine what information sources are privileged, and which are not. Basically this will amount to large companies determining what the poor can afford to read/watch.

3) this practice will push access to information further into the hands of a few companies. I do not see how giving up a free internet is ever worth it.

4) ban it completely

RaindropsxRoses 3 points Mon Sep 26 19:37:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I couldn't have said it better. I completely agree, differential pricing harms the

_Ev4l 79 points Mon Sep 26 18:41:34 2016 UTC *  (2 children)

Before I start, I will say I think this is the wrong route. Jump to the last 3 paragraphs of my post. Otherwise, CRTC i'll play your game and try to be constructive.


1.What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The only benefit I can think of is; it allows certain services to be exuded from caps. This is great for certain specific things like streaming or rtvc. Would be a win all around for canadians in our current situation if implemented properly.

2.Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I do. I'll break them down into smaller points & questions.

1. Who decides what services are valuable enough to be considered essential?

Self regulated providers would have the means to stiffle and prevent entire markets from ever becoming a thing. In reverse it could propel certain services creating monopolies on services, something our telecommunication companies love and already do. Netflix is a prime example in the states of a service that was forced to pay up to comcasts demands. The model of self regulation would prevent an open internet and do Canadians a disservice.

2. What qualifies a service or certain uses of data for being part of the differential model?

Is something that is commonly used up for becoming a "Zero-rating" service? Or just what the providers want (or will give up)? Does a business or household get preferential treatment to various "Zero-rating" actions? (EG streaming would be more beneficial to individuals and households, but things like backing up data and uploading matter to businesses).

Say we pick streaming as something to exclude from data caps. Does streaming solely mean "youtube" or prefered channels? Can I stream content from HBO, crunchy roll, vemo, what about new services that are not recognized yet without having to worry about it consuming my data cap? Is it solely video, audio ? does stream chat along side count towards the streaming experience?

3. Canadians First.

Additionally there are so many other types of things I could think of that would benefit Canadians as a whole being excluded from data caps. Things like government services(which is almost mandatory to have a internet connection now a days given how much various services have moved to online portals/applications), uploading created content, hosting, etc that really benefit Canadians across the board and propel us forward on the net. I'm afraid these kinds of basic yet essential things will be swept under the rug.

4. Privacy.

Obviously if they were to go down that route, that would mean screening and digging into peoples usage to differentiate between data cap consumption & "zero rated use". This raises some questions as it could potentially allow all kinds of data and privacy breaches.

3.Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I think the concerns very much do out weigh the benefits if left unregulated. I do not think our providers are competent in regulating anything other than their bottom line. Time and time again they prove that money above all else is all that matters with Canadian internet. You can see this across the board by looking at our plans compared to third world countries. Which eludes me to this example in our own country:

Sadly, you don't even have to go that far either, you could sign up with a rogers smart phone right now in ontario. Call in a day later say your moving to Alberta, they switch you to the alberta standard rate, then the next day call in saying your unsure if your moving. This will allow you to keep your original ontario phone number, and keep your plan from Alberta which has a $50/month difference. Then just never call back. The sad thing is they don't even pick up on it and frankly they don't care because they are still making money off you.

4.If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Please if you do step in, clearly define what types of data use are and are not part of the "Zero-rating" model. Do not use service names such as skype. Even if the market is named after such service.


In contrast to everything thing above. Which I'll admit I gave my dearest to be constructive. I think the whole differential pricing is a bandaid to a much bigger problem. I feel that data caps and their cost are utter garbage. I already pay to use the service, now I have to pay for usage as well? This whole differential pricing model with data caps is about the same as letting television charge for watch time on top of the users package, and then asking if we'd be "ok" with them excluding the advertisements from the watch time premiums.

Data caps are just the gravy on top of everything, they get to charge you for using a service you already pay for that costs them next to nothing to use. It costs roughly 0.6 of a cent to send me that extra gb at the end of the month yet they have absolutely no problem charging $5 for it. The whole existence of data caps creates a range of confusion and problems which is why we are here in the first place. Teleco's not to long ago didn't have data caps, we payed for the access to the web and speeds. They worked just fine before and were still very much profitable.

So I implore you CRTC end data caps, and the whole issue of differential pricing becomes non existent. The whole reason the issue even exists is because the CRTC has already failed Canadians and allows Teleco's to extort Canadians for their usage on top of paying for a service.

badcallday 19 points Mon Sep 26 19:49:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What qualifies a service or certain uses of data for being part of the differential model?

Say we pick streaming as something to exclude from data caps. Does streaming solely mean "youtube" or prefer channels? Can I stream content from HBO, crunchy roll, vemo, what about new services that are not recognized yet without having to worry about it consuming my data cap? Is it solely video, audio ? does stream chat along side count towards the streaming experience?

Don't forget to add the fact that some of these streaming apps may require a fee or subscription to use regardless if the data itself it use it is free:
ie: Nexflix still requires a monthly fee, HBO requires you to subscribe to HBO with specific providers to view online. Spotify can require a premium account as well
Also several other services will still make you sign up with an account that you manage, not your cellular provider (google acct, facebook, snapchat, ect

megaw 3 points Wed Sep 28 17:29:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I completely agree with your last 3 paragraphs. Data caps are the problem.

MorningwoodGlory 79 points Mon Sep 26 17:49:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

To keep with the popular metaphor of comparing internet service to highways:

We currently pay our ISP's for bandwidth. We liken this to the width of the highway - the more lanes you have, the higher potential to travel faster and more efficiently.

Data usage (packets) in this case would be the cars on the highway. If we want to stream an HD movie, that'll take a lot more cars than sending an email. We'll need quite a few lanes if we want that movie to come through efficiently. We need decent bandwidth to push that much data through the pipe. So, most of us pay for a reasonable bandwidth to allow those cars to travel.

We all pay taxes (in real life now) which go into our roads systems. And we certainly aren't told that we can't drive our cars anymore once we've driven a certain distance. We don't prevent new cars from travelling to a place once an arbitrary number of them have already arrived. The ISP's have a reasonable point in that the SmartCar travelling twice a week and the cross-country fleet of 18-wheelers burden the system differently. But the fleet is paying for the lanes that everyone else gets to use - is it really fair to stop them halfway through their journey or hit them with a toll fee if they've paid for the road themselves? We all support the infrastructure of the roads, we help pay for lanes to be built. Just like how we pay our ISP for bandwidth.

And we have the freedom to use those publicly funded roads to travel wherever we'd like to go.

So what if we were allowed to move as many cars as we wanted, but we were told we can only take roads to certain places. Places we don't have any interest in going to. I want to drive to Tim Hortons, but the road company is making me drive to Dunkin'. Maybe that doesn't sound so bad for some, lots of people might even prefer Dunkin'. But the roads are taking away the freedom of choice I had before. Maybe now, because Dunkin' is guaranteed all these new customers, the quality of their product will go way down. And Darryl's Donuts and all the other small donut shops are going out of business because the roads that lead to them are closed. This is non-neutral differential pricing, and it is a terrible idea in both philosophy and practice from the customer's standpoint.

Data caps and differential pricing are both detrimental to the end user. To the average Canadian. At best, the practice is a creative way for ISP's to make more money. But if that's going to come at the cost of our fundamental right to a neutral internet and freedom of choice, then something needs to be done.

TossIt_12345 77 points Mon Sep 26 16:53:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hello, and thank you for allowing this discussion to take place. The process of this kind of conversation can be very difficult for the average citizen to access, and I appreciate that efforts are being made to engage with us in an accessible way. I will attempt to answer the questions you've posed to the best of my ability.

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I don't see many benefits at all, at least from the information I have on the issue. I could see it being an advantage to consumers if they can choose a plan that allows them to have unlimited bandwidth for their most frequently used services (e.g. entertainment streaming services).

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, I have many. I am concerned about how it will allow ISPs to create complicated and confusing pricing structures that are intentionally vague, distorted, or make it difficult to compare to their competitors. I am concerned that this will be used to sell people services that they don't need, such as implying that they need to pay for a zero-rated “Netflix” addon just to be able to use Netflix at all. I think it is important to note that many, if not most, consumers are not necessarily well-versed in how the internet works and how pricing is determined, and that this allows for manipulative sales practices from the providers.

A larger concern that I have is that differential pricing could allow ISPs to take bribes from and/or make favourable deals with the services that want priority network access. This would give a massive advantage to the most established companies out there (think Netflix, Spotify, etc.) who could create deals that effectively shut out their competition. This also allows ISPs to favour their own services. For example, Bell and Rogers both have streaming services with Crave TV and Shomi that could be zero-rated while something like Netflix is not. This gives a massive advantage, and feels monopolistic to me.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I believe the concerns greatly outweigh the benefits. Regulation is going to be essential in creating a fair system of internet access in Canada (which is already on a very unfair playing field, but that's another conversation). I believe that fair and equal opportunity internet access is a basic right. I also believe that the major service providers in this country have other business interests that conflict with that right, in that an equal opportunity system of internet access also gives their users equal opportunity to use their competitor's services. For example, a Bell internet user wanting access to Shomi (a Rogers service) is not in Bell's interest, and without regulation they would have all the incentive in the world to attempt to restrict that access and push their own service instead.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

This is a very difficult question to answer, but I will try. It seems to me that if differential pricing is banned, that ISPs will simply up their prices to compensate, and everyone will suffer. That's what happens every time the CRTC has stepped in so far (a la carte cable, 2-year cell phone contracts, etc.). So I think there needs to be a more holistic approach to the issue of internet/data access in Canada as a whole in order to create a sustainable long-term solution.

I think the biggest step to take is to define what fair and equal opportunity internet access should look like. Set a standard definition that states that the speed that is advertised is what needs to be delivered across all traffic, from all applications and devices and enforce it. I believe there should also be a legal price limit, either per GB, or perhaps up to a defined bandwidth limit (say, 50 or 100 GB). This price and limit would have to be revisited frequently, as the nature of internet traffic changes over time. Perhaps a percentage increase could be allotted each year, similar to the way rent increases are fixed on housing. Other than that, I don't know of a way to enforce fair access other than constant diligence to keep checking the service providers on the policies they attempt to slip past us.

ayjee 77 points Mon Sep 26 20:44:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

To echo many of the comments here:

1) I see very little benefit to consumers, aside from perhaps a few dollars saved on a monthly bill for certain users' usage patterns.

2) Zero-pricing is in direct violation of net neutrality. It stifles competition by making it possible for ISPs to make access to websites that pay said ISP cheaper and/or easier for the consumer

3) The concerns overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits. Net neutrality, once violated, would be extremely difficult to recover without drastic measures. The CRTC must step in and ban zero-rating.

4) Step in by banning it. Please do not do half measures, this is too important.

Staticn0ise Alberta 77 points Tue Sep 27 08:21:37 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Do not allow differential pricing. It is the worst thing that could happen to our internet. Instead remove the overly restrictive data caps.

Differential pricing will only allow our ISP's to double dip on pricing. (Allowing ISP's to collect money from websites to become part of the program and then from consumers to access the same website.) It hurts smaller, innovative and new websites by making it harder to compete and directs potential traffic away from these sites.

PROTECT NET NUTRIALITY IN CANADA!

Jellyka 23 points Tue Sep 27 12:40:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This. This is different from TV. This is different from radios. The internet is unique. On the internet you can start your own video service, music service, or news service. And you don't need as much money, experience or connections to be successful, as you would usually need to start your own TV channel or radio station.

Giving ISPs the power to pick and choose services like that has the potentiel to ruin that. Nobody is going to visit your new video sharing service if they have 100mb datacaps, yet unlimited youtube and facebook. So you're doomed from the start.

eartburm British Columbia 76 points Mon Sep 26 17:32:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Benefits to consumers are negligible. And perceived benefits are artificial, as a relief of reduced monthly data caps.
  2. Yes, differential pricing is very concerning. The practice provides perverse incentives to the ISPs to both control content (on behalf of paying content producers), and to lower monthly caps to drive adoption of sponsored services, especially when those services are directly owned by the internet service provider.
  3. Yes, since benefits to consumers are minimal, and could be better served by simply increasing data caps if providers are finding that the caps are limiting uptake of their preferred content services. Zero-rating and differential pricing should not be permitted.
  4. Forbidding differential pricing on services delivered over IP is the most simple solution. There should be no grey areas where it's unclear whether a given anticompetitive practice is permitted or not.

BloodyIron 74 points Mon Sep 26 22:36:46 2016 UTC *  (2 children)

Tiered, or second class data, based on content, is a terrible idea. It makes it too subjective as to which data is acceptable and which isnt, when the whole internet has been built upon equality of data.

I DO NOT want tiered internet based on traffic content, be it cellular or ISP served. EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL DATA.

I run gaming events, and at times this involves internet services. Why should we be treated as a second class internet citizen simply because we aren't Music or Video? To put it another way, just because some arbitrary other person deemed our content not interesting to them?

Terrh 3 points Wed Sep 28 22:38:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

A thousand times this.

All data must be equal data.

I do not want to have to pay more to do what I've already been doing on the Internet for over 20 years just because I'm not streaming TV.

cultural_dissenter Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 01:47:07 2016 UTC  (0 children)

EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL DATA.

There is a logic in some genuine network prioritization. For example, it's reasonable to give the highest priority to all known VOIP and video conferencing traffic (regardless of source, destination, or service). It's real-time nature makes it more latency-sensitive.

Another legitimate use of management would be to allocate bandwidth when there is more demand than available capacity. In that case, it would (for example) to guarantee everyone a certain amount of bandwidth, then divide up the remainder based on inverse usage. That way, people who use a little bit of data get a faster experience, while those downloading a lot of data still get their data, but they are a bit slower.

jclemy 75 points Mon Sep 26 19:05:24 2016 UTC  (2 children)

Net neutrality is important. The company shouldn't decide what websites I can use.

You should be ending data caps and opening the internet further. Data caps are simply a cash grab.

Planner_Hammish 4 points Mon Sep 26 19:23:29 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Just imagine how bad it will be for Robelus if I could tether my phone to access the internet at home! They would lose $75/mo at least from me, since I wouldn't need to have two different internet subscriptions! Where will all those pensioners get their fat dividend income stream from then??? THINK OF THE ADULT CHILDREN!

in-a-far-off-land 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:55:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What phone do you have?

TheFallingStar 75 points Tue Sep 27 15:46:18 2016 UTC  (1 child)

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no benefits

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, differential pricing goes against internet neutrality. Many of our ISP are also content producers. This gives the establish ISP tremendous unfair advantage. It limits competition in the industry

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, the concerns outweigh the benefits. CRTC should step in and forbid differential pricing

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

CRTC should forbid differential pricing immediately. In the long term, internet neutrality should be applied to all ISP in Canada. We also need to forbid companies from being both ISP and content producers

LeX420 Canada 2 points Wed Sep 28 21:51:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

CRTC should forbid differential pricing immediately. In the long term, internet neutrality should be applied to all ISP in Canada. We also need to forbid companies from being both ISP and content producers

If differential pricing becomes illegal, then why would it matter if a company is both a content producer AND an ISP?

AssignedUsername 75 points Tue Sep 27 00:18:13 2016 UTC  (1 child)

On enforcement: fines don't work. When you fine them, they simply offset it by increasing the price to subscribers.

I think the CRTC needs to think outside of the box in terms of consequences. I'd like to see more punishments similar to removing the ability to bid on a spectrum, only take it further and remove existing spectrums. Maybe remove their ability to offer discounted/retention/promotional rates, Or even crazier releasing all customers from contracts; literally all regardless of the age of the contract.

Don't wait for major violations either. Put them on egg shells.

September272016 6 points Tue Sep 27 18:15:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Your comment is one of the most important that I've seen here so far.

Any regulation that allows punishment to be passed on to the customers will be more harmful than good.

I find the idea of confiscating spectrum/infrastructure, for instance, to be very unappealing, but there may be no choice left.

Spindr1ft 71 points Mon Sep 26 17:35:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The benefits are designed to appear to be for the consumer when the reality is that it would be used to make deals with content providers to the benefit of the ISP.

It violates the spirit of net neutrality. Data caps are an artificial limit put in place to coerce consumers to use services offered by the ISP over those offered by new media.

There are no benefits. It is simply there to create a disincentive to use services that the provider doesn't have a monetary deal with.

I think regulation should be simple. Zero rating should not be allowed. Or if it is for video content, all video content should be zero rated. Not just the content provider they have a multi-million dollar deal with. Anything other than that violates net neutrality.

Drakon519 New Brunswick 68 points Mon Sep 26 16:18:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

By allowing certain services to not count towards your data cap, you are putting net neutrality in Danger. Make it count toward you data usage, but ban data caps. They have no place in Canada.

dpsi 70 points Mon Sep 26 16:45:26 2016 UTC  (1 child)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no benefits to the consumer with differential pricing, only corporations benefit.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Differential pricing gives corporations greater control on what media consumers can consume and inhibits innovation and dialogue.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes the concerns outweigh the benefits, yes there is a justification to increased regulation.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Enforce section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act.

Planner_Hammish 19 points Mon Sep 26 19:26:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Enforce section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act.

27

Just and reasonable rates

(1) Every rate charged by a Canadian carrier for a telecommunications service shall be just and reasonable.

Unjust discrimination

(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

Questions of fact

(3) The Commission may determine in any case, as a question of fact, whether a Canadian carrier has complied with this section or section 25 or 29, or with any decision made under section 24, 25, 29, 34 or 40.

Burden of proof

(4) The burden of establishing before the Commission that any discrimination is not unjust or that any preference or disadvantage is not undue or unreasonable is on the Canadian carrier that discriminates, gives the preference or subjects the person to the disadvantage.

Method

(5) In determining whether a rate is just and reasonable, the Commission may adopt any method or technique that it considers appropriate, whether based on a carrier's return on its rate base or otherwise.

Exception

(6) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), a Canadian carrier may provide telecommunications services at no charge or at a reduced rate

(a) to the carrier's directors, officers, employees or former employees; or

(b) with the approval of the Commission, to any charitable organization or disadvantaged person or other person.

1993, c. 38, s. 27; 2014, c. 20, s. 239. Previous Version

DWKnight 68 points Mon Sep 26 18:52:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1> There are no benefits to ANYONE outside of the internet providers for differential pricing. Differential pricing is anti-competitive at the best of times given the vertically integrated nature of current internet providers. 2> Yes. It means that I get charged multiple times for the same service. 3> Price gouging by the internet providers should not be permitted 4> Ban 2 things: Differential pricing and usage based billing. Neither of which offer anything other than additional revenue streams to companies that don't actually need them.

praytocthulu 67 points Mon Sep 26 23:37:20 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Differential pricing goes against net neutrality and is inherently anti-consumer. It benefits the Telco's as well as their arranged partners but puts additional limits on consumers as well as fledgling start-ups.

CRTC should step in and remove data caps.

coifox 1 point Fri Sep 30 16:53:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It would be the best step to thwart these types of underhanded deals that really just proves that caps are a money grab.

amazingmrbrock 141 points Mon Sep 26 15:44:35 2016 UTC  (8 children)

I will echo the thoughts of nearly every other person who has commented. Uphold net neutrality, end data caps.

resare007 34 points Mon Sep 26 15:51:34 2016 UTC  (7 children)

I second this argument. All Internet trafic should be equal.

ISP's should not be allowed to do differential pricing.

Unlimited Monthly bandwidth ( and no ITMP allowed) should be the norm.

forsayken 13 points Mon Sep 26 17:52:36 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Yes. And don't sugarcoat it by offering us a free pass on, say, Pokemon or some music streaming service. It's dressing up the same pig in a different costume. All data should be neutral because if this starts (and continues) on phones, it'll bleed over to our regular ISPs.

Geno- 1 point Mon Sep 26 16:14:41 2016 UTC  (4 children)

There are areas where this isn't feasible ... rural communities for example. Would be nice though :(

_Ev4l 3 points Mon Sep 26 20:48:07 2016 UTC *  (2 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

********. Bell provided service for years in my community, and its as rural as it gets (northern Ontario). It wasen't until smart phones became the status quo that we got data caps. You can't say that for the six years prior that they weren't making a profit or they would never offered services in the area.

Geno- 1 point Tue Sep 27 12:31:21 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Relax, bro. That's your town, there are many others who barely can receive 5mbps, some are satellite only, making internet a scare commodity. Has the speed increased in your town since then? Are more people subscribing? So many factors.

Jeremiah164 2 points Tue Sep 27 16:36:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Numerous grants have been given to providers to provide service to rural areas. Only really remote areas require satellite, fixed wireless is spreading nearly everywhere with speeds over 5mbps (usually 25mbps). All of this is paid for by either the federal or provincial government through grants.

Usernamewar 70 points Mon Sep 26 23:53:07 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Internet access should be like roads. We all have equal access. I know some people use the roads more than me and some make money using the roads but that is ok because I am free to do the same if I choose. This is net neutrality. The only solution to this issue is to nationalize the isp's. it might be different if there were real competition in this sector but there is not. Far too much wealth is being syphoned off the Canadian economy by the big three players and too much of the country is under serviced as a result of their profit motive.

3VP 69 points Mon Sep 26 16:17:58 2016 UTC  (5 children)

/r

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It should be fairly obvious to everyone that when a corporation wants to do anything, their interest is purely profit motivated.

Watching companies like Bell Shaw buy up all of the tv channels that they have been buying, it is not that difficult to see their end game. They will eventually offer us differential pricing on their content, so we watch their advertisers. You see where this is going. Reduction in viewership for alternate content creators, or those content creators who don't pay the ISP to get on their list for differential pricing.

The CRTC's mandate should be "What is in the best interest of the Canadian people." If that was indeed the CRTC's true mandate this would not even be up for discussion; it would be tossed in the trash with the majority of ideas from the greedy predators at Bell/Rogers/Shaw/Telus.

IcarusOnReddit 2 points Mon Sep 26 19:43:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The CRTC's mandate should be "What is in the best interest of the Canadian people." If that was indeed the CRTC's true mandate this would not even be up for discussion; it would be tossed in the trash with the majority of ideas from the greedy predators at Bell/Rogers/Shaw/Telus.

Until the oligarchy sues saying the CRTC is acting without the support of Canadians.

RazingAll 66 points Mon Sep 26 16:42:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Service providers have a new avenue to extract profit from their already underserved and overcharged client base. Netflix, YouTube and other video streaming services wouldn't push clients over their bandwidth limits - assuming such web services are willing to enter into a contractual agreement with a service provider, and clients are willing to pay for a "premium package".

  2. So. Many. Where to start? It makes it difficult for new internet services to get visibility as they're unlikely to get a contract with an ISP unless the ISP's subsidiaries created it it in the first place; It makes it easier for ISPs to excuse charging exorbitant rates for data that isn't "part of the package"; It makes it harder for new ISPs to enter the market because, being new, when they want to make packaging arrangements with content creators, they won't have the strong negotiating position of a company like Bell or Rogers; It will work to the detriment of free and educational content creators who won't have the bargaining power or financial means to to be included in these "premium packages"; It will impose soft restrictions on the intellectual development of Canada's hyper-connected youth, artificially limiting them to "profitable content" and provide financial disincentive to acquiring actually useful information and partaking in free and open communication; It gives the means to ISPs to limit Canadians' ability to use the Internet as a communication device in whatever way they see fit, pushing us to use the platforms that can make enough money (probably through questionable means, such as selling personal information to entities unknown to the users or the government) to pay a service provider's ransom. I could go on for days. Those are just a few of the important ones.

  3. Yes, yes, YES, a thousand, nay, a MILLION times, YES! Nevermind that most of the benefits are hardly beneficial except to a few shareholders, the long-term erosion of freedom of speech and equal opportunity could have absolutely devastating effects on Canadian culture and our youth. This kind of corporate profit-mongering at the expense of our communications MUST be stopped.

  4. Ban any kind of differentiation between 0s and 1s going through the wires. If it is data, it should cost the same as other data. There's much more to be done when it comes to regulating our out-of-control ISPs, but that is a bare minimum that MUST be done as soon as possible.

brokeahontis 68 points Tue Sep 27 01:05:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Uphold net neutrality.

heyhelloheyhey Ontario 62 points Mon Sep 26 16:14:07 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

It sounds like a great thing because you get to watch something (which is usually what this is used for) without worrying about data. But the negatives far outweigh the positives. As someone said earlier, it lets ISPs become the gatekeepers of the internet and it will shaft smaller companies that cannot afford to come into agreements with these ISPs. It is a very dangerous idea.

The better solution is for the CRTC to ban the caps while also banning any kind of zero-rating. This will eliminate the need for a zero-rating while still allowing customers to not worry about their data. With fiber and LTE, are data caps even really necessary anymore? You can still allow a fair use policy to prevent huge abuse.

handshape 66 points Tue Sep 27 03:20:11 2016 UTC  (1 child)

  1. Permitting differential pricing is a horrendous idea; there are effectively no benefits to consumers. Those that do exist are artificially created by data caps.

  2. My concern is that it weakens consumer choice by effectively coupling services. Given a choice between consuming from a zero-rated content provider and a content provider whose content counts toward a cap, the latter faces an artificial barrier.

  3. The benefits absolutely do not warrant the damage that the practice of zero-rating will do to the Canadian Internet carrier market. The whole concept opens the door to broad classes of abuse.

  4. Internet packets should be carried unmolested from source to destination at the transmission rate for which the consumer has paid, period. Per-route throttling, per-service throttling, reduced priority for certain classes of packets and so on should all be prohibited practices. I believe that the CRTC should be in the business of actively monitoring compliance by providers through periodic spot checks. Where providers are found to be degrading service below the rates for which consumers have paid, they should be subject to sanction.

ieatspam 7 points Wed Sep 28 02:09:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I agree with what is written here. Data and content need to be separated. It's like having a highway that only ford can use, so gm needs to build another. Then if I buy a newer smaller-company Canadian car I can't drive anywhere.

IntrigingPerson 62 points Mon Sep 26 17:52:09 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

1.What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There isn't any. It's quite clear that prices are lower in provinces where there is competition. The only benefit is the ISP's are able to make a bigger profit.

2.Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It stifles competition and allows overcharging users for services that are considered necessary in the present market.

3.Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

They do outweigh the benefits since you have a corporation that is concerned about profits giving out a service that is extremely important for people to the point where it has become synonymous with utilities. This is a service that many people use for their livelihood but they are being charged extremely high prices for basic services.

4.If we should step in, how should we regulate it

Disallow differential pricing unless there is a very good reason it exists that has been reviewed by a committee of qualified personnel who approve the price difference for a specific area.

Additionally, allow the ability for start-ups to provide their own services without being hindered by any of the larger service providers.

simion3 65 points Mon Sep 26 20:21:25 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

 

If a consumer is a heavy user of a service that is exempted from data charges, then they could potentially use a less expensive plan with a lower data cap. But it's not really a solid advantage in the long term and not that great in the short term.

 

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

 

I think this just gives ISP's more power over consumers. It feeds into major providers need to keep the market as uncompetitive as possible so they can keep prices higher. It keeps the market uncompetitive. Why should ISP's be the ones who have the power to give a service, like Netflix for instance, a competitive advantage over other services? Especially since ISP's like Rogers or Bell are motivated by their own financial self-interest and not what is best for consumers, which is a competitive market that is driven to keep prices low and quality of service high.

 

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

 

I think the concerns outweigh the benefits enough that the CRTC needs to step in and really regulate ISP's.

 

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

 

Differential pricing should just not be allowed in any form. I don't even think it's a good idea to let Rogers let Shomi be exempt from counting against data caps because that again gives them an unfair advantage against competitors like, again, Netflix for example. The CRTC and Government should be trying to create an environment that fosters fair competition. That's really the only way that it's going to give consumers a real choice at a reasonable price. Large corporations like Rogers and Bell are motivated by money before anything else and they can't be trusted to govern themselves because they have too much to gain at the expense of consumers.

Bottom line is Rogers, Bell, and Telus have too much power in the market. Differential pricing is only giving them a stronger hold over consumers.

jmlsteele 63 points Tue Sep 27 05:52:12 2016 UTC  (7 children)

As a citizen, I appreciate the CRTC is making use of forums such as Reddit in order to speak with people about this issue. Keep it up :)

Questions: We need your opinion about differential pricing: What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think the primary benefits of differential pricing are for the providers. By allowing this to happen, you would make an additional revenue stream available to them by allowing them to have agreements with content producers (Netflix, youtube etc). This could, in turn, drive business up with certain providers if they have exclusivity agreements with certain content Producers ("Sign with Bell because Netflix data doesn't count towards your monthly cap").

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. I'm concerned that most content producers will feel the need to sign into the above agreements in order to attract more users, and then they will pass the costs of this onto their users, which will then be paying more to receive the same service, albeit without data cap restrictions.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I think they do, but then again, I've ALWAYS thought that home internet service, and possibly even Wireless, should be treated more like a utility. Pay a certain fee for being allowed to use the network, and then pay some rate for every byte that you use, and no more. I think the overage charges that most ISPs currently have in place are frankly ludicrous (it costs $1.50/GB to transfer above cap data, but by paying $5/month more you get an extra 100GB AND a higher base speed (in this case a 50% increase)? How does that make any sense?).

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Again, I personally think that broadband internet needs to be treated similarly to a utility. This will be more difficult than the other utilities where there is usually only one option (Hydro One or your municipal provider). This could simply mean abolishing unrealistic overage costs (in the above example clearly the price/GB is closer to $0.05/GB, and even less when you take into account you are also getting BETTER service and not just those additional GB). Or it could mean forcing ISP to restructure their packages entirely, but I'm not a policy maker so I'll leave that up to you.

While I realise that there is a minority of Canadians in this subreddit (subscription says just over 220k, so well under 1%), I think these are some of the people that would be most affected by the decisions made as part of this policy. I really appreciate that someone at the CRTC had the idea of coming to /r/canada to probe our thoughts, and I think it is a great indication of things to come.

Cheers :)

gonna_overreact 6 points Tue Sep 27 13:07:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It may seem like a benefit to a consumer who has very little disposable income. They can use all the data they want from certain sources. But then these source can manipulate what they are providing, and the consumer is stuck with those sources, since they don't have the money to use anything else.

The cornerstone of a democracy is an educated electorate. This scheme provides a way for content providers to shape public opinion and hold on to it. I do not see how this could benefit Canada as a whole.

BonerwoodSalad 2 points Thu Sep 29 14:16:03 2016 UTC  (0 children)

We shouldn't be charged for bandwidth usage period. Only for connection speeds. Data is not a finite resource.

dwild 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:34:30 2016 UTC  (4 children)

You say it should be treated as an utility, yet 1800 numbers exist and are really useful. Shouldn't the same exist over the internet?

vohk 2 points Wed Sep 28 20:44:06 2016 UTC  (2 children)

I think toll free numbers have largely become an anachronism. The marginal cost of a of airtime is essentially nil, much like that of a text message or the bandwidth required to carry a voice call. Per minute and long distance fees stopped making sense with the passing of analog networking and switchboards. The main difference is that the cost of phone service has become so low as not to generate discontent but that isn't a good justification to preserve the business model.

Most of the negative effects of 'differential pricing' (lovely euphemism that) are amplified by the increasing demand for bandwidth (and associated infrastructure investments). The sort of bandwidth required for streaming video and such is far more costly to your typical consumer and small business or startup than operating a toll free number.

dwild 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:02:59 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Are you saying toll free numbers didn't made sense in the past? I'm pretty sure I used them on public phone for fun when I was younger and I certainly did too over Skype when it came up. My used weren't essential but the concept is alright and doesn't have any downside.

Theses costs are there and will always be there. It's a constant, differential pricing or not, the cost exist and ultimately, the user will pay for it, directly or indirectly. Except if any business start to work unprofitably, someone will still pay for it.

In my minds, it would be great to see a standard price for that differential pricing bandwidth. A price that any provider will need to require and indirectly that could be the maximum any provider could charge its users (or else any service could offer a VPN over differential pricing and it would be a direct profit). No exclusivity rights, you offer differential pricing or not and a service offer differential pricing or not. The same way you can't refuse access to a service, you wouldn't be able to refuse differential pricing to any service. You support it or not, that's it, the same way toll free numbers works.

vohk 2 points Wed Sep 28 22:28:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Are you saying toll free numbers didn't made sense in the past?

No, I said that they no longer make sense. In the era when adding another line literally required another physical line there was an argument to be made for it. Now that everything goes digital once it hits the first hub the marginal cost is negligible and that removes most of the justification.

My used weren't essential but the concept is alright and doesn't have any downside.

It absolutely has downsides, the difference is that toll-free lines were never (or at least no longer are) expensive or important enough to seriously distort the market. The downsides just never really impacted you.

Toll-free phone lines worked in a large part because the telcos never really competed with their clients but now HD content has changed the game. Netflix spends more on bandwidth than anybody other than a telco ever spent on phone lines, toll-free or otherwise, and now the ISPs providing the connection to the consumer are attempting to compete directly (Shomi, Crave, etc) in a way that the old telcos never did.

jmlsteele 2 points Thu Sep 29 00:29:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I will admit, I hadn't thought about that. When I was thinking of a utility I was mostly thinking about things like electricity and water as opposed to the telephony system. I really don't consider telephony a utility, but I can see how it could be considered this way.

I do believe you have a point with the 1-800 number comparison, but it's not quite the same thing as the question being asked. The toll-free system is managed by Somos (formerly SMS/800), which is not itself a telephony provider. When a toll-free call is routed, the telephony providers have all agreed (via regulations presumably) to forward any costs of the call onto the owner of the toll-free number, instead of the consumer, and do so.

The internet version of this would be a list of IP Addresses, or more likely domains, that is maintained by an equivalent to Somos. ISPs would then be regulated to track against this list, and if the end point of the data was on the list, the ISP would then know to attribute the data transfer costs to the content provider and not the consumer.

The plan as it is being put forward would require Netflix (or whoever) to enter into agreements with every ISP and be at the mercy of them to negotiate a fair deal.

I don't think either potential solution ends up being good overall, but at least as a utility the prices would be "fair".

Disclaimer: My understanding of how the telephony system works isn't the best, but I believe this is the toll-free system works more or less (removing a few layers like RespOrgs).

Lanhdanan Canada 61 points Tue Sep 27 11:34:35 2016 UTC *  (1 child)

There is no justification for creating a price difference in using internet connection. Data is data. It uses all the same lines. The internet is far too useful to our society, country and planet to allow a 'profit only' mindset to fixate and become codified.

We've allowed our country to fall behind with regards to our internet capabilities. Only allowing a few companies to decide who and where gets a connection, and what type of connection, is limiting what we can do.

Make the internet a utility. Increase spending towards creating more infrastructure. Many many places in Canada are lacking way behind the curve. Creating a bright future for internet capabilities can be a beacon. To mention only a few; investment, immigration, universities, and existing business. Society at large can benefit from increased access, and our democracy will improve the more we can offer.

Creating tiered pricing limits our potential and stagnates progress. It over complicates the system and distracts from what we could be doing with the full range of internet connections. (Moncton NB is sitting on and wasting the potential of offering a terabyte connection. Olds Alberta have created their own internet infrastructure which is as fast as Google Fibre. Created without assistance from any internet providers.) Think bigger than simply money in pockets and consider what being able to offer true high speed to all Canadians could do.

Edit: Spelling

Rachelattack 2 points Wed Sep 28 22:57:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Absolutely I see the internet as a utility, very good point.

Lucz1848 64 points Tue Sep 27 15:04:52 2016 UTC *  (2 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

It provides marketing leverage to data providers.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. Data providers should have little to no influence over what content users choose to consume with it. This is particularly insidious in a market where the providers tend to cap data, and charge a premium price for it.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, the concerns do outweigh the benefits, and it does justify the CRTC stepping in. The service providers should not be allowed to decide.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I'm going to stick with mobile data for these suggestions. The CRTC should mandate the following for data providers:

  1. Establish a basic data plan that all service providers must offer. The plan should include 5 gigabytes of data, and have a price maximum of $50 per month. These numbers should be reviewed annually, to ensure the data minimum allows consumers to have reasonable access to the internet.

  2. There should be no additional charges for data overages. Throttling would be a reasonable response to overages.

  3. Set a price maximum on unlimited data plans for all providers.

Within the limits identified above, there should be plenty of ways for data providers to compete for consumers. Speed, reliability, amount of data at each price point, and so on.

In general, I reject the premise that data is exceedingly expensive to provide to consumers, and therefore, pricing, and quantity of data provided should reflect that.

Edit: Formatting.

ieGod 6 points Tue Sep 27 19:31:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)

You've basically said exactly how I feel on this. I'm going to toss in an upvote here in full support.

SadMage 2 points Fri Sep 30 23:28:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think your maximum price is too high. There are many low income Canadians who would struggle to pay that. There's no reason 5gigs of data should cost anywhere near $50. $10 a month would be far more reasonable, although still somewhat excessive. It would also put mobile internet usage into a range that more lower income/disabled Canadians could access.

IntrepidusX 65 points Mon Sep 26 20:04:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing flies in the face of net neutrality and will hurt Canada's ability to compete in the IT sectors.

Dwlphone 61 points Tue Sep 27 04:09:14 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Differential pricing is horrid. Imagine your utility company charges you more for using a Phillips light bulb than for using a GE light bulb. How ridiculous would that be?

I really hope there are no Horizon execs reading this.

sickofallofyou 2 points Thu Sep 29 05:31:05 2016 UTC  (0 children)

or worse, GE.

MrMiyamoto 60 points Tue Sep 27 06:59:50 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

I think the CRTC should be championing net neutrality instead of considering such backward handling of a necessary utility. I don't think that ISPs should be allowed to differentiate bits from one another any more than joules are differentiated by the power companies or droplets are differentiated by water companies.

And while we're on the subject, giving someone more bits does not cost any more than giving them less bits to the service providers, so phones and home connections should not be allowed to have their total monthly "amounts" of data capped since what really differentiates ISPs from other utilities is that the product they provide does not cost them more with volume the same way other utilities do.

You can argue about speed and network congestion, but that comes from mass simultaneous usage, not whether a user has downloaded 10GB or 7000GB that month. Just for starters unlimited data plans should have regulations in place that prevent soft caps that then lower speeds to demonstrably unusable speeds.

RainHappens 61 points Mon Sep 26 16:08:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Opportunities for pre-existing internet providers to further lock-down their services.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes.

Specifically: one of the major appeals of the internet is the (extremely) low barrier to entry. "Differential pricing" enables locking down things such that good luck for a new player to get started - it effectively turns it into a whitelist-based service. Take a look at Netflix, for instance. You think it would have taken off if every internet provider had plans that were "X cost gives you <these> websites - oh, and because we have to you can access other websites but at XXX/GB"?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

Given the high start-up costs and regulations that prevent free market economics from coming into play, yes, very much so. That being said: that is an implication. Personally, I think this is a band-aid patch. What should be looked at are the factors that prevent true competition. However, if we are not going to deal with said factors, then yes.

N-athan 62 points Mon Sep 26 23:13:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

-What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

It will benefit the major telcoms.

-Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The internet has been a great equalizer. It gives voice to those who wouldn't have one otherwise. Anything that goes against complete net neutrality will stifle progress. Regardless of whether I'm loading a government website or viewing a blog my experience shouldn't differ. It's clear from current pricing issues from major telecoms they have to be regulated, we have to demand net neutrality. The only justification for stepping in however is in the name of net neutrality.

-If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Anything that encourages net neutrality should be the focus. My generation grew up online, I'd be a very different and less informed member of society without it. No where else does a 13 year olds and a 30 year olds opinions get judged equally and on the merits of their argument, this is a hill to die on. This is bigger than porn and Netflix.

Baconfat Canada 59 points Tue Sep 27 05:43:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data caps are bad for consumers. It does not matter whether we're talking about cellular data or wireline data. Since our telecom regulators have allowed for the creation of a cooperatively priced oligopoly in Canada. We the consumer need some leadership on pricing regulation. The oligopoly of a telecom industry has too much pricing power and too little competition, coupled with control over the infrastructure.

They should be able to differentiate price solely on speed. Data caps and giving free data for their own services is anti-competitive. This is made even worse by the fact that most of our huge telecoms are vertically integrated into content production, television, radio, media, telecom, Internet, and satellite. If allowed to continue we will have pricing that charges more for outside of company content (similar to the bundling for phone, internet etc, is now).

It is time the CRTC started regulating, not pandering to the oligopoly.

iLLNiSS 58 points Tue Sep 27 11:57:16 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Just like pretty well everyone here says, DO NOT allow any sort of prioritization of traffic, discount in price on types of traffic, or increases in price of types of traffic.

As it stands, almost all ISPs in Canada in one way or another are either sourcing their connections from, or are themselves media companies who have large stakes in services that have competition on the Internet.

Allowing them to offer their services at a discount creates a significant disadvantage for competing services. This is not an open internet, and it creates the ability for them to form monopolies.

SoloWing1 Alberta 2 points Thu Sep 29 02:51:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Also Data Limits should be made illegal as well. ISP's use it as a way to punish Cable Cutters. I have heard stories of people who use the same ISP and one of them does not have cable. Whenever they go over their monthly limit they get a call from the ISP while the person with cable is left alone when they go over the limit.

infiniteswarm 59 points Tue Sep 27 17:36:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Uphold net neutrality and ban data caps. Make the internet a utility, and give no special permissions to anybody. Imagine if we said that LG TV's got access to unlimited electricity, but Samsung TV's had to pay full price.

Differential pricing is absurd, and this shouldn't even be entertained. Now please do your jobs and allow more competition, and get rid of data caps once and for all.

PaulieG 58 points Mon Sep 26 23:42:28 2016 UTC  (4 children)

As a citizen of Canada, I expect to be able to browse the Internet equally well natively as well as through any of the privacy/anonymity upholding solutions such as Tor and its alternatives/successors. What you're talking about here is fundamentally incompatible with that premise, so I absolutely object to any preferential treatment for any packets for any reason. Encryption is thankfully becoming more prevalent on the web and soon enough there will be no way for the ISP to deep inspect the packets to determine the content, its type or source. I implore you not to be so short-sighted. Enforce the fullest extent of net neutrality. This is the only way to ensure the thriving freedom that the Internet was meant to foster. Set an example for the world that Canadian ISPs uphold our freedom above all else by not discriminating information based on its source, destination or content. There are too many straws on the camel's back already.

heysoundude 2 points Wed Sep 28 03:18:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This. Oh yes indeed, this. Especially the short-sighted comment. In a free society, ideas are permitted to be exchanged freely. We already pay too much for access to information available on the internet. Do not allow another barrier.

staticwave_ace 3 points Tue Sep 27 02:25:11 2016 UTC  (2 children)

I think traffic shaping is okay if I mark those packets for different priorities. My bulk data upload doesn't need the same priority as my VoIP call.

PaulieG 3 points Tue Sep 27 07:07:29 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Agreed. Also, emphasis well placed Implementation details aside, conceptually, I would imagine having the ability to subdivide the net connection into several virtual channels, each with configurable latency, bandwidth and other parameters. Having the ability to bind my VoIP call to a virtual channel with a max latency of x ms, min bandwidth of y Mbps, and restricted to only pass through hardware wholly located in Canada (and optionally other countries in list z) would be great, if I got to pick x, y, z.

staticwave_ace 2 points Tue Sep 27 10:08:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

That's an awesome idea. With the coming IPv6 that should totally be possible by binding different IPs

ismelldeath 57 points Tue Sep 27 05:40:48 2016 UTC *  (2 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I honestly don't think there are any that aren't severely outweighed by the downsides. Sure it's nice to save a few gigs here or there because some service is zero-rated, but for every service that is zero-rated i use 10 others that aren't. It's too much of a hassle to keep track of which ones are so I just assume none are.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

ISPs use it way too much to give services they have deals with or own an unfair advantage. It's the scenario where ISPs are penalizing you for not using them or their friends. It could in theory also be used to allow larger companies to team up with isps to make it harder for new companies to enter the market, for example if Netflix were to create a contract with all isps for zero rating, plus have a clause that prevents the isps from making the same contract with other streaming services, then it would make it that much harder for a new entrant in the market.

There's also the privacy implications, ISPs should not have any say in what content I see or the speed at which it gets delivered beyond the overall speed of the package I've purchased. I don't want my isp knowing that i spend x hours a night on netflix or that I spend several hours a week on voip calls. ISPs need to be big dumb pipes and nothing more. No filtering, no priority traffic shaping, no browsing monitoring, just straight data. Every bit more also adds latency that I don't want.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely the concerns outweigh the benefits. The average consumer doesn't understand net neutrality or zero-rating, all they care about is that if they use service A over service B then they can browse more cat pictures on their phone at the end of the month. They do this without knowing that they're being manipulated. It's a sad state when going over our data caps is a decent concern because of the associated costs. Instead I would like to see ISPs competing based on customer service, increasing or eliminating caps, improving network reliability , or decreasing prices. Customers would gladly let an ISP install adware on their pc if it would save them $5 at the end of the month, and we know that ISPs would gladly do it too (see bell trying to inject ads) so i don't trust the market in general to decide.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban zero-rating.

Create some laws around data caps, i.e. they must increase x% each year. (obviously there needs to be some way to prevent isps from getting around this by just creating new plans and retiring the old ones each year)

Ban preferential treatment of internet traffic.

Ban isps from deep packet inspection. Anything beyond looking at the IP headers shouldn't be allowed imo.

Edit: Adding to question 1: It's also an illusion that you're not being charged for data through zero-rated services, those services sign contracts and pay the isps to be zero rated, the money for that payment comes from somewhere. In this case it's from the paying customers of the service. So all of the customers of the service are subsidizing the few customers that use the specific isp.

BrandX55 3 points Tue Sep 27 22:32:09 2016 UTC  (1 child)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits are for the ISP, not the consumer. An ISP can attract users who think that they will "get a good deal" on the zero-rated content. Most users will not consider that the zero-rating has a cost to all services competing in the same sector. The ISP attracts users with perceived value, but I believe that the true value of zero-rating is quite low, in fact negative from the consumer viewpoint.

2.Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I can't imagine that the services offered are provided without a cost of increased surveillance. I believe that zero rating has a negative impact on competing businesses. The fact of zero rating suggests that the ISP must monitor all traffic to determine what to charge, when they should monitor none.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, the concerns outweigh the benefits. We do not have enough competition in the wired or wireless providers to allow them to decide, so the government must get involved. I'm reluctant to say that, but I don't see another way.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

No data caps, no zero rating.

MrRGnome 57 points Tue Sep 27 15:59:50 2016 UTC *  (1 child)

Until the CRTC is prepared to hold ISPs responsible for the absurd price fixing and gouging behavior they engage in this entire discussion is moot. The premise of the ISPs argument is that they want to cut costs for consumers, but all evidence is that if such were the case they could easily afford to compete with each other to reduce prices.

Thanks to the work of people like Michael Geist Canadians have a very fair understanding of what "overage fees" for example actually cost ISPs (a conservative estimate being eight cents per gigabyte for major ISPs after accounting for all the new expansions), meaning overage fees have a profit margin not dissimilar to that placed on popcorn at movie theaters, with at least hundreds of percent mark up. Suggesting that we must violate equal and fair access to the web so that consumers can get a better price is a manipulative argument designed to put additional dollars in our telecoms pockets. If telecoms genuinely wish to reduce prices their service costs would begin to reflect the actual cost of providing the service as they compete with each other. Thanks to the gross neglect of the CRTC in stopping anti-competitive behavior and entertaining absurd concepts such as the one you've brought to reddit today these telecom companies continue to make the Canadian telecom landscape one of the least consumer friendly in the world.

Please, Canadians need you to get tough on the industry. If you can't do that what do we need the CRTC for? If you continue acting the way you have for the last several decades you exist solely for the function of placating angry telecom customers and handing individual cases - which may create the illusion of consumer protection and consultation but isn't at all. You shouldn't be bringing issues like this to a public forum, you should innately understand that the argument put forth by the telecoms to violate net neutrality is simply going to pad their own pockets further through their new relationships with the companies they provide preferred web access to. I don't want to see you here talking about an issue which should be open and shut, I want to read headlines saying you're investigating every major telecom in Canada for anti-competitive practices.

escspoof 6 points Tue Sep 27 18:26:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I agree. This should be open and shut, I don't understand why the CRTC is entertaining the big telcos with these discussions. I would love to see the CRTC do some more investigation into the price gauging and anti-competitive practices instead of trying to figure out what the benefits/concerns are of differential pricing...

ajadedman 55 points Tue Sep 27 02:44:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It appears the overwhelming majority of posts are against the idea of differential pricing. I, personally, am also against differential pricing. I doubt I can contribute anything new that hasn't already been stated here, other than add my voice to those opposing zero-rating.

  1. There are no benefits for to differential pricing for consumers that could not be achieved by simply removing data caps entirely.

  2. Differential pricing only serves to allow ISPs the ability to corral customers into usage that serves or promotes the ISPs bottom line. It also gives ISPs a new tool to limit competition and derive additional revenue from any organisation looking to do business online with customers of the ISP.

  3. These concerns absolutely outweigh any perceived benefit and needs to be prohibited.

  4. My opinion is that internet plans should only be allowed to be sold based on speed. Data limits should be prohibited entirely, effectively zero-rating all data.

szar_ez_a 117 points Mon Sep 26 16:13:46 2016 UTC  (2 children)

Uphold net neutrality. End data caps.

largelies 3 points Tue Sep 27 18:52:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Perfectly said.

CasualDips 2 points Wed Sep 28 19:40:19 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is exactly what we need.

DamagedFreight 55 points Tue Sep 27 20:17:55 2016 UTC  (1 child)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

  • Providers can harden their monopolies by locking customers into the services they choose or already own (ie. Bell can make sure you get Bell TV for free while Netflix/YouTube traffic will cost you more)
  • There are no consumer benefits except for a few families who already only use services that those corporations own for watching video content (ie. Telus Optic TV).

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

  • Data caps already do this and should be removed. Differential pricing should be renamed to "preferential pricing" because that's what it is.
  • I don't want my provider to choose what services I consume
  • How will this affect me while I use my Internet connection for work full time. Are they going to give me a deal for exchanging data with my employer's network? I doubt it. I'll get charged a premium because my employer won't have deals with providers to reduce the cost of my traffic.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

  • No. What services people use on the Internet is none of anyone's business.
  • Creating an environment where some large corporation that either owns or makes a deal with another is going to limit innovation, stifle competition and society as a whole will suffer both intellectually and morally as a result.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?*

  • Do Not regulate what customer's connect to and how it affects their bill
  • Do regulate how much providers charge vs. the speed of the connection
  • Do work to remove data caps on users so that the Internet is a competitive place and Television providers cannot tax users if they choose to use the Internet to consume media.
  • Do enforce complete net-neutrality
  • Do encourage innovation, invention and unfiltered Internet access

Freakin_Fresh 2 points Thu Sep 29 19:31:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I couldn't agree more. The Internet is a fantastic thing a we shouldn't hinder it.

yyz_gringo Ontario 54 points Mon Sep 26 18:09:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Benefits: none for consumers (even when you get cheaper data for some content you pay through your nose in other ways, from reduced variety of content to lack of connectivity options). However there are huge benefits for the companies, which can promote their own content and make a ton of money.

  2. Concerns: reduce variety of content by pushing creators not affiliated with the companies (providers) out of business; increase the cost of accessing non-promoted content for everyone; create "prisons" of content where consumers are chained to one provider by fear of losing data privileges to some content; and so forth.

  3. Yes, the concerns beat the benefits handily. The businesses should not be allowed to "regulate themselves".

  4. The providers should be classed as utilities, the service providing part separated from the content building business, and forced to open the infrastructure to competition.

AnotherDriver Québec 109 points Mon Sep 26 15:01:45 2016 UTC (gilded) (6 children)

Thank you for taking the time to consult here on this medium. It should definitely provide you with more fringe opinions rather than the regular discourse. I have studied economics and currently work in economic research.

That being said, I wrote a paper on the regulatory framework of telecommunications in Canada with emphasis on the CRTC and Industry Canada (now called Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada). While researching mobile cellular (phone and data service) historical pricing, the trend appeared to show oligopolistic price leadership between the service providers in Canada. To clarify, price leadership is a form of implied but not stated collusion to achieve monopoly like conditions. That is not to say that our providers are colluding, simply that their pricing schemes followed a price leader in each respective province.

This segues to my current observations regarding internet data plans. While mobile service had clear pricing structures with comparable quality/quantity allowing for easy parallels between providers, the same could not be said for internet data pricing. Data plans are structured in a way to make comparison very difficult between providers. The latter make use of bundles, promotional pricing for set time limits (ie: 12 months @ x $) and slight alterations to speed and data caps to make it appear that they offer competitive pricing vs. their competition. However, for the average consumer shopping for internet, the task of learning and parsing through the various options can prove to be an insurmountable task. I would argue that pricing structures should adhere to a common standard. In other words, offer clear and simple options for consumers to choose.

The market has been unwilling to foster a competitive environment in the telecommunications sector. The regulatory framework must account for these inefficiencies and start regulating data as a public good. I have yet to see an alternative that provides more benefits for consumers as a whole.

This all ties into the debate on zero-rating and net neutrality. From an economics standpoint, the creation of artificial scarcity by choosing who will be the winners and losers of service throughput is abhorrent. It creates further confusion from a pricing standpoint and questionably perpetuates the practice of capping data. Data is data, price discrimination is unfair for Canadians.

SilentIntrusion 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:04:28 2016 UTC  (2 children)

I'd really like to read your paper. This is an issue I've been looking into lately and wasn't sure where to really begin past following the pricing schemes as they change as a symptom of collusion.

wanmoar Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:21:45 2016 UTC  (1 child)

AnotherDriver Québec 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:57:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Sadly not, the IEDM went much further than I did on this subject. I will abstain from posting the paper on Reddit for the time being, I would prefer to keep this account separate from my professional life!

rehabilitated_4chanr 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:53:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

/endthread

Kirshy81 1 point Fri Sep 30 21:07:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Maybe you should be working at the CRTC.

E399vg4z Alberta 52 points Mon Sep 26 19:31:29 2016 UTC *  (2 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits of differential pricing is that companies or developers who want to encourage or accelerate the adoption of a service or product can reduce the end users cost to use that service or product on the internet. E.g. a large social media site may pay for the users data on their app, thus encouraging the user to watch videos on that platform.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I think that differential pricing will make the internet in Canada become a pay-to-play environment. If I were to create a great new social media site that is heavily based in VR and video lets say, but I, as the developer cannot afford to pay the data cost for all the users I am hoping to attract, those users will not stay, or will go to another similar offering (of perhaps lesser quality) that will allow them access it for free.

Any ISP, whether wired or wireless do not have the consumer in mind when offering things for free. They are a business, looking to make a profit. If a ISP is offering free data access to a selected app it is because the ISP is being compensated another way. Wireless data may be free for 'that' app because the developer is paying for the users data to encourage it's use and adoption. A wired ISP may offer no data consumption charges for its video streaming service if you subscribe to it, but will activity promote the fact that if you use the 'other' video streaming service you might get hit with an overage data fee. It is not in my best interest as a consumer to be told what internet services I can use for free, and what ones I might have to pay extra for to use.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

My concern is that differential pricing will just increase the cost of internet in Canada and unfairly influence consumers. Either I as the consumer am paying more for my internet service with overage fees or increased service costs, or I as a developer am now paying the ISP to allow the end user to access my server for free. Differential pricing will drown out competition and promote access to the services the ISP deems in their best intrests.

Yes, Canadian consumers need protection from being taken advantage of in an age where the internet is not a essential service, but a required one, and where competition is very low and the current ISP's have shown time and time again that they are anti-competitive and want to keep the strangle hold on their consumers. The CRTC forbid differential pricing.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The CRTC should

*Set a minimum level of internet access that all consumers can access for a set maximum cost that is not subsidized by the Canadian Government and free of usage limits. (E.g. 5Mbps internet access for $15/month with no data cap)

*Stipulate that plans above the minimum level of internet access, overage fees are capped per month, or access speeds are reduced to the minimum level of internet access at no additional cost.

*Forbid the use of paying for preferential access to partner services by the ISP. (E.g. Using the ISP video streaming service that does not count against the monthly data usage)

Edit:Formatting

Navi_Here 5 points Thu Sep 29 00:17:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It is not in my best interest as a consumer to be told what internet services I can use for free, and what ones I might have to pay extra for to use.

Could we like, bold this point. There is no benefit if we start hacking the internet into sections and potentially blacklisting sites based on which ISP you use.

As it stands now, there is no confidence that current ISPs will place consumer interest first.

Staticn0ise Alberta 3 points Tue Sep 27 08:25:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Dont forget that our shady isp will likely lower data caps if this comes into play.

Zakizdaman 55 points Mon Sep 26 22:44:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

How about: Remove data caps, keep the plans the same.

Now that they've given us data caps for 2 years and have been giving it to us on our cellphones for as long as they've existed, we the consumers now feel like data caps are a normal thing, and are perfectly okay when they're not.

Guys come on, they changed everything to make it worse and now they're trying to make it seem like it's okay and are making it "a little bit better" for some people. What a load

Staticn0ise Alberta 53 points Tue Sep 27 09:18:56 2016 UTC *  (5 children)

  1. There are no real benefits over our current system. In fact this would allow our ISP's to lower data caps and tell us to just use the free sites more.

  2. I have a great many concerns regarding this issue.

a) As stated above I belive that our ISP's would lower our data caps and tell us to go to their free sites, that I also belive that they would own (shomi, craveTv) thus killing a competitive market in Canada.

b) Our ISp's would profiteer off of this like crazy only partnering with large companies that could afford it such as Facebook, google, ect.. This is a huge issue as it would kill any startup and some small businesses in Canada making us a very hostile and closed space to new businesses allowing for monopolies. (Not that the CRTC seems to take any issue with monopolies based on how they allow our telecommunication companies to walk all over the Canadian people.)

c) This kills net neutrality and in some ways freedom of speach in Canada and allows corporations to dictate what you get to see and for how long you get to see it. If you don't agree with their political or social view points then fully expect to suffer for it. Can you really imagine a internet where liberal media is free but conservative media is not, that could fully happen under this system. (this is an example it could easily go the other way)

d) Privacy. The ISP's will now need to monitor my web traffic even more than they already do to see what is free and what isn't. They will use this to target select groups and sell this information to third parties. But I already suspect that they do this.

4.If you are going to actually do your job then this needs to be shut down and never given a second thought. You need to protect the citizens of this glorious country from the predators that are our ISP's. The best solution to the problem that the ISP's have created to raise data caps or even better yet ELIMINATE DATA CAPS, and tell the ISP's and Telecommunication industry to set some reasonable prices for goodness sake.

We live in one of the worst countries in the world for Cellular and internet prices vs. service. We actually need this to find jobs, and do our jobs. We need it to do our school work, to live in the modern era. The government needs us working and educated to create the taxes that are needed to run this country. I just fail to see how a government agency like the CRTC fails the people so constantly. Did no one there pay attention to the USA and the FTC when that all went down last year?! How can you even be considering this?

TLDR: THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA AND NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY!

Edit: if you agree with this please don't just upvote. We need comments. If you don't have time to leave your own thoughts just copy and paste this or someone else's that represents your feelings. Just make sure to leave a disclaimer at the end stating that you did so.

too_clever_username Ontario 4 points Tue Sep 27 20:35:01 2016 UTC  (2 children)

where liberal media is free but conservative media is not

*looks at our taxpayer-funded "news" service*

I got news for you.

Staticn0ise Alberta 2 points Tue Sep 27 20:45:32 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Hey its just an example that can be applied to any social or political agenda.

too_clever_username Ontario 4 points Tue Sep 27 20:54:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Oh, I agree that it would happen. I can certainly see large media companies paying for their news service to be "free" with an agreement with the ISP, making engaging with alternative news sources more expensive.

Personn 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:03:29 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There are no real benefits over our current system. In fact, this would allow our ISP's to lower data caps and tell us to just use the free sites more. I have a great many concerns regarding this issue.

a) As stated above I belive, that our ISP's would lower our data caps and tell us to go to their free sites, that I also belive that they would own (shomi, craveTv) thus killing a competitive market in Canada.

b) Our ISp's would profiteer off of this like crazy only partnering with large companies that could afford it such as Facebook, google, ect.. This is a huge issue as it would kill any startup and some small businesses in Canada making us a very hostile and closed space to new businesses allowing for monopolies. (Not that the CRTC seems to take any issue with monopolies based on how they allow our telecommunication companies to walk all over the Canadian people.)

c) This kills net neutrality and in some ways freedom of speach in Canada and allows corporations to dictate what you get to see and for how long you get to see it. If you don't agree with their political or social view points then fully expect to suffer for it. Can you really imagine a internet where liberal media is free but conservative media is not, that could fully happen under this system. (this is an example it could easily go the other way)

d) Privacy. The ISP's will now need to monitor my web traffic even more than they already do to see what is free and what isn't. They will use this to target select groups and sell this information to third parties. But I already suspect that they do this.

4.If you are going to actually do your job then this needs to be shut down and never given a second thought. You need to protect the citizens of this glorious country from the predators that are our ISP's. The best solution to the problem that the ISP's have created to raise data caps or even better yet ELIMINATE DATA CAPS, and tell the ISP's and Telecommunication industry to set some reasonable prices for goodness sake.

We live in one of the worst countries in the world for Cellular and internet prices vs. service. We actually need this to find jobs, and do our jobs. We need it to do our school work, to live in the modern era. The government needs us working and educated to create the taxes that are needed to run this country. I just fail to see how a government agency like the CRTC fails the people so constantly. Did no one there pay attention to the USA and the FTC when that all went down last year?! How can you even be considering this?

TLDR: THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA AND NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY!

Edit: if you agree with this please don't just upvote. We need comments. If you don't have time to leave your own thoughts just copy and paste this or someone else's that represents your feelings. Just make sure to leave a disclaimer at the end stating that you did so.

well put!

Challak 1 point Thu Sep 29 22:01:19 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Very well said, and frighteningly accurate.

Rezrov_ 52 points Tue Sep 27 18:18:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Canada already has some of the worst ISPs on the planet. You at the CRTC know as well as we do that data (bandwidth) costs ISPs *effectively nothing, yet we're charged an absurd rate per gigabyte.

Differential pricing would further ISPs goals of keeping bandwidth prohibitively expensive while also pushing their "bandwidth exempt" services.

Differential pricing is the antithesis of the free market and net neutrality, and would allow large monopolistic ISPs to control the content of the internet.

randomkidlol 51 points Mon Sep 26 19:58:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This entire discussion has already happened in the states with the FCC. It is objectively a terrible idea for the people of Canada and it only benefits service providers.

darren700 50 points Tue Sep 27 16:22:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. There are no benifits other than those for the ISP. the customers lose out with differential pricing. This whole idea needs to be scrapped!
  2. Yes I have many concerns, it will eliminate net neutrality and make it even more unfair for the customer. We need to eliminate Data caps, not divide them into sections based on content provider.
  3. There are no benefits for the average Canadian, only for the ISP company.
  4. Internet should be treated as a utility without any usage caps. Net neutrality should be the first and foremost concern.

Also there needs to be more competition for ISP's. there is too much of a monopoly right now. I live in a rural area 5 minutes out of the city, I only have the option of 2 ISP's, which offer identical pricing. I am forced to use Wavedirect as my ISP who charge $100 a month for 10mpbs down and 1mbps up with a 175gb Usage cap.

In Windsor only 5 minutes away I can get 60mbps down and 10mpbs up with NO CAP for only $44. How is it fair I am charged more than double and giving a cap just because I am 5 minutes outside the city?

Raging_Dragon 49 points Tue Sep 27 16:26:40 2016 UTC  (1 child)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think it's a scam to gouge the consumer, and any potential benefit is outweighed by massive drawbacks.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It is blatant disregard for net-neutrality which is important to me. The already arbitrary data caps will be used to dissuade consumers from using their competitors platforms. I want to lease access to the internet as a service and do not want the utility provider to have any influence over which content I consume with that access.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Differential pricing goes against the principles under which the internet was built. The ISPs do not contribute in a meaningful way and simply want to force their way into a new market. The CRTC should step in to prevent this from happening.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The CRTC should enforce net-neutrality and make "differential pricing" illegal.

ProudNortherner British Columbia 6 points Wed Sep 28 19:04:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

While they're at it they should scrap data caps entirely for both home and mobile. It's a scam. I had better internet service ten years ago ffs.

PhreakedCanuck Ontario 152 points Mon Sep 26 15:27:51 2016 UTC  (1 child)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None what so ever

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I only have the choice of one highspeed internet provider, this means that i would be forced to watch what they want me to watch, or by what agreements they made, without incurring charges.

This is why i dropped cable.

This allows ISPs to be gate keepers of internet content and allows them to extort content providers.

Hey NETFLIX you want zero rating well you need to pay us, you dont want to, oh well it looks like your bandwidth is now capped much lower than this other service which does pay us

We have already seen this happen in the USA with Netflix and Comcast.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits

Absolutely, there is no benefit to the consumer, there is only less choice.

are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

Yes, outlawed 100%, do not allow at all. And along with that practice ban data caps which are about a money grab, not network congestion mitigation in wireline services.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban the practice and put in place fines up to the ENTIRE gross profit the company made that year if they break it. Also make the CEO's personally responsible for it so that they are fined 2-3x their annual compensation.

The above may be a slight exaggeration but if the company, and especially the CEOs, feels no pain they just build it into the cost of doing business.

V471 40 points Mon Sep 26 17:19:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

And along with that practice ban data caps which are about a money grab, not network congestion mitigation in wireline services.

THIS 100%

I used to work for Bell and I can tell you what the congestion is; too many households set up on the same neighborhood hub(whatever they're called), and not improving services until enough people switch providers.

We had one guy call in because his internet speeds were 0.5Mb/dl and he was paying for 15mb/dl. So I called my advanced support who told me there were about 50 households plugged into one hub that was suitable for 20, meaning everyone in that neighbourhood was receiving terrible speeds.

Their solution? Send the guy a new modem so that he thinks his speeds are faster. A ******* placebo.

In another case a women wanted Highspeed because her neighbours have it, but she only has dial-up. I was told we wouldn't run the lines to her house because as long as she was paying the same price anyway there was no increase in revenue and thus no incentive to provide her with decent service.

Why are these kinds of practices not illegal, where customers either pay for terrible service, or pay to get good service that's simply not given to them?

stewer69 50 points Tue Sep 27 11:57:08 2016 UTC  (1 child)

sounds to me like a violation of net neutrality. besides, data caps are artificially imposed by carriers in an attempt improve profits, which are high enough. internet should be made to be as cheap and unlimited as possible, as a means of encouraging both small scale economic and cultural growth.

zampson Saskatchewan 3 points Tue Sep 27 14:11:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I agree wholeheartedly. I have no cap on my copper service in my house, why cap my wireless that works basically the same, and often poorer? With the advancement in the speed of wireless signals and fiber, the only reason for a data cap is to make more money.

TritonM 105 points Mon Sep 26 16:33:36 2016 UTC  (3 children)

This is just a horrible idea all together. End data caps, uphold net neutrality. And since someone is finally listening, how about you work on why Canadians pay ~100 dollars a month for a cell phone, unless of course you work for the government..

V471 18 points Mon Sep 26 17:12:16 2016 UTC  (2 children)

I pay $115/month for 6G on my cellphone. I can cut that price to $100/month if I go down to 1G, but would then pay a ton in overdata usages charges.

lederwrangler 18 points Mon Sep 26 19:39:30 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

I'm currently visiting Europe for September and spent 15 EU on a German PAYG cellphone sim card that's comparable to my $100/mo cell plan back home. Canada's cell prices are beyond absurd.

rydare Alberta 106 points Mon Sep 26 16:54:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None at all, just more price gouging by the big three.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, it heavily favours incumbents and prevents upstarts from reaching consumers until they can bribe the telecom companies. They already make enough profit from gouging us, why do they need the extra revenue from bribes?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely step in. Uphold Net Neutrality rules and end data caps. Customers should pay for speed, not for amount. Data scarcity is just a profiteering scheme by telecom companies.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Again, end data caps and uphold net neutrality. Crack down on "zero-rating" and end data caps.

Also, you guys should force the big three to lease their towers to MVNOs at a standardized rate so we actually get competition instead of being gouged like we are right now. Compare our market to Europe and see just how much Canadians are getting ripped off.

nanaimo 50 points Tue Sep 27 02:53:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Short and sweet: totally against differential pricing.

drewfx 48 points Tue Sep 27 05:36:54 2016 UTC  (1 child)

The public owns the airwaves and the bandwidth as far as I'm concerned. I also believe that it is the role of the CRTC to manage these shared resources responsibly on behalf of the public.

  1. Does this have a benefit? In the short term yes. So does feeding your child large amounts of candy. But as we know to keep our society and the child healthy we need to look at the long term reality of this proposed system. The short answer is no, this policy will create more harm then good for the public.

  2. My concerns are that if the telecommunication companies are allowed to give preferential treatment and costing towards certain bandwidths/data types, it starts applying pressure on what the public has access to. This should not be the role of the people who manage the internet lines. This should be decided by the public , or policy, not corporations. This is a slippery slope and I the consequences are massive.

  3. Yes I believe this requires intervention from the CRTC to stop or prevent this type of activity. This isn't about YouTube or Spotify or watching hockey, I believe this is about how our democracy operates. Communication and free access to information is the cornerstone of democracy and when companies get to decide what information the public should access we historically get censorship.

  4. I believe that a simple rule as you cannot discriminate, specify, encourage or discourage certain types of data or its connections as a telecommunication provider. The provider negotiates with the customer a set rate, for certain data limits, how and who that data is used by the customer is of no consequence to the provider unless instructed to do so by law.

ohzopant 2 points Tue Sep 27 18:32:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The public owns the airwaves and the bandwidth as far as I'm concerned. I also believe that it is the role of the CRTC to manage these shared resources responsibly on behalf of the public.

You make some good points, but you should know that the CRTC is looking into this for all internet services and modes of access, as far as I understand it; cable/DSL included, so it's not exclusively a matter of airwaves.

seriouspretender 48 points Tue Sep 27 15:45:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Net neutrality MUST be maintained.

The big three ISPs hamper innovation with data caps and usage throttling on both mobile and home services. Canadians only pay as much as we do because we have no other choice. I guarantee if there were other cheaper options that offer the same level of service (Like Beanfield in Toronto) EVERYONE would abandon bell rogers and shaw that same day. Canada needs to encourage innovation and become a leader in what's now becoming the information revolution.

Basically I'm against anything that makes it easier for the big 3 to **** us, since that's all they do.

BobbyCondarco 49 points Tue Sep 27 18:41:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am very concerned by differential pricing. It benefits the vertically integrated incumbents that not only sell Internet access but also produce content. And it works against independent content providers.

It also speaks volumes about the bandwidth caps that the same incumbents say are necessary. The impact is the locking out of newcomers or market disrupters unless they make a deal with the incumbents. I fail to see how consumers benefit from such an arrangement. The negatives outweigh the positives, especially if you look to the long term. In the long term choice goes down and pricing goes up.

This also goes against Net neutrality principles and I am irked that the Crtc is going against net neutrality.

Do your job as a steward for Canadians by prohibiting this practice and enact regulation that will benefit citizens and not corporations. We have had several waves of consolidation in the industry and as for choice we essentially have a small number of companies controlling the media and now the Internet in Canada.

What is needed to foster innovation and speed up Canada's digital transformation is uncapped, affordable, reliable Internet access for all. We are very far from that ideal state.

Yes, please intervene, and please regulate the vertically integrated incumbents. Maybe then, we Canadians will cease to be the laughingstock of the world with the exorbitant prices we pay for Internet access.

Protecting a business model should not trump protecting citizens, particularly citizens of limited financial means.

Trucidar 101 points Mon Sep 26 16:22:12 2016 UTC *  (2 children)

Differential pricing is intolerable because these companies will zero rate their own inferior products, like shomi in an attempt to drive out competition like Netflix. When Netflix is gone, they will gouge the prices. Internet and television and mobile are all hundreds of dollars a month, yet Shomi and the like are all dirt cheap thanks to the competition set by netflix. Once external players are driven out of the market, our telecoms will simply do as they always do and collude to grossly inflate prices. Just look at how costs vary throughout the country depending on whether a publicly owned competitor exists.

Instead of offering value, or a superior product, our telecoms will drive out competition through differential pricing. This might be OK if we had alternatives, but even massive metropolitan areas exist under dual monopolies. You have two choices for Internet and if they are both implementing harsh, unnecessary data caps you are out of luck. Mobile data should follow the rules of net neutrality, just as internet should.

Quantos 9 points Mon Sep 26 17:06:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hear hear. This is definitely a long term issue. It's obvious that at equal cost to the consumer and a similar offering, the consumer will opt for the service without an impact on their data usage. That's great in the short term, but will in the long term prevent external players from entering the market. This then becomes the good old story where there no incentive to improve services exists for the incumbents, and the consumer is penalized.

phrotozoa 4 points Tue Sep 27 00:20:57 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Even if they don't drive out competitors they could be forced into partnerships with ISP's in order to get free data for their services and then pass the cost of the partnership on to the consumer so we wind up paying for it anyway.

mightygecko 49 points Mon Sep 26 21:41:12 2016 UTC *  (2 children)

  • What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?
    • From a consumer standpoint there are none, this only benefits the service providers pushing their proprietary services and discourages/prevents innovation and competition in the market.
  • Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?
    • Many, as 100% of the feedback here confirms this is a violation of Net Neutrality to start. It is a anti-consumer practice to force/push them towards service provider services they may not want in a open market. This also serves to effectively block any new services from being introduced into the market as they will have to compete unfairly with the service providers offerings. There is no legitimate justification for this to become a practice other then to further cement the oligarchy of ISPs we have today.
  • Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?
    • CRTC should absolutely step in and ban this practice.
  • If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

EDIT: Cleaned up for readability.

pygmy 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:41:49 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Lovely, succinct & agree completely. Any chance of some paragraphs / dot points?

mightygecko 2 points Wed Sep 28 22:23:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

You got it! Thanks for reading :)

thedangler 47 points Tue Sep 27 03:07:04 2016 UTC  (2 children)

No this is a terrible idea!!!! Next thing you know Rogers will start only allowing you to download music from certain providers for cheaper rates. Internet should not be capped at all, end of story.

Did any of the higher up executives at CRTC work for bell and rogers at some point?

NotSoLoneWolf Canada 3 points Tue Sep 27 04:57:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Until recently, when the leadership was cleaned out. Now we're getting awesome stuff like this public consultation.

grbvmw 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:00:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Almost all of the CRTC top brass is ex-bell/rogers/cogeco/telus.

QaaQer 48 points Tue Sep 27 16:13:31 2016 UTC  (2 children)

The fact that the means of transmission are in the hands of a few giant corporations is bad for Canada. We lag behind most first world nations and pay high prices. Oligopolies should be destroyed and internet treated like other utilities, e.g. electricity and water.

damnedangel 2 points Wed Sep 28 20:27:04 2016 UTC  (1 child)

You realize that a lot of cities have privatized their utilities. And almost none of it has been good for Comsumers. This is exactly why MTS is about to be purchased by Bell .

Coincidentally, MTS was the end result of the Manitoba Government purchase of Bell's Manitoba operations in 1908.

QaaQer 1 point Thu Sep 29 18:55:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I was thinking along the lines of electricity, water, sewage, and gas; i.e., things where competion is impossible because you cannot have multiple lines going to a house. In these cases, govt run or extreme transparent regulations are the only answers. The telephone system is different because of wirelesss alternatives.

ReAn1985 95 points Mon Sep 26 18:52:37 2016 UTC *  (1 child)

I'm on my phone so I will be brief.

Zero-rating or whatever other name it goes by is textbook anti-competative behavior. , The ISPs are using their market power in one sector (internet delivery) to give them an unfair advantage in another (entertainment / news / media / telephony).

This would be similar to google fibre charging for emails unless sent from Gmail.

This practice let's them influence customers to push out the competition, imposing a "tax" on their competitors.

Data caps are really the big issue here. The way they are applied is anti-consumer. A music stream has a relatively small impact on a network. 0.016MBps for a 128kbit stream roughly. However this amounts to about 41 gb of data. On a phone plan the telcos would have us belive that costs them $1000s of dollars that they need to extort out of our pockets.

Big data centers charge less than a dollar for this kind of bandwidth.

Edit: I would like to add that this notion that the telcos aren't charging a premium for other services but "zero-rating" Thiers is hogwash.

That's like saying I'm not stealing from you, in just NOT stealing from everyone else. It doesn't change the fact that there's an implicit cost to competitors services that you have imposed.


Now that I am at a computer I'll play your question game:

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefit is: There will be a small portion of the internet we're not getting double dipped on.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

By making the "cheap lane" controlled entirely by the entities that stand to make the most money this is a recipe for predatory anti-competitive behavior. The people making the rules have every incentive to abuse them and the consumers have nowhere to turn other than not participating in the internet (which isn't really an option these days).

The internet changes rapidly and what's considered essential usage changes based on consumer trends, how companies choose to do business, by letting ISPs be the gatekeeper you're setting up 2-3 companies around the country to control user behavior.

As stated above this is a textbook anti-competitive example, the ISPs are using their influence & market in one sector (delivery/access to the internet) to gain an unfair advantage in many other sectors. (Media & Entertainment, Email, Messaging, Telephony, Etc...)

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely, these are HUGE concerns with very little benefit to the consumer. It's not really a gain because it's a patch to a problem that the telcos created. Data caps aren't being fairly or honestly applied in this situation. The fundamental dissonance between bandwidth and usage is at odds here. They want pay-for-use billing, except if you're conservative... because they feel that no matter how little service you use they deserve exceedingly high flat rate fees. A granny who only emails and looks up chesterfields on the internet should only be getting charged $5-10 (at most) for the complete pittance of usage they use.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Refocus your attention to data caps, they're dishonest and the root of this problem. Zero-Rating is a pretty colored bandaid to the gaping wound data cap policies have introduced. They're meant to distract the consumer into thinking they're getting a better service instead they're just selectively sucking less where i can make them more money.

Data caps are also stupid because they claim it's about reducing congestion, congestion isn't measured by total cars (bytes), it's measured by cars at once (bytes/sec). This is why big datacenters use 95th percentile to bill their customers. This is because their customers only cause a congestion problem when they've saturated 95% of their pipe (low bandwith spikes over 95% for very small breif periods too, but when you're consistently there, that's the problem). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burstable_billing

This is also evident by the fact that if I'm willing to voluntarily pay $5/$10/$30 more (depending on the service) they'll often wave the usage component of the thing all together. How can they honestly say that my 100gb overage costs $90 but if I had paid $30 up front i could go 1000's of GB over their arbitrarily low limits?

Velze 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:13:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

You clearly have no idea what brief means.

Also.. good work.

NotYetAZombie 47 points Mon Sep 26 16:27:34 2016 UTC  (2 children)

  1. I might save money, but I'm doubtful in that. Most of my regular activities are either low enough usage that it doesn't matter, or so high that it would never be covered.

  2. Yes, I would fear that advertising would invade my life more, that plans would be literally impossible to compare, and that it could be used to punish certain types of usage.

I fear that only the tech savvy will be able to properly interpret these plans, and that companies will use them to unfairly influence people who are not very knowledgeable. I do not believe that providers will present information in a way that is not deceptive or realistic.

I also fear privacy invasion, as I would feel uncomfortable with my ISP or cell provider analyzing my usage in any depth or detail. I also feel that this information, once mined, would be sold off to marketing actors in exchange for the service (ie: facebook pays for the marketing data, at a premium, to allow free access to facebook on a service).

I also fear that it would be used to further push bundling plans, or that it would create unwanted partnerships. I fear that it would bring undue influence from foreign companies seeking unfair competition in Canadian markets (ie: one clothing store gains preferential bandwidth for their websites on all carriers, leaving all others to have slower bandwidth/not free bandwidth, discouraging competition).

I fear all this because all carriers and ISPs have historically not acted anywhere close to the best interest of the customer, and have driven cost up along with their hatred for competition to the point where many Canadians suffer with some of the worst costs for internet in the developed world. Freedom to act on this would not, given history, work out for the customer.

  1. Yes, they most certainly do. Yes, neutrality should be strongly enforced. Every ISP and Cell Phone company has a long history of screwing Canadian customers out of their money, and this will be yet another tool in their toolbox of misery. Especially in markets with little competition.

  2. If a company is found to be violating the concept of net neutrality, they should be denied the first round of bidding in cell spectrum auctions, and for physical lines, should be forced at that point to allow other companies to operate on their lines at a reduced rate, both coupled with large fines. I might be wrong on this part, but the bottom line is that strong enforcement with teeth is needed to protect this.

whatsdata 11 points Mon Sep 26 17:46:32 2016 UTC  (1 child)

I fear that only the tech savvy will be able to properly interpret these plans, and that companies will use them to unfairly influence people who are not very knowledgeable. I do not believe that providers will present information in a way that is not deceptive or realistic.

and this will happen

Mimical 2 points Wed Sep 28 21:43:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This should be a massive reason on its own. Telecommunication companies prey on peoples inability to understand how all of this works. They actively push and bully around Canadians who don't know better already so this is not going to be any different.

chrismcgdude 47 points Mon Sep 26 19:24:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Benefit is defined as advantage or profit gained from something. Benefits can only be determined if there is transparency placed on this process (i.e. all costs/conditions detailed up front in concise and informative fashion). This goes against what we're currently being sold.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I am very concerned that this proposal is tied somewhat indirectly to the unbundling of TV channels that will ultimately impact provider bottom lines, and the loss will be made up by packaging data in overpriced "bundles." This is also an attack on net-neutrality - which, in layman's terms, states (among other things) that data is data and shouldn't be discriminated by it's type. Once again, I feel as though this is "big cable" trying to influence the market by putting companies like Netflix into a compromised position through additional fees or speciality service to be used properly.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Serious question: When has letting the providers decide ever done anything for the consumer? (See skinny packages, and the debacle that ensued) These companies are interested in their bottom lines, and while it's a reasonable way to operate a business, it doesn't work properly when there are so few providers at the table. It's much like the deregulation of government utilities - a good practice in theory, but until you have more choice then you'll likely end up paying more money. The issue isn't with the idea, it's a good idea in principle, but we need more options to get prices down. Here's something else to consider: Cable companies are taking hundreds of dollars out of the local economy per household per year, and most of their infrastructure has been in place for years. How many different ways are we going to let them sell the same old lemon to us?

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Allow more providers into Canada. Regulate a maximum rate and eliminate data caps.

EDIT: Formatting

DrMungkee 46 points Tue Sep 27 01:24:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I believe it is harmful to the consumer. The only benefit is to the provider trying to push their content platforms.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It is blatant disregard for net-neutrality which is important to me. The already arbitrary data caps will be used to dissuade consumers from using their competitors platforms. I want to lease access to the internet as a service and do not want the utility provider to have any influence over which content I consume with that access.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Differential pricing goes against the principles under which the internet was built. The ISPs do not contribute in a meaningful way and simply want to force their way into a new market. The CRTC should step in to prevent this from happening.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The CRTC should enforce net-neutrality and make "differential pricing" illegal.

cynthb 47 points Tue Sep 27 19:54:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? The benefits are solely to the commercial entities that receive the better pricing, e.g. Shomi traffic for free over Rogers networks.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes, they stifle innovation, and put new entrants in a competitive area to a great disadvantage. They show a blatant disregard for a carrier's responsibility to carry all "packages" with equal care.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? Yes they do, in my opinion. It is equivalent to a telephone carrier charging more if you call one pizza delivery place rather than the other one. If you let the service providers decide, they will always choose what benefits themselves financially rather than what benefits their customers.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Put forth an amendment to the Telecommunications Act that states that carriers will treat all data packets equally and not favour one source or destination over another.

ABLawyer 93 points Tue Sep 27 00:54:33 2016 UTC (gilded) (6 children)

Hi, thank you for setting this up. As disclosure, I created this account to respond to this thread. I am a lawyer in Alberta outside of the telecommunications field.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Differential pricing has some face-value benefit. Given the existence of data caps, differential pricing allows consumers to access popular apps at a reduced cost. This allows those same consumers to use their limited data access on lesser-used sources. Effectively, it has the opportunity to improve overall access to data for consumers, if implemented well.

Differential pricing can also introduce a new realm for competition. Content providers are asked to compete for access to the differential pricing scheme. Assuming an otherwise-even playing field, this competition would result in better businesses accessing the differential pricing scheme and worse businesses falling out of favour.

Differential pricing can also increase competition among telecommunications companies. Rather than arguing for the fastest wires, the biggest data caps, or the cheapest service, this adds a new value proposition: the best access to free data. I might prefer one company because it gives free access to Netflix, Shomi, and Crave, while its competitor only provides access to Shomi.

Finally, differential pricing has the potential to reduce costs for consumers with respect to access to content. Differential pricing creates a new source of income for telecommunications companies. This income can defray some of the cost of providing telecom services. Assuming strong telecommunications competition, this provides a new avenue for the companies to reduce reliance on consumer fees.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely. Most of the benefits described above rely on assumptions about the telecom industry. As mentioned, differential pricing introduces an opportunity for competition in access to the differential pricing scheme. However, this competition must be viewed through the lens of the landscape of the industry. At the moment, content providers would be vying for favour with a small number of telecommunications entities. This creates a large amount of consumer power in the hands of the telecom giants. There is similarly little supplier power, given the substantial number of content creators who would wish to access the service. This lopsided competitive atmosphere encourages abuse by the telecom entities, rather than access to a new and interesting competitive market.

The competition between content providers is also superficial. A reasonable telecom company, when selecting who should access its differential pricing regime, would be concerned about two features. First, who can pay the most money? Second, who would be the most interesting to our customer base? This means that the competition between content providers would be tainted by a huge barrier to entry. Namely, the content provider with the most money or the most well-established consumer base is the one who gets access. It would be nearly impossible for a new start-up video streaming service to compete with the likes of Netflix, Shomi, and YouTube.

The balance of competitive power is shifted in favour of heavy-hitters like YouTube if zero-rating is available. If YouTube were to pay for access to this regime, it would also have the incentive to encourage the telecom company to charge more for competitors' services (e.g., Vimeo). Although zero-rating does not allow for increased cost to other services on a targeted basis, it certainly allows for increasing cost to access data generally. This encourages an end-game of a true consolidation of power among service providers. If consumers can access Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, and other major content provider platforms for free, it encourages collusion between that content provider group and the telecommunications group to increase cost of access to other data. This consolidates power, reduces competition, encourages oligopolies, and edges new content providers out of the market. Even if consumers currently would benefit from access to their most-used sites, this encourages the status quo and reduces incentive to develop new content delivery platforms.

The new value proposition is also superficial. A consumer may differentiate between telecom companies based on who offers the most interesting free data, but the telecommunications industry is subject to oligopolistic pressures. In my market (Calgary, a major city), I only have realistic access to two telecom providers. I don't have the ability to make real decisions, and the providers know this. With a small number of major players, there is great incentive to "work together" even while not working together. There is no race-to-the-bottom on price or race-to-the-top on quality. There is only an incentive to maintain status quo. I have no confidence that these providers will use this new opportunity to create a strong competitive advantage.

Finally, the notion that end-consumer prices could be reduced is, quite frankly, unlikely. Once again, oligopolistic pressures cannot be ignored. If the telecommunications industry were relatively inexpensive to enter and if the market were full of competitors of every size, this would be a reasonable end result. Instead, we are faced with the selection of only a couple of large, important players.

As stated above, the end-game of zero-rating is for the large content providers and the large telecom providers to group up and restrict access to non-preferred data. This group becomes a gatekeeper for access to content. Content providers that cannot pay the fee or that compete directly with an important business partner of Bell or Rogers or Shaw or Telus could be priced out of the market through no fault of their own. Simply by having the audacity to dare compete with a large content provider, they can be pushed onto the non-zero-rated path. The easiest way for telecom giants to encourage content providers to purchase access to the zero-rated path is to make non-zero-rated content especially expensive.

This leads to my biggest concern. Telecommunications giants can use the zero-rated scheme as a weapon. By increasing the cost of access to data and simultaneously zero-rating major content providers, the telecom giants discourage access to non-zero-rated data. This gives telecom giants a powerful tool in their negotiations with content providers: pay us, or get into the expensive-data line. This does not increase competition. This does not serve consumers. All this does is give telecom yet another tool to increase barriers to entry. If your content company can't afford the toll to become zero-rated, a telecom company can effectively sentence your data to death, pricing you out of the market.

This puts too much power in the hands of telecommunications giants. They are already an oligopoly. Allowing zero-rating would give them a new weapon, restricting competition in an ancillary field.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I argue the CRTC needs to take a role in regulating. Not just a role, but an intrusive and highly-active role. The telecommunications industry is controlled by a small group of players, and the CRTC represents the only shield Canadian consumers have. If the CRTC does not stand up for consumers' interests, nobody will. Internet and data access are mandatory in modern-day society, making consumers slaves to the rules created by the telecommunications industry.

The opportunities for abuse are clear. The free market does not operate in a field with such high barriers to entry and such strong, consolidated powers. If the CRTC does not regulate fiercely and actively, consumers will suffer. A quiet or passive regulation will be ineffective, given the creativity and resources of the large telecommunications companies. If tax lawyers can find ways around the Income Tax Act, telecommunications lawyers will have no issues circumventing passive CRTC policy.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

A blanket ban on zero-rating is the easy and cheap solution. But if the CRTC is of the view that zero-rating and differential pricing has value to Canadian consumers, I urge you to take an aggressive and active role in regulating, acting solely in the interests of Canadian consumers. I encourage you to take an aggressive stance to prevent further steps towards the erosion of net neutrality.

In my view, an adversarial process is the only solution. If an adversarial stance is not taken, regulatory capture is inevitable. Consumers only speak to the CRTC through divided voices and occasional public opinion processes, while the industry players get frequent opportunities to advocate. Collaboration cannot exist when one group has greater access. The CRTC must stand up for the voiceless consumer group. There must be a presumption that telecom companies want to take advantage of consumers, and those companies should bear the burden of rebutting that presumption.

The specifics on regulation ought to fall to the CRTC. But I urge you to take steps to become a regulatory body to be respected. Securities commissions, for example, are strong, policy-driven, consumer-focused groups. But the CRTC does not have the reputation it should from the perspective of consumer protection. While I acknowledge that Europe, Japan, and Korea do not have our geographical issues in telecom, the state of Canada's telecommunications industry is embarrassing on a global scale. The CRTC has the power and the opportunity to solve this.

Please, on behalf of all Canadian consumers, have the courage and the strength to regulate actively, aggressively, and in the favour of consumers. Because if you don't, nobody will.

mcchubby 8 points Wed Sep 28 17:48:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Dear CRTC;

Please accept /u/ABlawyer 's response as my own. Thank you.

Dualintrinsic 3 points Wed Sep 28 04:34:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Nothing to say but fantastic write-up.

MWD_Dave 3 points Wed Sep 28 17:23:03 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Well said good sir!

2Savvy 3 points Wed Sep 28 23:28:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

******* awesomely said buddy. CRTC, please print this out and pin it to a wall if you haven't already.

ninetentacles 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:01:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Agreed,! Excellent, well thought out response, which I think echoes everyone with internet access and likely many without.

Lyeiir 1 point Fri Sep 30 13:44:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Well said!

hoser89 Ontario 47 points Mon Sep 26 20:20:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I do not think there is any advantage to differential pricing. It is giving certain companies priority over other. Larger companies could have agreements with the teleco's and force the smaller companies out of buisness. All data should be treated equally.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Larger companies getting prority over smaller companies. If there was an agreement between an advertiser and the providers, it could cause even more unwanted ads. As I stated before, all data should be treated equally, if not it give an unfair advantage to the companies that can afford to come to an agreement with the providers.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes they outweigh any advantage the CRTC belive's differential pricing might have. The CRTC is supposed to be a voice for Canadians and I belive it hasn't done enough to address out concerns. When ever you let these giant companies do as the want, Canadians are getting screwed. It's a known fact we pay some of the highest prices for telecommunication services and the CRTC has done nothing to fix this. Leaving anything up to the telecommunication companies would just ensure we continue to pay astronomically high prices.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

If differential pricing were to happen, the CRTC would need to make sure some companies aren't given an unfair advantage over others. We need a free market, free of any foul play, or favoritism over others because of wealth.

jcs1 47 points Mon Sep 26 21:31:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing is a symptom of a bigger problem: vertical integration. When the gatekeepers are also the producers you have the incentive to block competition.

TGiFallen Ontario 47 points Tue Sep 27 13:34:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing should be illegal, it is the start to the slippery slope of losing net neutrality.

Next off, after differential pricing, the ISPs will be charging us EXTRA for data that they frown upon. (Use a competing streaming service? well, that's going to cost you $10 per gigabyte.)

Seventyseven7s 45 points Mon Sep 26 20:07:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

First, thank you for hearing our opinions. I think Reddit is a positive medium for having these types of discussions, however preliminary they are.

(1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

(I'm just going to refer to mobile providers as ISPs here for simplicity). The "benefit" is that it will allow ISPs to differentiate from their, far too scarce, competition without actually getting any more competitive from a price perspective.

(2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

a) this mirrors limitations to net neutrality, which I think most agree is bad for consumers in the long run. b) allowing IPSs to compete in a way other than price in an environment that desperately needs more competition in the first place will just further reduce the already tiny incentive for these companies to price competitively.

(3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

My concerns do outweigh the benefits. I think you should regulate by not allowing the practice at all.

(4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

You should not allow companies to offer differential pricing.

rxbudian 47 points Mon Sep 26 20:18:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing by Service Providers reduces competition and innovation. Startups who want to provide new technologies and techniques to improve the delivery method of similar services by the Service Providers will not be able to compete if customers experience degraded performance, have to pay more for the new technology, or the Startup have to pay more to operate without the differential pricing. The startup then either have to close or be absorbed by the service provider to survive. Example: Canada's budget phone companies, Netflix.

Differential pricing on a specific types of data, can manipulated through technical means rendering it useless. For example, if the differential pricing is applied to all video/streaming type of data, regardless of its source, like from competitor, startup or other companies from abroad. An entrepreneurial startup can build an application that downloads large statistical data sets by streaming it or making it look like it is a video instead of downloading it in a compressed zip file.

MixSaffron 45 points Mon Sep 26 23:28:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1)Nothing for me as a consumer, I see no benefits.

2) Companies will raise prices (people will use more data, woe is us) and companies will compete with who has the best 'package' of differential pricing. Consumers will NOT be getting the better end of this deal.

Companies should compete with service and prices not with which package comes with the most lube for your wallet.

3) Yes it should be regulated, I see more harm from good if this is allowed.

caliopy 48 points Tue Sep 27 00:44:00 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Unfortunately I will be working but I would like my say.

  1. There are no benefits of differential pricing for the consumer. Differential pricing is actually providing proof that Data Caps are completely unnecessary and in my opinion are there to just funnel traffic to their own products. Allowing this practice could lead farther away from Net Neutrality than we are.

an example:

With my service through Telus Optik I was originally told it was an unlimited service. 2 years later I was called by a telus representative and told that my current plan had a 500GB monthly cap and that it was causing my account to have overage charges of about 15 dollars per month because of the amount of people in the home streaming netflix. They pointed out that If I so chose I could avoid these charges by applying that money to an account upgrade. (it worked out to 15 dollars extra per month). This bugged me because I was unaware they had limited my plan. Their reason was "...we never cared about overages but with optik we are able to monitor the data more closely."

(here is were differential pricing kicks in for me)

The other option was to avoid using the internet to stream the browser version of netflix and only stream it through the provided telus set top clientbox/dvr used for accessing the television service. Forcing client to use their products to access streaming services instead of using computers smart tv's or appletv's as an alternative (more user friendly) streaming environment.

All that streamed data no matter how it reaches the client is using the same fibre line. It does not affect the amount of data reaching the consumer. Which is the start of why I have come to the conclusion there is no need for caps or differential pricing.

Within the last couple months I was again contacted by a telus representative letting me know that my bill would be decreased by 13 dollars per month if I chose to "upgrade my current service from 100 mbit down and 17Mbit up to 150 megabit up and down with unlimited service."

I grilled that poor kid until he told me this was a competing price due to Shaw offering the same service numbers for a reasonable and introductory (meaning temporary 6 month) pricing plan. I also grilled him asking if this was permanent and not a 6 month agreement. He assured me this was the actual permanent (or until telus raises general rates) plan. There was no extra cost. My bill was reduced. I was happy. The technician told me that our lines are capable of Gbit and better and that some of the tech employees are working on testing it right now. This unlimited service allows me the privilege of not having to use telus set top boxes for extra services like netflix and I would like it to stay that way. It is however the TOP tier plan

I know that its different in larger metropolitan areas but in my small Alberta town of 7k people the service has been outstanding in reliability and service. But I am paying through the teeth for it even with my 13 dollar reduction. It seems to me that regulation would be the logical step. Provided its simplified an not made more convoluted. I honestly feel this consumer friendly reaction by telus I have had is all about competing with shaw and only shaw. It will only last until some executive or board member decides a vote that favours the investor and the bonus structure causes this consumer friendly atmosphere to just go away.

Wireless plans are still outrageous, intentionally convoluted and over priced. Flat rate that BS! I want a phone with data and or texting. One price, one speed, One Plan all inclusive unlimited across the board. yes its that simple.

tru_power22 Alberta 45 points Tue Sep 27 03:33:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Don't do it. For the love of god. Sure it's 'get free internet while watching adds' and the next thing it's going to be 20$ for the 'netflix package' on top of what you pay for netflix. This will be one of the largest mistakes you can make with our closed-door-oligopoly internet services.

Zahne1977 Ontario 91 points Mon Sep 26 20:23:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)

"Hey guys, can we destroy net neutrality?"

The CRTC needs to start fighting for the people of Canada instead of helping the major companies screw us.

--MrsNesbitt- Ontario 47 points Tue Sep 27 14:42:28 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Thanks again for taking the time to consult us here on Reddit. We always enjoy being able to interface and consult with decision-making bodies throughout government!

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

To me, the benefits of differential pricing are restricted to the service provider, in that it incentivizes the consumer to use the content which is exempted from the data cap, which tends to be services which will benefit the provider for more consumers to use. The consumer is not benefited by differential pricing, or if they are, only marginally so; the benefits accrue disproportionately to the provider.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely. By allowing service providers to exempt certain services from a data cap, differential pricing effects an unequal playing field in terms of Internet services, thereby threatening net neutrality and the basic principles of a fair, open, equal market for Internet and telecommunications services in Canada. Net neutrality is important and ought to be cherished for the environment of high-quality, competitive services it provides; differential pricing, by threatening it, serves to entrench the interests and successes of existing, larger service providers (such as the "Big Three" of Rogers, Bell, and Telus) at the expense of smaller players in the wireless market.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Without question, the concerns outweigh the benefits. As the drawbacks of differential pricing are felt by the wireless market as a whole (including the consumers, which the CRTC should represent first and foremost), while the benefits are marginal and accrue primarily to existing, established content and service providers, it is my view that they are significant enough that the CRTC has an obligation to step in and regulate differential pricing. Canadians look to the CRTC to maintain a fair and level playing field in the wireless sector, and differential pricing threatens that environment of neutrality.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The simplest solution for the CRTC to regulate differential pricing, as well as the one which would provide the most positive benefits to Canadians and the Canadian economy as a whole, is to ban data caps of any sort. In the modern age, when data is extremely inexpensive for service providers to transmit, data caps no longer have any place or purpose beyond maximizing the profits of private service providers. Data caps restrict and snuff out innovation, entrepreneurship, and the sort of digital economy to which Canada is moving and could be a leader, and I believe that it is time for the CRTC to step up to the plate and regulate a telecommunications and wireless market wherein service providers may no longer artificially restrict the innovation of Canadians through data caps or targeted slow-downs ("throttling").

Thank you again for consulting Reddit in this matter! All the best.

Pedropeller 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:39:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thanks for speaking up for the consumer!

Reliant Québec 41 points Mon Sep 26 23:54:58 2016 UTC  (1 child)

I do agree with most of the other posters here on the dangers of differential prices on data. Everything I say in this post can apply equally to wireline and wireless internet.

For me, data caps are a huge issue. It is an extreme headache keeping track of it, and when there's a cap, it puts this cloud over everything I do online. The worst of it is when the cap is reached, it becomes a situation of "don't use it at all, or it's going to cost an absolute fortune".

When I switched from my classic cell phone to a smart phone with internet, I chose a provider that offered unlimited. Not because I wanted to do lots of downloads, but because I wanted that to be something I never have to think about or worry about. My provider was bought out, and the new company discontinued it on all existing plans. I now have a cap, but I'm glad that my provider also stops data when the cap is reached, rather than throwing new charges at me. I would rather have no internet on my smart phone than be charging an absolute fortune for every tiny thing the phone does.

And it's the same with my wireline internet. I don't want to think about caps. I don't want to have to decide if I'm going to download this game from Steam this month or have to wait a month, or worry about auto-downloaded patches. I pay an absurdly high price for unlimited data just so I don't have to deal with this. What's sad about data caps is how easy it is for someone with a cap to end up paying more than I am because of how overpriced those rates are.

Most new video games on Steam average around 20 GB on the low end. A brand new game is going to cost $80 to buy, and if you were paying Bell's rate, $60 to download. That's a 75% bandwidth tax. And yet, Steam is able to provide this service to me for free, allowing me to download it an unlimited number of times (Steam makes about $30 in revenue from my $80 purchase). It is completely absurd. I could rent a car to drive to the store and back for less than that.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

In theory, the reasoning behind it is a caching service. For popular media, if Bell keeps a cache locally in Montreal, they can serve it to multiple people and save on the uplink cost. This is a way for them to save money, and pass on the savings to customers. That is why I believe that it should be mandatory that this applies equally to all customers, and why they should never charge extra for customers to get access to these benefits. ISPs are already benefiting from it. Customers shouldn't have to pay extra because ISPs are spending less money. That makes no sense.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The biggest concern is that this could lead to ISPs lowering their caps in order to raise their profits, and put pressure on 3rd party websites to pay a fee to participate in this program, or to otherwise provide funding to help create the infrastructure to host the data locally.

With the move towards streaming and digital distribution, data caps are already far behind what customers need. While it would be nice if large sites like Youtube and Steam got exempted from data caps, if it comes with ISPs lowering their caps or raising the cost of their bandwidth charges, I feel like customers will come out behind. ISPs will be saving money, while customers will be paying more.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

If it were to be permitted, the practice must absolutely be regulated. All of the benefits of this program are to the ISP and all the concerns are to the customer. I feel like it is for exactly these situations that the CRTC exists.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I think if the CRTC were to allow it, you should make it mandatory that all exemptions must apply equally to all customers, regardless of what package they have. This means no possibility of ISPs selling add-ons to customers for an added monthly fee to get youtube exempted from the data cap.

It should also be forbidden for ISPs to benefit, solicit, or enrich themselves from trying to get 3rd parties to "join a program". That would create a situation too prone to abuse, where the risks vastly outweigh any benefits to consumers.

Yes, it would be expensive if Bell setup caching servers in all major cities large enough to hold the data of the most popular Youtube videos of the week, but it is already to their benefit to do so because they would be reducing their expenses by doing that. They should want to do this to save money, not as a way to charge for an additional service.

If they want to have this, let the ISPs use this as a way of competing with each other, but not as a way to milk more cash out of the pockets of customers.

As for the Bell resellers, any data that Bell is not charging customers for should also be data that is not charged to resellers.

Snipechan 2 points Fri Sep 30 20:07:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I agree with Reliant. Ensuring the same experience between all customers regardless of package, as well as eliminating data caps, are what is essential to improving our internet services.

In addition, internet services should be considered a utility. It is essential to modern society now, just like having running water or electricity. Another person compared internet services to your water bill. The water company doesn't put a cap on how much water you use, and doesn't charge you extra because you have gone over an arbitrary amount. Internet services should function the same way.

highstead Lest We Forget 41 points Mon Sep 26 19:25:16 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Zero-rating is a bother primarily because it differentiates traffic and effectively encourages traffic shaping at a psychological(socio-economic?) level as opposed to at the network layer.

Additionally though this traffic is 'free' this traffic is paid for by everyone else. Any traffic that is charged differently be it less or more is stifling competition and should be avoided at all costs.

There are no benefits that i can see to zero-rating any app/stream/site. The regulation of this should simply be 'you can't do it'.

Additionally i would like to see things like 'nhl game centre' being free on rogers be disallowed. This is allowing rogers to compete with others using something other than their cable/fibre/wireless networks.

Additionally this effectively costs rogers nothing as they hold the exclusive rights to game centre and as they are your provider they don't suffer the data transfer fees that they would have otherwise beyond the physical hardware.

Farren246 4 points Wed Sep 28 20:28:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

effectively encourages traffic shaping at a psychological(socio-economic?) level

Well that's one way to say "changes people's behaviour because they know they're being watched."

CoffeeAddict76 Ontario 44 points Tue Sep 27 14:48:46 2016 UTC  (1 child)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? The only way this benefits the consumer is if they are able to pick the services (from your telco AND from third parties) that matter to how they use the internet. Otherwise, it gives telcos too much power and further limits market competitiveness.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Allowing telcos to dictate what services are exempt from data caps gives them too much control over a customers usage. It also signals to me that bandwidth caps are more about creating payment tiers and less about limitations on the infrastructure to support cheap bandwidth for Canadian.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? I would say that yes, any benefits are outweighed. The CRTC should be reviewing access to the internet as a basic human right as other countries have. Making it a fundamental right of Canadians changes the conversation to raise the level of conversation to one that is consistent with the onus the internet has on the life of the average Canadian.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Idealistically, Canada's infrastructure around internet should be made into a public service managed by the federal government that telcos can subscribe to. Guaranteeing that there is equal access for all telcos, and supporting the prime minister's goal of creating infrastructure projects that benefit all Canadians.

hahapoop 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:41:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Those regulation recommendations are spot on.

hero21b 40 points Tue Sep 27 08:29:12 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

No telecom should be able to put a cap on data usage and charge for the 'privilege' of unlimited data. Data caps are being used against consumers and are great money makers - but service would never be adversely affected whether a person uses 400 GB or 800 GB in a given month. Differential pricing concerns me because it can so easily be abused, and in turn harm Canada's already small telecom market.

Regarding telecoms in general, it frustrates me that big name providers in a given Canadian city can raise their prices all at the same time and face no repercussions. There is likely collusion or any current legal wrongdoing; however it is a clear sign that Bell, Rogers, Telus, and Shaw are not in competition so much as they try their best to stay in line with each other.

Hunter_of_Dune 40 points Tue Sep 27 04:28:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Differential pricing benefits isp providers, advertising and consumer product firms. It harms the users.
  2. Yes. Keep the net neutral!
  3. Absolutely. And you should regulate.
  4. Can't help you one this one.

EB4gger 40 points Tue Sep 27 16:01:10 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are benefits for the telecoms to control what users have access to and give opportubities to other big companies who have money to line the telecom's pockets. In no way does it benefit users and in no way does it help with innovation, it does the opposite by making it harder for startups to break into the market while large companies with deep pockets can keep control.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, as stated above. Reinforce net-neutrality. Users and companies should all have equal access and equal opportunity. Canada already has some of the worst options for quality Internet access of many first world countries and allowing zero-price/differential pricing would only serve to degrade those already poor options.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The telecom companies have never shown in any way that they care about or treat their customers fairly and should never be allowed to regulate themselves. The CRTC should absolutely step in and give power back to the consumers in this country by allowing for more choice and a nore open internet.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Everyone has the same access and opportunities when it comes to data and internet usage, reinforce net neutrality.

Increase minimum data usage. The internet is a requirment of our society in this day and age and bandwidth usage will only increase. Larger bandwidth and data caps are not a problem for telecoms to provide but they keep these as low as possible to nickel and dime users any way they can.

Telecoms do not need more profits, users need better access to the internet with more choices and better competition. Allowing differential pricing will only increase the control the telecom monopolies in this country have and hurt consumers.

cfraenkel 38 points Tue Sep 27 20:08:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Netcaps and differential pricing are just big company tools to make walled gardens and push customers into passive consumers of their preferred content.
Please preserve Net Neutrality and our freedom to select the content we chose, and not become passive consumers of whatever pays the ISP the most.

liquidfirex 75 points Mon Sep 26 16:44:19 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I don't believe long term or wholistically there are any to the consumer (clearly there are some for the service provider however) .

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, it's fundamentally at odds with Net Neutrality.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes the CRTC should step in, and I believe their mandate clearly covers this situation. The service providers should not be able to decide any terms or conditions that violate Net Neutrality.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Data is data, and it should all be treated equally.

Bujiraso 37 points Tue Sep 27 13:22:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The internet was formed on a couple technical and social invariants which have been best formulated under the name "Net Neutrality". In short, the hardware doesn't see bits differently, so the people running it tried their best not to see a difference either, by writing like-minded software and policies around it.

This infrastructure is quickly becoming indispensable, with many people fighting for it to be a human right. It is significantly undermined by policies like differential pricing, or "zero-rating".

Not only should the CRTC turn away such policies, it should research the validity of solutions that are proposed by many other experts who say that the cables of the internet should be regulated the same way as the public road system. As the internet gains in popularity and usefulness, the power that a single company or collection of companies holds by owning most of the infrastructure becomes so large that we are foolish not to act to reduce it in expectation of an eventual mistake or negligent action by these powers.

survivalsnake 35 points Tue Sep 27 14:56:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I'm going to answer the first two questions together. I'm being repetitive to most other commenters, but I believe there are no benefits.

The bigger telecom companies, who also own content providers, will argue that differential pricing is no different than when you sign up for a magazine subscription and get a bonus, like a gift card or a toaster. The difference is that getting bandwidth-unlimited Shomi or CraveTV with your Internet/wireless service is that it shapes how we use those services. I want to pay for a communications service, but the practice that differential pricing enables is Canadians paying for a service to access mainly content that they own or licence. I should be making free choices of what types of online content to use.

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I don't think consumer behaviour alone is enough to combat negative practices in the telecom industry. Net neutrality is important. That said, I believe that the CRTC at present may have higher priorities with respect to telecommunications than differential pricing.

The only thing that the telecoms could do that would obviate the need for action on the CRTC is remove data caps on all Internet plans.

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Make the practice illegal. Fine the companies that do it.

jonny_b02 33 points Wed Sep 28 00:20:52 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Hi there, I am an IT guy and I know the cost of the bandwidth for which we are being gouged. The cost of the connections from the ISP more than covers any cost that is incurred by the ISPs. The bandwidth in Canada is the most restrictive and we are made to pay through the nose for access to internet connectivity that should be WAY lower!! In the US, there are ISPs that are providing 1000 Mbps symetrical connections for under $100 with no badwidth caps (as far as I can see). Granted that is US dollars, but seriously, is there that big a difference. I may be way off base but how much money did the Canadian government contribute to these companies in way of tax breaks etc to wire Canada - do you not think we should reap the benefits?

My stance is do away with these silly caps for bandwidth and open up the connections. Do not traffic shape and for the love of all things, give us Canadians valid connections at real prices with no bandwidth restrictions. The ISPs are sitting on kilometres of "dark fibre" for "future use". Well, light it up, the future is NOW!!!!

Just my 4 cents worth, opps, forgot, round that up to 5 cents since we no longer have pennies, unless you pay with plastic (another topic totally!!!)

erbaker 2 points Wed Sep 28 23:27:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

American chiming in; I had 100MBps down for $40/month with a 1TB cap. Over that and it was something like $5/GB. Data caps are inescapable now, we've just been cornered into it, despite it being an absurd and unethical business practice.

skeptic11 New Brunswick 34 points Wed Sep 28 14:47:51 2016 UTC  (2 children)

Please include a copy of https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/54vddu/data_caps_are_moving_our_country_backwards/?st=itn0w79k&sh=e3e79c12 as public record.

We should be promoting open Internet to support our IT sector and Help small business create new jobs while we compete on a global market. With the current economic downturn, this is the last thing Canada needs.

I would argue that Differential Pricing is an admission by service providers that current data limits are unreasonable. As such please ban Differential Pricing and move to mandate unlimited data caps. Thank you /u/skeptic11 .

Mastermaze Manitoba 4 points Wed Sep 28 20:01:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I would argue that Differential Pricing is an admission by service providers that current data limits are unreasonable. As such please ban Differential Pricing and move to mandate unlimited data caps

EXACTLY. Couldn't agree more

-crtc- Canada [S] 4 points Wed Sep 28 20:42:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Please include a copy of https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/54vddu/data_caps_are_moving_our_country_backwards/?st=itn0w79k&sh=e3e79c12 as public record.

Because those comments are not in this thread (official thread), we can't include them on the official record. The people commenting in this thread were able to read our messaging and be informed of how their comments were being used whereas the people in the other thread haven't agreed to that.

badtimesfriendahead 100 points Mon Sep 26 15:50:11 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely. Put very simply, ANY level of priority or advantage given to one subset of services (even by type!) over another is anticompetitive and kills off any chance the internet had of being "a great equalizer" for businesses.

Say tomorrow, Amazon is zero-rated and starts taking a bigger cut, killing off smaller businesses which try to grow/expand into handling their own sales. Or the next up-and-coming entertainment service is hamstrung by "zero rates" the big distributors get thanks to some handshakes behind closed doors.

These affects might seem small, but (a) they open the doors for the wrong approach to this problem and (b) their effects on businesses is very real, especially when you're trying to compete with big fish on already thin margins.

The last thing those big fish need are more competitive advantages over us.

engineered16 3 points Mon Sep 26 18:10:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

+1 very much this.

niklev 178 points Mon Sep 26 15:34:58 2016 UTC  (5 children)

  • Uphold Net Neutrality
  • Kill data caps
  • End of discussion

fagapple 52 points Mon Sep 26 16:24:04 2016 UTC  (1 child)

I agree with this. Net neutrality and no data caps. You pay for speed. The speed itself inherently caps the data, since it is a rate.

phoney_bologna 31 points Mon Sep 26 20:55:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Exactly. ISPs are double dipping. It feels very unfair to the consumer to have an arbitrary number given on the amount of monthly bits I can use when I already pay for the speed.

Can we at least put a limit on the data cap prices that are tied to the actual cost of upgrading their infrastructure? Not just a number that ISP's feel will maximise their profit margins.

V471 19 points Mon Sep 26 17:22:45 2016 UTC  (1 child)

And make sure that by killing the data caps, they don't simply switch to charging for data usage. Got to be careful with that.

Wonderbeastt 3 points Wed Sep 28 02:19:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Yeah agreed. Every time something is put in place to stunt these greedy bastards they always reconfigure to get more and more money for lrss service

badtimesfriendahead 6 points Mon Sep 26 15:45:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

The problem being that ISPs will continue to try and reframe it as "new discussions" so people keep have to point out their ******** to officials who might not know better.

The officials (mostly) (probably) aren't our enemy in this, being brusque with them won't accomplish anything.

loercase British Columbia 69 points Tue Sep 27 04:17:52 2016 UTC  (1 child)

The jury is in, differential pricing is a scam. The internet is the next big utility in the modern age, we have to start treating it like what it is. Essential.

Talicmar 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:05:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I would consider voting for a candidate that makes a clear distinction to that effect. Regardless of party

ParappaTheRaptor 36 points Tue Sep 27 15:32:19 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

They are very few. It will allow some users access to data they could not typically afford.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes I do. As long as the telecom companies are allowed to own and operate media companies, they can use selective zeroing to push their content, media, news, etc on users. This is not fair.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns outweigh the benefits by a wide margin. This is yet another attempt by major corporations to circumvent net neutrality, which is absolutely essential to the operation of the internet and the free distribution of information.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The practice should be banned entirely.

Planner_Hammish 69 points Mon Sep 26 22:02:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Lots of people answered with great responses already. But here it is in my own words:

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

For consumers under the current regime where data is artificially capped (whether actually, through being cost-prohibitive, or through being throttled to be effectively useless), differential pricing would mean that I could potentially consume some media without having to worry about going over my limit. Mobile data is especially expensive.

However, this is a bandaid solution that avoids the real issue of having a cap in the first place. If the ISP can provide "free" data for select services, then that points to the cap being artificial "profit construct". However, if there is actually an issue with bandwith congestion, then the speeds should be affected, not the overall monthly cap.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I am fundamentally opposed to "differential pricing", as it is squarely opposed to net neutrality. I am paying ISPs to send or deliver packets of data, not to prioritize, change, inspect or analyze each one and filter it accordingly. ISPs should not be involved in content at all. Being blind to content improves security and preserves privacy.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, the concerns outweigh the benefits. There is no comparison. The CRTC needs to set out a basic statement in support of net neutrality and enforce it. That's all.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Clear, concise update to the Telecommunications Act to the effect of:

Internet Service Providers shall enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. All packets shall be sent or received equally.

desthc Ontario 30 points Tue Sep 27 15:21:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Service providers should have no facility to zero rate their bundled services. This allows large incumbent providers to use their quasi-natural monopoly on infrastructure build out (i.e. Towers are expensive, and the market can only bear so many competitors because of it) to quash competition in markets outside of their normal market power. If incumbents wish to compete they should do so by providing competitive services and allowing consumers to choose. Allowing this zero rating means in the end all Canadians will lose.

OpenMediaOrg 33 points Wed Sep 28 18:25:23 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Hi Redditors! OpenMedia here.

This is an issue near and dear to our hearts, as we think the outcome of this hearing could determine what the future of the Internet looks like in Canada.

Some of our work can be found in the two interventions we've submitted to the CRTC: TL;DR versions here: June 28, and here: Sept. 21. (For the very committed, submissions from all parties can be found here.)

We're asking the commission to respect Net Neutrality and ban differential pricing " a.k.a. "zero-rating," the practice where telcos strike high-level deals to make certain apps data free but not others, while using ridiculously low data caps to force you into their "preferred" services.

We've also gone for the Big Ask and want the CRTC to abolish data caps - without restrictive caps there is no incentive for Internet providers to price content differently in the first place - and 42,000 Canadians have gone on the public record supporting us by endorsing our stance, and adding their own comments to the public record through OpenMedia's tool (check out what the more than 5,000 have told the commission).

On behalf of these supporters, OpenMedia is making the following arguments to the CRTC:

  • Differential pricing (or zero-rating) seriously limits choice and stifles competition on the Internet: The next Reddit or Twitter would likely never get off the ground in a world with zero-rating. Our community believes the Internet should be a level playing field for innovative new ideas.

  • Canadians are trapped by data caps: On wired Internet, data caps in most of the world are unheard of. For wireless, caps in other nations are far more reasonable than those in Canada. Too many of us are struggling with data caps every month.

  • There is no such thing as “too much Internet,” given how essential online access has become to our everyday lives. If we don't tackle this now, Canada will fall even further behind.

  • Users, not telecom companies, should decide which services we use online: Telecom giants should not be permitted to zero-rate data, and make websites they don't like more expensive to access.

  • We need transparency and strong enforcement to ensure telcos stick by the rules, and face penalties when those rules are broken. We believe that data plans should be easy to understand, and that when telecom providers break the rules there should be consequences.

We also think it's encouraging the commission has started this thread - we think it points to a more open CRTC which is not only willing, but actively trying, to engage real Canadians where they are: The Internet!

We encourage you to go beyond lurking and post what you think should be the future of differential pricing. Your voice, and getting it onto the public record like this, matters.

If you're looking for more ways to get involved, you can also endorse our letter to the CRTC here.

Yours in Internet-ing,

Katy Anderson

ICYC I'm the “Access” campaigner here at OpenMedia. I work on issues around digital connectivity and telecommunications around the world, which includes running campaigns to educate and engage netizens, as well as doing policy work around issues like Net Neutrality, Internet affordability, zero-rating, and access to the Internet as a human right.

NonOpinionated 65 points Mon Sep 26 22:37:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

End data caps, uphold net neutrality.

Darkb4Dawn 67 points Mon Sep 26 15:29:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

IMO It provides a door-way to edit the information people have access to. People who do not have the money have less access to the all the information the internet provides. I believe a provider can/should offer free access to help and service inquiries for their products but that it where the line should be drawn.

trollsalot1234 Manitoba 32 points Tue Sep 27 18:11:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

  1. None to me because its just another way the providers get to **** me around by trying to kill competition

  2. yes its ********

  3. yup as there really is no benefit.

  4. Upholding net neutrality in a way that wont get loopholed around would be a super good way of regulating it.

scruffy69 66 points Mon Sep 26 21:32:33 2016 UTC  (4 children)

No differential pricing. Unlimited affordable internet access is the only answer. Internet needs to be treated as and regulated like gas and electricity.

astronautsaurus Alberta 9 points Tue Sep 27 14:15:00 2016 UTC  (1 child)

More like a tolled highway, where you pay more to drive faster, and can drive as much of the road as you want.

scruffy69 1 point Tue Sep 27 16:03:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I like that, but I still feel regulations need to be made dictating what the slower speed limit and width of that highway is.

Wonderbeastt 2 points Wed Sep 28 02:28:10 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Then theyll charge ridiculous amounts for usage rates

xamotorp 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:49:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I have more faith that Canada can find a way to implement utility Internet at affordable prices, even if it involves some sort of slightly noticeable increase in taxes. Other cities have found ways to make affordable, fast Internet a possibility. The biggest barrier is bureaucracy and personal interest in benefitting a few at the expense of the rest if the population.

RedJack99 63 points Tue Sep 27 20:16:40 2016 UTC  (2 children)

The CRTC needs to allow services like Ting and Google Fiber to operate in Canada. Give us a real choice and crush these monopolies once and for all.

Awkin-Sopwith Ontario 7 points Wed Sep 28 21:59:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I fully agree with this. The CRTC is failing Canadians by not allowing these services in Canada. Ting is a Canadian company, but can't operate in Canada. That the CRTC decided previously that these services would not help change the playing field and be a benefit to Canadian consumers is difficult to understand.

Twisted_Knight 1 point Tue Sep 27 20:57:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This!!

swabfalling 31 points Tue Sep 27 12:42:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. The benefits lie mostly with the the providers. It may seem counterintuitive, because the customer is receiving something for "free", but the provider is able to lock a customer down to a certain media provider. Regardless of incentive, this is bad for net neutrality and the internet as a whole. Incentivizes for a provider should ALWAYS be price based in the case of plans. Providers partnering with media providers is a dangerous path, and takes away from providers incentives to lower their prices as well.

  2. As addressed in 1, I am concerned about providers partnering with content providers. This may start as a customer "add" but it could lead to cases of exclusivity deals. This is a dangerous path, and exactly what providers would love to have to lock down customers, while, once again, taking away from their incentive to lower prices to maintain customer loyalty. Net neutrality dictates that I shouldn't have to be an X customer to get Y service. This isn't the case with "zero rating" but it is definitely a path that leads to this case. No exclusivity in ANY way is appropriate, and because it needs to be repeated, pricing based incentives ONLY.

  3. Same situation, very concerned as this is a slippery slope that leads to exclusivity agreements. The customer may get a small win, in the case of no data, but customers as a whole lose out in the long run. Once again, pricing from providers is too expensive in our country, pricing incentives ONLY. I do not, repeat do not, trust the providers to make any regulations regarding their industry. They have enough anti-competitive practices and industry price fixing to prove that they are not trust worthy enough to self regulate. The CRTC needs to step in as soon as possible to take away some of their already existing loopholes.

  4. Net neutrality rules have to be followed by providers. Mobile, home internet even locally provided Wifi should all be regulated to the rules of net neutrality. No exclusives, no incentives to use one service or website over another, just data provided. That's it. Data and the service needed for maximum uptime for their customers and that's it. Any and all incentives for one customer between the companies will be ONLY price based.

BrentBeach 31 points Tue Sep 27 21:01:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The internet today exists in spite of the telcos. They have hindered its development from day, delaying ADSL to favour their much more expensive ISDN service. The telcos should have no more right to decide anything about traffic down their pipes than a construction company does about who drives on a road it builds and maintains. 1. bandwidth is so cheap now, there are no benefits to reducing the cost of any part of the content space. telcos are converting to fibre to reduce maintenance costs, so speed and bandwidth as well as reliability on the last mile is no longer an issue. in any case, should there be differential pricing, the telcos should not get to pick what goes free. the regulator guided by consultation with Canadians should decide. 2. differential pricing administered as a profit centre of the telcos will bias content on purely commercial lines rather than on its value to Canadians. 3. again, decisions related to content cannot be left to the telcos. their analysis is bottom line centric and always will be. markets work when markets are competitive. differential pricing reduces competition, reduces the content space. the CRTC has been babying the telcos for 70 years - ensuring the health of the industry. that industry is making outrageous profits now and has been for decades. no babying needed now, and certainly not at the expense of the content available to Canadian citizens. 4. regulation is simple - the telcos cannot base any pricing on content. not through this mechanism or any other mechanism that favours one content pool over another. telcos are in the delivery business. canada post cannot charge one person more than another to mail the same letter. telcos should not even be looking at the source when deciding how to charge for or route packets. all packets between A and B should flow along the best currently available route at exactly the same cost.

The CRTC should make it clear to the telcos that differential pricing is off the table. If they come back with a black-with-white-stripes version of differential pricing (as opposed to the current white-with-black-stripes version) they should be subject to penalties.

werethless12 Alberta 31 points Tue Sep 27 21:22:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. I don't really see any benefit to the consumer. It just helps the big telecoms
  2. Yes. Having different data cost different amount of money is horrible idea and goes directly against net neutrality.
  3. I think my concerns as well as many others' on this thread far outweigh the benefits and I very strongly think you should step in and deal with them.
  4. Simple, all data is the same data and you should be able to have unlimted of it no matter where you are in the country. Another issue I have is the roaming charges when you're out of your cell carriers coverage and have to "piggy back" off when of the big 3 telecoms and you get charged a WHOLE lot. I think the towers and lines should be considered public utilities and let any telecom, big or small use them and let the customers from any telecom use those towers/lines.

kowaku 31 points Wed Sep 28 01:20:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing is bad from the get go, and I'm not sure why it's even a debate. Either meter, everything the same, or meter nothing. (It should be nothing).

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The customer may feel like they are getting a 'deal', but really there is no benefit as a whole.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. Rogers used to have Shomi to compete with Netflix. They could stop metering data when using shomi, but continuting to with Netflix. This is a complete conflict of interest and can not be allowed.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

No they do not outweigh the benefits. The internet providers have already proven to us that they can't be trusted with fair practices, so yes they need to be heavily regulated and potentially broken up (but that's a different debate). Data caps suck, but giving some services different treatment than others is even worse. It gives the benefit to larger companies that have the resources to strike a deal with a company like rogers, whereas smaller websites and content providers can't. Data caps already stifle business, innovation and the economy, but let's not let the oligopoly have even more power with how we consume content.

Boss_Otter 31 points Mon Sep 26 16:46:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think zero rating a powerful tool service providers will use to guide customers onto their own platforms. I feel like it will be a toe in the door especially if data caps continue to be reduced despite the decreased cost of providing the data. It will eventually lead to a two tier system in which the groomed list of services from your provider become the preferred choice as consumers will not want to spend additional money for data if they have a choice between the free data offered by the zero rating for a service and the "premium" data that's needed for services external to their own.

wizardged Ontario 110 points Mon Sep 26 15:26:25 2016 UTC  (31 children)

Let's cut out the formalities and get down to what your question is actually asking. This is about net neutrality and even more so about zero rating, something that puts Net neutrality at risk. To clarify zero rating is when internet providers (which is what cell phone providers are in addition to cellular providers whether the CRTC views it that way or not) exempt certain internet applications from data caps. At first this seems great ie. Consumer immediately thinking "Wow I'm not getting charged for data I use. Thanks BelRogTelWin (The name of a fictitious cell phone provider that we will assume operates in Canada)". This is howeverno saving grace from BelRogTelWin. BelRogTelWin has a plan. To illustrate this let's use an example of the Recently popular release of the game "Gokemon PO" which BelRogTelWin has decided to zero rate to see why this plan is not in the interest of Canadians.

Lets pretend, BelRogTelWin is offering to exempt Gokemon Po from its data caps for a year. That goes with some of its other zero rating offers, including the exemption of a number of video and music streaming services.

That's great, right? Who wouldn't want to play as much Gokemon Po as they want, without worrying about using up their monthly data allotment?

That's certainly how wireless carriers are selling zero rating – as a boon to consumers.

But it doesn't take much effort to see the downside. What about all the other games out there? Why should those continue to count against data caps? In the case of BelRogTelWin, which is happily exempting all kinds of services, why are there caps in the first place?

Suppose you're a person who plays a lot of mobile games on your phone, some of which use up data. You've tried Gokemon Po and decided it isn't for you. Suddenly, it isn't a case of Gokemon Po players getting a bonus – it's a case of you getting penalized for your preferences.

Why does BelRogTelWin get to choose which games cost you data?

It's worse for the creators. While the people at Ciantin, the company behind Gokemon Po, are probably happy that BelRogTelWin has voluntarily given their product a boost, there are likely many other game developers now quietly grumbling about why their games aren't exempted from caps.

It's an unfair advantage that Gokemon Po doesn't need, considering its runaway popularity.

By offering “free” data, BelRogTelWin is underlining the big problem with zero rating. It's a bonus for the chosen few – often the big and successful who don't need it – but a penalty for everyone else.

(Modified from the Article http://alphabeatic.com/pokemon-go-zero-rating/)

So What should the CRTC do?

Uphold Net Neutrality and make it a policy across Canadian ISP's and Cell Phone providers to Uphold the Free and open internet that helped make them successful and not put the internet behind paywalls. The Free Market can't work if business's can punish you for not using there product or worse stop you from using others.

Geno- 1 point Mon Sep 26 15:42:50 2016 UTC  (26 children)

Your example is specific to one game. What about in the case of unlimited music? As long as a service is able to meet certain technical requirements (e.g. low data usage) they can be part of this service and customers can enjoy you without having to worry about data usage.

Is zero-rating OK if it is open to everyone?

wizardged Ontario 7 points Mon Sep 26 15:44:40 2016 UTC  (21 children)

It is the same multiple companies provide streaming music. Why should I be penalized for using apple music over google play music?

AJollyCyborg 0 points Mon Sep 26 15:56:01 2016 UTC  (9 children)

You wouldn't have to select, they'd all be zero-rated. That's the OPs point.

telecom_brian 7 points Mon Sep 26 16:29:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

How should service providers identify "music streaming?" What if I start my own music streaming service; how do I get the big service providers to recognize mine?

What if an existing content provider (e.g. Facebook, Netflix, etc.) starts streaming music, and encrypts it as they do with their legacy traffic? How can service providers identify and isolate the "music streaming traffic."

I don't think categorical "zero-rating" is possible without service providers picking winners and losers, and most often it's the established players that need the least help as the winners, and smaller startups who need the most help as the losers.

Full disclosure: I work for a service provider (Rogers), although I am expressing my personal opinion.

wizardged Ontario 4 points Mon Sep 26 15:59:08 2016 UTC  (4 children)

Canada has been part of the trend. Bell and Videotron were both zero-rating chosen mobile video services until a decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) earlier this year ordered them to stop. Those mobile services were there competitors to netflix etc. they try to lock in consumers to there service by using illegal anti competitive tactics.

AJollyCyborg 1 point Mon Sep 26 16:20:10 2016 UTC  (3 children)

They were zero-rating their own services though. Makes sense the CRTC stopped the practice... I think you are comparing apple to oranges in this case.

wizardged Ontario 3 points Mon Sep 26 16:33:57 2016 UTC  (2 children)

The problem is you can't guarantee they won't do it again. On top of that there is no difference in cost in what data you consume. music video email and everything else all look the same to a computer/router. Please see this conversation I had with somone else on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/54kz6g/im_from_the_crtc_and_we_want_to_know_what_you/d82sgwm

AJollyCyborg 1 point Mon Sep 26 18:34:28 2016 UTC  (1 child)

That's a common misconception. Bytes have different costs depending on where they are coming from, where they are going and by what way they travel. For example, a byte that goes from the core of a network to an end-user (intra-network) will cost less to transport than a byte that goes through multiple transporters such as Level3 and Akamai to reach an end-user. One could then argue it makes sense to bill them differently. Statement on which I have no opinion as my legal knowledge is not adequate.

wizardged Ontario 2 points Mon Sep 26 18:41:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Tier 3 ISP's only pay transit to endpoints of networks they don't own and it is a pittance. You're not wrong but the transit costs Tier 3 pays are minimal. also transit is based on agreements with other ISP providers. most pay next to nothing except what it costs to lay new fiber or light up dark fiber. Source I work in a datacentre that is part of Torix.

ragout Québec 2 points Mon Sep 26 20:01:38 2016 UTC  (2 children)

they'd all be zero-rated

Which brings us to ask us : why have caps on data at all ?

AJollyCyborg 1 point Mon Sep 26 20:30:01 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Because no network can support all of its end-users streaming 4k atm. The caps and zero-rating prevent this from happening.

TCL987 Canada 2 points Thu Sep 29 02:01:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Then maybe they shouldn't be selling more services than their networks can handle. They're a utility if their customers all want to stream Netflix at 4K and they are paying for connections fast enough to stream 4K then they should be able to handle it. If they can't handle it then they shouldn't be selling connections capable of streaming 4K.

ISPs want to charge people for fast connections but don't want people to actually use them.

Geno- 0 points Mon Sep 26 15:56:19 2016 UTC  (10 children)

All music providing services would be treated the same, if a music streaming provider can meet the technical requirements it would be included in the zero-rated service offered by an ISP, if not, it will not be included.

As a customer you could use apple music, google play, spotify, whatever else.

Check out binge-on in the states :http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html

PhreakedCanuck Ontario 3 points Mon Sep 26 15:59:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Check out binge-on in the states

Thats not exactly zero rating, thats paying more for select services to be zero rated

wizardged Ontario 3 points Mon Sep 26 16:00:14 2016 UTC  (5 children)

You can't guarantee that. Canada has been part of the trend. Bell and Videotron were both zero-rating chosen mobile video services until a decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) earlier this year ordered them to stop.

Geno- 0 points Mon Sep 26 16:08:00 2016 UTC  (4 children)

That's because there was discriminatory practices taking place since they were zero rating their own services. My example is zero-rating third party applications. I can't guarantee ISPs will play by the rules, however that is why the CRTC and the Telecommunications act exist, they will be able to tell if something is "unjust".

wizardged Ontario 3 points Mon Sep 26 16:14:07 2016 UTC  (3 children)

Okay, so what if I don't listen to music on my phone I stream videos or use lots of email or something else. there is no difference in cost in serving different types of data. making an artificial cap on certain types of data punishes people for NO reason. If you want I can explain why.

Geno- 1 point Mon Sep 26 16:22:08 2016 UTC  (2 children)

Hmm, I can see what you're saying but the way I was looking at it like this for example: I have a 1Gb plan and it costs me $45 dollars a month ... now my carrier gave me unlimited music on my plan. For that same $45 I still have 1GB of data AND now have unlimited music streaming as well.

wizardged Ontario 3 points Mon Sep 26 16:25:01 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Your not wrong. It's just if bell can afford to give you a 320KBPS audio stream possibly non stop why won't they let me use 320KBPS of a video game non stop. It's none of there business what data I use or why they need to stay neutral.

Geno- 1 point Mon Sep 26 16:28:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I like that point. I haven't really formulated my opinion on the matter yet, nice to hear other opinions :)

badcallday 3 points Mon Sep 26 19:55:35 2016 UTC  (1 child)

What happens when you use a music streaming service that isn't major and then rack up overages because "you didn't know"

"oh, I was streaming off internet radio off the phone's browser, why did I go over my data, why was it not covered"

Geno- 0 points Tue Sep 27 12:32:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Well in the case of binge-on they let you know what services are available on their service and allow you to "turn-off" bingeon if you don't want to use it. If you make the mistake of using a different provider you would be SOL.

forsayken 2 points Mon Sep 26 17:55:38 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Why not just treat everything equal and raise these ****** caps that mobile providers push to us for little reason other than to make a ****pile of money for providing as little infrastructure as possible? This sounds worse than back in the day (and yes not very long ago...) when you got a mobile phone and some parts of the day were free but not the most important parts even though you were paying $75/month.

ffwiffo 6 points Mon Sep 26 15:56:06 2016 UTC  (2 children)

As long as a service is able to meet certain technical requirements (e.g. low data usage)

Who needs to zero-rate a service with low data usage? Just uphold net-neutrality. Stop letting the large ISPs pick winners and losers. All internet or no internet, those are the options.

Geno- 1 point Mon Sep 26 16:03:03 2016 UTC  (1 child)

What about other differential pricing practices, teksavvy allowing for unlimited internet between the hours of 2am and 8am (or whatever it is). ISPs allowing subscribers to check on their data usage and other admin stuff on their websites without it counting against their data (checking bills, changing plans, etc..)

Should those not be allowed either?

ffwiffo 3 points Mon Sep 26 16:24:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What about other differential pricing practices, teksavvy allowing for unlimited internet between the hours of 2am and 8am (or whatever it is).

This is absolutely neutral. Not sure why you bring it up.

ISPs allowing subscribers to check on their data usage and other admin stuff on their websites without it counting against their data (checking bills, changing plans, etc..)

This technically violates net neutrality but it an absolute pittance in terms of bandwidth that the user is hardly impacted. The practice exists because the user has to use bandwidth to check bandwidth - a catch 22 that shouldn't exist in the first place.

speedtouch 3 points Tue Sep 27 13:58:05 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What if I decide to try to start a music streaming service? Do I just automatically get unlimited music if it's low data? Will there be some vetting process? What if I only have a few people use my service? Does it become unlimited once I get big enough? If so, how big? Will I have to run around to each ISP to tell them that I'm a music streaming service and hope I receive their blessing to offer my streaming music unlimited data?

I for one wouldn't want to be reliant on ISPs to determine whether a business I'm starting will be successful. That gives them power and it gives them a say in things that they should have no say in.

AcidShAwk Canada 0 points Mon Sep 26 15:43:09 2016 UTC  (3 children)

Looking forward to this not receiving a response.

alpain 4 points Mon Sep 26 16:29:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm here to field questions, if you need it, about the process but nothing else. We will not express views or provide comments on the matters being considered by the CRTC – so expect responses to be structured that way.

If you had read that isn't the purpose here.

wizardged Ontario 1 point Mon Sep 26 15:47:08 2016 UTC  (1 child)

:( can't tell if your Pro-Net neutrality or against.

AcidShAwk Canada 1 point Mon Sep 26 19:23:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

My bad. Very much pro net neutrality.

Awkward_Archer 59 points Mon Sep 26 18:56:36 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Differential pricing may seem like "free data for that App I like" to the uninformed consumer. In reality I believe it will open the door to almost immediate abuse by providers. I trully feel that we need to be discussing an end to unnecessary data caps. Step in and do not allow differential pricing. Thank you for taking the time to consult us!

Velze 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:06:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Agreed. Were I an ISP I would abuse the ever living **** out of this make tons of money for no effort or additional expense. This is not fair to consumers. I love cats.

Coziestpigeon2 Manitoba 59 points Mon Sep 26 20:01:59 2016 UTC *  (1 child)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I can't really see any, especially because we can be certain that the ISPs would pick and choose what counts in a really ******, untrustworthy, "f***-the-consumer" way.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The Internet Gatekeeper problem, used as an example on the government website.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns certainly outweigh whatever assumed benefits there are. However, I also don't really trust the CRTC to step in with consumer's best interests at heart. But if we have no better option, I suppose that yes, the CRTC should be in charge. Just please don't be anti-consumer about it, like the organization is with many other services.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

This is a very hard question to answer. Differential pricing is just a bad idea all-around. We can't trust the CRTC to handle it well, and we definitely can't trust providers to handle it well. It's just a bad idea from every angle because it puts far too much power in the hands of those who have shown they don't give a-f***-and-a-half about consumers.

For example - it's pretty obvious, knowing the history of these companies, that a provider like Rogers would let Shomi be used without affecting data limits, but Netflix would be blocked. Anything to force inferior products down our throats while making us pay more is something that the Big Three would love.

princeedwardislander 4 points Wed Sep 28 18:27:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Bravo on the Shomi example. I second that exact sentiment.

FinalCactus 60 points Tue Sep 27 06:09:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I absolutely oppose differential pricing. This has been said before in the thread, however:

i. There are no benefits to differential pricing that could not be achieved by removing caps, and,

ii. Differential pricing allows predatory practices by ISPs, disproportionately favouring larger ones, who can corral customers into usage that promotes the ISP or business partners.

untrustab1e 59 points Mon Sep 26 19:57:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. From a consumer standpoint, the benefits of differential pricing are minimal. Having a few of the websites being available for free might alleviate data cap issues, but the real solution is to either raise data caps or remove them entirely. These services are also only of benefit to me if I am a customer of the services receiving preferential treatment. Also, consumers receive extra incentive to increase their usage of these services, often at the expense of others.
  2. There are numerous concerns, they generally fall into three categories: making decisions for consumers, reducing market competitiveness, and potential for abuse.
    Making Decisions for Consumers:
    One of the best parts of the internet is having the freedom to visit any part of it that I choose. Having one of my websites become free seems like a boon, until I realise that it only represents 10% of my network usage. If I am near my data cap, suddenly I am incentivised to only use zero-rated websites. I dislike the idea of my service provider dictating how I use the internet.
    Here on Reddit, the front page links to about 15 different websites, only three or four of which I would consider large enough to be able to afford a zero-rating agreement. Content here gets up-voted mostly based on how informative and/or funny it is. Videos already tend not to be very popular among mobile users because they use up so much bandwidth. Making Youtube zero-rated would increase their prevalence on reddit, but only from Youtube. The same effect would occur if data caps were raised, except without the bias towards Youtube.
    Reducing Market Competitiveness:
    Video Streaming currently uses the most bandwidth, and many websites use this form of media either as their primary product, or as a supplement to their existing offerings. News, education, social media, entertainment and advertising businesses all use video as part of their online products. Entrenched members of a market can afford to enter into zero-rating agreements, but new sites don't have this luxury. Some markets only became feasible because the cost of running a website is so low. There are dozens of educational websites that offer the equivalent of college-level courses for free. Wikipedia, one of the largest websites in the world, is able to be run entirely on donations from users. This business model only works because Wikipedia doesn't have to pay for preferential treatment on the internet.
    Potential for Abuse:
    After large websites such as Youtube and Netflix have entered into zero-rating agreements, the demand for larger data caps would decrease. This allows service providers to offer inferior deals to consumers, and delay upgrading their infrastructure. The average size of web pages is constantly increasing, meaning that keeping data caps the same reduces the amount of media a consumer can view. In the extreme scenario, data caps for non-free services face constant downward pressure from service providers, in order to strong-arm sites into accepting zero-rating agreements.
    Many service providers own media companies that they would like to promote. Rogers owns SportsNet and in order to increase viewership, would likely give free access to this service as part of their internet packages. This forces competitors to pay in order to compete, except with higher costs. Free services would be hard-pressed to come up with money to pay for these agreements; limiting the competition to subscription sites. Service providers may also enter into exclusivity agreements with large websites, giving these services a massive competitive edge.

  3. Overall, the benefits of differential pricing are few, and the concerns are numerous. The positives of this program can be replicated by raising or removing data caps. The spirit of the program goes against the foundations of the internet, and attempts to regulate differential pricing would likely be ineffective. Wireline and wireless should be treated the same in this matter, and the power should definitely be kept out of the hands of service providers.

  4. The CRTC should step in, and the best practise would be to ban differential pricing entirely.

charachaos 57 points Tue Sep 27 00:25:58 2016 UTC  (3 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no benefits for the consumer, though the ISPs can freely push whatever they choose. Differential pricing might as well be called preferential treatment or agenda pushing, the people that are on the receiving end have no real choice even if they are led to believe otherwise and the ISPs have more power over what is "allowed" (zero-rating agreements) vs "not allowed" (no zero-rating and possibly increased pricing) thus influencing not only the amount of usage per site but the type of information that is digested as well.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Many concerns, just a few of them being the lack of competition (effectively catering to capitalism), the possible obstruction of certain freedoms (freedom of the press as example with canadian online media being heavily affected), and low-income households having an increased difficulty with proper access to their bills, banking, mail, contact with family members across/outside the country, etc.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns far outweigh the benefits and certainly justify the CRTC to step in and regulate the providers heavily. If they were left to regulate themselves it would quickly become a treacherous slope of fewer and fewer options with higher and higher pricing involved.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Make the internet an essential service. We all pay for the maintenance of roads even though not everyone chooses to obtain a drivers license or might not be able to get it either, we all pay toward childrens benefits yet not everyone chooses to have children. There are more people who connect to the internet than those who drive or have children yet even after the UN declares the internet a human right we are still debating whether or not to put it in the hands of corporations or in the hands of the people.

TravelBug87 Ontario 27 points Tue Sep 27 14:01:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Make the internet an essential service. We all pay for the maintenance of roads even though not everyone chooses to obtain a drivers license or might not be able to get it either, we all pay toward childrens benefits yet not everyone chooses to have children. There are more people who connect to the internet than those who drive or have children yet even after the UN declares the internet a human right we are still debating whether or not to put it in the hands of corporations or in the hands of the people.

Could not have said it better myself. The internet needs to be able to be accessed at all times, by all people.

updn 4 points Tue Sep 27 19:28:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

the UN declares the internet a human right we are still debating whether or not to put it in the hands of corporations or in the hands of the people.

This is it in a nutshell.

Flaktrack Québec 4 points Wed Sep 28 16:38:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Make the internet an essential service.

Virtually every single business and person in Canada makes use of the internet for their daily needs. Some people are even working from home over the internet. The internet has changed everything and is absolutely essential to our lives.

There is no reason why the telecoms - who have very serious conflicts of interest with internet service and other services they provide/control - could ever be trusted to regulate themselves. The government must step in and guarantee our freedom.

perfidydudeguy 59 points Mon Sep 26 16:18:14 2016 UTC *  (1 child)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

By not counting data from certain sources towards my data cap, I am free to use other services more without having to pay for a higher end internet service. However, this leads me to ask the question: why are the data caps so low in the first place? Isn't data caps being low what differential pricing is trying to "address"?

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Two.

The first is that it will kill competition. How is a startup supposed to build a user base if it has to either charge the customers or make them watch ads to fund itself as well as somehow convince said users to pay extra for their internet connection because the used data counts towards caps? The big corp alternative would obviously not, so how would they compete?

Second, if differential pricing grows, what incentive is there for the big guys to improve either their internet service or their content services if there is no competition? Why do you need a higher data cap so long as everything you read, watch and listen to comes from your internet service provider itself? If you don't "need" the data, then why would they ever grow the caps at all (and forget about removing them)?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes. The cons outweigh the pros by a landslide. I want to be able to hand pick my services, which I cannot do if the internet gets bundled up. I want my ISP to give me a connection to the entire world, not just their corporate network. I want to see opinions and content from sources my ISP may disagree with or think irrelevant.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

My preferred solution would be to forbid ISPs from even handing out "free" data, or rather data that doesn't count towards caps. If they want to do that, then "no caps" should be the service they offer.

I suppose a much more complicated and significantly less effective solution would be to force any ISP that offer differential pricing to one content provider to be forced to offer the exact same service to the entire corresponding industry. However, what will end up happening is that ISPs will start using new terms to endlessly recategorize services and sources and regulating bodies will simply not be able to keep up. It's unsustainable because it will get extremely complex extremely quickly just so that the major ISPs and content providers can keep a stranglehold on their markets.

After all, let's be clear. They don't want to make certain types of data be excluded from caps. They only want data that comes from themselves or their partners to be excluded from caps. Are you a friend of big corps? No? Tough luck.

Planner_Hammish 4 points Mon Sep 26 17:00:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

However, what will end up happening is that ISPs will start using new terms to endlessly recategorize services and sources and regulating bodies will simply not be able to keep up. It's unsustainable because it will get extremely complex extremely quickly just so that the major ISPs and content providers can keep a stranglehold on their markets.

This sounds like the current content licensing paradigm. You buy a subscription to sportx, and you can watch that on TV, and if you have the TV subscription, you can watch it on the internet. But you can't watch it on your mobile internet, because the sports are not licensed by the subsidiary that handles mobile sportx app. Want to just watch it on the internet? Nope, can't watch it on your desktop unless you also buy the cable package...

canada_boy 57 points Mon Sep 26 23:42:31 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

zero-rating is a really bad horrible scam against the public.

What the public wants and deserves is for service providers to fairly compete for their business. In zero-rating the telcos allow selected digital service providers to access consumers for free, whereas users of the 'not selected' providers have to pay full freight for access. The service providers that are most often the subject of this "free access" are the types of services that use a lot of bandwidth, which is costly for consumers.

To get an idea of how wonky this is let's cast the situation onto a different industry. Imagine that Esso gas stations were offering free fuel, but only from a particular refinery and only for the heaviest users of fuel. Immediately the insanity of the situation is clear. The very first question is "How can they afford that?", unlimited fuel for their heaviest users?

But this is precisely the situation that internet/cell service providers are in. How can they afford to give away huge amounts of a costly resource for free? The simple answer is that they can't, so either one of two possibilities obtain, they won't give it away or it's not costly (for them).

It could be that someone else is paying for it, much as say advertisers pay for TV channels. More likely though is that the actual cost to provide the service is much cheaper than the revenue it produces. The whole point of competitive markets is to drive prices down to the point where the sales price is close to the product cost plus an acceptable profit.

There is no clearer sign that internet/cell providers have been making windfall profits, on a cost base that declines by about 30% per year and is now very close to zero, than the existence of zero-rating. The providers want to distort the competition for who wins and who loses on the internet by giving away an effectively free resource to their favourites all while charging consumers way above cost.

Can't we just have real competition for providing data services that benefit the public rather than money bag corporations with armies of lobbyists gaming the system for their own personal enrichment?

EDIT: a few typos.

mangage 54 points Tue Sep 27 01:19:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There are no benefits at all for differential pricing for the end user, it is only another way for large corporations to increase profit margins.

Internet and Mobile access should have only a single price point for unlimited access. We should not be limited in any way to information or digital services. There are no technical limitations preventing this, only corporations that want to make more money.

geedamoose 26 points Tue Sep 27 09:30:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There are no consumer/user level benefits that I can imagine. Differential pricing is just another way for very large corporations to ensure that their message is heard above all others; no matter that the corporation is an ISP, a car manufacturer, a sports team, a financial institution or a media organization.

As for regulation, yes, please. Sounds like net neutrality to me.

Rampaging_Rhino 26 points Mon Sep 26 19:04:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. The main benefits would be that select services would be cheaper, but in the long run I don;t think it's worth it.

  2. My concern is that it would restrict my choices and restrict small businesses from being able to provide services

  3. Yes, the concerns outweigh the benefits! I would rather have unlimited internet/ no data caps. Like someone lese said on this thread, internet should be considered a utility like hydro, gas, and water.

  4. Not sure how regulation should work, but making the companies show their available plans in a straight forward way would be a start. When it takes 5 steps to access the information about plans, thats about 4 steps too many. Having more transparency about what services are available would be helpful.

hypnoderp 48 points Tue Sep 27 16:27:13 2016 UTC *  (1 child)

1) The benefits are only beneficial when framed as such, by marketers. They are by and large empty gestures. Saying that a customer is getting "more" of something, rather than less of something else is simply a convenient marketing tool in an industry where consumer trust is at an all time low. There is literally nothing to convince paying customers that businesses won't do what they are designed to do here, and turn a profit while turning a blind eye to the best interests of the customer. If ISPs can truly offer more for less, then let them do it in healthy competition with each other, not by bowing to the highest bidder with content to sell.

2) My concern is much greater than the pricing issue, it is the issue of net-neutrality. The world over, internet access is rapidly being deemed a utility. To regulate a utility at the source by evaluating its intended end-use would be unprecedented. Water and electricy aren't witheld or supplied cheaper depending on what the customer does with them. Access to free information, unfiltered, uncensored, and indeed unprivileged by the source should be a basic human right. ISPs should not be concerned with content or source, only the delivery of data. The provision of service, as is their namesake.

3) These concerns massively outweigh the nonexistent benefits, and are more than significant enough to justify regulation. Canada will be setting a precedent with its actions here. As a world leader, other jurisdictions will look to us to frame their outlook on this. Since the internet is very difficult to police across borders, what one nation decides on cyber policies affects other nations, and critical masses are reached where it becomes a moot point whether or not you follow a certain policy if your neighbours do not. To prevent this becoming the thin end of a net-neutrality wedge issue, the CRTC must take a strong and unflinching stance here to protect the freedom of the citizens it represents. This goes way beyond customers.

4) Differential pricing should be banned outright in all its forms. The ISP is there to supply the end user with the data he/she seeks. The ISP does not pay more or less for data from one region or any other. Any differences in pricing are a sole result of kickbacks from companies buying their way into one or another ISPs and, and thus corporately influencing the user's preference, and access to, data. Moreover it's exclusionary to services which don't have the same kind of purchasing power. Any instances of this type of collusion should be investigated, exposed, and fined. The control of freedom of information is a dystopian nightmare that is easily avoided, if the threats are recognized for what they are. This is one such threat.

VagabondingCanada 2 points Fri Sep 30 14:06:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I can't say it better than this so just know I support everything they've said. Net neutrality is paramount.

Gunstling Newfoundland and Labrador 50 points Tue Sep 27 18:59:00 2016 UTC  (2 children)

Differential pricing (or zero-rating) seriously limits choice and stifles competition on the Internet: the next Reddit or Twitter could never get off the ground in a world with zero-rating.

Canadians are trapped by data caps: For wired Internet, data caps in most of the world are unheard of. For wireless, caps in other nations are far more reasonable than those in Canada.

There is no such thing as “too much Internet,” given how essential online access has become to our everyday lives. If we don't tackle this now, Canada will fall even further behind.

Users, not telecom companies, should decide which services we use online: Telecom giants should not be permitted to zero-rate data, and make websites they don't like more expensive to access.

We need transparency and strong enforcement to ensure telcos stick by the rules, and face penalties when those rules are broken.

FallenWyvern 5 points Wed Sep 28 19:16:20 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Hey look, this is the best/most sane argument anyone could make. I was going to write a whole thing on my thoughts but this user gets it!

Gunstling Newfoundland and Labrador 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:45:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I try :p

tehserial Québec 69 points Mon Sep 26 20:49:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Please abolish data caps, we're in 2016! And while you are at it, could you forces content providers (Bell, Videotron and others) to not offer rebate when you take more services with them.

It make no sense that I can take a TV, home phone, and internet package for 80$/month, but if I only need Internet, well, it's now 120$/month

aintitashame 47 points Tue Sep 27 05:33:55 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Do not allow companies to employ data caps or tiered pricing, the internet is meant to be free, open and neutral. Differential pricing is just destruction of the internet for profit in a new package. Data caps must be regulated to immediate non-existence!

alltherobots 22 points Tue Sep 27 13:10:15 2016 UTC  (1 child)

In addition to the good points against differential pricing that others have raised, it also penalizes privacy.

Currently, Canadians' net usage is pretty vulnerable. Those who take prudent steps to safeguard their privacy such as encryption would forfit their unrestricted bandwidth even if they were using the listed services.

As encryption becomes more common, ISPs will just say, "Well, that's not our problem. Here's five plans that all cost more because of the free services you can't use, and no other choice."

We will get billed more for something that will be unusable as internet users become more responsible, but since it will still be "optional", ISPs will pretend that's not happening.

teddyr93 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:26:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is a vastly underrated comment.

Thunderz_Canadia 24 points Tue Sep 27 16:04:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. The benefits go to large corps who can pay the fee the ISP are charging for unlimited usage of data
  2. Yes, I do. This practice will end up destroying any start-up company in Canada
  3. I believe the CRTC should step in and regulate this practice. We should follow the principle of Net Neutrality
  4. I believe we should disallow differential pricing

straightcur 68 points Mon Sep 26 19:08:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Please do not make the same mistake you made with cable. Do not allow vertical integration of the internet. Keep the internet open. The fact that you are even entertaining this is extremely disturbing.

Letscurlbrah 49 points Tue Sep 27 04:38:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

In general I think the benfits are only for the ISPs. I think it will provide short term gains in very specific use cases. ie. If a user only watches videos via Shaw's video service, it will be helpful.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I think it will negatively impact innovation on the internet. ISPs will likely only allow their own content to be free, which will further dissuade people from using alternate services. I also anticipate it will drive the cost of data not on their specific sites to be more expensive than it is now.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I do not think the benefits outweigh the concerns.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I would like a government run carrier to be formed, as this has shown to increase competition in markets where it exists, such as Sask, and encourage more consumer friendly practices where they operate.

freebase1ca 45 points Tue Sep 27 15:27:23 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Some incredible, well thought out responses in this thread. I'm sure my opinions have already been expressed, but I can't read all of this. I will just post my own...

1.What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I am so overwhelmed by the negatives I can envision, I can't think of any concrete benefit that wouldn't be overcome by a hidden negative.

2.Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

So many concerns. Differential pricing would just provide more levers that companies could pull to leverage their position and obfuscate the true costs to the consumers.

How often have we tried to be smart consumers by carefully comparing pricing only to be blind-sided by some unexpected or hidden cost. "You've been saving on your electricity use? - We have a new delivery charge for you." "You found a way to consume TV broadcasts without subscribing to our cable package? - Turns out your cable package was subsidizing your internet package - we need to double that now to reflect the true cost." Examples are endless.

How often will we be subjected to a bait and switch? "Yes, our internet costs are double our competitors, but that's because we maintain very low latencies and high bandwidth. The price is actually cheaper because your video streaming from x and y are free!" How much free streaming will we get before the streaming is no longer free but our internet fee with ridiculous caps remains the same? What kind of iron-clad contracts would we require to ensure that the service remains as good as what we signed up for. You can guarantee that the service provider will not provide any such thing for us to sign.

Others have covered the concerns of the content providers who might have difficulty reaching their intended customers. Service providers will be able to hold their customers hostage for the highest bidder.

3.Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns far outweigh any perceived benefit. There is no free lunch. Any free service offering will be recovered somewhere. Might as well keep things simple and honest. Let's know what we're paying for up front and be confident it won't change.

4.If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I leave that to you. Like our healthcare, don't allow multi-tier internet access. Treat all content and all routes the same.

Vyper28 7 points Wed Sep 28 20:48:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Great points!

I also believe these changes strongly encourage ISP's to reduce data caps. Because the lower the cap, the more content providers will have to pay them for "Sponsored Access".

You can't ditch T.V. for Netflix when your package was reduced to 100GB/month! But you could sign up for our IPTV netflix clone for only $29.99 a month! It's sponsored so it doesn't use your data!

I can already see the ads popping up.. "100gb bandwith, more than enough for your email and web browsing!! And for only $29.99 more you can enjoy unlimited SomethingOtherThanShomi streaming T.V. service!!" available on select 2 year contracts, Price increases to $500/mo after 6 months.

ThereIsNoRedditOnlyZ 45 points Mon Sep 26 23:57:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This creates an unfair playing field for other providers of content on the internet. The internet is supposed to be fair and equal. Since it is a service that is virtually essential to populace it should be publicly run by the taxpayers. But since it isn't, this inherent tax should be applied equally.

Beat_My_Kids 42 points Tue Sep 27 16:33:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? To corporations, there are many. Look at Shaw/Rogers and shomi. Unfortunately this project/product has failed and will be shutting down in November. But they exempted shomi's data from Shaw internet usage. Thus, for low income people making their product appear more preferable/attractive. Fortunately, competitors such as Netflix have been vocal about these issues in the united states and it made many of us aware of how unethical it is. I see connections to the internet as a utility. It would be the same thing to say that my electricity would be cheaper if I was using Samsung electronics. See how that could become a problem?

For consumers, there is the chance that they could save some money. As long as you do what you're told, you may save on data caps but it now means that more of your money is going to the large telecom/isp instead of the content provider you'd really like to access.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes. Yes. Yes. Think about it this way. Theoretically. I'm a mobile carrier such as Bell. I also invest in a messaging app like.. Telegram for example. Now, to increase Telegram's success (and my profits) it would likely be in my best interests to exempt all Telegram traffic on my network from data charges and at the same time I'm going to increase the costs of data on the network. This means for everyone to keep the status quo for their monthly bills, they will need to switch to Telegram. That's fine right?

No. That's not fine. I pay $80 a month with the expectation that I can use my phone for whatever I'd like within limits. (5GB Data). I have been using Google Play music on my device, but what if they make my plan $120 a month when I renew and then allow Spotify on their network without data charges. I would definitely a) switch my plan to a lower data limit and try to get my same price. b) switch to spotify to make the most out of my data. Is this ethical? Need more convincing? What if they increased fees for a service? What if Google Play was priced higher per megabyte? They might as well switch plans from "Data" to "Credit" and give you $80 a month worth of credit. You use that to purchase services like Google Play. $1 a megabyte. Etc. ?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

You should without a doubt step in. If Canada's citizens have ever needed you, it's on this topic. There are nearly no benefits to the consumer.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? It should be completely prohibited to control and manipulate customers into using any services. This should not be allowed at all.

RagnarokDel 63 points Mon Sep 26 22:21:15 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Data is freedom and access to the internet should be a public utility just like tap water.

oDionysius British Columbia 9 points Tue Sep 27 16:14:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Especially in the way that we are moving forward. Schools are heavily relying in internet, students need internet for work and school.

Someone nowadays, who doesn't have access to the internet, is going to miss out on a lot of things

Phoenix2000 46 points Tue Sep 27 00:10:27 2016 UTC  (1 child)

They are trying to go against Net Neutrality by naming it something different. Data is data is data. It all cost the same to transmit and should all have the same pricing. I don't mind paying more to have an unlimited connection. I understand the costs of network infrastructure. I also love how they implied music and TV shows would be in the exempt group...Yea sure,

Roranicus01 4 points Wed Sep 28 17:52:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I couldn't agree more. Protecting Net Neutrality should be one of the crtc's primary missions. What happens to those of us who do not with to use netflix, youtube, or other commercial streaming services that have reached a deal with ISPs?

RanmaCanada 44 points Tue Sep 27 02:09:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The only benefits are the for big 3. Consumers will continue to be raped. We currently have some of the most expensive plans on the planet, with craptacular coverage. Where were you when Rogers sold us to Tbaytel, and they left Northwestern Ontario? Where were you when Shomi and Crave were proven to be nothing more than shills to stop Netflix from getting content. Where were you when Shaw and Bell decided to almost double their internet plan pricing because "the dollar is low" They didn't lower them when we were on parity.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

My concern is that the big 3 will continue to do what they do. Have the CRTC in their back pocket and rape and pillage our wallets for less and less service. The majority of the network was paid for with tax dollars. It's seriously time for a nationalized carrier.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Isn't this like giving your 5 year old child a choice between candy for breakfast and cereal?

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

You should regulate it by creating a government run carrier that will compete with the big 3 monopoly. We have already seen that they will compete in provinces with government run carriers, which you damn well better make sure NEVER are allowed to be sold. Make a national carrier, and service the parts of Canada that are "not profitable" If I can get LTE service in the middle of the desert in the Middle East, why can't I get at least 3G service in my basement?

JoseCansecoMilkshake 61 points Mon Sep 26 20:18:20 2016 UTC  (1 child)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

It is possible that some light use internet users could see lower prices.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I feel that looking at what kind of services I'm using violates my privacy. There is also room to violate net neutrality, which has shown to be done (Bell and Telus have already done this on which you judged they did nothing wrong http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-to-pro-union-website-1.531166, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/12/bell-canada-drops-traffic-shaping-in-favor-of-an-economic-approach/). It is the job of the ISP to provide a connection, nothing more. It is not the business of the ISP if I watch Netflix 16 hours a day, or watch a certain type of pornography or am looking at other ISP options because I'm dissatisfied with their service.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The concerns grossly outweight the benefits if you are at all concerned about privacy, security, and stopping the surveillance state before it gets out of hand. If you let the providers decide (since telecom has high barriers to entry and is a life essential for 99%+ of the population), they are unlikely to make decisions that benefit the consumers at their detriment. This information is valuable both to the telecom companies and to sell on to other companies, for advertising or research purposes.

The CRTC should regulate this by enforcing net neutrality. It is the job of the ISP to provide internet service. Nothing more. If I pay for a certain speed and a certain data cap (which is another issue entirely), I should get all of that data at that speed (up and down). No "traffic shaping", no censorship, no throttling, no IP blocking. This is a free and democratic country and society. Because of the high reliance on the internet to consume media and keep us informed, we absolutely cannot have large corporations shaping the information, restricting our knowledge consumption and restricting our right to privacy.

mvirard 4 points Wed Sep 28 05:01:46 2016 UTC  (0 children)

That pretty well sums it up: "we absolutely cannot have large corporations shaping the information, restricting our knowledge consumption and restricting our right to privacy."

rxbudian 21 points Mon Sep 26 20:23:41 2016 UTC  (5 children)

Are we supposed to vote up or down on the post to show that we have positive/negative views on the question?

-crtc- Canada [S] 16 points Mon Sep 26 21:15:38 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Feel free to vote but we are primarily looking for comments.

V471 5 points Tue Sep 27 13:42:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Which is stupid in my opinion. Reddit works in a true democratic process, allowing the comments with the most information or popular opinion to rise to the top, and those that are offensive or hard to read to go to the bottom.

charachaos 2 points Mon Sep 26 22:48:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Vote up for positive, and down for negative. The further into tthe negative something is, the further it gets buried in the positive ones.

As well, add your thoughts in a comment. I'm currently reading and up/down voting as many as possible before adding my own.

anythingffs 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:10:42 2016 UTC  (1 child)

OP said this:

every comment and every upvote will become part of the official public record.

allistoner 60 points Tue Sep 27 02:50:15 2016 UTC  (2 children)

Net neutrality, no data caps and more unlimited data packages is what Canada needs

burnSMACKER 21 points Tue Sep 27 04:16:35 2016 UTC  (1 child)

We need more competition. Invite Google here and let Verizon stay this time.

MisteryKnight 2 points Wed Sep 28 22:35:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This! The fact that Google can't compete in Canada as a provider is seriously hurting our internet growth. It seems like everyone is getting faster and faster speeds while our speeds are just staying the same

eMaddeningCrowd 98 points Mon Sep 26 15:16:40 2016 UTC *  (3 children)

  • What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Most of my data usage comes from music streaming and internet browsing. Having data exemptions for various services would keep me under my monthly limits.

  • Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It locks me into my cell providers "preferred" streaming service and takes away the freedom of choice I would have had otherwise. I use Google Music. Rogers supports Spotify. Rogers is heavily financially invested in Shomi which is a direct competitor to Netflix. The only people differential pricing helps are Rogers and Spotify while discriminating against users of competing services (Netflix, Apple Music, Google Music, etc.). There have been rulings for net neutrality in canada for internet to the home. We need net neutrality on our mobile networks as well.

  • Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Use the Rogers partnered service for free or pay double (the subscription fee AND your data usage) to use the competition. That is incredibly unfair to the users and serves only to benefit the service providers. The internet was built on a foundation of free choice - don't like one platform, go to another. By creating rules that allow providers to play this game, you take away our choices

  • If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Every time the CRTC tries to impose regulations and rules, our internet and mobile prices go up. If you block the providers from doing differential pricing, they will raise our data prices. If you allow them to do it. They will raise our data prices. See also: affordable cable packages, a la carte pricing, 2 year contracts with the option to back out at any time. Every thing you've done has cost the users more at some level. Usually at the wallet. My cell plan is 6 years old and costs $85/mo - If I want the same plan today, I'd be paying $115 at the bare minimum for less data and voice services than I get on my grandfathered plan - which will probably be taken away from me in the next year or two at the rate that Rogers is going. Edit: I WANT rules. However, I want these rules to be less short sighted. I want there to be fewer loopholes for the providers and stiffer penalties that you actually follow through on for bad-faith practices. I want there to be fairness. You're playing a cat and mouse game with them - every time you do something for us, they find another way to turn it against us.

Edit: Various edits to clear up vagueness.

Yoshimo123 6 points Mon Sep 26 15:23:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

eMaddeningCrowd articulated my views on this issue well. Upvote.

pragmacube 2 points Wed Sep 28 10:50:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Well said, I agree completely!

maqtewek New Brunswick 42 points Mon Sep 26 21:48:45 2016 UTC *  (1 child)

1) The only obvious benefit I can see is that it allows people to use 'popular' telecommunications services at a discount or for free.

2) It gives service providers, who are, generally speaking, not accountable to the public or the government so long as they obey established laws, excessive control over what Canadians use their services for. Given that telecommunications are, at this point, a piece of infrastructure that rivals highways, railways and the electricity grid in national, economic, and social importance, this is a serious concern.

In this day and age, Canadians use wired and wireless internet services to access virtually every aspect of their lives; keeping up with current events, banking, shopping, entertainment, work, scholarship, social interaction -- the list goes on and on. To allow a handful of private companies control over what products and services are given preferential treatment is a very scary prospect indeed.

In addition to these points, differential pricing will make life difficult for smaller internet-based businesses and organizations. Small content creators will have a hard time negotiating for preferential pricing when they're up against the giants like Facebook and Youtube, which will make it harder to market their content and services to Canadians. At the same time, smaller internet service providers and mobile companies may find they have financial difficulties in offering popular services for free if they lack the strong financial position enjoyed by Bell, Telus, and Rogers -- especially since many small service providers rely on buying network access, for a fee, from those same established companies.

All in all, I fear that differential pricing would lead to an internet dominated by a handful of strong, established service providers and content creators. This environment would make it difficult for newcomers to get off the ground, and allow near-total control of an important utility to fall to a relatively small group of companies.

3) These concerns absolutely outweigh the advantages. A particularly displeasing thought to me is the idea that an ISP might give preferential access to certain news and information outlets, and charge higher rates for others -- allowing it effective control over what viewpoints on political and social issues are easily available to its customers. To give that sort of power to a business that exists to serve its own interest, is not directly accountable to the public, and makes no claim to be an impartial judge of current events is honestly a terrifying thought.

The disadvantages that differential pricing imposes on smaller and newer internet-based businesses and service providers is also quite concerning. In the absense of very strict pricing regulations or outright nationalization of our telecommunications network (which, I think, should be at least considered, given the national importance of telecommunications), fair and equitable competition is the only way to ensure that Canadians can take advantage of the internet to its fullest extent. Differential pricing would allow established service providers control over what content is readily-available over their networks and make it harder for new internet and mobile service providers to enter the market -- the exact opposite of what is needed.

Differential pricing is akin to applying a toll to a public highway, but then waiving the toll for anyone who drives up in a Ford. It effectively serves no purpose but to promote certain products or services chosen by the service provider, to the detriment of all others.

4) In case it wasn't obivous, I think the CRTC should step in by outlawing any form of differential or preferential pricing. The wired and mobile internet is far and away the most important communications medium of our time. The least the CRTC can do is create and enforce regulations to ensure Canadians have fair and open access to it at a reasonable price.

Thanks for listening!

1337ingDisorder 4 points Wed Sep 28 02:37:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think a very important point that seems to be glossed over here is this:

telecommunications are, at this point, a piece of infrastructure that rivals highways, railways and the electricity grid in national, economic, and social importance

I think we can pretty much all agree that this is the case, and on that basis, it seems to make sense for the telecom infrastructure to be outright nationalised, or at the very least socialised.

Rather than trying to regulate free-market ISPs, why not just have basic high-speed internet service as a federal social program?

Then the free-market ISPs can dance around whatever convoluted profiteering schemes they want, but Canadians will be assured the same basic level of connectivity through their tax contributions that are afforded us for physical travel on roads.

mostlypissed 74 points Mon Sep 26 16:19:44 2016 UTC *  (3 children)

Privatisation of telecommunications in Canada has gone and continues to go absolutely nowhere. Increased competition is not the answer, as the existing corporations effectively block all efforts towards that while continuing to flout even the current directives and orders of the CRTC, such as the ongoing refusal by these same corporations to allow competitive access to their fibre networks. Therefore, I maintain that their assets should be expropriated outright and converted immediately into publicly-funded national infrastructure intended to serve the interests of _all_ Canadians freely and equally without any burden nor prejudice, in the same manner as public roads and highways already do.

V471 32 points Mon Sep 26 17:21:06 2016 UTC  (2 children)

Nationalize the Telecommunication Utilities!

mostlypissed 23 points Mon Sep 26 17:59:25 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Yes. They are no longer an expensive luxury for the privileged few, but by now have become an essential service to our nation instead. As our need has progressed and changed over time, so too should their operations be changed accordingly.

cjbest 6 points Wed Sep 28 19:13:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Agreed. The internet is an essential utility. It must be neutral and it should be nationalized. For profit corporations should not control such a critical resource.

Scoopable 78 points Mon Sep 26 16:21:34 2016 UTC  (6 children)

Make internet, and smart phones a need, not a want. If I want to apply for a job the good old days of walking in and asking for a manager are gone. Everything in the job hunt field seems to require an internet connection.

We need plans that better reflect what a student or a single person on minimum wage makes. The price gauging is becoming ridiculous.

moeburn Ontario 24 points Mon Sep 26 17:25:49 2016 UTC  (1 child)

If I want to apply for a job the good old days of walking in and asking for a manager are gone.

Can confirm. Took my nephew to the plaza to hand in resumes at all the big box stores like the old days, a grand total of 1 store, out of 8, was actually willing to accept the resume. The rest all said "Oh you have to go online and fill out a form to do that".

kalleina British Columbia 23 points Mon Sep 26 18:05:13 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

In addition to this, its hard to even track down if someone is even hiring without searching and applying online now. Internet should probably be classified under a human right or as an utility for how much is is required day to day.

Coziestpigeon2 Manitoba 1 point Mon Sep 26 20:03:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is completely irrelevant to the questions being asked.

Please read the topic of the thread before contributing.

whatsdata -1 points Tue Sep 27 17:00:49 2016 UTC  (2 children)

Im not sure its truely a "need", you can live without it. It's also available for free use at public libraries, goverment job centers and by wifi at almost ever coffee shop.
Water is a need, without it you die. Heat is a need in the winter, without it you freeze.
Internet is not a need as someone might "omg its literally killing me" because they can't facebook, they don't actually die and it is an available public resource.

SchrodingersSpoon 3 points Wed Sep 28 20:46:30 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Needs are situational. You won't freeze to death in the Caribbean. You might starve because you can't get a job because you have no Internet to apply online.

Lakhjhajj 41 points Mon Sep 26 22:06:38 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am totally against Zero Pricing. Yeah I enjoy free shomi with my Rogers cable that is just bec I can't get Crave TV with Rogers cause Bell won't offer it to me unless I switch ships. That is wrong. It should be a fair play ground. We should be allowed to buy channels n services individually not cause we r force to buy some bundle to get one service.

Also pls do something about these sky rocketing DATA PRICES. Wireless should include unlimited DATA at least as an option. Prices are LOWER in Manitoba and Saskatchewan for cellular plans as compared to rest of Canada. Why ? Just because of strong regional competition. CANADISN DOLLAR HAS SAME VALUE THROUGHOUT CANADA. IF BIG 3 CAN OFFER CHEAPER PLANS THERE THEY CAN CERTAINLY OFFER THEM IN ON BC OR ALL OVER CANADA. PLS DONT LET BELL SWALLOW MTS. IT WILL KILL COMPETITION.

sturmey 40 points Tue Sep 27 11:31:27 2016 UTC  (2 children)

The questions you've asked have already been answered more eloquently then I would have done, so I really only have questions and comments for you.

I happen to live in a part of Canada that doesn't really have internet competition. While my part of town does have reasonable internet at 7mbs down, my friend lives where 2mbs down is a dream and doesn't really have the ability to access all these services you area asking about. The sticking point is that we are paying the same rate that people in large centres do for their 20mbs service, and upload speed is non-existent.

Considering the intense hate that Canadians have for the CRTC and the isolationist content limiting practices that keep us from the shows and services that exist in other parts of the world, what makes you think we trust you to get anything related to new technology right?

In my location, the phone company owns the cable company. This was allowed or possibly encouraged by the CRTC. Now I don't have options. The next closest town that does have separate providers is blanketed with options up to 100mbs down for the same rate I'm paying.

In my location, I live more than 50 miles from the closest TV transmitter, so I can't use an antenna to pick up any TV channels because the switch to digital allowed stations to cut their transmitting power, so TV was turned off.

None of the digital satellite signals that are free come from Canada as the CRTC has allowed basic Canadian channels to all be encrypted, and the online services to be locked down to Cable subscribers.

What this means for me and many people I know is that we don't even look at Canadian content because we have limited access to it. Other than radio, we have no Canadian media coming into our house. You can bet though that we have a ton of US and UK media coming in.

So by allowing the practices that the CRTC is asking about extending, you have essentially cut me off from Canadian content and pushed me to get my entertainment elsewhere.

The rules you posted prevent me from stating my true opinion, but suffice it to say I would rather see internet regulation removed from the CRTC and given to a new body that doesn't have the legacy of poor choices and biased decision making that benefits the large service providers, and actually allows for better services and competition.

I am disappointed in your performance.

usernamehell4ever 6 points Wed Sep 28 16:30:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I strongly agree. My trust in the CRTC was destroyed in 2011 with the Truth in Media ruling change ;https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2011/01/24/truth_lies_and_broadcasting_in_canada.html . It does seem apparent that the CRTC has little interest in citizens of Canada, and I would consider a complete overhaul of the CRTC to be a very strong voting motivator.

captaindodi 3 points Thu Sep 29 00:40:07 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Well said. The CRTC is a huge disappointment and the fact they even had to ask this on reddit is outrageous. I have zero confidence in them.

Dreviore 38 points Mon Sep 26 17:52:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits? Oh yes! Having carrier preferred services would be beneficial to the consumer because right now data caps are brutal.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I do. Why is it that when I use my carriers provided app it doesn't count towards my cap, but when a better version of the app comes out, it does? What about utilizing websites that are competing for my views? What if there's a video streaming service that doesn't count towards my cap, but a similar (Arguably better) service pops up, and counts towards my cap, so I'm forced to utilize the first service?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

All traffic should be treated equally. And honestly, I, and many other Canadians don't trust our carriers to provide these services without expecting more financial gain, at the end of the day a companies goal is to make money. If they have an agreement with Facebook, who's to say they won't be providing their own ads, completely overriding the websites provided ads?

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Enforce net neutrality. All traffic should be treated the same. 100MB of data is 100MB of data. Big Telecom #1 should not be allowed to make their 100MB of data on Spotify not count towards my data caps. Nor should Big Telecom #2 be allowed to make their 100MB of data on video streaming not count towards my cap while a competitors product does. - If you allow this it needs to allow for competitors products to stand a chance. If Company #1 decides it wants to compete with Big Telecom #1 it should be granted the same preferential treatment Big Telecom #1 gets.

Perhaps we should look into splitting up these giant companies. Not only are they providing one source of media (Home internet), but they also provide a direct competitor in the form of Television, cellphones, etc. Companies like these don't need to 'diversify' in order to stay alive, they're prospering on the backs of Canadians through price gouging.

TheInverseKey 39 points Tue Sep 27 03:13:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. There is no benefits for differential pricing.

  2. Just because one company has a service doesn't mean that I want to use that service. Also, because of this that mean I get charged for not using their service? How is that fair? Well it is not. This goes against Net Neutrality. ISP's and Cell Companies will just take advantage of their customers by hiking prices and not being competitive pricing on the same playing field.

  3. The CRTC has to step in. The Internet should be free and there is no benefits. The only way that there would be benefits is if the telcos offer all internet and mobile plan with unlimited data for any type of use of the Internet. The CRTC should force all telcos to have unlimited plans just at different speeds. The amount of data that is transferred across their fiber networks has not reach a peak in the last thirty years. Also, the amount of money that the telcos collect off of just charging to have access to the internet is enough to keep up with customer base expanding and the customer demand.

  4. Very simply don't let the telcos implement this at all. If you do all you are doing is hurting consumers and the people of Canada. The Internet should be open and free. This mean that there is no special rules that people can get more internet because they with a certain company. All the telcos want to do is to rack in more money and not spend it on updating and expanding their network. We have seen the disaster that has happened in the US with their telcos don't let the same thing repeat itself here.

PurinaHallOfFame 35 points Tue Sep 27 15:26:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None exist, there are only disadvantages to consumers and industries dependant on the infrastructure to conduct business or entertainment. The only tangible benefit would be higher prices to accomplish the same tasks, and the yield to shareholders of the companies as a result.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, mainly that I or my company will have to pay "protection" to ensure delivery of our services and content. Also, I pay for a certain amount for a certain usage.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

If you let the service delivery companies decide, they will elect to maximize their profit at the expense of the consumer, and all industries that rely on the internet. Internet as a utility should be a model considered.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

No preferential treatment of tiering of internet data. If it's unrelated to internet (MPLS) or otherwise, SLAs provided by companies are enough to ensure proper delivery of services. What my internet traffic consists of should be of absolutely no interest to my provider. They are a dumb pipe to get to the services I rely on. If they want to deliver TV to me, they have the ability of doing so using non internet routable methods as they control their own infrastructure .

yannthegod 66 points Mon Sep 26 15:54:19 2016 UTC  (15 children)

why does bell charge me 90-100 for the same plan that cost 55 in manitoba/saskatchewan

currently the big 3 are making money and hiking price up, we need more competition to the market to keep the price at a reasonnable level like it is show in saskatchewan with sasktel....

badcallday 8 points Mon Sep 26 22:54:04 2016 UTC  (10 children)

Bell SK - 10 GB data + Unlimited calling - $75
Sasktel Sk - 10 GB Data + unlimited calling - $75

It costs less in SK, nots not just their local company

yannthegod 3 points Wed Sep 28 20:53:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

yeah bell match sasktel, but if there's no competition they just jack price up

Intentt Alberta 3 points Tue Sep 27 01:29:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

For comparison sake:

Bell Alberta plan: 10Gb and unlimited minutes - $145/mo.

Wonderbeastt 2 points Wed Sep 28 02:14:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I can confirm this to be true. But its still crazy overpriced even for here.

elimi 1 point Tue Sep 27 10:44:59 2016 UTC  (6 children)

QC Bell 8g data unlimited call 90$ and that's good vs some other provinces.

Kosmenko 3 points Wed Sep 28 18:48:25 2016 UTC  (5 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Girlfriend has unlimited calling and 2gb for $112 in Ontario.

******* joke here.

elimi 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:07:25 2016 UTC  (4 children)

Just saw Bell and they offer even better deals right now like 7g for 77$, videotron has a 6g for 66 right now. All plans include unlimited Canada wide minute. In France I had a 50g data once cap was reached they lowered speed and unlimited minutes to most countries. If you travel you get 3g of data and unlimited minutes for 35 days every year in most countries (so you go to UK you get 3g data, you then go to Italy you get another 3g etc) all that for around 30$ cad. For a 50mb with unlimited minutes it costs 2 euro and the telcos have free Wi-Fi in most cities to go along.

Kosmenko 2 points Thu Sep 29 02:48:26 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Europe is pretty lucky when it comes to their telcos. I wish we had those dates and options.

Unfortunately she's locked to Rogers ATM but have told her to shop around and get a non contract plan so she can switch when a better plan comes along.

Where were those plans for? ON?

elimi 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:07:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Well check how much of the balance is left on the phone and if it's low pay it off and you are free. Then check how much you'll save overall if you switch.

These are quebec plans.

Kosmenko 0 points Thu Sep 29 02:48:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Europe is pretty lucky when it comes to their telcos. I wish we had those dates and options.

Unfortunately she's locked to Rogers ATM but have told her to shop around and get a non contract plan so she can switch when a better plan comes along.

Where were those plans for? ON?

Kosmenko 0 points Thu Sep 29 02:48:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Europe is pretty lucky when it comes to their telcos. I wish we had those dates and options.

Unfortunately she's locked to Rogers ATM but have told her to shop around and get a non contract plan so she can switch when a better plan comes along.

Where were those plans for? ON?

lederwrangler 7 points Mon Sep 26 19:34:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Canadian cable/phone/internet pricing: "Because **** you, that's why."

ungratefulanimal 3 points Wed Sep 28 19:45:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

They need to be enforced. We had a verbal plan that wasn't being enforced. Fortunately I had a recording of the verbal contract we made as well. The thing is, we don't have options to choose and they were charging us an extra $400 a month. Without competition, we can't do anything else and pay absurd pricing. Currently, we found a small isp just for Internet, which isn't much better but is slightly better.

Rodwe 50 points Tue Sep 27 00:12:22 2016 UTC  (2 children)

1.) There's no real benefit to the practice. 2.) It violates net neutrality by treating one byte different than another. Telecoms are merely delivery people for the contents of the internet, not the gatekeepers or profiteers. 3.) These concerns outweigh the benefits to the public as it corrupts the whole internet by allowing extortionate fees for basically everything these oligopolies wish. 4.) The CRTC should regulate it. It should be telling every telecom in Canada that they are only delivering the internet to customers, not charging for its contents. They are a public utility and should not be allowed to sell different speeds to different people for different prices. It only costs $0.09/GB to deliver, so they should be capped at $20.00/month for UNLIMITED DATA AT THE HIGHEST SPEED AVAILABLE TO THEIR HARDWARE to all customers. They should only be able to increase the cost in 30 years by a dollar as the newer technology is cheaper for them to purchase and implement, especially with fibre optics. Also, WIRELESS DATA IS THE SAME AS WIRED INTERNET DATA so there should be no data caps on it either effective immediately! Wireless data costs were just increased this year by reducing the quantity of data offered. Their data costs need to be regulated to $10.00 or less for unlimited data. Cell phone data use is so much less than landline use. We don't use both at the same time during the day while at work so there are no traffic issues caused by unlimited data for all internet access points. Korea and Japan have 1000Mb/second already, we should too! Latvia has a faster nationwide service than we do and that SHOULD be a shame for telecoms, but it isn't. They prefer to profiteer from Canada.

EmperorOfCanada 6 points Wed Sep 28 05:26:23 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I disagree with your $0.09 per GB it would be closer to $0.01 per GB. This number is for a large business buying bandwidth. It would be even cheaper for a giant telco buying at beyond wholesale.

The wholesale cost of bandwidth is negligible. The cost of their infrastructure on a bandwidth basis is negligible. Also once they start wiring up fiber to a neighbourhood the cost between one plan and another (in bandwidth costs) is a tiny fraction of what they charge.

A simple counter to their BS prices is that they typically don't offer much bandwidth (or any) to rural areas. Then they charge close to $100 per month for a vaguely good plan.

Yet a quick bit of research can find places all over the world where vastly superior bandwidth is offered for tiny fractions of the price. This defeats their "billions in infrastructure" argument because how do these foreign telcos do it without "billions"? Do they somehow use two cans and a string yet end up with gigabit connections? If so then where is my string?

Deyln 48 points Mon Sep 26 19:46:39 2016 UTC * (gilded) (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There really isn't a benefit to differential pricing of the internet in regards to how consumers use data and in regards to how the technology works. There is however a benefit to discuss a couple key definitions to how internet is described in regards to the differences between net neutrality and the current iteration of what we purchase to access data.

Originally we purchased a specific speed allocation to access data. There are a few key factors here that we should first make an amendment to. The first is that the definition of speed was badly worded. As such, let's go with the current definition of "up to a specific" speed; but with the caveat that we should receive at least a reasonable comparable amount. Basically, I think our average speeds for each tier shouldn't be lower then about 15% the optimal value. So a nice low-end speed at 15mbps should give you roughly 1.875MB/s speeds on an ideal day; and it really shouldn't end up lower then about 1.5MB/s or ~12mbps on a bad day. This is excluding problems with the network like downed lines and the like. The difference cited above should be inclusive of normal congestion loads for most everyday of the year with possible exclusion of special things like the Olympics happening.

With the wording of speed adjusted to something reasonable; we have one of the key origins of the introduction of data caps. There was essentially 3; two of which mattered. Starting with the 56k modem One was how much it cost to use the phone line. The second was how the technology worked itself. A 56kbps modem would really only off 40-50kbps speeds due to specific reasons of the technology. The first time I heard about data caps myself was argued from these two perspectives sometime after they started rolling out broadband services. This was when the government paid the companies to give everybody high speed internet. They unfortunately underestimated what the technology could do and at that time they decided to introduce the ideology of data limitations. They reduced the offered speeds citing these two technical aspects as to why data caps were being introduced. The fist was simply so they could cover the area of consumers they wanted to cover. Early broadband technology could deliver greater distances if they had each node with less customers; or they could have more customers with less distance consecutively connected to each other. (cell towers had the same difficulty.)

With the data limitation in place, this evolved into the ideology of a data cap in time. They did some maths and said "people only use this much data on average" and then made a data cap definition from this perspective in lieu of the obvious "we have this technology that can do this much.". The definition of differential pricing has been with us for a long time. Simply not really recognized as such. Namely that the definition was making adjustments to the quantities available - the access connections - were adjusted to allow different consumer segments availability to the technology.

http://businessjargons.com/differential-pricing.html

Argumentatively; we can't claim net neutrality as a factual argument against our fair usage system simply because we have data caps. As each company has different caps; each consumer in Canada has a different billing cost per data segment.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

One of the biggest concerns to differential pricing is how we are actually letting the term zero rating supercede the already given arguments against two-tier pricing. We segmented into price differential already; as per the previous question. Then we argued, we can segment it in different ways. This was originally called a multi-tier system. Basically designed similar to how business/consumer usage is already divided. This was already thrown out. Afterwards they decided on a different definition to do the same thing.

https://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/2014/01/10/internet_providers_push_for_twotier_internet_based_on_data_caps_geist.html

During this time one of the arguments presented was that there was no benefit to the consumer. Zero-rating however implies a benefit to the consumer. While it is somewhat true; it's basic argument for process is simply re-iterating the same argument using a different variable. While focused on Who pays what previously in the simple cost = usageXrate; two-tier systems were thrown out for obvious reasons. Basically a simple variant would be: cost = usage1 x rate1 + usage2 x rate2 and so on.

The short of it is that even if the rate is zero; we are still segmenting usage billing into a multi-tier system. We do however have to note what they are arguing for is a different identifying characteristic. And now we have to go to an analagy.

Take a basic database. There are numerous types of identifiers. Group identifiers (GID), Unique identifiers, etc. etc. Nominally, net neutrality has definition references for GID; but what it doesn't have is a real definition for Organizationally unique identifier(OUI). This is what zero-rating is based from moreso then the aforementioned two-tier system.

All our data sets in regards to internet quality and standards however is GID based. As such; we can actually request the information from the OUI division and not see any aberration in the data of a GID referenced statistical data-sheet. A request of Noumena for phenomena. A system developed without a sense-perception. That's basically what zero-rating is conceived as of this moment. Send 1000kbps. If 1000kbps is "facebook" (ie. common name brand usage.) then no charge. else: charge.

It doesn't refer to usage or rate; which in itself is what and how we perceive an ISP cost to be.

3.

a)Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

The do not provide benefit. They are significant simply because they have no reference to the system. Other companies have already begun to use the "bill them outside" the standards and regulations already present within the law; by using different methods.

b) Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Gods no. The very re-iteration of zero rating is an attempt to supersede regulations already in place for fair use.

I will make a small deference to technological capabilities; and affordability of available technology that would cover a consumer base. (ie. 100k for that cell tower with a data cap, or 10million over lifetime costs that won't pay for itself.)

c) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

V471 79 points Mon Sep 26 17:08:23 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Can you fix Canada's retarded internet pricing and make data caps and/or data charging illegal?

Hell, why not simply Nationalize the Telecommunication Utilities!, because that's what they have become, Utilities. The Internet is the Library of our era, used to educate and research topics that would have traditionally been the Libraries responsibility.

The internet is our new Postal Service, our Banks, our telephone, our recreation, our radio, our television, our cinema, our store, our job bank, even our career in many cases, and a host of other things we need on a daily bases.

Hell, I would argue that the majority of people who go to Libraries and Provincial services (like job finding), are simply going there to use the computers to access the internet.

Jellyfishsteve 32 points Tue Sep 27 16:09:29 2016 UTC  (1 child)

All data should be treated the same on the internet. It's how the internet grew into what it is today.

DrSnikerFreak Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:52:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data lives matter

Avantine 53 points Mon Sep 26 15:30:53 2016 UTC  (18 children)

So I think the primary issue I have with "differential pricing" is how the CRTC has framed the issue in the first place. Not all kinds of differential pricing are the same. (Note that this will only talk about "zero rating" on wireline; I may post something else later about wireless or ITMP).

S.27(2) of the Telecommunications Act reads:

No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

That's pretty straightforward, but I think the devil, as always, is in the details.

Let me give a couple of examples that I think highlight the issues at play.

Suppose that you have Rogers internet and Rogers provides you with an internal website to check your internet usage. Let's also say that visiting this website - which is hosted entirely internal to Rogers - doesn't contribute to your data cap. I think that's prima facie acceptable. While there may be 'differential pricing' going on, the zero-rating is fundamentally related to the delivery of the service for which you have paid.

Suppose instead that you have Bell internet, and Bell Canada is also a TV provider. Bell therefore exempts its video-over-IP products from your data cap. This, I think, is also acceptable, but it's a little more tricky. The zero-rated product is not directly within the same line of business, and so there is potentially anti-competitive effect. After all, Netflix and Bell's Video-over-IP products are being treated differently, and to the detriment of Netflix. However, because Bell can reasonably argue that it is not incurring the same costs to deliver its own video - because its video is within its network, and not across the broader internet - I think this behavior is probably acceptable. It is not, in the words of the Act, "unjust" discrimination - the parties are sufficiently differently situated.

Third example. You have Telus internet. Telus has its own music-over-IP product, which it zero-rates. Spotify comes along and asks Telus if it can place its own rack, and pay for the maintenance, within Telus's network and have that traffic zero-rated. Telus refuses; it doesn't have the space, it wants to be able to manage the traffic, whatever, you name the reason. I think this is also probably acceptable, because - while there is discrimination, and there is specific discrimination - Telus can make a reasonable argument that end-to-end control over the distribution network is quantitatively different than allowing another provider to enter your network. It would not have control or management over Spotify's equipment. I think that differential pricing is justified.

Fourth example. You have... I'm running out of companies so let's go back to Rogers. You have Rogers internet. Rogers allows Netflix to place its equipment in Rogers' datacenter, but when Hulu comes along, Rogers refuses. In my mind, this is where the line is crossed into unacceptable behavior. If Rogers is allowing one entity access to its network, it needs to allow access on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to all participants. Of course there may be specific qualifications as to the equipment used, response times to failure of that equipment and whatnot, but those need to "just", as the act says: reasonable and necessary.

The real concern here, for me, is that this unreasonably discriminates in favor of larger providers, who can afford to place their equipment in an ISP's network. If I start up a new company - Videos'R'Us - and I don't have the capital to put my equipment in Rogers' datacenter, Netflix is getting a definite advantage over me. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's necessarily something that can be fixed. Preventing Netflix from having access because not everyone can meet RAND terms seems like making the perfect the enemy of the good. There are clear advantages to placing distribution equipment close to the end user, and allowing the end-user to take advantage of that is good for the end-user. It may not be ideal for all market participants, but I don't think there is a way to accomplish all of those goals.

Fifth example. You have Bell internet. Netflix pays Bell some extra cash on the side to exempt itself from data caps for Bell's users. I think this is unacceptably anti-competitive behavior. Even if those payments are allowed on RAND terms - i.e., any market participant can pay to get the exemption, perhaps based on the amount of data transferred - this is not a "benefit" of making your network more efficient, like in #4; this is simply the ability of a market participant to pay to go to the front of the line. Certainly, you could allow consumers to make these payments. I would have no objection to allowing ISPs to sign a deal with various providers where they say to their consumers, "Pay us an extra $2 per month and you can exempt [service] from data caps!". I think that's acceptable, because it puts the burden of choice on the consumer, and it does not prejudice any service at the expense of any other service. I think that this would be a prima facie "unjust discrimination" because there is not any internet traffic management benefit to the differential pricing; it's strictly a cash grab by the ISP, and the incentives are bad for all parties. It doesn't encourage ISPs to compete on datacaps (because online service providers can pay to get around them), and it encourages increased prices (because OSPs will pay more to get around data caps and ISPs have no incentive to reduce their rates).

In short, I think that 27(2) is violated by generating "unjust discrimination" or "undue or unreasonable preference" where there is no valid traffic management reason - defined by a reduction in volume outside of the ISP's network - for allowing the differential pricing regime. Even where there is a valid traffic management reason, differential pricing should only be allowed if it is available to any participant on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

kennedon 13 points Mon Sep 26 16:19:07 2016 UTC  (3 children)

Thanks for this comment. It unpacks a few interesting cases, and while I think I differ in how much leeway I'd give the company at hand, it helps to illustrate the devils and nuances.

So, I'm with you on one. Being able to check your own usage, deal with preferences, and similar seems completely reasonable. On my cell plan, I can call my voice mail service without eating into minutes to check messages. These seem intrinsic to the service enough to be valuable to maintain.

I also agree with the outcome on (2), but perhaps for a different reason. If you're paying for both Bell internet and Bell TV, you're paying for two services. You shouldn't be double charged for data volume coming into your house to watch TV, given that you're paying for the TV provision as well. But, a key difference (I think) for me: Bell shouldn't be able to exempt certain online content (e.g., watching the same TV show on your laptop) from the data cap, because this does create preferential treatment for their own programming and services over alternatives. Simply put, you shouldn't face double jeopardy for traffic coming into your house (e.g., being billed for data when watching TV, just because the TV signal is arriving via the ethernet cable rather than a coax cable), but Bell also shouldn't be able to undercut other online TV producers by giving its own online traffic non-neutral treatment.

I also think (3) is a pretty blatant violation of the principle of net neutrality (e.g., giving their own music service preferential treatment over any competition), which I'd be opposed to. The crux here is Telus zero-rating their own product, which I'm generally opposed to.

This also applies to "exclusive" arrangements. So, for (hypothetical) instance, if Rogers offers a zero-rated Spotify Family package, and Spotify decides to let Rogers be the "exclusive" provider of Family packages, it's fairly clear that this exclusive partnership reduces available customer choice (e.g., in this hypothetical, consumers now /have/ to use Rogers if they want to use Spotify Family, or get family benefits from sharing Spotify subscriptions).

I agree on (4) and (5).

Again, even though I disagree somewhat on your assessments of (2) and (3), I really appreciate how many different situations you spelled out here. This was a really productive and helpful comment.

syntacticanomaly 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:27:52 2016 UTC  (2 children)

I also think (3) is a pretty blatant violation of the principle of net neutrality (e.g., giving their own music service preferential treatment over any competition), which I'd be opposed to. The crux here is Telus zero-rating their own product, which I'm generally opposed to.

You're missing the point on this one. The traffic from the Telus service originates inside their network. That is, there's no paid transport on the peered networks (the internet). How can it be a violation of net neutrality if there's no net involved? It's similar to arguing that my home media server violates net neutrality, since I get data from that for free but Netflix is throttled by the size of the upstream connection.

I think you could argue that it's anti-competitive, but net neutrality doesn't really apply.

kennedon 3 points Wed Sep 28 17:34:12 2016 UTC  (1 child)

It seems like we just have different views on what's a preferable arrangement. As best I understand your argument, your point is that the principle of neutrality doesn't apply within a company's own services because they don't traverse the internet beyond your provider (e.g., it's fine for a company to zero-rate their own services). My point is that neutrality is fundamentally about allowing competition and /not/ being able to give your own services (or services that have paid you) priority. See here for a similar contrast in views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Favoring_private_networks

Your analogy isn't terribly applicable. Of course you can run your own home server, because you're not using any data flowing into your house. You're providing the router to circulate that data, so no one else is involved. When it starts involving cables and infrastructure and things you're paying an ISP for, that's when CRTC has regulatory authority.

Bottom line: My view is that companies should not be able to zero-rate or give preferable treatment to any data or services, whether their own or another service they're being paid to prioritize, with the exception of very specific cases which need to be granted individual exemption (e.g., being able to check your usage page without being billed data; being able to configure settings without being billed data; being able to call for support without being billed phone service; etc). It's important because it's anti-competitive. I also believe regulations should be simple when possible: It's not about technical pathway (e.g., where servers are racked, or something similarly asinine); it's about the impact on consumers (i.e., some services getting preferential treatment). You're welcome to disagree with your own view, but that's the view I'm trying to articulate to the CRTC here.

syntacticanomaly 1 point Thu Sep 29 08:03:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

My point is that neutrality is fundamentally about allowing competition and /not/ being able to give your own services (or services that have paid you) priority.

Your parenthesis describe a completely different thing. They shouldn't be lumped together.

Anyways, it's perfectly fine to be against companies zero rating their own products and services. But the argument gas nothing to do with net neutrality. It's simply about anti-competitive behaviors. You say it yourself.

Bottom line: My view is that companies should not be able to zero-rate or give preferable treatment to any data or services, whether their own or another service they're being paid to prioritize, with the exception of very specific cases which need to be granted individual exemption (e.g., being able to check your usage page without being billed data; being able to configure settings without being billed data; being able to call for support without being billed phone service; etc). It's important because it's anti-competitive.

I think it's important to be honest in what you're asking for. Neutrality neutrality is about ensuring peered networks don't become pay-for-play, which would potentially limit new players delivering services over the internet. IMO, it has little to do with product offerings vis private networks.

perfidydudeguy 4 points Mon Sep 26 18:13:56 2016 UTC *  (3 children)

Fourth example. You have... I'm running out of companies so let's go back to Rogers. You have Rogers internet. Rogers allows Netflix to place its equipment in Rogers' datacenter, but when Hulu comes along, Rogers refuses. In my mind, this is where the line is crossed into unacceptable behavior. If Rogers is allowing one entity access to its network, it needs to allow access on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to all participants. Of course there may be specific qualifications as to the equipment used, response times to failure of that equipment and whatnot, but those need to "just", as the act says: reasonable and necessary.

I don't know that it needs to go as far as Hulu to be a problem. Say Netflix has equipment in Telus' network, but not in Bell. That gives a competitive edge to Telus over Bell for Netflix clients. This is terrible for consumers and content providers. What if Bell has Youtube, Telus has Netflix, Rogers has Dropbox... what do you do as data consumption ramps up due to larger and larger files? Get a subscription on multiple internet service providers? Which ISP consumers go with will depend on which ones give you free data for which service, and for content providers it means having to send equipment to various ISPs instead of housing their own hardware where it makes geographical sense. In a world where you can get free data if you pay to get your equipment in one or several networks, how is a startup who can't afford to do that supposed to compete? The most powerful aspect of the internet is that so long as you're connected to it, you in theory don't have to worry about how the rest of the network is configured. Data goes through one way or another.

I would even argue that Bell TV over IP not going towards Bell internet subscriber data caps is also a problem on the same grounds. It gives Bell TV a competitive advantage over Netflix and what should happen is Bell the telecom should perhaps not be able to also own a content distribution company. Split them up.

Avantine 4 points Mon Sep 26 18:21:35 2016 UTC  (2 children)

Say Netflix has equipment in Telus' network, but not in Bell. That gives a competitive edge to Telus over Bell for Netflix clients.

That's true, but it's not in Netflix's best interest for this to happen. In that particular scenario, it's in Netflix's best interests to place its equipment in every ISP it can get its hands on because that will reduce its own costs.

That is, in fact, basically what Netflix is doing now.

You do, however, highlight the problem here:

In a world where you can get free data if you pay to get your equipment in one or several networks, how is a startup who can't afford to do that supposed to compete?

That's a problem. But as I say, I'm not sure I want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There are definite advantages for both the ISP and the OSP to letting OSPs colocate with ISPs, and in turn there are benefits to the subscriber of both services. It's not necessarily good for competing OSPs, but it's not, in my mind, inherently anti-consumer.

The most powerful aspect of the internet is that so long as you're connected to it, you in theory don't have to worry about how the rest of the network is configured. Data goes through one way or another.

That's never been true, though. It's true that consumers were not experiencing this differential treatment most of the time, but unfair peering arrangements (where ISPs with different traffic patterns trade traffic) have never been cost-free. As certain modern services have become vastly more bandwidth intensive but also highly unidirectional, it was probably inevitable that this model would collapse somehow.

perfidydudeguy 3 points Mon Sep 26 18:37:53 2016 UTC  (1 child)

That's true, but it's not in Netflix's best interest for this to happen. In that particular scenario, it's in Netflix's best interests to place its equipment in every ISP it can get its hands on because that will reduce its own costs. That is, in fact, basically what Netflix is doing now.

Netflix is doing that because Comcast has a stranglehold on its customers.

That's never been true, though. It's true that consumers were not experiencing this differential treatment most of the time, but unfair peering arrangements (where ISPs with different traffic patterns trade traffic) have never been cost-free. As certain modern services have become vastly more bandwidth intensive but also highly unidirectional, it was probably inevitable that this model would collapse somehow.

Is there evidence of this? I've never read that the internet isn't fast enough for anything, but rather than certain networks in certain areas with no competition are attempting to bill extra fees for access.

Avantine 2 points Mon Sep 26 20:09:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Netflix is doing that because Comcast has a stranglehold on its customers.

I'm not sure what you mean - Netflix began its Open Connect CDN program independently of the dispute with Comcast. The Open Connect CDN program is absolutely in Netflix's best interests; that's why they provide the appliance for free, and though I can't find a detailed list on Netflix's site, ISPs around the world use it.

Is there evidence of this? I've never read that the internet isn't fast enough for anything, but rather than certain networks in certain areas with no competition are attempting to bill extra fees for access.

I'm again not sure what you mean. What does "isn't fast enough for anything" mean in this context, precisely?

"The internet" isn't some specific independent thing. It's a variety of different privately and publicly owned networks linked together. Rogers builds out one network, and Telus builds out one network, and Comcast builds out one network. Because a network's primary value comes in how many other networks its connected to, it's in all of these networks interests to connect to each other.

But maintaining and operating a network costs money. You can absolutely dispute the marginal cost of bandwidth and transfer, but the idea that the network isn't free to build or operate isn't a controversial one. When two networks connect - peering - if the traffic flow in each direction is about equal, networks usually agree that this peering will be 'free'. They are charging their customers to maintain the network, and they both gain in equal proportion to the traffic flowing backward and forward across the network.

The Netflix dispute turns on what happens when peering isn't equal. In the case of Netflix for example, there is a great deal of traffic flowing out of Netflix and very little traffic flowing into Netflix. In a traditional unequal relationship - for example, a relationship between a small regional ISP and a much larger national ISP - the smaller ISP would buy transit on the larger network, to compensate them for the inequality (the smaller network is using the larger network much more than the larger network is using the smaller network).

The comparison isn't precisely apropos when it comes to Netflix. It's true that the peering relationship between Netflix and ISPs isn't precisely equal. More traffic flows from Netflix to consumers across the consumers ISP, and very little travels the other way, but Netflix says this is precisely what consumers want and that they shouldn't be penalized for this unfair relationship.

It's not really that clear cut. Imagine it the other way around. Suppose that you decided to run Netflix out of your basement, instead. You install ultrafast networking equipment in your basement, stock up a couple thousand movies on a fast server, and decide to make it available to the public. You buy a regular internet connection to Rogers and Bell and Telus, hook each one up to a port on your ultrafast router, and call up each ISP with an offer. You say to them "Hey, I've got this great service and you shouldn't charge me anything to let your customers access it." In a microcosm, this is what's happening with Netflix. The ISP is going "Wait a minute - you can't just hook up to my network and send a huge wave of traffic over it. I didn't agree to that. I only trade traffic whose networks I also want to access, and the only person on your network is you."

In fact, to simplify the scenario even further, you can strip out the whole part about running Netflix out of your basement. Why do you pay your ISP at all? After all, you pay to maintain your network, and they pay to maintain their network. That's fair, right? Well no: your ISP has a much bigger network they pay more to maintain, and you need access to it a lot more than they need access to your network. So your connection involves paying them some money to let your traffic use their network.

Transient77 2 points Mon Sep 26 20:10:11 2016 UTC  (9 children)

I'd like to see a much more strict approach. I feel history has proven that the rules need to be specific and solid, otherwise they will be circumvented, even in cases where the intent behind certain rules is obvious and well understood.

I agree with example (1), but I'd specifically limit this exemption to administrative/bookkeeping purposes only.

I disagree with examples (2), (3) and (4) because in all cases I feel there should not be a distinction between internal and external traffic. Allowing such a distinction discourages providers from building up their external connections and instead provides a strong financial incentive to restrict it. This would move us towards an isolated internet and away from the open internet we know today.

I cautiously agree with example (5), but only to the extent that we're talking about a particular class of service and not limiting to one company's service. For example, I would consider acceptable a $2 consumer charge for zero-rating all video streaming, regardless of the source: Netflix, Crave, Shomi, Hulu, Amazon, or any of the numerous small and upcoming services.

Avantine 2 points Mon Sep 26 20:18:58 2016 UTC  (8 children)

I disagree with examples (2), (3) and (4) because in all cases I feel there should not be a distinction between internal and external traffic.

But internal and external traffic aren't the same, and treating them the same is both weird and really problematic if something goes wrong, or if traffic flows change substantially.

Consider a pretty straightforward example. You are Rogers and you have a Video On Demand service. It gets extremely popular and traffic flows increase by a factor of ten. You get together with the VOD team and stick some VOD appliances in some high-volume central offices or adjust your datacenter. The cost for these upgrades is part of your internal accounting. Now you are Rogers and you're connected with Netflix. It gets extremely popular and traffic flows increase by a factor of ten. Who handles the interconnect? How do you agree on peering costs? How do you agree on appliances? What if they won't give you any appliances? How do you manage that network traffic?

You talk about how zero-rating encourages providers to stop building up their external connections, but I'm not sure that's true of all external connections. I think it's true of certain external connections which are high-volume, basically unidirectional connections, and I don't think that's a bad thing. That's precisely the situation in which a distributed CDN is most appropriate, which is why nearly everyone builds them out under those circumstances anyway.

Transient77 3 points Mon Sep 26 21:23:08 2016 UTC  (7 children)

Yes, well all is overly broad and I'm not actually against reasonable traffic management. CDNs to offload external traffic is generally a win for everybody.

If Rogers was solely focused on providing internet services, then certainly this would be a non-issue. They'd contact Netflix, who in turn would also have an interest in improving the experience for its users. Everyone, including the consumer, is benefiting in this scenario.

The problem is when Rogers treats its high-volume VOD service differently than Netflix, etc. As a consumer, I don't want to be saddled with additional charges because Rogers wants me to subscribe to their VOD service.

Avantine 2 points Tue Sep 27 00:09:39 2016 UTC  (6 children)

The problem is when Rogers treats its high-volume VOD service differently than Netflix, etc. As a consumer, I don't want to be saddled with additional charges because Rogers wants me to subscribe to their VOD service.

This is only an issue, imho, when Rogers denies Netflix the ability to place an appliance in their network. And that's something I think can be handled by a RAND requirement. The fact that rogers may or may not be bundling their VOD service with their internet service is a different issue, but the fact that rogers zero-rates their service because they can colo them is not in and of itself an issue unless it's done in an unreasonably prejudicial fashion.

Transient77 3 points Tue Sep 27 18:38:34 2016 UTC  (5 children)

Let's image the rules allowed for Netflix to operate servers on Rogers network and benefit from zero-rating. And now imagine you're a new start up streaming company. Wouldn't it be fair to say you're severely disadvantaged by this situation as your customers have to pay for traffic to view your content, but they would get a free pass on viewing Rogers VOD and Netflix?

In that situation, I think we've created an atmosphere that stifles innovation. We can't reasonably expect new startups to roll out hardware in order to benefit from zero-rating, nor can we reasonably require Rogers to support such a scheme.

If the system we're creating favours only those with financial means, then I think we're heading in the wrong direction.

If we got rid of data caps, then all of this becomes a moot point.

Avantine 2 points Tue Sep 27 19:06:34 2016 UTC  (4 children)

Again, I think it's a matter of trade-offs. Does a policy that requires RAND access for zero-rated appliances disadvantage smaller OSPs who can't afford appliances?

The answer is - yes, it does.

But that's not the end of the story. A policy which encourages RAND access for zero-rated appliances is beneficial for the internet as a whole. It's a faster, more efficient use of finite network bandwidth which we should encourage.

Moreover, the idea that if we regulated data caps out of existence this issue would become moot is simply false. We know this because it's already happened. Even in a network environment where there were no data caps, the OSP able to place its appliances inside the ISP's networks has a real and substantial advantage, and the ISP has a variety of tools by which it can benefit one OSP over another. That's precisely what happened in the Comcast/Netflix brouhaha, which had nothing to do with end-user data caps.

Transient77 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:19:17 2016 UTC  (3 children)

That's not what I meant by the issue being moot. If we eliminated data caps, new startups wouldn't be unfairly disadvantaged by not having hardware on the ISP's networks. Consumers wouldn't choose Netflix over the new company solely because of a zero-rating scheme.

Avantine 2 points Tue Sep 27 19:27:09 2016 UTC  (2 children)

If we eliminated data caps, new startups wouldn't be unfairly disadvantaged by not having hardware on the ISP's networks.

That's not true, though. They would absolutely be disadvantaged, and as I say, the Comcast/Netflix situation is an excellent example of why. An OSP which has an appliance in the ISP's network doesn't have to pay for transit. (well, as much transit.)

Transient77 1 point Tue Sep 27 20:52:59 2016 UTC  (1 child)

But that wouldn't be a significant barrier to new startups, whereas consumers choosing a competing service because it is zero-rated would be.

Spyrulfyre 43 points Tue Sep 27 18:49:10 2016 UTC  (3 children)

The internet is and should be treated as a basic utility. The electric and water companies do not tell you that there is a limit to how much you can use, and certainly do not try to charge you more if you 'use to much'.

The Canadian consumer should not be subject to this and the whole internet system should be federally regulated as a basic right.

Step up and end data caps.

Kerrigore 2 points Tue Sep 27 21:33:01 2016 UTC  (1 child)

The internet is and should be treated as a basic utility. The electric and water companies do not tell you that there is a limit to how much you can use, and certainly do not try to charge you more if you 'use to much'.

Um, that's exactly how those services work. I don't know about where you live, but where I am both water and power are billed based on how much I use them, not a flat rate for unlimited usage. In fact, once I exceed a certain limit for electricity in a month I pay more per kW. Though of course the power company tries to present it as saving money per kW if I am good ab conserving energy.

Spyrulfyre 2 points Tue Sep 27 22:02:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

In Alberta. We pay a flat rate per month on all utilities, and that may fluctuate from month to month. In the summer when I use twice as much water in the winter, my bill doesn't get an extra fee tacked on in July once I start exceeding the amount I used in December.

Plus it's an actual physical thing. If I pull 1TB of data vs 500GB the actual operational costs to the ISP are virtually indistinguishable.

techyvrguy 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:11:46 2016 UTC  (0 children)

your example isn't very good. Electric companies do have "Tiered Pricing" it just doesn't affect you but doesn't mean it isn't real. see http://www.hydroone.com/MyHome/MyAccount/UnderstandMyBill/Pages/ElectricityRates.aspx

cerberii 13 points Tue Sep 27 19:46:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Diffrtential pricing doesnt work and contributes to data caps. End data caps. I had bell tv and they kept charging data for the tv which was not supposed to be data. Please end data caps theres no reason to cap our data except greed. The crtc allows the monopolization of the internet in data caps

whatsdata 27 points Mon Sep 26 17:27:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

One issue with differential pricing is the usage of data, when a customer switches providers or comes off this promotion they may not understand that now how they use data has changed as they are no longer getting partial data use for free.

It is surprising how many users do not understand how data works or what uses data and how much some apps use

prestonatwork 42 points Mon Sep 26 16:47:13 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Can someone explain to me how this is not a moot issue at this stage?

With the MTS sale and the WIND mobile sale it seems like there is nothing stopping the monopoly from gauging all provinces equally. Why are we talking about differential pricing instead of actual solutions to the issue of our telecommunications companies operating on the highest profit margins the industry has globally?

xinit Ontario 13 points Tue Sep 27 17:51:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Perhaps because differential pricing seems like low-hanging fruit to the CRTC. They're unwilling to, or incapable of, helping the Canadian consumer out with regard to mobile prices (Oh yay, two year plans. Really? That was their big idea?) or with basic cable and a la carte channel selection or with service bundling etc etc.

They make a ruling on differential pricing being unlawful and then the telcos just laugh and charge usurious data rates. The CRTC looks to be involved in policy and the Telcos make more money. Win-win. The rest of us still lose, though.

jdtabish 22 points Mon Sep 26 22:58:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

'nuff said:

https://twitter.com/jdtabish/status/778747049030201344

.@TELUS agrees w/ @OpenMediaOrg that if we #EndDataCaps we can end zero rating and preserve #NetNeutrality? #CRTC pic.twitter.com/KvplH6hpgY
— Joshua D. Tabish (@jdtabish) September 22, 2016

dennisbryant 8 points Tue Sep 27 19:01:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Keep the internet open without restrictions so that innovation and freedom can flourish. I say no to differential pricing and data caps.

havasc 8 points Tue Sep 27 19:29:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Internet is no longer a luxury service meant solely for entertainment. Indeed, television fits that description much better. No, internet is now a vital utility on par with water and electricity. Banking, communication, and many other daily tasks which are basically mandatory in our modern society, are now heavily internet dependent, and in some cases are possible only with an internet connection. Applying for jobs, and hearing back from employers, applying for university or college, and much of the communication and coursework in post-secondary (and increasingly, secondary and primary) education requires ready access to the internet.

So why is it still being treated as a luxury service? Why are there data caps on this essential utility? Why do ISPs continue to charge exorbitant amounts for low-speed, truncated services? Not only do such practices keep an essential service out of the hands of many who need it, but it stifles innovation and technological progress.

1) There are no benefits to differential pricing. It stifles competition and limits consumer choice. This is nearly as bad an idea as the vaunted "internet fast lanes."

2) Yes, see above. rather than cherry-picking some content that can or cannot be exempted, we should be moving towards doing away with data caps entirely. For wired connections, it is almost unheard of in many other parts of the world to have data caps on wired connections. For mobile connections, other countries have much more generous data allotments, so much so that some countries do everything via data connection on their mobile phones, including calling and messaging. This would simply not be feasible in Canada currently due to the very restrictive mobile data limits and exorbitant prices required to secure even a gigabyte or two of data per month.

3) Yes, absolutely the concerns outweigh the benefits. Should you step in and regulate? Good lord, yes! You are the CRTC, this is literally your job. When I type "CRTC" into Google, this is the description I get below the first hit, which is a link to your website: "The CRTC is an independent public authority in charge of regulating and supervising Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications." Letting the telecommunications companies regulate themselves is what got us into this mess.

4) Look, I don't want to tell you how to do your jobs... Ok, yes I do. You should really just do away with this whole "differential pricing" nonsense for starters. It should be down to the customer to choose what services they want to use online, not corporations. Telecom giants shouldn't be allowed to zero-rate data, and make websites they don't like more expensive to access. This is a slippery slope that is tantamount to censorship, and leaves the door wide open for abuses of power when it comes to free access to information. A HUGE problem today is that so many consumers are technologically illiterate, and many people have no idea what they are buying, why they are being charged or overcharged, and just accept it as the way it is. We need to push for a higher level of transparency and tech literacy, so that telecom companies stop taking advantage of customers who simply do not know any better. This is a larger issue but I believe the CRTC could do a world of good by expanding education about telecommunications, and introducing measures that would force telecoms companies to be more open and transparent about their services.

If you've made it this far, thanks for reading. I apologize if I got a little heated, but this is an issue very near and dear to me, and, I think, to many many of my fellow Canadians. I do not want to see Canada get lost in the last century because of antiquated, anti-consumer, and frankly greedy business practices.

bshell 7 points Tue Sep 27 23:32:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am 65 years old and I've been involved in the Internet since before it even started. I also was on the board of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority for 4 years, so I do have some knowledge and strong opinions. Please listen.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? None. In fact the Internet should be free. For many years, in the beginning of the Internet it was IN FACT free. The original inventors and implementors of the Internet and everything on it (e.g. email, the World Wide Web, and file sharing services) are ALL DESIGNED TO WORK FOR FREE. This should be the CRTC's number one mandate. The infrastructure of the Internet is a public resource, like air, water, and forests and should be managed for the public at a non-profit, lowest cost basis. Nobody should be allowed to profit from such free public resources. The current situation is totally out of hand, with a small number of companies (4 or 5) making obscene profits off this public resource, which was designed to be free for everyone. There are zero benefits to differential pricing, or ANY kind of pricing on the Internet. It should be free, like public health care.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes. Imagine if we had this with health care in Canada. Do you remember in the 1960s when Medicare came into effect thanks to people like Tommy Douglas. Before that, we DID have differential pricing for health care in Canada. The rich were healthy and the poor were sick and dying. Do you think that is a good thing to strive for? I have concerns about us returning to that with health care, and the same is true with Internet. The Internet should be provided for free to all Canadians, same as health care. I call it Communicare. The CRTC ought to be the champions of Communicare for all Canadians. And you know what: it would not even cost that much. Probably 10,000 times cheaper than universal health care. There is nothing in the bible or anyplace that says corporations must profit off public resources such as the Internet. In fact they should be kicked out as far as I'm concerned. There's absolutely zero competition, so what's the point of making something that is naturally free into a marketplace?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? Are you kidding me? The home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers already have far too much power. They are ripping off Canadians left and right. All you have to do is look at their quarterly profit statements. Each one is profiting to the tune of a billion dollars every quarter. It's absolutely obscene. Please reign these guys in once and for all and whatever you do, please DON'T GIVE THEM EVEN MORE POWER. Don't you represent the public interest? Please help. Help us for god's sake!! We are drowning out here under corporate "care".

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Number one: find out precisely how much it costs to deliver home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service to Canadians. I believe these costs are surprisingly low. The few times that Internet professionals have told me the true costs, they have been in the tens of thousands of dollars. Cheap cheap. I mean true costs, without marketing, advertising, lobbying, CEO bonuses, etc. Just find out what is the raw cost of providing Internet to 95% of Canadians. Obviously, the last 5% living in the forest and up north are going to be expensive, but about 85% of us are in urban centres, where it's probably unbelievably cheap to provide Internet service. Please find out these numbers once and for all and publish it for everyone to see. If you cannot find out in Canada, find out how much it costs in Africa or Asia. Just find out and tell us. Then somehow regulate the 3 - 5 corporations that provide this service so that they only make a modest profit of a few percentage points, instead of 10,000 percent as they do today. Thanks for reading.

austinfavorite 8 points Wed Sep 28 00:34:16 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Thanks for soliciting opinion from an alternative forum. It's encouraging. But I can't answer your questions.

Your questions imply that you've already decided that a handful of telecom companies get to limit how we use the 21st century's great tool for democracy, culture, commerce, sharing, prosperity, and innovation.

Face it, the real question you're asking is how much control should we give them?

Congratulations, CRTC. While the rest of the world builds next generation of rockets to go to Mars, you're asking Canadians what colour horse to put in front of the buggy with a missing wheel.

Why isn't the CRTC hold our telecom companies to task about building high-capacity, universal, ubiquitous, unencumbered, innovative, responsive telecom services that benefit 35 million Canadians instead of a handful of shareholders?

Let me know when you start asking real questions.

Can_I_Borrow_A_Feel 8 points Tue Sep 27 12:23:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? The benefit here would be more to the telecom provider over the consumer. They would be able to increase their customer base by providing free access to certain apps while at the same time demonstrating that that access is being priced seemingly at random. If telecom providers can allow 2gb of Netflix per month free in addition to 2gb of regular use data, clearly data isn't as expensive for them to provide as they'd like the consumer to believe. Still, free or cheaper access to certain applications would be viewed as a gain for some consumers.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely. The concept undermines net neutrality and will make it significantly harder for new start-ups to compete in the same space. it places further burden on smaller developers and businesses to compete in already difficult spaces.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Definitely. Allowing any kind of net neutrality breach could lead to disaster in how Canadians view information as a commodity and is exactly the sort of thing I believe the government should be monitoring when it comes to telecommunications. Furthermore, I don't believe anything except their own package offers should be left up to the service providers - they have proven they will chose anti-consumer options at every turn. Even their packages remain identical in most cases, which would suggest they are as low as they can be but we have some of the highest rates in the world.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Clear, decisive, and most importantly, specific legislation. Make sure there are no loopholes for lousy service or workarounds like the basic cable packages.

beefandfoot 6 points Tue Sep 27 15:40:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think differential pricing is a bad precedence to set. It means service provider could deviate themselves from a service provider to content provider. The benefits might be a short term gain for consumers until competitors are driven out of business.

A short term and simple solution is to not allow differential pricing. The longer term solution though is to split up the current cable companies into service provider company and content provider company. Having said that, the foreign ownership clause should completely be removed in my opinion. They hinder the competitiveness of the market.

ohzopant 7 points Tue Sep 27 16:30:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The only benefits of differential pricing are for the network and content owners and their shareholders. Differential pricing is an inherently anti-competitive practice that can only have long-term negative effects on consumers through the elimination of competition.

Even the apparent "benefit" of "free" data for any given service is, in effect, forcing other users of that service to subsidize heavy users' streaming.

A bit is a bit is a bit and they should all be billed as such. Full stop.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, unless a very strict framework whereby any and all content producers can purchase a "zero rating" for their video service on an incumbent's network for a reasonable, cost-based pricing, the incumbents will almost certainly preferentially treat their own offerings. (And, let's be honest Bell, Rogers, Telus et. al. have been flat out lying to you about their real costs for years now and you apparently lack the appetite to call them out for it.)

Even if such a framework were to be adopted, the cost of such an agreement would likely make it unaffordable for any new video streaming services thereby making it effectively anti-competitive.

Differential pricing also flies in the face of net neutrality because it is a system that explicitly treats different bits from different places in different ways

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

To reiterate: there are no real benefits to users from differential pricing, only concerns.

In my opinion, a specific policy or regulation against differential pricing should not be required because a properly developed and implemented net neutrality policy would not allow for it.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Develop a rigorous and legally binding net neutrality policy or recommend the creation of one to the government; net neutrality is sufficiently important to warrant that it be enshrined in law.

rjksn 8 points Tue Sep 27 17:54:38 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I don't trust any of the providers. It's not like they have the public's interest in mind-as exampled by the recent $25 cable package farce-so I think differential pricing is just opening up a way for the major players to promote their own services over the competition. Or, by taxing the competition to add them to a promoted "bandwidth free" service.

  1. There is no real consumer benefit. The only benefit is for carriers to promote or tax other services eroding the entire concept of a free open web. It would turn the internet into cable tv, which is great for the cable tv industry-who are our ISPs.

  2. I have concerns. I don't want to pay for "internet" when a change like this would start to blow the whole concept apart. The only reason the internet is what it is, is because we have the freedom to NOT use our carrier's services. Netflix is directly NOT cable, voip services are directly NOT Bell's telephony.

  3. Yes. Internet should be internet and we should be able to use it on anything we're interested in using it for just like our Hydro. It's imperative that we not let mobile providers lock is into their services in an anti-competitive way. Even if they were interested in offering a Shomi + Netflix package, we'd still be blocking out any new competitor on the market. If you can think back to the days before Netflix you'd know how limiting that could be.

  4. Net Neutrality across the board. As data get cheaper and cheaper, we'll be allowing providers to lock us in to low data plans with high perk packages making Canada a very sad place to be.

We need more true competition in the mobile space in Canada-which will never happen-so we should protect what little freedom we have.

DetectivePunch 7 points Tue Sep 27 18:17:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It seems anti-competitive and 100 percent in benefit of only the telcos. Please protect the consumer and ban this practice altogether.

MichaelHolloway111 7 points Tue Sep 27 19:10:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Q) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

A) Good for the companies offering these confusing packages. Not good for users who are using their web phones in a real and evolving space.

Q) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

A) I think it a sneeky way to over-charge for the service provided - gouging.

Q) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

A) Intervention is required - these companies are acting in chorus, the industry is behaving like a monopoly; dodging left and right to avoid the perception that they are acting as a cartel.

Q) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

A) End data caps.

Michael Holloway Toronto

cypherslock 6 points Tue Sep 27 19:34:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data caps should not exist, period. The internet is "not" a finite resource, and when you have Comcast admitting that other than profits there's no technical reason they should exists, why have them? Make the internet accessible to all AND have fast speeds. Time for Canada to come out of its time-warp and join the rest of the world. We are behind. Companies should "not" get to decides traffic priority or have the ability to charge more because you're not using their app or are a customer. Do not vertically integrate the net, keep it open.

[deleted] 8 points Tue Sep 27 19:51:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

As a consumer who actively uses his internet connection I can't think of any benefits that would come of it. Perhaps lower income families would be more geared towards having it but I would go so far to say that benefit would be negligible.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I do. It eliminates or heavily challenges competitors and prevents us as consumers from having the freedom to pick what internet services we want or need. On top of this it gives incentives to the Big Three to lower data caps and force us to use the services they've invested in or gain from us using in order to enjoy what we need. Such as Shomi and Shaw and how Shomi streaming didn't count against Shaw data caps. What if I want Netflix?. Why should I have to pick what services I use based on what my telecom company has agreements with?. Is that truly a free market?. This referendum has a lot of things riding on the decision.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes. The concerns do outweigh the benefits. We pay some of the highest rates for our mobile phones and internet services in the world. While a good chunk of the world has gone to embrace the idea of the internet as an essential service(as it should be) and made changes to embody this belief with cheap internet rates and high speed and great mobile phone rates and done away with long term contracts, Canada, under the jackboots of the Big Three opted to go the opposite direction. Data caps, insanely overpriced phone plans and internet plans, hideously long contracts(that only got nixed RECENTLY) and now we're about to let the Big Three, who have done more to gouge the Canadian population for every cent when it comes to telecommunications, double dip in the industry?. Have services pay say....Rogers to allow their service to be considered "data free" to attract subscribers and then the subscribers also pay rogers for their internet or mobile phone service?. How is that even remotely fair. It will be abused by the people who have the most to gain and will make a market already excessively hostile and uncompetitive borderline impossible for smaller businesses to compete within, and restrict us, the consumer, to the right of free choice.

Is it simply this. The Big Three telecom companies do not care about the consumers. We are a cow waiting for a farmer to milk us. It is time to start digging ourselves out of the telecom hole the Big Three have dug for us and start fighting back against them. There are no benefits to the consumer that any of the Big Three offer that don't have ulterior motives that benefit them far more than they ever will us.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

  • End data caps. The Big Three have indoctrinated the Canadian public to believe the prices we pay are justified because it covers the cost of network congestion. This simply isn't the case. They have profit margins in the thousands of percentages as it costs them almost nothing per gigabye(8 cents per?)) -Declare the internet an essential service. - We all pay taxes that go into maintaining things we may never even use. Do the people paying taxes to maintain the roads all have licenses?. They do not. The internet has become so engrained in our society we do almost everything with it. It is the new library. It is the way we pay our bills, get our news and enjoy the various entertainment mediums from video games to movies.
  • Revamp phone contracts. - Look at Europe. Look at how their telecom companies handle their phone billing and take inspiration from there. The CRTC has admitted we pay some of the highest priced bills for our phone services in the industrialized world. We pay more for less.
    -Punishment - Whenever the CRTC has made a ruling, the cost of the outcome has been passed onto us, the consumer through increased bill prices and contracts. How is this fair?. Revamp the way punishments are dolled out.

We stand on the brink of making one of the largest decisions in Canada's telecom history. How we go from here will have resounding impacts not just for us but for the generations to come. We need to make the right choice for all of us. We need to start pulling the fist of the Big Telecom companies off from our wallets. Our national anthem says we're glorious and free but we've never been more oppressed with our options in the telecommunications industry.

It is time to change that.

DigitalCanuck 7 points Tue Sep 27 19:55:23 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I believe the CRTC should regulate a maximum price point for data services to ensure fair price point for service to all Canadians. This should be based on a reason a reasonable level of profit depending on actual cost to deliver service including costs to maintain and repair infrastructure. Service providers would be able to compete by offering discounts within the preset pricing structure or offering other incentives. Cost could be treated as other utilities with a base cost of delivery plus additional charge based on usage. Providers should be required to apply to CRTC for approval of rate changes based on cost and inflation. Data caps would be irrelevant based on fair usage based costing. Due to the current monopoly between the big three providers it is imperative that the CRTC limit pricing and price hikes.

Shurikane 8 points Tue Sep 27 21:53:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data transferred over the Internet should be data, and nothing more.

Whether it is a text document, a picture, a known TV series, an advertisement, or anything else, should never matter in how quickly that data is delivered, and whether they are accounted for in one's data cap.

A few points:

  • Differential pricing is a way to soften the blow made by our abysmally low data caps. It does not catch the problem at the root, which is: abysmally low data caps. The whole idea behind the scheme is to make users accept a poor state of affairs by offering a partial work-around to a problem that the telecoms themselves have generated.

  • Differential pricing can be exploited. It can allow a telecom to conveniently prioritize data favorable to them, over data unfavorable to them - from the delivery of unfavorable content at unacceptably low speed, up to and including the censorship of data. One quick example: a TV/phone/Internet corporation introduces an extreme hike to their price rate along with lower data caps, but simultaneously declaring that Internet data used to view their TV channels online does not count, effectively rendering one's Internet connection into nothing more than a surrogate television link.

  • Differential pricing can be exploited - Part Two. It can allow a telecom to force users into choosing a plan they may have little use for, simply because the other plans are prohibitively unattractive: a plan including a partnership with some music service is made vastly cheaper than a plan without it, and/or the plan without partnership fails to include common features of a plan.

BONUS: There are many more ongoing problems in addition to the talks about Net Neutrality. Including but not limited to:

  • Paying extra just to download more data. This concept is virtually unheard of in other countries, especially European ones.

  • Having to haggle on the phone with a telecom every six months for a "deal". Right now, a user can navigate Bell Canada's phone menu to state they wish to cancel their subscription, get put on the phone with the "Loyalty Department", and say outright that they want to shop for this season's deals. The reps start answering with discounts, no further questions asked. Failure to do that means an instant doubling of one's telecom bill overnight when the deal comes to an end. Bell knows exactly how the game works and is not even trying to hide it. What does this tell you?

  • The big telecoms have, in the past, attempted to seek control over the plans and prices that third-party carriers can offer, in order to stifle the competition brought on by them.

Solving the differential pricing issue is only the tip of the iceberg. In my opinion, the CRTC has a lot of work ahead of themselves, and tight regulations on telecoms is an increasingly urgent need to fulfill. As of right now, Canada is sorely lagging behind other countries in terms of its telecom rules.

rb998 7 points Tue Sep 27 22:41:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing should be banned. There are no benefits to the consumer in a differential pricing market. It allows for telecoms to charge the customer for service, and then charge companies to make their content more easily viewed. Telecoms effectively get to double-dip the market. Furthermore, many telecoms are content providers, and this system allows them to unfairly promote their own content over that of their competition. Like other people have said:

  • There needs to be legislation ensuring all internet traffic is treated equally, disallowing companies from paying telecom for preferential treatment (and disallowing telecom from offering/incentivising preferential treatment).

  • All data caps should be removed. With increasing amounts of content in 2k and 4k resolution, higher data requirements are needed to continue to view content over the internet. Raising the data cap doesn't solve the issue, only forces a repeat of this conversation in the future.

  • Telecom prices should be controlled cross-country, not regionally based on local competition.

The CRTC needs to start transparently and meaningfully enforcing all of its regulations. For companies that do not comply fines should be based on % of total earnings. Fines should be repeated and increased when companies fail to comply within a reasonable period of time. Fines collected should go back into the system of increasing internet infrastructure.

Garfield_M_Obama Canada 7 points Tue Sep 27 23:26:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I have yet to hear of any convincing benefit for consumers or businesses. The only clear benefit is that it allows the telcos to better protect their profits and control network access to meet their business objectives (as opposed to technical requirements for managing their network).

There have been arguments made that this would allow end users to access some services at a subsidized or reduced cost and I feel I need to rebut this here. The only reason that this is even a concern is because in Canada the telcos have capped data at unreasonably low rates for 2016. The fact that they want to be able to provide high bandwidth data services of their own without removing the caps demonstrates clearly that it is not a technical limit for the network itself. This is a tacit acknowledgement that rich media services in 2016 are no longer possible on the network model in place today in Canada.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Because they have been allowed to consolidate in the supposed name of efficiency and reduced costs to Canadians they are also in a position to use their dominant position to limit Internet access in order to ensure the continued viability of their conventional digital media services. Even if we are to accept the argument that this is somehow a benefit for the consumer, it's very hard to ensure that the telcos don't abuse the rules unless there is much more rigorous monitoring in place. The risk of editorialization for political purposes by implicit network policies which favour one company's media outlet over another either because it is owned by the telco or because it has entered into a favourable business agreement is far too risky when the Internet is now a basic medium for the exchange of ideas and political messages across a wide swathe of the Canadian public.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I really don't see this as a serious topic for debate. There has never been an argument to support differential pricing as a benefit for the customer other than the assumption that somehow there will savings for the users. Given that Canadian costs for network access are higher than many other developed nation and the major providers are so anti-competitive it's very hard to have confidence that the telcos will self-regulate in favour of the consumer. I strongly support much tighter regulation of basic network access for all Internet connected devices.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Given their history of intransigence even when the CRTC has used a fairly light hand to try to guide the industry, at this stage I would urge the CRTC to consider using much stronger measures to ensure internationally competitive access to network services. My personal preference would be for a model where the basic provisioning of IP network services (mobile, wifi, wired) is essentially regulated at the cost for deploying and managing the network plus a fixed management fee as a profit. If they want to provide value added on top of this, that's fine, but bytes on a network should not be a commodity that we penalize users for consuming.

However...

Ubiquitous gigabit or faster services are not even really the future, we're already seeing companies like Google beginning to roll out these services at reasonable prices in major urban centres worldwide, this is only the first step. Meanwhile in Canada we're battling over data caps which are smaller than the size of a full length episode of a television programme in some cases.

If the CRTC feels that it is beyond the scope of its mandate to regulate the current providers to the degree required to ensure inexpensive and unlimited network access for Canadians, I would strongly recommend that the Commission consider recommending further deregulation in favour of allowing foreign competitors with deep pockets to enter the Canadian market in direct competition with the incumbents. This could, and most likely should, be framed in regulation as requiring certain guarantees of quality, network neutrality, and competitive pricing along with the opening of the market. But the specifics are less important than the creation of an environment which encourages dramatic investments in improving the infrastructure rather than investments in lobbying the regulator to open up new profit centres.

springer70 Canada 7 points Wed Sep 28 00:31:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think the only ones benefiting from differential pricing will be the cable companies and ISPs. They spin this as a savings to me, but I believe it to be wrong and anti-competitive. I don't believe control should be at the mercy of corporations.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. I have huge concerns. I think differential pricing is anti-competitive. I think it promotes unfair pricing and gouging. It halts and stifles innovation.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes. My concerns definitely outweigh the benefits. I don't fully know what the solution is, but the internet and the delivery of content must remain free and open.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

This, I'm not sure how, but controls and consumer safeguards must be in place to ensure content being delivered is kept equal and open.

chrisgerow 6 points Wed Sep 28 03:37:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Get rid of data caps and protect net neutrality. The media in this country is already too consolidated. The internet gives us the opportunity to do this right. Isp should not be in the content business. Period. Net neutrality spurs innovation and will grow Canada's tech sector.

Soldierblue211 13 points Tue Sep 27 20:31:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It doesn't matter what the crtc does. The cable companies have proved that time and again by circumventing any and all new rules or by at least making them completely ridiculous that no one would EVER choose what they've given us. Mean time they just keep raising prices. Costs of living keeps going higher and faster than income. It's no wonder people illegally download, buy android streaming boxes or circumvent Netflix to access us content. The first thing people have to cut when they can't afford everything in their lives are the things like entertainment and non-necessities. You're essentially telling a company what they are allowed to earn and no one. ..no one goes down with out a fight when you start going into their wallets. The imbalance is here and now! The rich want to keep getting richer and they don't care who's in the way. Good luck telling a monopoly what they can or cannot do. CRTC #joke

Onearmedlobster 8 points Tue Sep 27 13:14:57 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data exemption to watch ads doesn't benefit me in the slightest. Why on earth would I want that? I already have ad blockers to keep that from happening; ads are already data exempt for me.

I would like to see the Internet treated more like a utility service that is owed to citizens who pay their taxes rather than a corporate shill-scape. Focus on making the Internet more accessible to rural communities and getting rid of data caps altogether.

mark-zach 5 points Tue Sep 27 16:21:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm not in favor of differential pricing.

mastjaso 5 points Tue Sep 27 17:09:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It's ludicrous that you need public comment on this at all.

Don't allow differential pricing at all. The benefits are entirely outweighed by the concerns.

Internet providers should be treated like dumb pipes. I request something, they send it to me at the speed I paid for. My ISP should have ZERO say on what I see, and I shouldn't get charged different amounts for seeing different things. Crave TV shouldn't cost less than Netflix because Bell won't charge data caps for Crave. It's a completely artificial barrier to competition.

datathe1st 5 points Tue Sep 27 18:48:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Not only should differential pricing be banned, but the government should take over providing internet service to its citizens. High speed internet access for personal use should be a basic right in this country. As more value gets transacted online the GDP multiplier from cheap broadband access cannot be overstated.

joelkesler 5 points Tue Sep 27 19:09:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

(1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits are to ISPs who want to stand out and offer benefits that others do not. One example would be Bell or Rogers not counting their Netflix-like services (Showmi, Crave) against monthly Data Caps, while other online video services would still count against monthly data caps. This benefits consumers less than ISPs, who placed the data caps to begin with.

(2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I agree with another poster on this site where says "allowing IPSs to compete in a way other than price in an environment that desperately needs more competition in the first place will just further reduce the already tiny incentive for these companies to price competitively."

(3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I think that the concerns outweigh the benefits and should not be allowed. A better idea would be to remove data caps.

(4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

You should not allow companies to offer differential pricing.

skomorokh 6 points Tue Sep 27 19:13:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I believe differential pricing would help large incumbents prevent small app developers from innovating in areas that use considerable bandwidth by requiring them to negotiate agreements with carriers before their software can compete on an even footing. I do not understand how there is any public good inherent in adding barriers to entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

I would like to see the CRTC stipulate that all bandwidth be charged the same, a byte is a byte like any other. An ISP should move the bytes around not concern itself with their content. Unfortunately, we have a conflict of interest in which the companies moving our bytes have a historic interest in what they contain (eg. telephone calls or television programs) and wish to continue wheeling and dealing in relation to that. So we must rely on regulation to prevent their privileging their own content and services over those of our choosing (and our invention). Please help, we need you.

too_clever_username Ontario 3 points Tue Sep 27 20:52:23 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

It allows large organisations (not just companies, theoretically foreign governments, or companies owned by foreign interests) to encourage the use of one platform over another.

There are no meaningful benefits to the end user, unless they are put in a position whereby they cannot afford to use the Internet outside of that route. Coincidentally, if an ISP is taking money for differential pricing, it incentivizes them to put their users in that position.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It will simply allow yet another vector by which organisations with capital can influence and manipulate the population.

As a hypothetical, Twitter is owned in large part by Saudi Prince Alwaleed, and this past month was found to be banning activists who were promoting the #StopEnslavingSaudiWomen hashtag. If a competing social media activist site or livestreaming app came along, it's success chances could be eroded by Twitter making Twitter & Periscope data "free" for the users, discouraging going outside of Twitter, and discouraging continuing the conversation.

It will virtually eliminate any chance an upstart application or technology has in Canada against enroached interests with access to large amounts of capital.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

There are zero meaningful benefits to the users. All the benefits are to the ISP and to the organisation paying for exclusive treatment. The users are just eyeballs being manipulated. An ISP should exist to offer the best service available to the user, not to offer a handicapped version of the service which is subsidised by other interests in order to manipulate what you do with your access.

Canadian consumers need protection from being taken advantage of in an age where the internet is not optional. We are at the point where it's virtually impossible to function without an unrestricted Internet access. The government should recognise that having unrestricted, unmanipulated access to the internet is essential.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The CRTC should

  • Set a minimum set of functionality that is guaranteed to be available (e.g. like a 5M/800k connection at no more than like $20 a month), with no data cap.
  • Same with mobile, e.g. everyone has to offer a reasonable -- useful (no, your 100MB data plan is not useful) -- data plan at a reasonable price, like 2 gigs at $30 or something.
  • Any plans that do more than the minimum, if people go over the usage limits, should either cap the fees at something reasonable (e.g. double the usual price) or throttle the speed of the connection to the minimum
  • Not permit differential pricing.

jonny_b02 5 points Wed Sep 28 00:10:46 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hi there, I am an IT guy and I know the cost of the bandwidth for which we are being gouged. The cost of the connections from the ISP more than covers any cost that is incurred by the ISPs. The bandwidth in Canada is the most restrictive and we are made to pay through the nose for access to internet connectivity that should be WAY lower!! In the US, there are ISPs that are providing 1000 Mbps symetrical connections for under $100 with no badwidth caps (as far as I can see). Granted that is US dollars, but seriously, is there that big a difference. I may be way off base but how much money did the Canadian government contribute to these companies in way of tax breaks etc to wire Canada - do you not think we should reap the benefits?

My stance is do away with these silly caps for bandwidth and open up the connections. Do not traffic shape and for the love of all things, give us Canadians valid connections at real prices with no bandwidth restrictions. The ISPs are sitting on kilometres of "dark fibre" for "future use". Well, light it up, the future is NOW!!!!

Just my 4 cents worth, opps, forgot, round that up to 5 cents since we no longer have pennies, unless you pay with plastic (another topic totally!!!)

mcskeezy Lest We Forget 5 points Wed Sep 28 16:50:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The internet should be treated as a public utility. To be a contributing member of society, having adequate internet access is just as vital as clean water or electricity.

Krutonium Ontario 5 points Wed Sep 28 17:06:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are none, at least in the long term. Allowing this will cause the internet as we know it to cease to exist.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, it significantly damages the ability of the internet to function as intended.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, the concerns outweigh the benefits, and under NO circumstances should the ISP's be allowed to decide. They are in a massive conflict in interest, being Cable Companies for the most part as well. Bell and Rogers could make something like Netflix obscenely expensive, just because they want to stop cord cutters.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Do not allow ISP's to create differential pricing, and at the same time, you should determine the actual cost to move data by the gigabyte, and force them to stop gouging us. In fact, I would love it if ISP's could be regulated as a public utility.

OctilleryLOL 6 points Wed Sep 28 20:43:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Treat Internet access as a basic utility, and legislate internet provisioning in a way similar to hydro/electrical provisioning.

Data caps are nonsensical scams, as admitted by multiple American telecommunications CEOs and should be illegal.

Open up the infrastructure legislation to allow competitors to develop useful infrastructure in the face of the Bell/Rogers effective monopoly. WIND mobile can barely offer service due to being locked out of most frequencies.

giantJim Québec 14 points Mon Sep 26 15:48:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  • Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix?

Aucun.

  • Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix?

Oui, car cela contrevient au fondement de l'égalité de l'accès à l'Internet (net neutrality). Les autres services sont désavantagés par rapport aux services exempt de tarification, que ce soit au niveau économique ou publicitaire. De plus, le service est plus facilement accessible aux gens qui plus fortuné; les ententes sont profitables aux deux partis et incite donc le marché concerné à conserver ces prix qui ne sont pas accessibles ou égaux aux autres services.

  • Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques? Ou devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider?

Comme Internet est un outils très répandue et utilisé de façon régulière par une multitude d'usager, il est très important d'accorder un traitement égal à tout type de service utilisant Internet. Pour des raisons économiques, chaque service devrait avoir la chance d'avoir le même type de trafique au même coût.

  • Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques?

Le CRTC devrait statuer sur le fait que l'Internet est un service essentiel et que de ce fait, chaque entité utilisant Internet doit être traité et opérer de façon égal: c'est-à-dire que le coût des donnés et la vitesse d'accès doit être la même pour tous afin que chacun puisse avoir l'occasion de faire affaire et de consommer un média.

chairitable 9 points Mon Sep 26 19:53:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Merci beaucoup d'être venus chez nous pour la consultation :)

  1. Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix?

Certes, c'est plaisant d'être capable d'utiliser certaines applications ou sitewebs sans s'inquiéter d'utiliser tout son data. Le streaming de musique par exemple.

  1. Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix?

Absolument. Comme plusieurs l'ont indiqué, la différenciation des prix produit un champ compétitif qui est très difficile à pénétrer par des petites entreprise, soit du bord du fournisseur de services ou des créateurs de site webs ou applications. Netflix, par exemple, paie déjà son coût de réseaux, électrique etc pour ses services, pourquoi donc devraient-ils payer Rogers ou Bell pour qu'on puisse l'utiliser?

De même, qu'est-ce qui empêche les fournisseurs de réseaux sans-fil de choisir les coûts pour accéder le rang zéro? Sera-t-il possible qu'ils offrent des différent prix pour des services qu'ils pensent sont favorable pour leur propre bien? Il existe bien trop d'occasions pour l'abus et la corruption.

  1. Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques? Ou devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider?

Mes préoccupations l'emportent absolument sur les avantages. Je crois que la CRTC à l'obligation d'intervenir afin de prévenir la différenciation des prix, en tout cas, afin d'éviter le précédent d'abus des clients par les fournisseurs de services. Il est évident que la compétition en marché libre n'a pas fonctionné dans les dernières décennies, vu les haut prix de services au Canada comparé au reste du monde.

  1. Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques?

Interdire absolument les pratiques de différenciation des prix et éliminer les caps d'utilisation de l'internet, soit sans fil ou filaires. Notre culture et notre développement comme peuple est arrêté par ces caps artificiels. Nous serions beaucoup plus engagés avec les avances technologique qui nous entoure sans ces encombrages.

Cyralea 8 points Tue Sep 27 15:34:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Corporations, both ISP and vendors, will certainly benefit from the practice. There's little to stop them from setting prices in non-competitive ways, as with all problems with ISP's there's simply not enough competition for the consumer to see the benefit of market forces. There's the idea that some services will become cheaper, but what reason do we have to believe they will in the absence of proper competition?

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Severe concerns about the state of the internet in general. There are many reasons to believe that the internet's true value lies in its accessibility; Joe from little-town Ontario can just as easily put up a website and have their content reached as easily anywhere. When you create differential pricing you give ISPs the incentive to not only limit bandwidth to these smaller players, you give ISPs perverse incentives to favour vendors who pay the most to have their material made most accessible. The internet becomes a less free space.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

To us end consumers, no, the benefits do not outweigh the costs. We do not see any direct benefit. No new jobs will be created as a result of favouring ISPs this way. No monetary savings will be seen, just increased costs.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Prohibit the use of differential pricing, period. Accessing Facebook should not cost anymore than accessing JoesHomeBlog.com. Joe should not have his site bandwidth throttled because he can't pay extortionary rates that will inevitably be set by ISPs.

AgentSmithRadio Canada 19 points Mon Sep 26 19:45:11 2016 UTC  (2 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think the best benefit from differential pricing would be in sponsored content. Having sponsors pay for data usage to encourage people to view their advertising (which some people will want to see) isn't an option that consumers or advertisers have at the moment. For users using websites/apps such as YouTube on their mobile data plans, the ability to not use data to view an advertisement may discourage the use of mobile ad blockers. The ability to remove the obvious incentive to save on mobile data usage may be a useful option for online advertisers.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The "gatekeepers" argument personifies my concerns with differential pricing. Aside from influencing the businesses we discover and choose to purchase from, the ability to influence the news, media and entertainment we consume is a powerful ability to have.

Canada was lucky to have the internet develop in an environment where it wasn't controlled by corporations who may choose to use it for their own political, cultural or societal gain. We pay high rates for our data consumption in Canada and many consumers may be tempted to buy into plans with low data caps to save on money. If that plan chooses to prefer websites such as Amazon and Netflix, it reduces the chance of other competitors rising in the online marketplace. If the ISP chooses to give preference to left-wing or right-wing news sources, it influences the political landscape of the country where before all internet consumers had no economic incentive to choose a particular source to shape and influence their opinions.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I really like the idea of sponsored content covering data usage for the sake of advertising. I think that's an idea worth pursing and letting the market decide if it is worthwhile or financially reasonable.

Otherwise, I don't like the idea of differential pricing. We were blessed to have net neutrality since its inception. Once we give it away, the harder it will be to get back should we decide that we don't like the consequences.

The internet is an incredibly powerful tool which has vastly improved the lives of many Canadians. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, the websites which are chosen to have preferable bandwidth (that's another discussion) or subsidized data usage will be given a great deal of power. That power will affect what we buy, how we think and who we vote for. I don't feel that that power should be given away lightly.

I feel that one of the reasons the concept of differential pricing is being brought up because the internet is relatively expensive to access in Canada compared to other Western countries. When you look at provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan, you will find lower rates purely because of the existence of additional competition. Are service providers suffering in those provinces (which aren't densely populated), or are they making money? If they are making money, what markup should they have for providing their services? Should they be getting a 10% return from their services? 100%? 1000%? How much is too much money to charge for a service which is becoming increasingly important to Canada?

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

If there is regulation, it should be over the cost of services relative to the expense required to provide them. If we can't get additional competition into the market, we should be correcting for this as this service becomes more and more essential for the daily life of Canadians.

I'd be curious to ask about how much capacity is being utilized during off-hours. If we aren't going to get rid of data caps, perhaps we should consider doing what telephone companies already do. Many phone plans with limited minutes offer unlimited call-time during off-hours and weekends. What are the off-hours for internet usage? Perhaps internet providers shouldn't track internet usage for their subscribers if they're using the internet during those off-hours? If data caps are linked to capacity, I can see them being used as an effective tool to deal with potential "congestion" or slowdown from "excessive" internet use. If data caps aren't linked to network capacity and are purely there for profitability, why should we allow them to exist? If Canada wants the internet to remain being the amazing tool that it is, why would we limit its usage if there's no purpose to do so while we are already paying high rates compared to our neighbors?

Thank you for reading, good luck in your search for a decision which will help all internet using Canadians.

EmperorOfCanada 2 points Wed Sep 28 05:14:19 2016 UTC  (1 child)

This is clearly a "talking point" written by a professional PR firm.

AgentSmithRadio Canada 0 points Wed Sep 28 14:19:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm confused because you didn't make your point clear. Is the talking point you're referring to my endorsement of sponsored advertising content, or a criticism of differential pricing as a whole?

I've worked in media and I have purchased online advertising. The one thing I've never done is work in PR. I believe that advertising is an effective tool, especially for allowing new brands and companies to emerge onto the marketplace and for assisting in making people aware of more local brands.

I don't believe that advertising is evil and I believe that the revenue from advertising is essential for content producers to continue existing. The longer we keep advertising viable, perhaps the longer news organizations stay away from "native advertising" for instance. A lot of citizens question the credibility of our news sources, native advertising is just going to make that trust degrade further the more it spreads. If we keep regular advertising alive, the less tempting it is for organizations to dip into native advertising.

That's just my thoughts, not those of a PR firm.

AmouTsukasa Ontario 3 points Tue Sep 27 11:21:50 2016 UTC *  (2 children)

First 3 questions is a moot point when the playing field is not even close to even.

Step in? Surely.

How about investing into a new network where each province/city can contribute to help get it going and then new business can purchase from those lines to stop what we are now calling "competitive" prices.

Edit: Grammar.

underdabridge 1 point Tue Sep 27 16:27:23 2016 UTC  (1 child)

AmouTsukasa Ontario 1 point Tue Sep 27 17:59:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thanks. Brain died at that moment apparently.

Fixin_IT 5 points Tue Sep 27 15:39:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  • 1) There are none, This will break net neutrality. And is a very short sighted solution.
  • 2) Yes! The internet providers are loosing a battle here. The TV generation is slowly dying off. Less people are watching TV. The internet for the most part is the wild west. If the internet providers can get advertiser to sponsor certain data streams with guaranteed ads then they see that as a viable strategy. But that will end with having a sponsored ad ridden internet for a nominal cost, and then, another internet, which may not have as many ads, but as the same time will be super expensive.
  • 3)There are no benefits to this system.
  • 4) The telecom industry has changed over the last 100 years, But at it's core it still sending electrical signals down a wire(or light down a fiber strand). It's a utility. The utility should not control what kind of use you make of the provided product. even if they are trying to give it away for free. Imagine the water company giving away dish washing water, but charged 20 bucks to flush the toilet. As such the industry should be regulated like any of the other utilities, water, electricity, gas. They internet providers should not have any ability to favor or provide differential pricing, and it should be mandated that they do not impede/alter the flow of traffic for their content.

Edit: Formatting

redheadednomad 3 points Tue Sep 27 18:51:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Having grown-up outside of Canada (in Europe), setting-up a cellphone account here was something of a reality check: Unlike in Europe, Canadian Telco's appear to quite blatantly collaborate to match pricing tiers; cap data at impractical levels, and gouge the customer for overages. To say nothing of the anti-competitive practice of trying to limit the airwave access of new competitors, or swallowing them up in order to force their subscribers onto a lesser plan.

What action will the CRTC be taking to open up access to networks and infrastructure to entrepreneurial new entrants to the telecoms market, in order to level the playing field and unlock value for money for all Canadians?

Draemis 5 points Tue Sep 27 19:22:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1.What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? I don't think that there are any benefits to consumers for differential pricing. The only benefits here are to the companies offering free data for certain apps, because surely they are making or saving money by doing so. Given what Canadians pay for mobile/internet compared to other countries, it doesn't appear that this savings translates to cost savings for consumers.

2.Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Absolutely. As a consumer, you're effectively forced into using certain apps or services, especially with data caps being so low. This doesn't really allow for much competition in the marketplace.

3.Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? The concerns absolutely outweigh the benefits. If you leave it to the service providers, there would be no change, and less competition in the marketplace, which translates to high prices and low quality of service for consumers. Only the providers benefit from these practices. 4.If we should step in, how should we regulate it? I think that there are two ways to effectively regulate this. Firstly, certain services could be made essential (ie: banking, utilities apps, etc.), giving anyone access to these. Another option would be to enforce a mandatory minimum data cap (ie: 4GB/month per user) or abolish data caps altogether.

Data caps are just a way for companies to make more money by making it easy for consumers to go over them. This then results in huge profits for data overages ($15-20 per GB for some companies), or force them to pay for a higher level on their phone plan (Usually only slightly less than it would cost to just go over once in awhile). Again, the consumers are getting the short end of the stick because almost all providers have the same practices.

vsTerminus 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:44:03 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Hello - Thank you for taking the time to come out and ask for input here on reddit. I think this was an excellent way to engage with Canadians.

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I not believe there are any benefits to consumers, other than those artificially manufactured by the service provider.

Differential Pricing offers a respite from data caps, which only exist because the service provider put them in place. Removing data caps entirely would make differential pricing redundant, as there would no longer be a need for it.

By allowing differential pricing you would be treating the symptom rather than the disease.

Simply lifting data caps entirely would do far more to benefit consumers than offering limited exemptions to those caps.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Differential pricing will stifle both innovation and competition, further entrenching existing services in our already limited industry.

For example, let's say Netflix strikes a deal and their streaming service becomes exempt from my data cap. As a consumer, how likely am I to ever consider a new competitor to Netflix? Even if I like it better and it offers better programming, the fact that Netflix is exempt from my data cap would make me very hesitant to switch.

Further, most major service providers have their own competitors to Netflix and could very easily exempt their own in an attempt to "poach" customers from competitors.

My point is, while differential pricing has the potential benefits for companies like Netflix, that very service could not have grown and thrived to be what it is today in such a climate.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, these concerns absolutely outweigh the benefits and they are significant enough that the CRTC should absolutely be stepping in to enforce Net Neutrality. I think that it's pretty clear that letting service providers decide will not result in a decision in favor of consumers, but rather in favor of lining pockets of corporate executives and making it more difficult for new competition to ever enter the marketplace.

Data caps by themselves are already harmful to innovation and competition and this will only make it worse. We are offered a service and then actively punished for actually utilizing it.

The right approach to dealing with restrictive data caps is not to allow for specific exemptions, it is to remove data caps altogether and charge using a model that makes sense: Maximum throughput (transfer speed).

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

In the short term? Disallow it entirely, and enforce Net Neutrality; All traffic should be given equal priority and treatment, regardless of origin, destination, intent, or any other factor.

Internet should be treated like any other utility in the sense that you pay the same rate for the service no matter how you choose to use it.

In the long term? Do away with data caps entirely and move to 100% Unlimited (by volume) data plans.

Data caps are not logical for the technology they are being used to restrict. Internet is not a limited resource that gets "used up" like gasoline at the pumps. There is no such thing as "data scarcity".

What matters is throughput, or how much someone is transferring at any given moment. We should be paying for how how fast we want to be able to transfer data, not how much we transfer.

The problem that providers always cite is network congestion; Too many people transferring too much data all at once. They claim data caps limit this, but they do not.

Consider two people, "A" and "B".

  • "A" uses 2GB of data slowly over the month during off-peak hours, doing light browsing and listening to music.
  • "B" also uses 2GB of data, but uses it by watching high definition video on YouTube at 4 PM on the bus ride home every day and reaches his cap within a week.

Both users transferred the same amount, but one of them had a much greater impact on network congestion and performance. This is why data caps do not make sense.

Instead, "A" could be paying less for a limited transfer speed plan because it suits their needs for light browsing and internet radio. "B" could then choose between watching videos in lower quality or paying more for a higher transfer speed limit to watch his videos in HD. This way the people who are actually contributing most heavily to congestion are also the ones paying the most into the operational costs of said network.

thedrewabides 4 points Tue Sep 27 20:09:00 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Thank you for seeking the opinions of regular Canadians in a format they can easily use!

Here are my answers to your questions in order: 1. The entire concept is just fancy marketing-speak to hide the only benefit of this practice: the opportunity for internet providers to charge more for their services. A neutral internet built properly with enough capacity to meet user demand should allow everything to move at high speed, so there would be no need to charge more to let certain things move faster. Improve your networks, Service Providers. I had faster internet for free in a cheap motel in Malaysia 10 years ago than I can even pay for today in Canada's fourth largest city - that is ridiculous. Then I see the same Service Providers posting massive profits every quarter and claiming they have to keep charging us more for the inferior service they provide. This makes it crystal clear to Canadian consumers that their only motive is greed - not the well-being of their customers.

  1. My concern is that it will further widen the gulf between the Have's and Have Not's in society by increasing the cost for certain internet traffic. This is regressive for our society! It can only be a negative on the whole.

  2. The concerns obviously outweigh the benefits because the only benefit is to the Service Provider - not the Consumer. Canadian telecom companies have proven without a doubt that their only concern is increased profitability, not increased value to Canadians. They are functionally incapable of putting the needs of Canadians before greed - so the CRTC absolutely must step in to regulate the practices. It has now been a year since they were ordered to provide access to their fiber, yet they still have not done so, communicating clearly to us all that they must be dragged kicking and screaming to provide higher value to Canadians because they refuse to even when ordered to. The regulation must be enacted rapidly - no more giving them years to comply while Canadians spend untold millions they should not have been spending. Can you please explain to me why we pay more than developing nations and receive worse service? We compare pathetically to most developed nations as well. I have worked with executives in the mobile industry from Europe who marvel at the profiteering of Canadian telecoms and are shocked we let it happen - they would be lynched in their nations if they had the same business practices. As the regulator for this industry in Canada it is your duty to hold them accountable and force them to provide us with value for our dollar, please!

  3. The practice should be completely banned, and the CRTC should have complete audit access, with no advance notice, at any time, to ensure compliance. I can't tell you how many times my connections have been throttled down, and then spontaneously jump up to the speed I am paying for as soon as I run a Speedtest... There needs to be very large fines and painful punishments for violating the rules. When we see a ruling that costs a company thousands or even low millions when they profit in the billions annually, it is clear to Canadians that neither the regulator, courts, or the guilty party are feeling any pain. When a person who makes thousands is charged thousands for a transgression, it clearly makes them think twice before breaking the rules - so why are the fines not at similar levels for these huge corporations? Fine them 10% of their annual revenue, and they will toe the line immediately and somehow make their services work better, like magic! So far, Canadians see giant corporations operate on a purely greed model and get away with inferior service levels because they are not held accountable. Please, please, please, hold them accountable for us!

Thundercracker 5 points Tue Sep 27 20:12:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hi there, I'd like to say I think it's great you guys are looking into these issues and great that you are reaching out to sources like reddit to see what people really think.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

To be honest, I don't really see an upside to differential pricing. It doesn't offer any more choices because it's all still the same internet, the choices are already there.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely! Differential pricing effectively gives the service provider the ability to control my usage on the internet. A great example would be the use of Netflix. Like an increasingly great number of Canadians, I no longer use traditional TV service (I don't even have a TV!) because the cost is too high, and my family finds most of it's entertainment on sites like Netflix. Service providers have recently started their own streaming services to compete with Netflix (such as Crave and Shomii), but our family chooses not to use them. With Differential Pricing, my service provider could effectively punish me for not using their service, and for using a competitor's service.

One might ask how "zero rating" would punish me if it only provides a cost-decrease to services (of the provider's choosing), but the punishment comes from the data caps that are already in place and controlled by the providers. My family already struggles with data caps each month, which is not surprising when Canadians have some of the worst/most punishing data caps in the world. It would be very easy for my provider to punish my family simply by further restricting the already harsh data caps. If most of my family's data usage comes from a competitor's service (Netflix), they have effectively just increased the cost of using my chosen service instead of their own.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I definitely think the concerns outweigh the benefits. I see no real benefit to differential pricing, it simply gives the service providers a way to increase the costs of using some sites/services vs. using ones they choose. I think ultimately the CRTC should step in and say NO to differential pricing. The only way to ensure fair treatment of consumers is to ensure that all content carries the same cost, regardless of it's source.

fgejoiwnfgewijkobnew Canada 3 points Tue Sep 27 20:12:46 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

It benefits the ISPs and hurts consumers. It's a horrible idea that opposes many of the fundamental ideas of net neutrality.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, I have many. Mainly my concern is about keeping net neutrality intact. If we have these "zero rating" services we no longer have a neutral internet in Canada.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Make data caps illegal and make internet classified as a utility. In Holland the Internet is a human right like water. Internet access should be free and unhindered and paid for completely with our taxes.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Step in, make data caps illegal and grant internet access to everyone for free. The internet must be considered a human right, like water, and should be paid for by taxes. Let ISPs profit off of internet much like my municipal water supplier makes a modest profit supplying me with water.

Buddyboy546 4 points Tue Sep 27 20:50:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am stunned that any rational person would consider allowing differential pricing. Access this it is free; access that it will cost you money. Censorship by any other name and one that is sanctioned by a regulator. Get a grip and remember who you are serving CTTC - public not corporate interest.

jtjj222 4 points Tue Sep 27 21:05:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

As an undergraduate Computer Science student and (hopefully) future entrepreneur, I rely on users being able to access the tools and services I create on a fair and level playing field. There is no way that I can compete with a massive company that can negotiate backdoor deals with internet service providers to offer zero-rating on their data usage.

At the same time, I think it is appalling that companies can charge based on data usage at all! As technology advances and our data needs increase, data caps will only serve to hold us back. If network congestion was really a big problem like ISPs claim (I don't believe there is any evidence to support this, but I will let somebody that is more qualified decide that), then data caps would only matter during peak usage hours.

By forcing users to endure tiny data caps, and offering zero-rated alternatives, telecom companies slow down progress and reduce competition. I think the CRTC should ban differential pricing. Moreover, they should abolish data caps in general

I also think that the advantages that this regulation would provide far outweigh the disadvantages. Abolishing data caps and differential pricing will level the playing field for online businesses, but also for smaller ISPs that could otherwise be excluded from these deals.

winemaster Saskatchewan 3 points Tue Sep 27 21:12:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Realistically, none. It would also encourage muscling-out of smaller content providers as they could not afford to pay for preferential treatment on these differential pricing plans. It may seem flashy and impressive on the surface to get unlimited use of certain apps or website, but it has extremely nefarious undertones that are completely anti-consumer-choice.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. It flies in the face of net neutrality, and if gives greedy ISPs another reason to impose prohibitive data caps, while making the consumer believe they are getting a good deal.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

ISPs and other service providers should have no say in what content is important to the consumer. The CRTC should absolutely step in and regulate this anti-consumer practice. Many people are not educated enough about the issue to make an informed decision on this, and that is why the CRTC exists: to protect the consumer.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

All data should be treated equally. Data is data, no matter where it's from or where it's going. I don't want my ISP to decide what I can and can't do.

Kerrigore 3 points Tue Sep 27 21:50:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It is absolutely critical to the future of both the Internet in general and the technology sector in Canada in particular that differential pricing not be allowed. Differential pricing constitutes a blatant attempt to circumvent the principle of net neutrality that is so integral to the internet remaining a free and open platform. By allowing existing companies to charge more to access certain internet content, you not only allow those companies to create an unfair market advantage for themselves, but also create a significant barrier of entry to new technology companies.

This is a time where we need to foster innovation, not hamper it. We need Canada to become a leader in technology, not set us back. The large established players will tell you that differential pricing will allow them to improve how they deliver existing services. And to some degree, that may be true. But time and time again, we have seen the biggest leaps in technology come not from established companies, but from start ups, from the small guys with big ideas.

Ultimately this isn't just about the end consumer experience, although that would also be significantly enhanced by ruling against differential pricing (or indeed, any type of usage-based billing for ISP's). This is about the future of the Canadian economy. Selling our natural resources isn't going to sustain our economy in the long run, and we need to be investing in the future now, not in 20-30 years when it's too late. Please consider the broader implications of this decision, and don't merely see it in the context of consumers wanting more for their money.

Theduckintheroom 3 points Tue Sep 27 22:02:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

  • For a business: another avenue to generate revenue; bandwith/access now becomes "real estate".
  • For a consumer: would have the option of giving up some freedom of choice for lower cost.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

  • For business: access to customers may be limited by those with deeper pockets; playing field is no longer level (particularly for small businesses or entrepreneurs)
  • For consumers: loss of autonomy, and potential degradation of resources typically provided for free (as they now have to compete and pay for viewership)
  • For government: Loss of control of communications as private interests set up barriers. There is a reason why connectivity should be treated as public utility. Using the analogue of road infrastructure, look at what happened when the 407 ETR was sold in Ontario, and how, while the infrastructure is needed now; it is beyond the control of the province, and out priced for lots of people who need it.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

  • Yes, the concerns are significant enough to justify regulation. Why you would even consider allowing private business interests to essentially further privatize the means by which our nation is connected is beyond me.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Simply do not allow for it outside of the communication company's own products (ie. Shomi for Rogers). Connectivity should always be as open as possible; it is through this regime that grass root endeavors take shape and appear to the masses. Locking it down in any manner only serves to begin the process of selling a very valuable asset to entities that certainly do not have the public's best intentions at heart.

Short sighted folks will look at the potential money savings offered by service providers, in exchange for their freedom of choice, and may be tempted. It is the CRTC's role to protect the consumer from themselves in times like this, to ensure connectivity is a fair resource for generations to come.

crokinole 5 points Tue Sep 27 22:12:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

italics1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? There are none that I can think of... italics2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? I worry that we will sink into a worse experience in receiving the information we are looking for as only large, well-heeled companies will be able to afford to pay the background fees to ISP's for their data flow, leaving the newer or smaller companies to struggle in lower speed data lanes. This will provide unequal experience to the user and more than likely put the newer, smaller companies out of business. italics3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? The concerns by far outweigh the benefits. Most people today require a wide variety of internet sources for information, entertainment, purchasing, communication and business. The CRTC must regulate the practices of the ISP's to provide a fair and equitable internet for all. If Canadian highways were owned by half a dozen private companies and they all decided to place toll routes on all their roads, Canadians would go crazy. The analogy is the same for the internet. italics4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Ban any attempts by ISP's to step around a fair and equitable internet for Canadian citizens. Period. Personally, I'd like to see our Canadian internet as a utility, owned by the government or at least a non-profit, all-hands-off entity.

jerryfie 4 points Tue Sep 27 23:28:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None for the consumer, it's another cash grab by the telcos and big ISPs

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, it should not exist. There should be no data caps.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

You should never let the providers decide as they in their present cartel form will just make sure they rip us off further.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

By making sure there are no data caps on land ISPs and more reasonable ones from wireless operators. And severe penalties for those caught cheating on this (or throttling.)

hedgecore77 4 points Wed Sep 28 00:00:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Quite frankly, I'm still waitng for an apology from the CRTC to the entirety of Canada for the debacle that was usage based billing years ago.

The level of misunderstanding of a simple concept such as bandwidth was disgusting coming from a body that's supposed to be governing Canada's telecommunications.

LumpenBourgeoise 5 points Wed Sep 28 00:17:20 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Absolutely none except for the people who control the networks.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. It will never be fair, there will always be sweetheart deals so that rich friends of the networks, or interests aligned with them, get better access to information and better distribution at below market rates. Too much power and control of information will be in the hands of network providers. It will stop new businesses from growing or even breaking in to new data-heavy sectors. Network providers will cut off data and suffocate new businesses and copy their services with better bandwidth to implement them. At its simplest you will visit a website and all the ads will load long before any of the content you wanted will be download, then they will use eye tracking with your camera to ensure you watch the ads before the network drip-feeds your desired content.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns greatly outweigh everything else. Look at your cell phone plan as a government employee and then look at a cell phone plan of someone under the poverty line in Canada. The service providers have already manipulated you and discriminate against people without any voice or power. Just wait until the poor are limited to ad-supported phones that only allow them to watch Roger's television channels or read Bell media articles.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Break up the large media companies and separate their network services from everything else like television channels, websites, advertising and newspapers. Even separate wireless and wired networks into separate companies. And separate the network back-bones from last-mile services. Also for wireless networks, separate the network and tower maintenance and services from everything else. But most of all make sure a completely open and free market exists for leasing services and network access, or skew the pricing and rules to allow more smaller companies to resell services rather than a few large companies.

Enforce net neutrality. Stop network providers from being anything more than a network of dumb pipes.

alex_oue 4 points Wed Sep 28 16:54:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None. Strictly speaking, I might get a smaller bill at the end of the month, but if I don't happen to have the service that is in the differential pricing, it will very likely end up with a higher bill, and discourage me from using that service. Why should the internet provider sway my opinion over which service I chose to use?

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Many. It confers an unfair advantage to whoever has the most money to get into the differential pricing deal. It enables internet provider to have more control over the kind of content I consume, as they shape which one is more valuable to me through differential pricing. It appears to have a benefit to the consumer (reduced billing), but in reality, it limits the choice of the consumer. It is also a step in the wrong direction for Net Neutrality.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

They definitely outweigh the benefits, and they do justify the CRTC to step in and regulate this practice. You should not let the internet provider regulate themselve. There is next to no competition amongst them, so they will chose whatever benefits them the most, regardless of the consumer needs. They also do not have a good track record. They have introduced artificial scarcity through Data Cap (limiting the total data consumed during a period of time), which was justified with network congestion (a dubious claim in and of itself), and is now selling us that artificial scarcity at the cost of X amount of gigabytes per months. Differential Pricing is just another way for internet providers to profit from that artificial scarcity, and shape our consumption. If we were to not have data caps, we would not have differential pricing, and every service would be on an equal footing, not with an unfair advantage on whomever has the best deals with the local ISP.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

All traffic should be treated equally. Data Cap (a limit on how much data you can consume) is an artificial scarcity created to help sell a product that should not even exist in the first place. And while we're talking about regulating data traffic, traffic shaping at the internet provide level is a bad idea. All traffic must be treated equally.

pudds Manitoba 4 points Wed Sep 28 17:01:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thanks for doing this. I've submitted comments via the website in the past, but this is an interesting way to try and get more feedback.

Per your questions:

1) I think the benefits are obvious - customers can use popular services without incurring any overage penalties.

2) I have serious concerns about it. I believe that while consumers may like getting a given service for "free", it puts other services at a competitive disadvantage. If a carrier chooses to zero-rate one video service, a competing video service may suffer as a result. Large competitors may be forced to enter into a similar arrangement in order to compete, assuming that the original zero-rating agreement doesn't also include terms that prevent deals with competitors. In addition, I feel that zero-rating specific websites masks the true problem of very low bandwidth caps. Heavy users of certain websites may feel pressured to find a carrier which offers zero or discounted rating for those sites, when they'd prefer to be with a different provider.

3) Yes, I feel these concerns significantly outweigh the benefits.

4) I believe that this practice should be banned outright, such that all data must be treated equally. Carriers with low bandwidth caps should should feel consumer pressure to raise those caps, not use those caps as a way to negotiate preferential deals with popular websites.

_Aquin British Columbia 12 points Mon Sep 26 19:17:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I get nothing from it. I already use unconventional sources (eg. I don't use Netflix, but I do watch NHK) and they wouldn't be covered by such a scheme. I'm probably not alone.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I don't care about the details. It seems like an unnecessary and possibly unfair complication.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

If you let providers decide, they will take every penny they can get. We pay more for bandwidth than most of our OECD neighbours. Also, it's funny that I pay a lot less for internet (living in the boonies) than people in Vancouver because I have an uncommon local provider.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I'd like to think you guys are experts and don't need to entertain uneducated opinions about such a complicated and important topic.

sleepingsysadmin 17 points Mon Sep 26 15:22:54 2016 UTC  (1 child)

The CRTC should not be concerned with what the incumbents are doing at all.

You should be simply setting what the wholesale prices are and what services those are.

So for internet you say 20mbit = $20/month wholesale unlimited. Then if the incumbent wants to add caps to their products. Then it's up to the incumbent to try to get the wholesellers to do it. Which Bell would have to offer lower prices. So perhaps $10/month for a 50gb cap.

Then when new issues come along like net neutrality; like how Bell throttles torrents. You simply set the rule that wholesale services are default no-throttling. Bell then could get the wholesellers to agree to throttling but obviously would need to offer lower prices.

This makes this entire subject meaningless because wholesale would be unlimited only. So there's no cap to count against.

anythingffs 2 points Wed Sep 28 03:14:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There would have to be some pretty tough rules, fines, and oversight in place to ensure the wholesale business was not playing tricks if you were to reply on this model. As it is, there are far too many stories out there of willful disruption of wholesale customer services by the incumbents.

[deleted] 10 points Mon Sep 26 20:32:07 2016 UTC  (13 children)

It would honestly be pretty helpful if you could subsidize or at least put in a limit for how much rural LTE/mobile plans cost.

The government committed to 5 mbps minimum connection for all Canadians. I live in a rural community that has zero fibre internet despite living relatively close to several large cities, and the only access we have is through mobile data plans.

This results in monthly bills starting at $150 for 100 gb of data per month.

Telus, for 60 gb of data, charges at least $350 per month.

For some of us, this is genuinely our only option. As you can see that is just... unacceptable.

RagingHardon Ontario -2 points Mon Sep 26 21:32:50 2016 UTC  (4 children)

Why is that your only option? Why isn't moving closer to the city an option if you don't want to pay those amounts for mobile?

[deleted] 2 points Mon Sep 26 21:59:27 2016 UTC  (3 children)

How much closer than 15 km should I be from the city

Pls enlighten me

TheMikie -2 points Mon Sep 26 23:21:48 2016 UTC  (2 children)

you want city type servicing.. move to the city.

you can't have it all

MRChuckNorris 2 points Tue Sep 27 05:42:51 2016 UTC  (1 child)

I hate when people say this. I lived in the middle of no where. Like i had to come out to hunt New Brunswick. I had cable high speed internet. I moved to ontario and its like i stepped back in time. I live 10 mins outside of a city on a main rd and the only option I have is the worst isp in the world. Xplornet. Rural Afghanistan literally has better internet.

TheMikie 1 point Tue Sep 27 10:53:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Again.. look at the size of Afganistan compared to Canada.. you can't run wires everywhere.. this.. costs.. money..

and as a BUSINESS.. why would I spent thousands of dollars to run lines where I'm only going to get 60$ a month back only to have a reseller be able to undercut me and go to 30$ a month my return on investment is just not there.

Out west in rural calgary I know of a group of 20 people who got together and they paid for the construction to run lines to get internet... maybe get with your neighbors and do th same if you want it that much faster

badcallday -2 points Mon Sep 26 22:48:21 2016 UTC  (6 children)

It's not cheap to provide service to rural areas, service providers don't just "run a line" or "put up a tower" to get a community services line or fiber. There's a large cost as well as lots of legal loopholes to get service to a new area.
Having "farmernet" and "farmervision" are some of the sacrifices you make when you decide to live rural, same as why you don't have the best shopping and selection of chain restaurants in these area or are using well water.

Dreviore 3 points Tue Sep 27 04:23:09 2016 UTC  (4 children)

the ISP's have been granted billions of taxpayers dollars in order to expand their network in rural regions. Instead they used our money in order to pay their CEO's, and use the excuse that the money we gave them wasn't enough. The Canadian government works with ISP's to make laying infrastructure a lot easier than the United States.

badcallday 1 point Tue Sep 27 16:02:26 2016 UTC  (3 children)

Thats not how it works

Dreviore -1 points Tue Sep 27 16:07:53 2016 UTC  (2 children)

It actually is when our government provided them money to create a broadband and now fibre backbone.

whatsdata 1 point Tue Sep 27 16:22:52 2016 UTC  (1 child)

He right tho, it's not how it works. They don't just "lay cable or build towers" just because there was money towards it does not mean they can just rush to your tiny town and lay the ground work.

Dreviore 0 points Tue Sep 27 16:27:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Of course not, but they were granted a lot of leeway to actually develop infrastructure in rural areas, as well as money to do so. Instead of doing it, they padded the pockets of their CEO's, and claimed it wasn't enough money to do it, and now they jack up prices, and fire low level employees, to have quarterly growth while every business is struggling.

TheMikie -2 points Mon Sep 26 23:20:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

there's places in Urban places that dont have Fibre. So the argument is moot. You choose to live in the boonies. you get boonies service.. You want urban type service syou pay a premium seeing theres nobdy around you to help pay for the infrastructure.

CLENVENMETINS 5 points Tue Sep 27 15:29:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

As a high data mobile user - that's not using an overwhelming amount of data from any single app, website, or service - there are no examples of differential pricing that benefit me.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. The usual concerns you've already heard and are briefly outlined on your site.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The fact these concerns are real doesn't justify you regulating anything. You're a dog without teeth, or possibly even worse, a dog without teeth that the burglars have been feeding so that you don't so much as bark when they're knocking the door down.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

top kek. you guys are an infuriating existence

liquidpig British Columbia 3 points Tue Sep 27 16:34:23 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There may be benefits in terms of optimizing a network to deliver a certain type of content - ie video streaming where latency isn't important but where bandwidth is.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. Several. It would create preferred content types and preferred content providers. Only content and services on an approved list would have access to this tier of bandwidth and consumers would be much less likely to access content and services from off this list. We already see users watching their bandwidth usage on mobile devices for cost reasons and know for a fact that cost is a deciding factor as to whether a user will access something or not.

Differential pricing violates net neutrality.

It would also further compartmentlize our media and services and allow ISPs to choose (and acquire and operate) the winners in the media industry.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns drastically outweigh the benefits in my mind. Yes, the CRTC should step in and regulate practices.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The infrastructure and wholesale bandwith (both wireless and wired) should be regulated as a utility and have national standards and prices set. Bits are bits.

nickademus 3 points Tue Sep 27 16:37:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

i would like to see 100% net neutrality.

i feel like its unfair practice to give certain data any form of preference over other data streams.

bomberman447 3 points Tue Sep 27 17:23:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no benefits, it would only give people the illusion of better pricing on internet/phone plans because something like youtube/netflix might use no data from their plan.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

This goes against everything net neutrality stands for and would lead down the slippery slope to tiered plans with throttling and unequal access to internet data.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes the CRTC should step in to regulate net neutrality as it is of no net benefit to the consumer and only looks to increase revenues to the communication companies due to new deals with content providers.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Do not allow companies to create tiered data and require all data to come from the users pool, hopefully eventually removing home internet bandwidth caps due to the growing amount of digital distribution. The CRTC did this with bell's mobile TV which was a great move.

insaneinsanity 3 points Tue Sep 27 17:50:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The main benefits of differential pricing are to allow large corporations to monopolize the internet and prevent any new players from competing in a fair marketplace.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

"Differential pricing" will allow existing ISPs with content businesses to unfairly compete in content businesses while also locking customers into a 'walled garden'. "Differential pricing" is the antithesis of what ISPs should be doing which is providing a destination agnostic bit pipe.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

You had better regulate it. The existing service providers are already using their control over data pipes to engage in unfair monopolistic behavior such as damaging protocols they do not like (ie: bittorrent), interfering with competitors products (ie: netflix), and preventing people from disconnecting their cable/content services (ie: bundling internet, phone, and cable making those services together cost less than internet alone). If you do not stop them now, consumers will be unable to buy ISP service alone at an affordable rate... oh wait, Canada ALREADY has the worst ISP money/value in the entire 1st world.

Wake up CRTC. It's time to break this stuff up and let the tax breaks that were used to fund telecommunications actually help the people paying taxes instead of the corporations which continue to raise rates and provide less and less service.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

ISPs should be excluded from providing content. Break up delivery of bits from content creation/providers. If they are allowed to provide content, they must do so in a completely net neutral fashion that does not prioritize or benefit their services over competing services. No traffic shaping, nothing. Customers should be able to pay for a data pipe that provides a rated speed with unlimited data throughput. No catches, no gimmicks, no caps, no requirements for a phone service, nothing else. And the ISPs should NOT be able to deal on both ends of the pipe effectively double-charging for toll-roads to content.

Mekagnome 3 points Tue Sep 27 18:53:46 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Cellular data prices are too high in Canada. I understand we have a lower population than the US but it's ridiculous that you can get unlimited data south of the border for less than a couple of Gigs of data here. I also think the practice of different pricing models from province to province should be illegal. The only reason Manitoba has such low rates compared to the rest of the country is because there is a legitimate competing cellular company (MTS) that's not one of the Big Three.

egad-what-ho 3 points Tue Sep 27 18:54:38 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1.What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? There are no benefits. This is just a disguised effort on the part of the providers to increase revenue, using the bogus notion that some streams will be priced more advantageously than others.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? I have big concerns, especially for people who are on limited incomes. This rapacious telecom ploy is attempting to separate yet more money from ordinary people.

  2. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

What benefits? There are none! There should not be data caps!

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? The CRTC should use its regulatory powers to ban data caps and put Canadians on a level playing field.

buddy-bud 3 points Tue Sep 27 18:55:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

No data caps!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Period!!!!!!!!!!!

ydnarecneps 3 points Tue Sep 27 18:58:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing (zero-rating) seriously limits choice and stifles competition on the Internet. Users, not telecom companies, should decide which services we use online. You should ban differential pricing, and the simple way is to get rid of data caps.

We need transparency and strong enforcement to ensure telcos stick by the rules, and face penalties when those rules are broken.

This should be one of the top regulatory prioroties for CRTC - we are watching and counting on you, our Commission!

jotapeh 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:00:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing hurts both consumer and small business.

Websites and services which already suffer from a lack of audience will be punished further by placing a premium on the cost of accessing their data.

robindawilliams 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:11:03 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There are definitely benefits in the forms of data like basic email service and public service websites (libraries, university, etc) becoming a free domain of access to allow for significantly better access by someone who might own a phone but not be able to afford the data plans available.

Differential pricing is scary because with the introduction of Data caps it doesn't just allow ISP's to encourage specific services, it also allows them to steer you away from some. Do you enjoy Netflix but shomi is paying your ISP? Well suddenly now they are forcing my hand on which video streaming services I pay for because I can't afford the 100GB a month data usage within the confines of small cap plans. Dangerous control to give a private company on an entire country.

Personally I believe internet access should be free from censorship, we should of course monitor internet to protect our country but that should act as a monitoring system and not a filter. We should not influence what people can access based on a private companies decisions as not all areas of Canada have a choice in picking ISP, and frankly controlling someones data usage and what is considered using it is just as powerful as controlling what websites they can visit outright.

I believe the government needs to look at the perspective of a prospective internet user, and how the internet is not just a method for media consumption but it is a fundamental form of communication in our modern era. We should not be limited by what news sites we visit, what countries we view media from, or what private services we must decide on for our access to resources. I imagine a dark Canada in 10 years talking about limiting the access to "foreign media" to encourage the consumption of Canadian internet resources similar to the requirements for Canadian music on the radio, and now suddenly that has become a method of censorship.

ohyeahpaulchin 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:13:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Differential pricing is an issue that could be entirely eradicated if telcos/ISPs simply gave consumers more reasonable data/bandwidth packages. What we pay now for comparable access to the internet in other countries is utterly excessive.

  2. My concerns with differential pricing are pretty much the concerns most people have: it makes the operating on the internet (which is pretty much necessary in this day and age) a pay-to-win model for businesses. Want to have preferred standing in search results, promotion, and access? Just pay off your customers' telco/ISP so that they're incentivised to use your site/app, rather than your consumers. We already have an oligarchy wherein the wealthy and powerful sway our internet use habits; there's no need to further deepen those roots.

  3. If it's not the CRTC's job to regulate these practices, I don't even know what you guys are around for. The dream of the internet was that it would be a great technological equaliser, but if left to the telcos/ISPs, it would just be another platform for the wealthy and connected to dominate the "free" market. If nothing else, I would imagine the CRTC's job is to keep things as neutrally balanced as possible, so consumers can be empowered to make their own decisions based on what they want, rather than what their service provider allows them.

  4. Internet rates are sky high, and definitely need to be regulated (i.e. made more affordable, and therefore accessible to people of all socioeconomic statuses). Telcos/ISPs should ABSOLUTELY not be allowed to dictate what the best services and practices are for their consumers. The internet should be an essential service, and therefore as neutral and accessible as the water that comes out of our taps.

witchcraftz 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:18:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data caps are an outdated idea, the cost to a provider to provide data has dropped to near nothing over the last few years. Data caps are now only being used to create artificial price increases and gouge customers!

pboronowski 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:19:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Canadians are trapped by data caps. Caps for wired internet is unheard of for most of the world. Wireless data caps are much more reasonable elsewhere .Many of us struggle with exorbitant monthly wireless rates and the big three continue to rake in the money. The internet is an integral part of all our lives. Our family uses it for everything( work, education, social uses, research, sales, art , music....everything needed to stay "connected". The decision to zero-rate data must remain as my decision. The telecom giants "have no right in the wallets of our nation!" ISPs must NOT be allowed to pick which services I and all the other Canadians use online. The internet must be kept level and square to allow for innovative new ideas. Zero-rating data will kill competition and limit the choices we Canadians have. Canada and the CRTC needs rules , honest behaviour , complete transparency and communication with us Canadian internet users and especially with the telecom giants. There cannot be back room deals. The telecom companies should be completely aware that they will face the anger of Canadians and hopefully penalties that will bring them to their knees and their senses. NO data caps for internet in Canada!!!

joffet 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:19:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Simple net neutrality should be the regulation. All packets must be equal, no prioritization, no differential pricing. This simplifies enforcement and keeps the rules easy for consumers to understand.

Technology advancements are bringing all the speed and capacity needed for advanced applications. There is no credible customer benefit for the ISPs to vary from net neutrality. It just a profit grab.

Please protect Canadians from unfair business practices. Simple net neutrality is the best solution.

ieGod 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:33:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I oppose differential pricing. The content provider and the delivery mechanism should never be so closely coupled.

NGage22R 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:39:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The internet is as large, valuable, and ubiquitous as it is today because it was founded on the principles of freedom and equality. The internet was specifically designed to be distributed, to prevent any one entity from being able to dictate who or what is available on the internet.

Allowing for-profit corporations to dictate how people in Canada use the internet (by influencing their choice of services through zero-rating, for example) completely undermines this founding principle of freedom. Further, it implies the infringement of Canadians' freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression by allowing large-scale, legal censorship of the internet.

The internet has made the world a better place. Giving companies the ability to restrict and influence how people use the internet will result in a far worse future than the one we're headed for.

white__owl Canada 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:48:33 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

  • What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no benefits for the consumer. The only benefits accrue to the telecom incumbents and their strategic business partners. The illusion of price relief rests on the artificial scarcity created by the data caps imposed by the very same companies who are pushing zero-rating as the solution. The real solution is to eliminate data caps; they have no technical or economic justification, and exist only because the telecoms do not actually compete.

  • Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. It is anti-consumer, for the same reasons predatory pricing in general is anti-consumer (which is why it's outlawed). It allows well-funded players to kill existing competition in order to extract higher rents later from the same customers they are supposedly "helping" with short-term low prices. It creates insurmountable barriers to new entrants; if companies like, say, Spotify get preferential access to Rogers customers, only companies of similar size and market penetration could hope to compete. Meanwhile, telecom companies get to be the gatekeepers for entire verticals, for which they also happen to have their own offerings (another egregious example of regulatory failure). Rogers and Bell would like nothing less than to use data caps and zero rating to steer Netflix's customers to their own video-on-demand services, without having to bother with offering a better experience.

Just as no entity gets preferential access to the road infrastructure, no entity should get preferential access to the internet.

  • Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The benefits for consumers do not exist. The concerns are so obvious that it strains credulity that such a public consultation is even necessary. Maybe this is the song and dance CRTC must go through in order to start protecting consumers after years of inaction, in an era when the lobbying power of the incumbents is almost impossible to stop.

Letting the service providers decide is a laughable proposition. We've been running that experiment for too long already, and look where we are: some of the highest prices for some of the lowest levels of service in the world. I would be all for letting service providers decide if the telecom market were competitive, but unfortunately in Canada it is anything but, due in no small part to the chronic ineffectiveness of the CRTC. All one needs to do is look at the sorry state of internet, wireless, and TV offerings in Canada, compared to countries like, say, Romania (let alone South Korea or Japan).

  • If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

You should, of course, ban it, and eliminate data caps.

But you already knew that.

D-Mass 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:49:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The only people who benefit from differential pricing are the telecom firms, since it gives an unfair advantage to the corporations they "anoint" which get such treatment either as a result of vertical integration (mergers in related fields) or by financial incentives provided by the service to the telecom. Both behaviours essentially squeeze out competitors and favour incumbents while limiting innovation.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Personally I think that the most productive, progressive, and innovative internet is a neutral internet. If it was cheaper to use Myspace, the market may have never shifted in favour of Facebook, and Twitter. Either way, we pay for data, and being charged more to use the service that we pay for because we don't use the products that our service provider endorses leads me to several questions. The most important of which being; if they are using the same infrastructure to give me access to both the services they endorse, and the services they don't endorse, why is it financially viable to ignore my data caps if I use "their" service but if I use one of my own it isn't? How exactly are they making this work? I can watch TV on my phone as much as I want on their service, but not on mine? Since the data is shared via the same infrastructure how is that possible? I realize Canada's trust laws are weak, but even I can tell that something is amiss...

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

We have some of the highest telecom rates in the "Western" world. We have telecoms that received grant money to do certain things in the North but neglected their duties to profit that grant money. They are blatantly bilking the system and Governments of the past insured that no competition could join the market, that is mostly held by corporations that were built with tax payer money in the form of Grants. There are three simple things that could help reverse this inadequacy.

1/ New telecoms to the market would not only be encouraged, but Grants and low interest loans would be made available to qualifying corporations. Obviously we only need to look at the failed attempt of Wind to realize that had they been able to access the type of Government support historical telecoms had in Canada that Wind would have grown to a viable competitor. Instead they were squeezed out, and unable to even afford bandwidth to grow their business due to the questionable tactics of the pre mentioned telecoms

2/Telecoms need to provide transparency. I want to know what percentage of my bill ACTUALLY goes to maintain infrastructure, and how much lines investors pockets. Until corporations have to justify their prices with actual numbers they will forever set the price to "as high as suckers will pay"; especially in a market where newcomers are essentially forced out by the historical players, most of which where historically buoyed by the federal government at some point in their history.

3/ Canada should join the long list of countries endorsing Net Neutrality. Does Canada really want to be left behind in innovation? In the last few years we have seen Google Fibre turn entire local economies around. That is the power of the internet. And the way many people are experiencing the internet now, is from their smart phones.

Corporations exist to make profits, and left to their own devices they will maximize those profits to the disadvantage of their customer base. It is naive to even insinuate in a market created by a series of Government Grants (and in one case the sale of a Crown corporation to a smaller telecom player who previously benefited from said grants) that we have a free and open market capable of self-regulation.

What we have is a collection of oligarchies created by the over distribution of government grants to certain players. They have now swelled into obese children that struggle to show the type of annual growth shareholders like to see and choose to over-charge their customer base to do so.

The only sure-fire way to undo the current situation where Canadian's buy cellphones in any country they travel to only to learn that for 25%-75% of their current bill they can get a better service would be to force the biggest players to divest, and encourage foreign investment (with a mandate of partial Canadian ownership). Bell (for example) owns TV stations, a cable service, telecom..all vertically integrated. Those of us who have studied the history can't help draw parallels to The Trust, a chain of movie theatres that also owned movie studios that inspired the original anti-trust laws.

cerberii 3 points Tue Sep 27 19:56:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Diffrtential pricing doesnt work and contributes to data caps. End data caps. I had bell tv and they kept charging data for the tv which was not supposed to be data. Please end data caps theres no reason to cap our data except greed. The crtc allows the monopolization of the internet in data caps

techie2200 3 points Tue Sep 27 20:06:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'd like to start my comment by saying I am vehemently opposed to differential pricing as it is at best a stop-gap which will lead to an overall negative outcome.

On another note, I believe that the CRTC should be working to abolish data caps in general. We have a severe lack of competition in this country and data caps are just another gouging tactic. There should be no such thing as "too much internet" especially since the internet is essential to Canadians' daily lives.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Short term, I can see a few small benefits (i.e. being able to use certain services without worrying about how it will affect my data cap).

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, many. Differential pricing is the antithesis to Net Neutrality. With differential pricing in place, telecoms can select which services to support, killing competition (i.e. "why should I use X when Y doesn't affect my data cap?") and stifling innovation.

There are also privacy concerns. Telecom companies should not have an incentive to inspect their users' data. For people that use VPNs this means their traffic cannot be zero-rated as well.

It also incentivizes telecoms to keep data caps small, as they can make deals with providers of certain services to zero-rate their traffic, meaning Canadians will be unable to browse the internet in their own way.

Telecom companies should not be policing Canadians' browsing habits in any way, and zero-rating would allow them to.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

These concerns massively outweigh the benefits and the consequences of zero-rating / differential pricing would be astronomical. The CRTC should definitely step in.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Make the practice illegal. Fine any company that does it.

Les_Nyffeler 3 points Tue Sep 27 20:07:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Uphold Net Neutrality. The internet is a new tool that can bring the creativity and cooperative attitude of all out species together. If leaders are true leaders they will recognize that the net needs to be free and unfettered. If they are merely bureaucrats lacking vision, then they will accept their "bonuses" and let the corporte interests lock down the net for their profit. Differential pricing is a pathetic ruse to attempt control of the eyeballs. Data caps are similar. Consumers know what you are doing and we are waiting and watching. If you do not "step in" and do your job you are simply letting a opertune moment in the evolvution of global society slip away. This means that it will be a cause that the next generation will take up. The internet has become somethinf far more than it was ever envisioned to be. Far more than a system for a few university groups to link reserach papers. Far more than simply a new and cheaper marketplace for retail catalog shopping. The internet will be free. The internet will be the consciousness of the planet.

88bassomatic88 3 points Tue Sep 27 20:31:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I don't see any benefits to me personally and can't imagine any to other users

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? 

I'm not interested in what 'BelRogTelWin' decides I can download free of data charges. I want a flat rate, (WAY lower than what is being offered now b.t.w!) no data restrictions and net neutrality.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Please step in. We need rates we can afford with no data restrictions and I want net neutrality. We've all paid for our internet a thousand times over already. It's time to get all we've paid for.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Establish and enforce a fair flat rate for all, no extra charges, and net neutrality. If the big boys don't like it, that's OK. Canadians can manage without them. I'm tired of being 'ripped off'. I want MY internet back.

pseud0nym Alberta 3 points Tue Sep 27 20:33:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think it is a bad idea and reduces competition and choice for consumers in the market.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Many. I am concerned about new entrants which use IP services, which is anyone really but the incumbents, being unable to enter the Canadian market due to uncompetitive practices by ISPs that have become media providers. Bandwidth in Canada is expensive and a massive drain on our business competitiveness. Yet services such as Netflix face an extra tariff that competitors such as Telus TV are exempt from. All data needs to be treated the same and bandwidth charges and caps should apply to media services that the incumbents offer as well.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The detrimental effect on new technology entrants is so extreme that the only way I can see this situation being resolved is if the CRTC steps in and enforces network neutrality or forces the ISPs to divest of their media assets.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Simply insure that all traffic, of any kind, delivered through an ISP connection is metered and any and all caps and charges apply to all data delivered to the consumer regardless of origin. In short: make the bandwidth that is being consumed for media connections by ISPs visible to the consumer.

mwlcarter 3 points Tue Sep 27 20:42:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think differential pricing is not a slippery slope Canada should go down. In fact, since it's apparently now acknowledged that there isn't a bandwidth problem in Canada, there should be a ban on data caps. The problem with differential pricing is that all of a sudden all the content we'll be able to access (at a reasonable price, and/or at a reasonable speed) will be limited to content provided by companies who can afford to purchase preferential access. That's not what the Internet is all about.

MenstruatingMuffin British Columbia 3 points Tue Sep 27 21:00:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There is, without a shadow of a doubt, no benefit to the consumer in allowing ISPs to have this sort of control.

As it is, Canadians pay outrageous prices for internet that is throttled and capped, adding "censored" to the mix is just pouring salt into the wound.

Telco. have us and our wallets, right where they want this, and the only thing holding them back from bending the rest of the country over the proverbial barrel is the CRTC. I implore you to make the right the decision, the decision that sides with net neutrality and to implement STRICT rules and regulations so that Telco. providers in Canada are required by law to give us unthrottled, unbiased and open access to the internet, a utility which is (if it already hasn't) becoming an essential utility.

tinselsnips Saskatchewan 3 points Tue Sep 27 21:45:03 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Increased advertising revenue (for the ISP), increased licensing revenue (for the ISP), the elimination of competition (for the ISP) - every single advantage for the ISP, and absolutely none for the consumer.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The entire concept - I regard it as nothing less than censorship, ripe for abuse. Today, Netflix gets throttled while ISP-owned streaming services are fast and free - tomorrow, does any content not owned by your cable company suddenly become inaccessible? When the competitive services are forced out of the market and the ISP's service is now the only game in town, does it cease to be free?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

The concerns absolutely outweigh the benefits, because there are no benefits for the consumer. Only the ISP that stands to profit from these "zero-rated" services sees gain (from advertising and licensing, and the suppression of competition), while the consumer is simply forced to consume whatever information the ISP wants them to consume, or pay the cost.

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely not, because they do not have the best interests of the consumer in mind - the people that paid the taxes that subsidized their network infrastructure.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

It's quite simple - end data caps, and enforce Net Neutrality. Full stop. Anything less is simply paying lip-service to Canadians while handing monopolies to large Telecoms.

DigitalRain83 3 points Tue Sep 27 21:45:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Nothing

  2. It is threat to network neutrality and continues the trend towards media consolidation and towards the vertical integration of telecommunications infrastructure, retail services, and content.

  3. Obviously, strong concerns far outweigh no benefits.

  4. In the immediate term, zero rating and differential pricing as defined in the question should be prohibited. Subsequent to that, network operators should make the cost of providing data publicly available and subject to price regulation that would enable them to recoup their costs and make a fair profit, rather than the gouging that currently exists. Beyond that, network operators should be required to provide the general public with detailed information as to the status and the capacity of their networks. For instance, I know of no publicly available website that provides official information about the state of the Rogers cable network in my area and am therefore required to call my ISP and open a repair ticket should my modem's connection to the cable network drop. The ultimate goal should be the decoupling of the ownership and operation of network infrastructure from both the retail services and the content provided over the network. One way to do this would be via functional separation, wherein a given telecommunications network is owned and operated by an entity separate from any of the firms that sell retail service on said network and that the entity operating the network is required to treat all retail service providers (i.e. ISPs) equitably with respect to pricing and network access. A more radical solution would be to nationalize all of these networks under crown corporations or to establish independent P3s that own and operate the networks. The benefit of the latter approach would be that the maintaining and upgrading of the network infrastructure would be based on the needs of the consumers and businesses which use this infrastructure rather than the whims of Bell Canada shareholders, for instance.

Chaotichazard 3 points Tue Sep 27 23:34:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm more upset that the same package in Manitoba and Saskatchewan is twice the price in Ontario.

The only reason why is lack of competition in Ontario.
That bugs me more then data exemptions

Anti_Obfuscator 3 points Tue Sep 27 23:54:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits of differential pricing are not to the customer at all but to the providers. Customers as the final consumer will end up with the bill eventually, whether it be at the ISP/data provider level or by paying the application provider, so there are no real 'savings'. The touted savings are simply a marketing tool.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I would be concerned that corporations would use their control of data with differential pricing to show favouritsm to corporate partners, and to expand their vertical businesses and subsidiaries at the expense of competitors and smaller businesses. It is in effect a regulated form of a corporate business to business subsidy for preferred partners and a small set of application providers.

It could also be used to punish competitors, smaller players, and startups who wouldn't be part of the differential pricing plan.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

There are only 4 major players in the Canadian market: Bell, Telus, Shaw, and Rogers. This is not a significant level of competition in this market, and anything that these juggernauts do could have drastic effect on consumer choices.

To be analogous to a toll roadway such as the 407 ETR in Ontario, what if Walmart partnered with the ETR, and their trucks were allowed to pay no toll, and Canadian Tire trucks had to pay the regular fee? Would we think that was fair? Public money built some of that infrastructure, and it serves a public purpose.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Adopt a strong net neutrality position, and defend it. Do not support bandwidth throttling in any form such as packet type, hour of day, or whether it is encrypted or not. Do not support any form of IP blocking, except in cases of national emergency. Providers should understand that they are providing a neutral public service, and should not be putting their shareholders above public access.

Delta64 Alberta 3 points Wed Sep 28 00:24:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

In my opinion, all Canadians should be given access to high speed (i.e. greater than or equal to 100 mbit/s) no data caps internet. We as a nation are moving towards a future where fast and easy access to the Internet will become an absolutes necessity for day to day functions.

I also believe that, if Internet access is treated as a basic necessity, we will in the long term be benefited.

graysonAC 3 points Wed Sep 28 00:34:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

[i]1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?[/i]

I have yet to see any significant consumer benefit from this.

[i]2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?[/i]

Yes, very much so. This gives ISPs strong financial incentive to know what I'm using their service for, which I'm opposed to - privacy should be the default, and our internet providers shouldn't get free access to violate this privacy, particularly when the motive is profit-driven.

This also makes it a given that we're going to see net neutrality violated - their content will be the only things that get preferred access, unless we're willing to pay even more than we already do in Canada. Our internet rates are already extremely high, both because of our low population vs high country size, but also because of monopolies with minimal requirements to compete.

This is going to also give ISPs the ability to utterly crush small content providers - anyone that can't afford to pay up in order to be featured on the better channels is going to be even further marginalized.

[i]3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?[/i]

Yes, they do, and yes, you should. Please do not let the for-profit companies ram this down our throats. Protecting the citizens of Canada from this is, as far as I can tell, literally the CRTC's job.

[i]If we should step in, how should we regulate it?[/i]

Net Neutrality is a basic component, and adhering strongly to this protects our citizens and allows internet-based ventures within the country the chance to freely compete. Not many new businesses these days can avoid internet-based aspects, and we need to ensure that this isn't stifled, particularly for non-computer-savvy folks.

I'd be overjoyed if the feds and the CRTC found the will to realize, and enforce, that internet access should be a basic service for all Canadians. Everyone should be able to get at least basic internet access, without fear of data overages for home connections.

cultural_dissenter Canada 3 points Wed Sep 28 01:41:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)

As it stands now, bandwidth in Canada is limited and expensive compared to other countries, particularly on mobile. Zero-Rating allows companies to double-dip, and can make it difficult for people to switch companies without significant additional expense, which turns the marketplace from neutral carriers competing for customers, to carriers competing to lock-in exclusive deals to make it difficult for end users to switch. The end result is anti-competitive.

These exclusive deals place a significant burden on entrepeneurship, and place incumbunts in superior positions from the start. My company produces streaming software, and our customers include many innovative media companies. With people limited in their data (in some cases from the hundreds of megabytes), and data caps staying low, end-users will often avoid new services, and these new services (already facing difficulties with exclusive and expensive licensing on content itself) lack the name-recognition or revenue to strike these kinds of deals. The end result is a stifling of innovation.

Neutrality is the foundation of the internet - it's expansion, and it's level playing field has helped transform the shape of business and entrepeneurship. Anyone - literally anyone - can make a web site, accessible to billions, in much the same way the telephone permitted anyone with a business to be reached. Neither would have been possible if the incumbents (often with government-granted monopolies) were permitted to raise their rates to prohibitively expensive levels, then extract more money from the large businesses to be reachable at reasonable rates.

This is the virtual equivalant of making every road a toll road, and then permitting Wal-Mart to validate. It would effectively tax every business they compete with.

rootbrian_ 3 points Wed Sep 28 02:41:07 2016 UTC  (0 children)

That is a very bad bad idea! The plans for different Internet speeds on wired Internet access should NOT be subject to differentials based on what websites we access, post/upload videos/files/photos to or what media we consume/watch/listen to!

Us consumers want unlimited data usage on our home Internet, and cellular plans. Windmobile was a start, now let's see the big guys finally follow suit and really compete! There is no such thing as "too much data" or "too much Internet usage". That is a thing of the past in other countries, now it should be the same in Canada.

Fair pricing! Unlimited data usage with a very generous full speed allotment from rogers, bell, telus (not just limited to a small "zone" of their entire coverage areas either!) and their subsidiaries is what everybody has been wanting for AGES! Make it happen.

bosco9 3 points Wed Sep 28 03:03:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I don't believe there are any benefits to consumer when there's differential pricing. The internet has always been free of bias and differential pricing would let telecommunications companies to give preference to certain websites. The only benefit would be to companies large enough to be able to afford "preferential" status, smaller companies would be shut out from this as well

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

My concern with differential pricing is that the consumer would be limited as to what they are allowed to see if what they want is not part of the "preferred" package. In addition, this lack of choice would create a barrier of entry to smaller companies trying to do business online.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The benefits are only to a few people (large companies and their shareholders) and the concerns will affect ALL Canadians. Given how important access to information is in today's economy, the internet should be as free as ever and we should encourage innovation by not blocking access to the internet. The CRTC should certainly step in to ensure caps are removed and that differential pricing does not become the norm in Canada

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The CRTC needs to ensure unbiased, easy and cheap access to the internet is available to all Canadians. You need to regulate telecoms to ensure data caps are removed and that pricing is the same for all bandwith, not free for some and pricey for others

Kaizyx 3 points Wed Sep 28 04:35:05 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are none. Data is data and no one class of data is more burdensome than another despite what service providers highlight. People must be allowed to affordably communicate over a wide range of network protocols and services without one impacting another. If you permit one class of data to become more relevant or important than another simply because it's popular or because it's tied to a specific brand, the Internet will be broken.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. See my essay below.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Market forces do not provide enough power over this issue. It is necessary for regulatory controls to be enacted to manage this issue as ISPs and their investors are unruly and will abuse their market position as I highlight below in my brief essay.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Mandate ISPs provide a common carrier service with a "dumb pipe" with an IP address and DNS servers that do not tamper with responses or provide responses in violation to standards (e.g. NXDOMAIN tampering) to the Internet. Prevent ISPs from bundling via incentives or otherwise other Internet-accessed products with Internet services. Require that ISPs keep rates the same regardless of what is being accessed. Establish that ISPs would fall afoul of advertising standards if they do not supply access to the entire Internet equally.


Differential pricing must be strictly prohibited in all forms.

The Internet's value comes from the fact it is a global, equal, unified network, a network that is created as a collective of many different pieces, networks, protocols, services, people coming together to form a greater whole. That needs to be protected.

It's a network where just by participating, you are a stakeholder in perhaps humanity's greatest achivement.

It's a network where many people of different walks of life can come together to share ideas, thoughts, and cultures on the global stage.

It's a network where people can collaborate, innovate and simply decide to create technologies and businesses with almost no cost simply because that technology or business is a good idea.

It's a network where people can work from home through remote access, reducing the number of cars on our roads and enabling parents of small children to take care of what needs to be while not taking time off.

It's a network where people can seek refuge from a less than ideal offline life and seek safety on small private servers with friends without airing their issues on public sites like Facebook.

It's a network where helping in the global community is not only possible, but possible with any skill set or talent.

Differential pricing will be weaponized by ISPs to destroy all of the above and decades of hard work that Canadians and others in the global community have made into the network. It will place Canada behind other countries and disable innovation. ISPs will not have any incentive to price access to the global Internet fairly in comparison to their own branded services and their partner's services. It will effectively place "long distance rates" on Internet access, or even have Cable TV style "packages" for online services as approved by them, where all others will be priced unconscionably.

As a network professional, I can assure the CRTC and the Canadian public that costs for ISPs are much lower than the ISP industry are publicly claiming. There is no such thing as "Long distance" costs, and unlike Cable TV, ISPs are not charged by content owners to deliver content to subscribers. Even the costs for an ISP to connect to "the rest of the Internet" are relatively low, in some quite common cases some connections between ISPs can even be free! That's right, peering agreements can sometimes be achieved as "settlement free", that means ISPs deciding that it's so economically beneficial that they connect to each other without anyone getting a bill. The only costs there are for the infrastructure to establish that connection.

It's just that ISPs and their investors are demanding further, infinite growth. In this quest for growth, ISPs are generating superfluous costs for themselves by creating these branded services without actually seeing if consumers will be willing to pay for them. As a result, there's low uptake of these services and obviously the providers are unhappy with results.

They don't want to take a loss along with their investors for a bad business move, so they seek to give these services unfair advantages in the market through initiatives like zero-rating these branded services while artificially limiting access to everything else through low caps and speed throttling. They essentially seek to force these services on consumers.

It's nonsensical to allow ISPs to impose such limitations on a network that doesn't need them just so a few stakeholders can benefit while Canadian businesses and consumers are made losers. Canada needs to categorically reject the notion of such limitations if we wish to remain competitive and strong internationally.

I see so much capability and potential, untapped potential in the Internet that will only be locked away for Canadians if it is made prohibitively expensive. Open, unrestricted (technologically or financially) Internet access is no longer a luxury, it's a necessity to be an active social participant of society. To that end, it would be irresponsible to grant ISPs the ability to charge "long distance rates" or offer "packages of websites".

Much like the FCC's decision in the US to classify ISPs as common carriers, I believe the same policy is necessary in Canada. ISPs need to be reminded that they are paid by hard working Canadians to carry data from point A to point B and to treat that data, all of that data equally. Consumers are not paying ISPs to market to them or to create services to have forced upon them.

In closing, I urge the CRTC to reject affronts to network neutrality, to reject differential pricing and zero rating, to challenge the unjustly low caps and throttling. It is critical for us as a nation.

To quote Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet as one of the creators of TCP/IP a core technology of the entire Internet: "The Internet is for Everyone", I'll leave you with something he wrote that I'd like everyone to read as they ponder this subject: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3271.txt

SFWcontent 3 points Wed Sep 28 05:05:40 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

  1. Zero-rating and/or differential pricing has little to no value for the consumer.

2.My concerns about differential pricing have been noted by many others. It is a way for the ISPs to control what we see on the internet and to price-gouge us for any of our preferences that don't match what they want to show us. It is also a method to lock out competitors, and make sure that the Big Three can continue to charge some of the highest internet and cell phone rates in the world.

  1. Since there are negligible benefits, the concerns far outweigh them. The CRTC should definitely step in, letting the home and mobile service providers decide would be letting the fox guard the henhouse.

4.Regulate it by banning it outright.

WeirdnessAndLight 3 points Wed Sep 28 12:12:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is one area that Canada seems to be significantly behind much of the rest of the world. While there are many things that make me proud to be Canadian, I cringe whenever my International friends ask me why our telecoms are so backwards when it comes to mobile and home Data plans.

I see no benefits to differential pricing. I see significant opportunity for abuse by the Internet providers and a significant threat to Net Neutrality.

I do not believe this is a practice that is needed by these businesses. There are many examples globally of how to structure an effective and profitable business model without it.

Data caps have no place in 2016.

TheVast 3 points Wed Sep 28 15:14:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

No benefits to consumers or the business marketplace. Sponsored or zero-rating data limits customer choice and crushes innovation. If you have to pay for data from a new video streaming service superior to Netflix but Bell decides to give you free Netflix that's bad for everybody but the back-room deal makers at the incumbent companies.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. I'm concerned that if this pricing model is allowed to continue the overall data rates or caps pricing will reflect assumptions that customers will be using the preferred services. So suddenly 250GB monthly will turn into 100GB because "Hey, we won't charge you for Shomi, CraveTV or from whatever other distraction the telcos will prop up to carve off revenue Netflix or Spotify". That's terrible.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

You should definitely step in and ban this pricing model. Absolutely nobody should trust these companies to make a consumer-friendly decision because they would never voluntarily do so.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Enforce net neutrality and don't allow telcos to fool us into marketing it with a different name. Show some teeth and don't let them raise prices to ridiculous new rates like they did after you told them cell phone contracts were capped.

Canada needs to compete on a global level and that means having reliable, fast communication services that are within the reach of everyday Canadians. Instead of data caps, enforce pricing caps. Make it so a Canadian's cost of phone and internet can not be more expensive than the equivalents in other G8 countries. Do not accept excuses why this cannot be done. If Robelus refuses to get on board then nationalize fibre lines and cell phone towers and open up competition. Enough is enough.

Slysliver 3 points Wed Sep 28 15:53:27 2016 UTC  (1 child)

1.What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

For a regular user, not needing to worry about using up your data plan sounds attractive if you're using the services that the provider has green lit as an approved service, but this benefit only exists in a market where data caps are unreasonably low. For businesses, this would function as a way to attract more customers and ensure a smooth and worry free delivery of service.

2.Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I have a great deal of concern for the concept of differential pricing. The entire structure only provides benefits for those who do not need a advantage in the online market. Websites like Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, Reddit, Amazon and other major players already control a large enough segment of web traffic that allowing them the advantage of offering unlimited traffic to their domains makes them impossible to compete with for any new services in the market. It also directly conflicts with the idea of net neutrality which has been a key factor in the web flourishing in the way it has.

For consumers, it means hoping your wireless or internet provider choses your list of preferred services as the free or reduced charge options. The effect consumers will likely run into one of the following; based on the history of our telecom companies, each provider with provide the same services at the reduced or unrestricted level but with not allow customers to choose their desired free service which create plans that only serve to drive traffic to specific websites, or if different telecoms are required to provide different services then say a Telecom Company A provides a service to connect to Facebook and Apple Music for free each month, and Telecom Company B offers a service to connect to Myspace and Spotify for free each month, if a consumer uses Facebook and Spotify as their services of choice, neither Telecom company will meet their needs. Unless each user is able to select their desired services, than there will likely never be a plan that fits everyone.

Finally, it also discourages new companies to establish themselves in Canadian cities as there are no benefits to being in a market where they are required to likely pay extra to a telecom company just to stand a chance against the existing services. Canada already has a major brain drain occurring in our technology sector and adding more barriers for entry in our market does not help anyone.

3.Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns far outweighs the benefits to me. Allowing the service providers to decide how to regulate net will do nothing but hurt consumers and Canadian businesses The method of regulation should be decided with the public's input, which is being done effectively here. The CRTC should absolutely step in and ensure the practice of differential pricing is not permitted and prevented regardless of the title it goes under.

4.If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

If we have no options but to allow it, it should be mandated that telecoms do not get the choice of which services should be provided for free. Allowing telecoms to decide which services can be access is against the best interest of Canadians as it puts far too much power into the hands of people who have been shown to abuse the system already. Canadians should be able to chose how they want their traffic and interests directed and should be able to change that choice regularly and without difficulty.

However, it's my belief that the archaic system of data caps have long outlived their usefulness and now come at the cost having Canada lag far behind other countries in our policies regarding the internet. If telecoms are able to provide unlimited access to certain websites at no extra cost without changing the infrastructure, then there is no reason for the practice of differential pricing to exist. differential pricing should not be permitted and attempts to introduce it under other names should be held to the same scrutiny.

Borrillz 2 points Fri Sep 30 02:49:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Great job here, unlike a lot of the responses you put yourself in the place of joe schmo internet user streaming videos and going on social media. The business perspective and general outrage over datacaps are legitimate but your angle speaks for the majority of taxpayers.

bubongo 3 points Wed Sep 28 18:02:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits would be "cheaper" online services. More data for certain streaming sites etc.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. Very much so. It really isn't anyones business what I do with my data, unless its against the law. If I choose to download a picture of a cat it shouldn't be any different if I chose to download a picture of a dog. To the isp's infrastructure it makes no difference. Data is data.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns very heavily outweigh the benefits. Having the isp's choose arbitrary services over others is unfair to the customer and ultimately benefits big buisness.

The ctrc should absolutely be regulating the telecoms. The big 3 (Rogers, Bell, Telus) are already in cahoots with each other. The fact that all their cell phone plans are identical shows that they are working together to fix prices.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

As another commenter stated. Ban it altogether. There is no good reason why some 1's and 0's are different than another. We as the consumer should choose how we use our data and which services to give our business, not the telecoms.

JDGR 3 points Wed Sep 28 20:29:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you for taking to them to elicit responses from Canadians in an open forum. I truly hope that your intentions are pure and the CRTC will take all of our comments and concerns into consideration and act in Canadian citizen's best interests, not corporations.

  1. There are no benefits to consumer's at all. This only benefits the big players and their shareholders while trampling on the rights and freedoms of consumers.

  2. Absolutely I have concerns. The ISP's in Canada already treat the public like garbage. Every index online that quantifies the quality of services vs pricing rates Canada as a "third world" country. We are treated with no regard, calling support is laughable if it didn't make people so angry, we pay an astounding large amount for next to nothing, and they lock us in with contracts with ridiculously large termination fees so they always get their money. Not to mention that anti-competitive behaviour they exhibit to any smaller ISP looking to enter their territory. If we gave them more power, able to charge us more for services, there would be no stopping the amount we as Canadians pay.

This all doesn't even touch on the subject of free speech and the freedom to do/watch/say whatever we want online. If I want to watch Youtube or Netflix once a month, I shouldn't have to pay for a higher package. What if I need to connect to my company's servers, I need a VPN service for that. Now I have to pay even more to work. Maybe I find a site that disparages the Big Three in Canada and enjoy posting there. When it comes to light the site exists, what's to stop them from then blocking access to it since the groundwork has been laid. The vast majority of Canadians don't have the ability (or desire) to pay $100+/month for basic internet services. This would effectively cut off 70-80% of Canadians from the sites they enjoy, or may need to visit, and prevent other smaller sites from ever showing up if the providers didn't want them to.

Also, there is the security aspect. I know that providers are already snooping quite extensively through network traffic, but if differential pricing rolls out, this will be taken to an extreme level. If they are just checking the website I'm visiting, that is easily avoidable by using a VPN service. So to enforce this horrible practice, they will have to be able to decrypt my encrypted communications to determine what sites I am visiting. This is a HUGE security risk and invasion of privacy. To take it a step further, how about a Whistleblower wanting to come out against their corrupt employer and uses a VPN and TOR. Once again, if you allow this to go through, they will have the legal footing to force the decryption of all network traffic, or they will simply block everything encrypted. The internet will basically shutdown in Canada thanks to allowing this.

  1. The CRTC NEEDS to step in an put a stop to the current unfair practices of the ISP's (both wireless and wireline) in Canada. They have been flaunting their disregard for Canadian's wishes for years, and don't care one bit about anything the CRTC says. They need to be stopped and properly brought into line to ensure a fair and equal internet for all of Canadians.

Look at the CRTC regulation that Cable providers had to offer channels that were tied to huge bundles; an "a la carte" methodology. The providers did all they could to fight it, and when they lost anyway, the packages they rolled out actually cost Canadians more than the bundles. 97% of Canadians would pay more to buy only the channels they wanted vs buying a huge bundle. How is this fair practice? The CRTC needs to step up and actually have the strength to enforce FAIR practices for it's citizens.

  1. The internet should NOT be regulated in any fashion. That was the original goal of it and what the public has been fighting to maintain for years. Corporations and ISP's are the ones fighting to regulate and change the status quo as they realize they can monetize it by either charging more for services, or charging for different tiers of sites, or just blocking sites they don't want.

The Internet must remain a 100% free and open platform. No "differential pricing" options, no tiered services, just straight, simple, network access. Whether I want to pay for a 5 MB line or a 50 MB line shouldn't matter. Both need to be able to access the exact same content, services, and websites without any intrusion by ISP's.

Thanks, JDGR

lebasilic 4 points Mon Sep 26 18:31:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. La différenciation des prix permet d'avoir une certaine compétion envers les différentes compagnies de télécommunications. Elle nous donne la chance de choisir vers quelle compagnie nous tourner pour faire affaire, ce qui force les compagnies à se faire concurrence et baisser leurs prix.
  2. Dans les zones éloignées des grands centres urbains, la/les compagnie(s) présente(s) dans cette zone peu(ven)t imposer les prix qu'elle(s) veu(len)t, forçant les gens à payer des prix parfois trop hauts.
  3. Devant régulièrement aller dans des zones moins couvertes, je dois me tourner vers les compagnies qui offrent des services dans cette zone, ce qui peut augmenter de beaucoup ma facture. Il faudrait que le CRTC intervienne dans le dossier afin de réglementer les prix.
  4. Forcer les fournisseurs de services à offrir les mêmes prix pour un même service. Les prix ne devraient pas changer par rapport à la région ou aux services offerts.

Not_a_unicorn_yet 2 points Tue Sep 27 19:00:55 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The mere fact that the CRTC thinks there needs to be a discussion about diff pricing shows that they are either in bed with the big canadian ISPs, or don't understand how the world of humans works.

There is only ONE reason for diff pricing and data caps: getting more money out of customers and keeping competing (netflix, etc.) services down. There is NOT OTHER VALID REASON. PERIOD.

If you want to be an ISP, either provide neutral internet or get out of the business.

PM_ME_UR_STONED_FACE 5 points Tue Sep 27 14:42:20 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is a terrible idea and it's so anti-consumer it's pathetic that you people are even considering this idea as if it has an iota of merit. It exists to put more money into corporate pockets that ALREADY gouge us for lousy service. How dare you pretend to represent us, we already know you're going to make the decision that benefits YOUR pockets by way of corporate kickbacks and the bribes you love to pretend don't happen. Disband the CRTC if you really care about consumers and let US choose for once. But you've never done the right thing ever so I have no faith here. This is just a dog and pony show so when you make the wrong decision you can include the fact that you "got input from canadians". Forget that you're going to ignore it all.

decoy11 2 points Tue Sep 27 06:28:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I do have concerns about differential pricing. As a consumer I believe it the choice for each service I want to not be affected by the ISP. The ISP should be there to facilitate the connection to the service. I do not like the idea of a service getting preferred treatment in any sort of way. I also do not like the data caps.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I think any attempt to implement differential pricing should be outlawed. The ISP should just be here to facilitate the consumer to the services provided across the world.

NewfieRedditor16 2 points Tue Sep 27 13:09:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It's a terrible option for consumers.

It exists so Telecoms can be bribed by video provider services (like Netflix) about where their services should fall.

The internet is not like eating oreos. Data caps should not exist at all.

cloakedbolter 2 points Tue Sep 27 13:22:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

As defined in the CRTC article, I think it's terrible. I don't think a company should be allowed to favor its own services over another, especially when it comes to Internet traffic, it should be neutral.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It penalizes the uses of third-party services to favor the service provider's services. In doing so, it limits the variety of content for users (in an indirect manner). This allows service providers to sell their other services much better in an unfairly manner and exposes them to media which allows the media's owner to better propagate their messages (political or otherwise).

Even if they were to favor a third-party service (like Netflix). It would still be wrong since it would undermine the neutrality of the Internet by favoring Netflix over other services.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

CRTC differential pricing article extract: enable consumers to benefit from free or discounted services, and potentially a greater choice of and more innovative service offerings.

The reason we have differential pricing in the first place is because there's a price tag on data consumption. If we remove data caps from the picture, then differential pricing benefits (as defined) becomes worthless. I don't think there should be a limit on the amount of data we consume.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

  • Abolish data caps, then you no longer have a problem with differential pricing of this type.
  • Forbid differential pricing (of this type).

AlexandrTheGreat 2 points Tue Sep 27 13:51:09 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

1 What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I can see where the theory behind differential pricing works (accounts are exempt from certain common use of data), which is being advertised as a 'deal' for the consumer. However, I do not believe this to be truthful, and see very little benefit to data caps on the consumer end.

2 Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

My concern is, plan rates are artificially increased to make it appear that the consumer gets a deal on those data exemptions. I'm also concerned that differential pricing is a symptom of the telecoms (at least the big 3), being allowed to run-rampant, which is why Canadians pay some of the highest fees in the world for the services they provide.

Additionally, data caps also provide other pitfalls. For example, if you are surfing the web just looking at various webpages which typically don't use a lot of data, but you hit a website that redirects you to a video (or similar), even if you manage to close the site quickly, you've still lost a good chunk of your data limit to a video you had no interest in watching or loading. With redirect sites becoming a more prevalent blight on the internet, it makes the user feel twice as bad for hitting a redirect website AND then losing money to their Provider to make back that lost data.

This also ties into other services provided by telecoms, as most options can be covered by Internet access. Calls, Messaging, Watching TV, etc. can all be accomplished through various internet options. I understand why they are split by the telecoms (to make more money), but it seems a lot simpler to provide an unlimited data plan and then people can do whatever they need with the internet. As example products, Skype, WhatsApp, and Netflix can achieve almost everything that the telecoms charge for through the internet, and that's why the pricing is the way it is.

3 Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I believe you should regulate the practices, but even further, regulate the telecoms themselves. There are plenty of recent symptoms of the telecoms abuse (particularly the big 3):

  • The Skinny Plan / Fibe shenanigans
  • Netflix VPN problems
  • Streaming boxes
  • Torrenting shows unavailable in Canada (like Game of Thrones, etc.)

Canadians should have viable options that don't force them to look for alternate solutions, when the big 3 basically leave none. If you want internet pirates, that's how you get internet pirates.

4 If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Honestly, I think consumers should have the option available to purchase an unlimited data plan for mobiles and home. This would solve the data caps/exemptions issue. The way I see it, if this is made to happen, and the Texting, regular Calling, and so on don't survive then they were being artificially propped up by the telecoms. I also think the telecoms should have more oversight since internet is now consider essential services. I don't mind them making some profit, but comparing to other countries, the prices they offer for services is very unbalanced.

Auteyus 2 points Tue Sep 27 14:17:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This would only be fair to apps, if the service provider controlling the differential pricing has no vested interest in the popularity of one app over another. In that case, the service provider would have no reason to enact differential pricing.
Differential pricing should not happen unless we want service providers to control the app market and I know I do not want to give them that control.

r5a 2 points Tue Sep 27 14:44:12 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

If the ISPs were legally able to do this it would be a total disaster. I'm extremely concerned. Normally I never really speak up on issues but this is something that I believe would be a step in the wrong direction for Canada.

If they're able to pick and choose things like that it would certainty be abused by the providers for their own gain. They should only be delivering a service at a given rate. That's all. Treat them like a utility that provides a service. All they should be doing is giving you access that the advertised rate. The minute you give them ability to prefer/shape /charge for what's being delivered over that service it very quickly becomes a slippery slope.

I cannot see any benefit to this. What the consumer chooses to do data wise should NOT be up to the providers to dictate what is considered fair use.

As an example could you imagine you're on Rogers and they only allowed SportsNet and not TSN? Or severely crippled (traffic shaped)/charged an extra "access fees/service/delivery fees" for TSN access but not SportsNet? Or Shomi included in data but Netflix requires an extra "transit fee/or eats your data" That's insanity.

ISPs in Canada are a laughing joke in the world in terms of access/technology/infrastructure. The fact this is on the table is embarrassing. The CRTC needs to step up, grow some balls and get skin in the game and come down on providers. Things need to change for the better, not the worse.

zadtheinhaler 2 points Tue Sep 27 14:54:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Please say no to differential pricing and bandwidth caps. We already pay a hefty price for internet in this country, there is absolutely no need for these companies to nickel and dime us any further than they already do.

While the situation is still somewhat better than the US situation where there's often no competition at all for internet and phone service, the packages and pricing here are artificially high.

Besides, who decides what services are exempt from bandwidth usage? Does the company in question, let's use Netflix as an example, have to pay to prioritize their service, much like they had to do down in the States? That's double-dipping on the part of the ISPs, and it's a lock that the extra money won't go to upgrading infrastructure, because spending money to offer a better service is against their best interests.

Please do the right thing and regulate.

cojofy 2 points Tue Sep 27 15:06:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It only benefits the providers and the services they promote. Data should be just data in the providers' eyes and based on this that what providers should compete. They are not content providers.

Zognorf 2 points Tue Sep 27 15:28:55 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Every point I might wish to make has already been made, so I will instead provide a personal example regarding this 'zero-rating' system.

Rogers already does this with their mobile plans vis-a-vis Spotify family plans, which are unavailable to anyone in Canada not with Rogers on account of their contract. Not only would I not consider changing my cell phone provider to gain access to this service, I instead actively avoid them in order to not contribute to such a system. Additionally, I stopped using Spotify entirely because of this, despite it being an otherwise desirable service.

No. 1 & 2: Zero-rating/multi-tier/two-tier (or whatever they want to spin them as) are of no benefit to the consumer in the end, and actively serve to restrict user freedoms online in general.

3: Regulation is necessary. The incumbent providers have already shown (for decades) that they'd rather collude on pricing rather than competing. This is not going to change.

anthnykiedis 2 points Tue Sep 27 15:55:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

If differential pricing were really exempting from data charges for certain content that we could elect, and choose it would be okay. However, with big companies only giving us the option to have their own products be included in the exempt charges, we have an anticompetitive system that does not benefit the consumer.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, differential pricing is (for the most part) anticompetitive because companies (for the most part) only include their products in the options consumers have. Also, what does it cost a company for 1GB of data? Why is that not something that the public has access to?

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Step in. Don't let the big companies do whatever they want, whenever they want. It's not fair.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Find out how much 1GB of data costs a company to provide someone with per month, and then find out a reasonable mark-up, or some way to control how much they deceive the public.

boxyscandinavian 2 points Tue Sep 27 16:07:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

To me, this feels like a way for the Big Three, to Monopolise Canadian Media further. I agree with the majority of people who would like new legislation regarding data caps and what is allowed to be charged vs data cap imposed. Compared to many other North American and European countries, Canadians truly are robbed when it comes to Telecom. This is especially true for Rural Canadians, who in some areas are paying >$100/month for a data cap of <20GB

Naito- 2 points Tue Sep 27 16:46:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Questions: We need your opinion about differential pricing: What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Since it seems the primary use of data is for consumption of media, it could potentially reduce costs for some users.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. It would give too much ability to service providers to choose what media is preferentially accessed by users. This goes against the agnostic nature of the internet, and provides unfair advantages to the chosen types of media that is available at reduced prices. It would be like the power company selling their own brands of appliances that promise reduced pricing; it would very quickly eliminate other manufacturers, and the self-branded appliances would become fully controlled revenue stream for the power company.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I believe the concerns outweigh the benefits, primarily because it will further reduce competition and differing views in online media. The only thing differential pricing will do is allow service providers to promote their own streams of media while reducing the visibility of other providers. I do not believe that there will end up being any benefit to the consumer, and the only advantage will be further lock-in for consumers to a service provider. The industry cannot be trusted to regulate differential pricing as they have absolutely no incentive to do so, and every incentive to use it to further reduce competition.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Treat all data as equal. While the current data caps are far too low to be realistic in the modern internet-dependent world we live in, usage based billing is in and of itself not "evil". It just has not been implemented in a way that is sensible. Allowing utilities to sell 50mbps connections with a data cap that can be used up in 3 hours is simply predatory. Link bandwidth to a reasonably sized data cap that accurately represents how the average person now uses the internet. Make it actually generous, and you'll be able to promote growth and innovation again, rather than line pockets of already large corporate conglomerates.

ezSpankOven 2 points Tue Sep 27 17:34:38 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Sounds like a crock of **** to me. Just another way for wireless companies to screw their customers.

The wireless companies are only pushing for this because they hope customers will be confused as to what services fall under which category and inadvertently run over their data caps.

xinit Ontario 2 points Tue Sep 27 17:45:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are so many other things that I'd rather the CRTC 'step in' and address. From the big players intentionally obstructing the little players (Bell v. Teksavvy, etc) to the usurious mobile data rates that seem to be universally identical across the big players. Then there's the whole "Basic cable" issue that the CRTC stepped in and appear to have caused the prices to go up with regulation...

Maybe it's just me, but the CRTC and Canadian consumers really don't seem to be on the same team here. I'm not sure we ever have been, and maybe that needs to change.

internetuser101 2 points Tue Sep 27 18:16:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. the only benefit would be in the form of modified differential pricing where data utilized to show advertisements to a consumer is not charged to the consumer but back to the advertiser. This could be used as the basis of a system for advertisers to need to pay to have their ads viewed rather than jump on the consumers bill.

  2. the primary concern, as stated by others, is that it opens of the door to challenge net neutrality, which would be a negative for everyone except the ISPs.

  3. yes, this is enough of a concern that it needs to be regulated. Internet should be considered a utility a should be regulated like one.

  4. it should be banned completely, but if it is not, it should only be allowed under the terms of my first point.

merelyadoptedthedark 2 points Tue Sep 27 18:43:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

While I think this is a problem, I don't think the CRTC should get involved, because you will **** everything up.

You tried to help us by reducing cell phone rates and eliminate 3 year contracts, so now cell phones plans and phones are more expensive than ever in retaliation.

You tried to help us by unbundling cable packages, so obviously cable prices are now more expensive than ever in retaliation.

Please don't do anything more to increase internet pricing, because that's all you will do.

You people pat yourselves on the back for a moral victory, while ignoring the fact that the media companies are spitting at the customers and going against the spirit of the law while grudgingly following the letter of the law and passing all costs down to the consumer, and you don't even care or acknowledge this.

These companies fear you less than a teenager fears a mall security guard, and you have about as much power.

CRTC is a **** organization that does nothing to help Canadians.

Xedd82 2 points Tue Sep 27 18:52:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. There is no benefit to differential pricing. It is a cash grab for the Oligopoly that currently controls Canada's access to the internet.

  2. My concern is that the CRTC is even considering allowing it to happen.

  3. There is no benefit. Regulate the practice and do not allow it to happen.

  4. Step in and make the internet open to everyone. Remove data caps. Remove the ability for the ISP's to create a tiered service. There is no need for this ridiculous system.

zebkai 2 points Tue Sep 27 19:14:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Q: What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? A: None for consumers except possibly a break on artificially inflated data prices and data caps. Plenty for oligarchical telcos who want to turn the dream of the Internet into an over-commercialized balkanized nightmare run strictly for profit to the detriment of Canadian consumers and technology startups who cant' afford their fees. And you can be sure that not too far down this road the telcos will remove any cost benefit to consumers. These price breaks are a trojan horse meant to destroy net neutrality.

Q: Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? A: Yes, it destroys net neutrality and heads down the road towards the "cable-ization" of the Internet.

Q: Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? A: Yes, the telco oligopoly in Canada has already brought us to the point where we have some of the most expensive and poorest performing internet services in the developed world. If you let them they will balkanize the Internet and monetize it to the detriment of Canadian consumers and businesses and organizations.

Q: Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? If we should step in, how should we regulate it? A: Absolutely not. Given free reign the telcos would destroy the Internet to maximize their own monetary gain, which is their natural purpose. The only regulation you should enforce would simply and absolutely compel the telcos to be neutral common carriers who treat all data identically. Give them a regulatory regime this too complicated and they will weasel and nitpick their way to want they want.

overlycritical 2 points Tue Sep 27 19:29:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm a co-founder of a startup in the "innovation economy". We are in the Accelerator Centre in Waterloo, ON, and a member of Communitech.

Having Canadians have easy access to Internet services, particularly our innovative products, is vital to our success. Differential pricing and data caps in general reduce our ability to bring our products to market locally. Canadians already have a lower than average (in NA) adoption rate of new technology.

The various levels of government see great value in the innovation economy and provision money, in many different ways, to support it. It would be great to see the CRTC get in alignment and make decisions that help drive innovation in Canada.

Go beyond differential pricing and eliminate data caps entirely. 99% of Canadian tech businesses (not to mention consumers) will thank you.

Magneon 2 points Tue Sep 27 19:39:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. In the short term some users might benefit.

  2. I would prefer an open internet where everyone is on a level playing field. In the long run differential pricing further swings power into the hands of incumbent corporations and represents a barrier to innovation and new market players on the internet.

  3. The detriments far outweigh any perceived benefits. I don't trust wireless or wire-line providers to be impartial in this area since most of them provide their own video streaming or television services. I believe the entire point of differential pricing is to allow the telecom giants a monopolistic edge to their own products.

  4. Regulation should be very clear cut: there should be no differential pricing. It would allow powerful companies to overwhelm small startups and destroy one of the best features of the internet. How could a new youtube competitor hope to compete if users are charged more for accessing the new site than youtube (for example)?

Furthermore, with the exception of emergency services and (in the case of cellular) possibly phone access quality of service, internet service pricing should be entirely agnostic to the content being sent, and the amount of content being sent (especially for wire-line).

As a PEng with a degree in Computer Engineering, it's extremely frustrating to be charged hundreds of times the wholesale price for additional "data usage" above my connection fees that already cover my bandwidth. In my plan 30mbit is my downlink bandwidth, 300GB is a made up limit designed to extract profit. Bandwidth caps do nothing to change peak usage congestion, and the actual bandwidth costs on my connection make up at most a single digit percentage of the fee I'm being charged.

I'm also tired of companies trying to label high data users things like "pirates", "internet hogs", and people using more than their "fair share". I pay for a 30mbit connection. That's not even remotely the highest tier available, but it's enough for my family of four. I watch netflix, youtube, and twitch.tv gaming streams. We talk to our extended family on skype. My wife watches netflix and youtube, my kids watch netflix and youtube. My family members play PC video games, and it's not uncommon for a new game or even an update to be 5-15GB. Our family internet usage hovers between 500GB and 800GB per month.

That's not unusual for a young, modern and tech literate family. It will increasingly be the norm. The days from the 90s are gone when all families huddle around their cable TV and watch shows at a predefined time, sit through 30% advertisement content, and use the internet for only email, banking and news. These days Facebook has live video streaming, skype video chat is so easy to use than my grandparents can use it without issue.

ncrdrg 2 points Tue Sep 27 19:50:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Le zero-rating, c'est simplement la deuxième étape afin d'éliminer toute compétition du marché.

À priori, on le sait tous, les limites de bande passante ne servent pas à offrir un meilleur service, ça sert à se faire plus d'argent et protéger leur service de cable et prévenir l'adoption de services compétiteurs sur Internet comme Netflix/Amazon Prime, etc...

Le zero-rating, c'est arrivé après qu'ils ont en le temps de créer également leur propres services de vidéo internet. Les compagnies Internet ne veulent évidemment s'imposer les limites qu'ils ont mises sur tous les autres compétiteurs, donc ils offrent un bandaid après avoir crée la blessure eux-mêmes. C'est ça la réalité. Ils se servent de leur intégration verticale pour monopoliser le marché et empêcher une juste compétition pour les nouvelles compagnies.

Abolir le zero-rating, c'est seulement traiter le symptôme. Ce qu'il faut, c'est abolir les limites de bande passante. C'est honteux de voir ces grosses compagnies prendre des mesures pour freiner toute compétition sur Internet pour protéger leur service TV et ensuite s'en exempter pour favoriser leur service de vidéo Internet. Franchement, l'intégration verticale devrait également être abolie à cause des torts que ça cause au niveau de la compétition dans le marché mais il faut être réaliste, ça ne se fera jamais. L'abolition des limites de bande passante, ça, c'est réalisable et le CRTC doit s'y attaquer de plein front.

vellathewench 2 points Tue Sep 27 19:54:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

I don't even understand how you even need to ask our opinions on differential pricing. Why should it be legal for companies to make all kinds of backdoor agreements so they can sell their service to us at a lower price, while all the companies who can't or won't deal get left out in the dark? How is that fair to anyone? The internet is supposed to be an open area with no policing or content, at least in a free country. So why should any Canadian company be allowed to say, hey, watch this and we won't make you pay for data, but don't watch our competitors, or we'll charge you up the *** for data.

Data caps are already unfair. In this day of advanced graphics and so many areas of our lives being involved online to make our lives easier, why are there data caps? Back in the day there was no such thing, back when the internet was new and they were supposedly building the infrastructure. But now, they built it and yet they want to charge us now? Why? Greed, that's why. We do so many things online now, and so many companies only deal online now, instead of through mail or in person, so of course they want to charge us for data now, so they can make a ton of money of us since we have almost no choice. If you can't see how that works, then chances are you are receiving some kind of money from these people to believe these caps are necessary. What happens when most government stuff or just employment opportunities are online? What happens to the unfortunate who can't pay the bloated internet prices we have right now? And why exactly in a country such as ours, do we have such high prices to begin with? Because there is no competition, just collusion from the biggest companies. And who suffers? Everyone who ever needs to pay for internet. Something that is quickly becoming too important in everyone's lives. Especially for wired internet. I get having some data caps on phone data, but the amount you get and pay for is crazy. You don't get to choose how you view stuff on the internt (for the most part), you can't go low resolution just so you don't pay a ton for data. Yet they want to nickel and dime us for every red cent they can squeeze out of our pocketbooks. It's high time the CRTC actually worked for the little guy, the average Canadian. If the big companies can't compete, how is that our fault? Maybe they should be trying to keep customers, maybe improve their services, become innovators, instead of gouging us to make money. Lately all it seems is that they care about getting us to buy more. Well quantity is not quality. And most of the big companies have not given me a reason to want their services. I prefer to stay with a smaller independent company. I don't have to constantly check my home internet bill, because it's always the same. And when they raised the price, only once in 3 years, they sent me a letter well in advance to warn me. My cell phone company is another matter, and they aren't as unreasonable as most, but still the packages could be better.

There is so much more I want to say, but others have said more than enough and I don't want to seem like I'm rambling now. The most important thing for you to remember is, you work for the common people, not for big companies. A fair and open internet with fair prices can only help this country do well in today's world. We need to compete. And right now we aren't doing well in that department. That's what you need to think about.

skywave84 2 points Tue Sep 27 19:57:09 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

1) Differential Pricing only benefits colluding provider pairs, random people who already use one of the services they will happen to dodge data caps with, and savvy individuals who will research and hop services to benefit from the allowance of this practice. (And the latter two[consumers] would benefit even more from disallowing this practice and removing data caps entirely)

2) Differential Pricing allows for predatory and controlling business behavior, legal loophole practices, and is completely unaligned with net neutrality and the progress of our country.

3) They absolutely do. This is evolving territory that desperately needs attention right now.

4) Designate the internet as an essential service with NO DATA CAPS. The internet(via both wireline and wireless) is used for a ridiculously large portion of everyday life. Communication, education, recreation, small business operation, and everything in between. Be a world leader in this matter and set an example. The benefits to the people are profound and obvious!

Let consumers decide what services and apps they use rather than providers controlling them and their usage.

We all want net neutrality and this practice undermines that.

OminousCaptcha 2 points Tue Sep 27 20:06:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? Differential pricing would benefit those who already have money, power and influence - telecom providers, media companies and advertisers.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Differential pricing will limit choices for consumers, stifle creativity and innovation, and silence critics and marginalized voices. It will further trap Canadian consumers in the data cap model. It threatens the neutrality and freedom of the internet.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? Yes, this practice should be regulated.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Enforce an open and neutral internet, and more transparent business practices of the telecoms.

Treehggr 2 points Tue Sep 27 20:30:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There is no benefit to the Canadian public to the practise of zero-rating. It only serves to direct consumers to a specific telecom. I am afraid that if this practise is allowed then it will drastically affect the neutrality of the net as the Telecoms will use it to direct traffic to their sites. There are NO benefits other than to the Telecoms so this practise should be outright banned with heavy fines if practised.

Kiaskards 2 points Tue Sep 27 20:34:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Because of these huge companies controlling everything that affects my life, there is nothing left at the end of the day to pay for all the prices and the continued hikes they force on the likes of people in my class. I am on a pension, and trust me the only thing that does not go up as fast as the increases is my pension. Enough with the data caps, hugely UNFAIR, and we MUST uphold net neutrality. As to how this should be done - that is not something I can comment on as I am not qualified, but it MUST be for ALL Canadians, not just the chosen few.

eronanke 2 points Tue Sep 27 20:46:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  • The government should protect Net Neutrality.
  • Consumers of Canada should not be manipulated into abandoning Net Neutrality in favor of lower prices.
  • The CRTC has to make sure that pricing is fair under those conditions and that there is competition in the Canadian telecom marketplace.

Differential Pricing is step one towards a hierarchical internet, where the poor lose because they can't afford the bandwidth needed to access the entire internet. It's penalizing them and rewarding no one.

daveb416 2 points Tue Sep 27 20:48:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am not a power user. In spite of that, I have to visit Starbucks and free wi-fi restaurants so I don't have issues.

When I was young, and our family only took home $50 a week, the Bell Telephone Company charged $1.16 a minute for direct dial long distance calling to the United States (before discounts). Our take home pay is around 5x bigger, but that same long distance call costs 2c a minute if you use a calling card.

Internet providers need the same shift. I get Internet service ads in my apartment for a big sale, a price of $80 a month with data caps. This is robbery.

We call on the government to help when robbery is in progress.

Please step in, and prevent this two-tier system. The large corporate internet services are on public record for their wanton disregard for the consumers they sell to.

Canadians are people. People need air, water, electical power and communications. We live in a time where cellular data and internet data are often requirements for other things we do. We shouldn't be hostages, nor be bullied into paying tribute.

We see the prices and services other countries. We're not blind to this. The CRTC must provide equitable data services for Canada.

Please.

Twisted_Knight 2 points Tue Sep 27 20:51:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I only want to voice one thing, and that one thing echoes what many Canadians have already said: we pay too much for our internet and cellphones. We are one of the most expensive countries in the world, and there's absolutely no reason for that. Smaller companies need to be able to enter this industry to allow for competition. This monopoly has always been skirting the line of legality, and it needs to stop. A monopoly means that telecomms can treat us any way they like because they know we can't go anywhere else. We're treated like garbage, our money siphoned from us, and the rest of the world is laughing at us. If the CRTC can do anything at all, do it. Canadians are what keep this country going, not telecomms.

Fraserstreet 2 points Tue Sep 27 20:56:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Net neutrality for all.

Differential pricing (or zero-rating) is not helpful. Especially when ulterior motives are deceptively glazed over with unhelpful tag words.

Make the internet free, cheaper and fair for all to access. The internet is a human right not a corporate right.

haveyouseenthe Ontario 2 points Tue Sep 27 21:21:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

First of all, thank you for bringing us the opportunity to openly participate in this debate. I'm hoping you keep doing this more often.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The ONLY way I see differential pricing working is if we let the CONSUMER choose which service or services can use the feature. I'd like to have no data caps on YouTube for example, but that's only myself. Unfortunately, I don't see this being implemented ever. I have very little trust in our canadian broadcasters to let something like that happen. So at the end of the day it's best to stick without differential pricing.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

If unregulated, it will only benefit the providers, not the users (in the big picture) what would stop Rogers from letting* Shomi* without data caps, and leaving Netflix within those data caps? It would basically force consumers to use their product in their monopoly. It will also stop Canadian entrepreneurs from getting into the market. Who would even care about a new messaging app, when differential pricing benefits only one or two apps in particular? There's no room for healthy competition.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, they're very concerning. It just shouldn't happen at all. If we let the providers decide they'll ONLY look for their own benefit, not the benefit of Canadians.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The only regulation should be not letting it happen. Not when the internet is an open space where everybody is equal to participate and join.

Folcon 2 points Tue Sep 27 21:30:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I arrived late, so the points I wanted to make have already been said by others, and more eloquently than I could have.

So just wanted to comment and add another name and voice to the pile of comments supporting net neutrality, the end of data caps, and the idea of the internet as a public service and basic human right.

ibisolutions 2 points Tue Sep 27 22:12:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing limits choice. It stifles competition and innovation on the Internet: the next Reddit or Twitter could never get started in a world with zero-rating. The Internet should be a level playing field for innovative new ideas. Differential pricing is poison!

srakken 2 points Tue Sep 27 22:53:42 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Absolutely no benefit to the average consumer!! If anything it will stifle competition in the online marketplace by making it more difficult for small players to compete. This clearly with work out disproportionately well for incumbent Telco who already have their own streaming services and control the datacaps.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. I have many concerns about differential pricing. It is extremely anti-competitive. This clearly has a huge advantage to the incumbent ISP who already control bandwidth fees, data caps. Frankly I fail to see how the Telecommunication companies haven't been forced to break up a long time ago. It boggles my mind that the ISP can control the gateway to the Internet, impose whatever fees, bandwidth caps they like while at the same time offering streaming and multimedia services. What are they going to do charge themselves bandwidth/sponsor fees?!

Differential pricing will lead to a two tiered internet which will make it extremely difficult for entrepreneurs to get a start. When large telco and corporations are providing content without caps it will clearly steer people away from sites that will cause them to be charged bandwidth fees. This will have a direct impact on Canadians ability to compete world wide.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

No tangible benefits exist for consumers, this is clearly anti-competitive and unfair. The CRTC must intervene. The service providers should not be allowed to decide.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Do not allow differential pricing PERIOD. Enforce net neutrality. Take things one step further and eliminate bandwidth fees and caps as they are unreasonable.

ibisolutions 2 points Tue Sep 27 22:55:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Telecom providers should not be permitted to zero-rate data, making websites they don't like (or get revenue from) more expensive to access. It is just wrong to think about letting ISPs artificially pick the online winners and losers. Users should choose! Data caps are fundamental to this, and they should also be removed. Canada is one of the most backward of the developed nations for low data caps and high priced internet access. This needs to be fixed, but zero rating will only make things worse.

philippemercure 2 points Tue Sep 27 23:33:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I would really like the data cap to be gone from all Canadian Wireless company, I'm currently easily reaching my 6 GB internet on my iPhone every month, without any option to have an unlimited bandwidth and with stupid rules like having a max over cap price that they can charge you and not being able to just stop if you reach your data cap. It already happen to me to pay for a full month in overcharge of data cap because I didn't received any alert that I had reach my data cap. This need to be fixed.

Axeman2063 2 points Tue Sep 27 23:56:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There really is no benefit to differential pricing. It effectively nullifies net neutrality. And the concerns and potential for abuse, in my opinion, make it absolutely critical the CRTC step in and regulate. The Internet, at one time, was a luxury. Today it is a critical part of day to day life. Even something as simple as looking for work basically requires an Internet connection, as many companies don't accept in person applications. It needs to be regulated as a utility, and with open, unfettered access to all content equally and fairly. To do otherwise opens the door for corporate abuse that can and unquestionably WILL happen.

punkfiveo 2 points Wed Sep 28 00:03:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

To the consumer, none. This is strictly a way for ISPs to make revenue-generating deals with large websites. ISPs will no doubt lower data caps as a result of this, wiping out any gains that the consumer would have been given. There are zero benefits to the consumer.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yeah, by allowing this you allow corporations to dictate content, and to get money from the big players. It gives them an excuse to lower data caps (which are already measly), and doesn't make the internet any freer. It makes certain 'types' of internet better than others, which doesn't reflect reality at all. 1 MB of data is 1 MB of data. It doesn't matter what is in those megabytes, only that it was delivered.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, they outweigh the benefits by far..seeing as there is no benefit. Yes, absolutely the government should step in. This is something that telcos are doing to make more money, otherwise they wouldn't do it...simple as that.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban the practice entirely. The internet is an electrical signal. The telcos are trying to profit from saying it's something different when it's not.

RDOmega Manitoba 2 points Wed Sep 28 00:12:51 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Thank you to the CRTC for the opportunity to respond. I would like to note that I am a technology expert with experience producing software and multi-node deployments targeting data centres. I also have past experience with the installation and support of payment systems and retail point of sale for some of Canadas largest retailers and small grocery chains.

As such, my skills require me to to be both familiar with the concepts of and quick to analyze computer networking systems.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Holistically, none. Unfortunately, the marketing language used to describe differential pricing to consumers is deliberately vague. A differential pricing option misleadingly presents as a positive offering in sales materials, but sits on top of several false dilemmas. Most of which center around convincing governement, regulators and Canadians that bandwidth is always in a state of crisis.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The idea of differential pricing is highly troubling. Not only as a concept, but also given that we as a nation are struggling to understand the deceptions it builds on top of. The main concern I have is that differential pricing is by definition biased. With differential pricing, we are making a list of who is to benefit which means the default then becomes to disregard.
If the idea of a two-tiered system has just entered your head while reading that, you would be correct! Implementation of differential pricing is tantamount to saying "by default, you will have a second rate experience".

There is no way a system like that could be effectively managed without perverting the fundamental nature of the internet which is built on the free exchange of information. To allow differential pricing is to centralize power over whatever segments of the system pass through any provider. This could even have implications for data that doesn't even belong to their subscribers. Keep in mind, the internet does not technically have political boundaries.

Looking deeper into things, I see no point entering into further discussion regarding the potential impact on the overall network because the strain any differential pricing solution seeks to address does not exist in the first place.

Canadians and the CRTC are being lured into a discussion where anything but the flat out prohibition of differential pricing is inherently a political appeasement.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Given that I and any other technically knowledgable Canadian refute the need for differential pricing, yes, regulation is required.

It is obvious that the CRTC needs to set hard regulations with severe penalties. The fundamental rule CRTC needs to adopt is: Never let the service providers decide. Ever. Bell has already been found in the past to misrepresent costs in disclosures provided to the CRTC to inflate numbers for pity. Think: $16 orange juice.

There is no precedent to show that incumbents will do anything but attempt to claw back and fracture services to extort Canadians for something they were already paying less for. Canada is stuck in a marketing and lobbying twilight zone where the incumbent providers apply their vast resources to put as much static on the line as they can to manipulate the market.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

  • Ban data caps of any kind, any internet access in Canada must always be unlimited
  • Ban the practice of bandwidth reduction (reduced data rates after a certain amount of data transferred)
  • Realign the national understanding of the term "bandwidth" which correctly defined simplifies down to "potential for transmission". Not "data transmitted over a billing period".
  • Enforce net neutrality
  • Establish a national internet service provider to set the pace for service quality and price
  • Bring massive penalties against the executives and shareholders of companies in violation of the above

    Each of the solutions above directly addresses the topic of differential pricing by focusing not on false symptoms, but by eliminating the platform of misinformation incumbents exploit continuously.

elementelrage Alberta 2 points Wed Sep 28 00:26:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

While it is an American article, I still think its valid and a good read. http://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/ My opinion on this is that I'm not quite sure how to feel. Full disclosure, I am a Telus shareholder and I do love me some of those dividends. I also have Telus for internet and cellular. FTTH 150mb/s up and down.

But I am concerned that my parents in Ontario are not able to get reliable internet that has even a "modest" cap above 40g/month for less than about $80. They had to go though xplorenet to get even that. And although there is hardwired internet one concession over, the "node was full". I thought that there was a push to provide internet to rural areas (this is in the Bancroft area) for a reasonable cost. /rant

I have also worked for Shaw internet and feel it is mostly a matter of not enough competition available to lower the costs and making the market competitive. It seems like there should be a way to lower the barrier of entry to enable more ISP's to enter the market.

JMJimmy 2 points Wed Sep 28 00:38:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think zero rating is a recipe for disaster. It's terrible that you allow it to continue with text messaging let alone even consider the idea for the broader internet landscape. ISPs should not only be barred from any sort of preferential pricing scheme but they should be forced to split their ISP business and their content business. There are simply too many ways that they can disadvantage competition.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? - Zero. None. Differential pricing is just another form of monopoly whereby the common carrier either uses their infrastructure in an anti-competitive manner or they sell the access to the differential pricing monopoly to the highest bidder. The perceived benefits are that X user will get Y for less or zero because of differential pricing but that is a false logic. As was seen with Shomi/CraveTV, as soon as a stop was put on zero rating, data caps immediately started to increase. Meaning that the incumbents where hording capacity knowing that they would be introducing this product and need the bandwidth to support it. That exemplifies that consumers will get the bandwidth they need, regardless of a ban on differential pricing. Such a ban means that the incumbents are on a more level playing field with everyone else in the market. It also means consumers can use this new "found" bandwidth for the product of their choosing and not a product of the providers choosing.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? - HUGE concerns. From small businesses unable to compete in such a market to the ability of incumbents to create "media packages" that other ISPs could not provide since at the end of the day, they have to pay the incumbents which means zero rating is doubly costly to them.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? - Yes the concerns outweigh the benefits, there are no benefits only significant concerns. The concerns are so significant that behind DPI and "traffic shaping", differential pricing ranks as one of my largest fears for the Canadian internet.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? - You should not just regulate the practice, you should ban it entirely. No exceptions.

wireframe88 [🍰] 2 points Wed Sep 28 02:08:20 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I have nothing new to say that hasn't already been said. Like all the others, I see no benefit from introducing differential pricing. The CRTC should step in and enforce a common carrier model and end data caps. Canadians need open Internet access to compete in the modern economy and that is only going to become more important in the future.

cyberqguy 2 points Wed Sep 28 02:35:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Differential pricing (or zero-rating) seriously limits choice and stifles competition on the Internet: the next Reddit or Twitter could never get off the ground in a world with zero-rating.
  2. Canadians are trapped by data caps: For wired Internet, data caps in most of the world are unheard of. For wireless, caps in other nations are far more reasonable than those in Canada.
  3. There is no such thing as “too much Internet,” given how essential online access has become to our everyday lives. If we don't tackle this now, Canada will fall even further behind.
  4. Users, not telecom companies, should decide which services we use online: Telecom giants should not be permitted to zero-rate data, and make websites they don't like more expensive to access.
  5. We need transparency and strong enforcement to ensure telcos stick by the rules, and face penalties when those rules are broken.

nomady 2 points Wed Sep 28 10:24:03 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Large telecom companies would make more money.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Differential pricing would result in a less competitive environment for smaller companies trying to compete on the internet. It would be like create a separate high quality road system that only the biggest companies could use.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

They should not be allowed to do it.

Additional comments

Canada is one of the few countries in the world where data is not unlimited. Cambodia, and pretty much every country in Asia provides higher quality data plans than our telecom companies. With the internet becoming central to everything, we as a developed country should not have less access to data than a developing country. Much of their profits are a direct result of tax payer subsidization in infrastructure. They should be forced into a situation where they need to utilize their large profits to improve Canada, not figure out better ways to charge us more money. I personally feel let down by the CRTC after travelling the world, how is Canada lagging behind developing countries when it comes to internet access?

atmx093 2 points Wed Sep 28 13:26:03 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are short term benefits to customers because they pay less, but this ultimately comes at the cost of reduced competition and increased prices due to a newly created scarcity.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I think all data should be treated the same, because differential pricing gives an unfair advantage to a particular service. It effectively strenghtens the incumbents' chokehold on the market by hurting competitors that offer similar services.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The service providers can't be allowed to self-regulate, because whatever they decide to do is always to their own advantage. Differential pricing is almost always offered for a service that is hosted by the same service provider which stifles competition. Fostering a healthy and competitive marketplace is even less than an afterthought for them and this can easily be seen by looking at how much we pay for wired and wireless services compared to other modern nations where providers actually compete instead of colluding. The CRTC must be there to promote free enterprise.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

All data should be equal and no particular service should be given an unfair advantage over competitors. Data caps should also be heavily scrutinized. If they are able to offer differential pricing, then what's stopping them from being a lot more generous on overall data packages both for wired and wireless services? Whether the data comes from the differentially priced service or any other service, the cost for that data is the same.

Senkrad68 2 points Wed Sep 28 14:25:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? I don't see any benefit except to the internet provider company. They charge the user for access. They charge the content provider for special access. The users who don't use the services that have paid use up their cap faster

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? I think the internet needs to be free (as in speech) and equal. As soon as tiers appear it opens up concerns of equal access, restrictions, limited choices, etc

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? The concerns absolutely outweigh the benefits, especially as the only benefits I see are for the internet provider company. They need to not be able to do it, in any way, shape or form.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Not an easy question to answer, and I am not sure what the answer is. The internet companies should not be allowed to do this in any way, shape, or form. Elimination of data caps might be enough to remove incentive, but I am sure they will try to find something else.

Dee2866 2 points Wed Sep 28 16:47:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There are no benefits for the general public, with the exception of very light users of the internet. The benefits for corporations, as usual, are greater profits. No need to complicate things more than that.

The concern here is that we will be less competitive with other countries, as well as gouging the general public. Internet services should be treated as a regular utility, with access that is affordable and easily accessible. This will also put a choke hold on smaller start ups attempting to get going and strangle the free market economy.

No private company should have the right to determine access to or the content of what is seen on the internet, period.

No private company can be trusted to regulate themselves regarding this issue, as the loss in profits due to greater access to the internet IS the motivation behind the desire to throttle, restrict and/or charge outrageous amounts for data, by the current ISPs. This is an issue that needs to be resolved once and for all, and that does NOT mean that the CRTC allows private corporations to dictate their own terms to the detriment of Canadians. Nor does it mean that the CRTC decides what is "fair" for Canadians to have access to, or pay for access to the internet, It belongs to the people, and should stay that way.

GoodRedd 2 points Wed Sep 28 16:56:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Omg, I can't format this on mobile. I'm so sorry!

As many of the above comments state, I'll try to be clear and constructive .n 1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? Differential pricing is not good. There is a problem with the industry and this covers the symptom, which is CURRENTLY that people don't want to be charged excessive overages. But the actual problem is that there is no competition AND no regulation on pricing of services. One of those two is necessary, in my opinion! "Either play nicely OR we'll make you play nice!" <- any parents on the room? . Anyone that is educated knows that the rates here in BC are nonsense. Just compare them to areas with competition, like Saskatchewan. . . 2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? My concern is that it won't fix anything, and will cover up the symptom, which actually makes it WORSE. This is like taking Tylenol or morphine for cancer. It may not bother you anymore, but there's still a problem. . . 3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? As I stated above, it's your job as regulator (parent) to let them compete, and watch from the sidelines. The park bench. They are NOT competing (at least in BC), which means they need parenting. It is not acceptable to let them decide on their own. They will choose profit every time. In fact, that is their prerogative, it would be a problem if they didn't! . . 4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? See above. It's difficult to enforce competition, when price matching is so profitable for them. However Saskatchewan and Manitoba do well. I would suggest some kind of incentive or tax benefit, or startup assistance for a small player in the market. But otherwise, capping profits from overages even at 1000% (60¢/GB instead of $5) would be a good start.

I know, at some point people scream "socialism!" But if the kids won't play nice, someone needs to keep the playground civil.

MWD_Dave 2 points Wed Sep 28 17:09:56 2016 UTC * (gilded) (0 children)

Questions: We need your opinion about differential pricing:

  • What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

    The benefits are obvious. That certain data features/content can be given preferential treatment. This would allow carriers to violate net neutrality and start giving preference to certain websites/content. With this providers can get work deals as to who is "free data" and who is not. They can then be paid on the front end from content providers and then paid on the back end through subscribers via plans that utilize this content or through overages/larger data plans for the subscribers that have other interests. The content providers would love this. (Bell/Telus/Shaw/Rogers)

  • Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

    All of the above but from a reverse perspective. Average Canadians already pay much more than the average for cellular and internet data. This would only embolden the larger providers to further gouge the average citizen. If the previous sentence may sound embittered, that's because it is. Let's look at couple examples:

    If you're a Koodo (Telus) customer in Saskatchewan you can get 5GB of Data, Unlimited Canada Wide Calls + Texts for $48/month. But if you're in a province like Alberta those same features with the exact same company will cost you $90/month. How does a province with a MUCH HIGHER population density end of paying almost 2x as much for the same wireless product?

    Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Saskatchewan actually has a 4th player who provides actual competition? How the heck is that even legal that BC, AB and ONT are allowed to be ravaged so dramatically by such obvious anti-competitive oligopoly collusion? Perhaps if wireless services were allowed to be treated the same as internet with wholesale services purchases available we wouldn't have such a ridiculous amount of companies owned by the same 3 companies? Rogers (Fido, Chatr) Bell (Virgin, MTS) and Telus (Koodo and Public Mobile) are so obviously anti-competitive it's ridiculous.

    This is fairly obvious in our home internet providers as well. In my own city Edmonton for a fairly standard 5mbps up and 30 down with 300GB/month data cap:

Telus: $73

Shaw: $75

TekSavvy (A wholesale internet re seller): $45

Yep, nothing to see there either I suppose.

  • Should we step in? If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

    YES!!!! I don't know how you can't look at the above examples and not see corruption and collusion. For myself, that was just from a quick 1/2 hour of quick searching online. Just imagine what one could discover if it was their job to keep Internet and Wireless providers from taking advantage of the average Canadian?

    Regarding net neutrality. Yes, step in. Yes regulate it. Here's a simple rule: don't let data providers allow for exemptions under any circumstances. That would mean no free TV/movies/websites for special provider approved content. Net neutrality is an important principle. Stand by it.

    Make the providers increase data caps (without upping their revenue), or failing that, force them to actually complete with each other. Don't let them get away with blatant collusion that is currently occurring. Maybe then we'd see increased data caps (or even unlimited data) for less money occurring through natural competition.

Edit: Thanks for the gold kind stranger!

marpincan 2 points Wed Sep 28 19:47:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

is this the slippery slope that will soon go from exempting charges to different charges for different data???most Canadians do not believe that big telco in Canada can be trusted and that the CRTC can properly monitor big telco and make big telco treat Canadians fairly. Net neutrality is a must that can not be compromised in anyway. their are no benefits to differential pricing - big telco will just use it to disadvantage users and line their pockets.

wmcduff 2 points Wed Sep 28 19:49:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) The benefits to zero-rating seem something that benefits the ISPs more than consumers. Companies pay the ISPs to provide their content for cheaper, and consumers get free access to it.

2) Zero-rating benefits incumbents, as a new company with progressive ideas is unlikely to have the funds to get zero-rating, making it's content second class. Also, it discourages ISP from raising data caps, as they will make money from companies paying for zero-rating.

3) Yes, this needs regulating.

4) Ideally, parliament would pass a law banning the practice of zero-rating. A bit should be a bit, no matter what content it is part of. Barring that, the CRTC should look as unfavourably at zero-rating as possible.

RCC42 British Columbia 2 points Wed Sep 28 20:14:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Special exemptions for one service over another in this way of differential pricing is a slippery slope of a devious kind. The internet is becoming so important to remaining connected and engaged with society that the discussion should really be about what approach we should be using to transition ISPs into a utility like water or electricity.

And I won't accept the argument that the internet is somehow special or different or otherwise exempt from being considered a utility. Electricity is a utility but you don't strictly need it to survive (unlike water), but if you don't have electricity you are living in an entirely different world than those with it. Same goes for those with and without internet access.

Make it a utility, anything else isn't really an acceptable discussion.

Weathercock 2 points Wed Sep 28 20:29:06 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

As a consumer, I see no long-term benefits to differential pricing. The advantages serve solely corporate interests at the cost of the well being of consumers.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Differential pricing, the end of net neutrality, would serve to bring and end towards the internet as a tool with an open and level playing field for free expression, business, and the exchange of ideas. It stacks the deck in favour of the large, dominant telecom companies and their business partners, ultimately adding a price point to the idea of free speech.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

These concerns outweigh the complete lack of benefits by a colossal degree, and are more than significant to justify regulation. Time and time again, telecom providers have proven themselves to be completely unfit in working for the benefit of Canadian consumers, and to let them have any sway over something as important as net neutrality would be a severe error in judgement. To let differential pricing pass would be a direct betrayal of the CRTC's duties toward the Canadian public.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Uphold net neutrality; no differential pricing, or differently branded concepts on the same idea. Bring in legislation to ensure that net neutrality is further upheld and never brought into question with silly, exploitative ideas like this ever again. Bring an end to data caps, they serve no purpose other than to extort money for nothing from consumers, and form a public carrier with truly competitive service and pricing, while also ending the monopoly on networking infrastructure so that smaller providers may actually compete. We deserve to no longer be a third-world country on the internet.

OneDegree 2 points Wed Sep 28 21:55:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

To any entity other than established internet service providers? None whatsoever.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Monumental concerns. Canada's telecommunications infrastructure is overpriced, slow, and constrains users with data caps. It prevents users on these networks from accessing information services. It prevents the creation of new services that would support employment, generate revenue, and bolster the trade surplus.

Differential pricing can only subsidise first-party services to the detriment of all other services. Aside from this implicitly presupposing that ISP's know better than the consumer which digital services are most valuable to them, this can only exacerbate Canada's lackluster telecommunications services.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

These concerns massively outweigh the non-existent benefits. Please step in and shut down this anti-competitve, anti-consumer behaviour immediately.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Similarly to the Chileans:

http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1016570

Prohibit internet service providers from serving network traffic with a different price or quality of service based on the origin, destination, encryption status, etc.

astroNerf Ontario 2 points Wed Sep 28 23:58:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

For consumers: no benefits that I am aware.

For providers: differential pricing allows for greater control of consumer choices, and more opportunities for profit at the expense of consumer freedom.

Traffic on the Internet should not be priced or favoured according to its source or destination.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Very much so.

Suppose I pay for an online movie streaming service (like Netflix). If I happen to have an Internet Service Provider who offers its own competing movie streaming service, a lack of regulation would allow my ISP to promote its service over those of competitors not based on price or features or quality, but rather by degrading the quality or service of its competitor, or prioritising or charging less for traffic to/from their own service.

A fair analogy would be if your hydro provider sold lightbulbs, and was able to power competitors' lightbulbs a bit less than their own, of if it made it difficult to turn on certain light bulbs in the first place, or powered them in a way that made them flicker. If this same hydro provider charged people 10 cents an hour to run the provider's light bulbs, while charging 20 cents an hour to run competitor light bulbs, this would cause an uproar.

This is why it's critical for the growth and accessibility and openness of a 21st century Internet that ISPs be agnostic about the traffic it transfers.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The Internet should be regulated like a utility. Leaving it up to providers and market forces will not result in net neutrality.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I'd really like to see strong rules that prevent providers from altering the speed of traffic or availability of service based on the source or destination of Internet traffic. It should not be allowed that traffic to or from certain servers is priced differently or throttled.

Prioritising traffic is less of an issue, as some data (eg, VoIP) is time-sensitive whereas other traffic (eg, FTP, bittorrent) is less time-sensitive.

sumofallwars Canada 2 points Thu Sep 29 00:44:05 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Questions: We need your opinion about differential pricing: 1 What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I don't think that there are many benefits for differential pricing.

2 Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It only benefits people who are already buying large amounts of media/services. It will also encourage gatekeepers to charge for content that they don't provide while allowing for content they create to be free. I think this is a huge problem for people like me who only use a single service(internet) but are over paying for a substandard service.

3 Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

They do outweigh the benefits by alot. gatekeepers could effectively ban certain types of services like netflix If they allow only their own services to be free of datacaps but place data caps on everything else. They are already doing this with artificially low datacaps.( please for the love of god ban or require larger datacaps for wired internet. there is no technical reason what so ever for such low datacaps. Since they can and do offer unlimited but only if you pay more.) If they complain about traffic tell them to upgrade their infrastructure above demand for once.

4 If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

An outright ban would be my solution. other than that If data caps were no longer an issue than this would not be one either. Data caps are the root of the problem. If you remove data caps and allow for unlimited internet with a soft cap (internet shaping during peak times and only as needed.)

The tech to do this already exists and could be used IF there was an incentive for telecomps to do so.

ApathyLincoln 2 points Thu Sep 29 02:45:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I strongly believe that diversification is a good thing in every facet of the economy, and I can clearly see this will end in the opposite. The ISPs have a fair bit of digital content providers under their umbrella, and will use this to increase their dominance of that market - choking out any possible competition and causing the industry to stagnate.

This will squeeze out the smaller providers, leading to the same sort of issues that the telecom industry has in other industries - steadily increasing prices for the same or worse service. Industries such as streaming radio, TV and movies are among the forefront but also social media such as Reddit, facebook, twitter gaming platforms like Steam, Xbox and Playstation - the latter six which would gain a chokehold on their specific industries.

This would no doubt cause harm to the average consumer in the long run - this is why I call for the rejection of this proposition, and instead call for the CRTC to address the issue of data caps in general, optimally through a mandatory unlimited offering with price limitations.

ultrasuperman1001 Ontario 7 points Mon Sep 26 16:05:57 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Thank you for coming to Reddit, I've tried to do the surveys on your website but it's not the most user friendly. As for your questions: 1) On the consumer end its great because (for example) if I wanted to watch YouTube all day I could however this is when number 2 comes into play...

2) We all know any provider is in it for the money and they won't give "free" unlimited access. If they want to make a new price point like $5 extra for unlimited YouTube that's ok with me AS LONG as no other video streaming service is harmed, like YouTube streams as full speed but all others are limited to 50% speed, Or they start doing what Comcast wanted to do and have a "fast lane". So like Bell couldn't offer free YouTube at the expense of YouTube buying a "fast lane". Basically it should be the consumers choice for if they want unlimited video and they should be able to pick what they want unlimited. My other concern is that they may force people to buy these plans or bigger data plans (if they go this route) because they could easily drop the already small data plans to something even smaller then up sell an "unlimited package". For example most plans are on average 1GB-2GB for ~$50-$60/mo which is ok for light streaming but they could introduce a new $10 option for unlimited YouTube then drop the data to 500MB and keep the costs $50-$60 which pretty much means you would need that extra $10 plan for streaming. (of course I use YouTube in my examples but they could be a Netflix plan, a Twitch plan, a Facebook plan, a Google search plan, etc). Another thing to ask is what about ads? will they be part of the plan as well because we all know how YouTube likes doing 30 second non-skippable ads which eat up a fair bit of data and if they aren't part of the unlimited plan then your still going to need a fairly large data plan from the start, and at that point the unlimited package may be pointless.

3) You guys need to be at the helm for this stuff, the big 3 already have a monopoly and if they are given the chance for more money you can bet they will take it. There needs to be a very clear list of rules about what can and cannot be done, we need to protect net neutrality and we can't have these guys strong arming their way to an exclusive deal, like you have you pick Rogers if you want YouTube then Bell gets Netflix and Telus gets Twitch (just to be clear I mean you couldn't get YouTube on Bell because Rogers has the exclusive). If everything is clearly written so its fair for both parties and we can protect net neutrality then I feel this would be a fine option for people who stream stuff. However based on past history between you, the public, and the big 3 I feel there would not be enough legislation and the big 3 would find loop holes, or (what Bell is trying to do now) start suing everything because "it's not fair".

4) I'm not very familiar with how things get regulated but in short YES YOU NEED TO REGULATE IT (if someone wants to give me a tl;dr on regulating things I'm all ears). The big 3 (or any provider) will defiantly take a mile if you give them an inch, so like I said everything needs to be clear on what's allowed and not allowed. I actually feel you guys need more power when it comes to regulating (off topic a bit but I want this out there) the big 3 have had a number of price increases recently and they are all the same price (a bit suspicious isn't it?), they can't give a real reason as to why the prices went up and the same as to why they are the same price, so if they added an unlimited website option that's not regulated in some way, they could easily make an unlimited plan then just slowly raise the price month after month and that would turn into another thing to take money out of the consumers pockets.

AssmunchStarpuncher -2 points Mon Sep 26 21:37:46 2016 UTC  (0 children)

You want a real reason the price went up? Internet traffic is doubling every eight months, this will make the current speed we enjoy impossible. If the big three started building 2 or 3X capacity into their network right now, our need for more capacity by the time they finished would make the upgrade look like a bandaid on an axe wound. Additionally, our populations being spread out rather then built vertically creates a higher cost per km2 than in other countries. Also, knowing that these companies upgrades cost billions, and that their businesses employ upwards of 60,000 Canadians to support it, i think the price for internet is reasonable.

Blindmouseottawa 5 points Mon Sep 26 16:35:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) For the same plan, it shouldn't matter what your address is. For example local in Toronto and Canada Wide calling while the phone is in Toronto, should be the same price across Canada. Even through you Calgary, you still should be able to get that plan, even through no coverage. 2) The total per month of bill and the length of contract value is total amount for x month. 3) ISPs are allowed to speed up service to certain websites for a fee in which can not be charged to the website and charged to the consumer and must maintain service levels. Websites can pay consumers that can pay providers, but can not be linked to ISP to provide service. 4) changing the contract terms without an angreement from the consumer should not be allowed. 5) Fee schedule must be clearly outlined.

JeanInNepean 3 points Tue Sep 27 14:19:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Answers to your questions: 1. Advantage: lower costs for some customers, in the short-term at least 2. Preoccupations: 3rd party ISPs will not be able to have their customers take advantage of free distribution of TV or Radio contents 3. Yes 4. Forbid the practice, or enforce it in a way that 3rd party ISPs can benefit from it

sianegad 4 points Tue Sep 27 15:38:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Intetnet should be considered a utility. I would not agree to free electricity for general electric appliances but having to pay for LG ones.

SergeantBBQ Ontario 4 points Mon Sep 26 15:46:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you for doing this! I know many people were happy to hear the news that we'd get to chime in and be a part of the official public record.

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

It would be nice for users that have the bulk of their data usage coming from a single source. It would make it more feasible to drop down to a cheaper data plan knowing that your main source of usage is excluded. For example, if 60% of my usage comes from video streaming, one could go down to a cheaper plan with a smaller data cap and not have to adjust their usage. It also relieves a minor monthly stressor of some people.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Biggest concern I personally see is it gives more power and control into the hands of companies that already have an abundance of power. It could end up pigeonholing customers into plans they otherwise don't want just to benefit from select data exception. The "gatekeeper" concept in the "opponent's" section of your information page feels very plausible to me. Companies have been proven to take advantage of customers in the past and this likely wouldn't be any different.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I believe something like differential pricing would almost definitely need moderating through the CRTC. As mentioned in question 2, if you give large companies an inch, they'll take a mile. Being absolutely taken advantage of would be my first expectation if monopolies weren't moderated.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

This question is tougher to answer but I suppose enforcing a rule than companies can't just take an existing plan and charge a premium for "streaming service exempt" as a selling point. In the scenario I mentioned in question 1 about how people could go down to cheaper plans with differential pricing, companies charging a premium would essentially cancel out the benefit rendering the whole concept irrelevant.

Jay_j88 Ontario 3 points Mon Sep 26 15:43:44 2016 UTC *  (1 child)

Thank you for this opportunity. I may not be an expert in this field but I'm glad I have a chance to voice my opinion.

  1. Differential pricing seems to be one solution to the very real issue of 'unfair pricing' our current providers offer us. Coming from someone who has lived overseas for a few years I see the potential in even lowering the prices but as there are very few options for alternatives we don't rally have a choice- until now. Differential pricing would bring the prices down, only charging people for services they currently use. I really only use Spotify and messaging services (Reddit is use via wifi). When it comes to home use, I'm more of a "normal user"(IPTV services, netflix, spotify- etc etc). Say what you want, I am a basic user. There are times that my home usage increases significantly, but it's not an every month thing. If 'zero rating' were to take affect for the things I do I'd definitely save money.

  2. The only real concern I see with this model is simply the fact that we are at the mercy of the same providers at which we are being charged up the *** for. What I would love to see more than anything is competition in the market. That would(hopefully) bring the prices down. While differential pricing is nice, it kind of seems like a 'band-aid' approach to what man Canadians see as the true issue( please, correct me if I'm wrong guys). Also, what about the 'zero rated' services? Are we going to be locked into what the provider decides we should use or will we have the freedom to choose (Example, Spotify vs Google Music, Netflix vs Shomi)?

  3. Do the benefit outweigh the issues? That depends on what we are looking at price wise. Obviously we are looking at significant price changes to the way we use these services. If there is an opportunity to select such services without being locked into a contract (people may change their usage mid contract) I'm all for it. Mind you, since coming back to Canada I haven't used one of the big 3 's services for mobile since I didn't agree with the prices, despite the fact they reduced contracts (and When I say use their services I mean not pay them directly, I know they own the majority if not all of the towers in Canada). All that said, if the CRTC came in and made sure prices were down and stayed down, and forced the providers to allow our choice of services and providers that would be nice.

  4. How you would regulate is more of a question for someone who specializes in policy-making. I would like to see something on the websites of providers that mentions these plans are regulated by the CRTC- you know, to provide confidence that we have someone to talk to if the providers are "doing us wrong." Fines for companies who do not follow such policies, etc. at the end of the day I would love to see some competition and lower prices that reflect what I actually use. More than anything however, we want you to listen.

jingerninja 6 points Tue Sep 27 05:07:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

If 'zero rating' were to take affect for the things I do

This is the major caveat though. What if instead of zero rating Netflix, Bell decided to zero rate just Crave? Now you're faced with the choice of switch streaming service or foot the bill for the data.

Or from a different angle: let's say a telco manages to double/triple/whatever-its-up-to-now dip and gets Netflix to pony up whatever they'll charge an online service for having their data be free. What happens when the next big startup decides to launch a service to compete with Netflix? They'll never really capture any users in this country until they can make enough money to pay that same fee to the telco because they wouldn't fall under that umbrella of free data.

What I would love to see more than anything is competition in the market.

I think whatever regulation or policy the CRTC could effect that would broaden the number of independent choices in the market would be the best for everyone.

Another excellent idea I've seen float around is to designate and regulate all the main internet infrastructure as a public utility putting it under the same sorts of constraints and controls as something like your hydro.

TheGuyWith Alberta 2 points Tue Sep 27 15:36:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits are that providers can ramp up the prices in low-competition areas, (for example, Canada.) resulting in higher prices for less service, and maximum profits for the providers. Differential pricing doesn't give me as a consumer any benefit whatsoever.

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I've jumped through hoops to get a phone plan from a different province, because similar plans in Alberta and Manitoba have a huge price difference.

Also, zero-rating certian services would prove to me that data caps are nothing more than a scam. If they can provide unlimited data to the services that use the most data, why have caps at all other than to introduce extra charges?

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

My concerns outweigh the "benefits" quite a bit. I think some more regulation is required.

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

We need competition. Our providers are not competing with eachother, it's clear to see this fact if you look on their websites. All of their plans are practically identical, with no advantage for choosing one provider or another. We need to allow more providers to exist and compete, as real competition would naturally drive prices down.

Alternatively, could introduce firm regulations on dollar ammounts for data and enforce it across the country. Though that level of government control would rub me the wrong way.

Again, I'd prefer more competition rather than direct government involvement. But if the result is that we stop having to take it up the bum from our service providers, I'll be happy.

CanadianBobert 2 points Tue Sep 27 16:46:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Firstly thank you for doing this. While I believe the CRTC doesn't do enough to actually govern Bell, Telus and Rogers I wish for that to change and for the people in charge become less favourable to the telecoms ridiculous practices. Like how phone plans vastly increased in price once the 3 year limit was reduced to 2.

1. Benefits for Differential Pricing: The benefits can be seen as offering consumers a lower priced data or internet plan, and is what would be promised by the telecoms.

2. Concerns for Differential Pricing: The concerns are giving the telecoms the ability to promote the end product, and control the options for the end product that consumers receive. Example of this is Comcast charging Netflix to have faster access for their lines. The telecoms should not have the power or ability to limit the quality or availability of a product that a consumer wants. This could be considered a form of censorship where Telecoms offer plans that have so little data for specific services that a user can't view or access them.

Let's look at NHL as a streaming service which is owned by Rogers, with differential pricing Bell or Telus could charge data for NHL.tv and yet offer free data for their own TV apps. Of which offer the users less games to watch and are only available through purchasing specific TV channels or the specific companies streaming service. While this example shows how one company can fight off another companies product the bigger issue happens when a telecom is fighting off an internet service like YouTube or Netflix.

The telecoms currently not only control the bandwidth and internet we purchase but also the TV and services we can buy. Rogers owns the internet, tv, phone and services like NHL.tv. It is evident we cannot trust the telecoms to keep their promises and not inflate prices down the road (see 3-year phone contracts), and we must step in and regulate them before it happens.

3. Concerns Outweigh the Benefits: Just like the 3 year cell phone plan limit being reduced to 2 years, this is a short term gain that will hurt us and cost consumers more in the long run. Canadians already pay exorbitant telecom prices because of the oligopoly they own and the differential pricing will only allow them to have more control over the content people can view.

4. How Should it be Regulated: The telecoms should have no say in what data is free or what counts against caps. In fact caps should be abolished completely. The telecoms haven't kept their promises for increasing infrastructure even after receiving government subsidies and yet they force caps because of "congestion" on the lines. Internet should be a right, and the CRTC and Canadian government need to step up and regulate the telecoms to help make Canada more affordable. If I can still pay $55/month for my 5gb and 300 talk phone plan, then clearly Telus isn't losing money, yet if I signed for a new contract the same plan would be over $120/month. It is simple price gouging and the CRTC needs to allow more companies to compete and release the stronghold Bell, Telus and Rogers has on Canadian's wallets.

who_cares74 1 point Tue Sep 27 10:09:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)

you should maintain pricing neutrality since the type of data is irrelevant from the perspective of a carrier. a bit is a bit.

if pricing is a concern let in foreign competition to break the monopoly you've given low quality canadian companies. don't introduce multi tier internet services.

DrDerpberg 1 point Tue Sep 27 12:10:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is a bit of a tangential comment, but there would be no sense removing differential pricing if there's no robust mechanism against companies simply raising all costs. If I can get 100GB for $50/mo and unlimited for $70, then differential pricing is banned and all I can get is unlimited for $70, we're no further ahead.

That's exactly what happened with both cell phones (2-year contracts meant that monthly contracts went up, but cell phone companies ALSO added monthly fees to pay for the phone over installments) AND skinny basic cable (deals so awful, with added fees for box rental and so on, that it makes no sense to go skinny). In both cases, rules put in place for fairness were used as pretexts for price increases and compliance that made a mockery of their intent.

As much as I think we need regulation to ensure fairness in pricing, the CRTC needs to make their rules bulletproof because the companies always leave us with the short straw.

Alex2539 1 point Tue Sep 27 12:50:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1 What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits are only superficial for consumers. Any consumer would like to be able to stream content without paying for the transfer, but this is not the way to go about it.

.

2 Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The main concern about differential pricing is that it directly opposes net neutrality. No particular data should be considered more or less important than any other. Doing so drastically reduces the capacity for innovation in spaces where services already exists because consumers are less inclined to support a new service when an existing service is "free" to use. Consider the irony that the proposed system could obviously benefit services like Netflix, but Netflix itself could never have started and grown to what it is in such a climate.

.

3 Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns greatly outweight the benefits as we would be losing the growth and development of new and existing technologies in favour of pinching pennies. It would lead to technological stagnation.

.

4 If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Regulate it by disallowing the practice entirely. The apparent need and benefits of differential pricing are merely a symptom of the way internet is currently distributed. There is no real reason for ISPs to so severely limit data transfer and it is these artificial limits that disincentivize the use of streaming services. Implementing differential pricing does not solve the underlaying problem, it only obscures it. It's like treating a fever instead of the infection: consumers need medicine and preferential pricing is just a cold cloth.

kamikazekirk 1 point Tue Sep 27 13:33:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) There is a benefit to consumers who will be able to access certain information at a discounted rate.

2) My concerns about differential pricing is that it's thinly veiled attack on net neutrality. By promoting certain content you are discouraging other which leads to a conflict of interest on behalf of the service provider. It will also lead to a convenient excuse for not keeping pace with improved distribution technology like fibre-optic installation.

3) The topic of differential pricing shows that service providers are not interested in net neutrality and need to be regulated to do so. It's obvious that there is not enough competition in the Canadian market as shown by stagnant pricing that is one of the highest in the world despite the actual urban area being relatively compact. And if the market refuses to operate freely and openly it must be regulated.

4) I am not familiar with all the telecom laws in Canada so I can't speak to specific rules, however, service providers should be treated and regulated like utilities because the internet has become a utility, there are thousands and jobs that require an internet location from home including my own. Remote work is on the rise and provide high paying work for high skilled people in major sectors all over the economy. Further, almost every job will be connected, UPS and long-distance drivers control workflow through tablets connected to a central server, chain restaurants use tablets to coordinate orders and automatically update logistics, my job in the aerospace industry is focused on remote operation of UAVs for commercial purposes and would not exist if the internet wasn't available in its present form. Numerous non-profit websites would be pushed from the market by sponsored content. Imagine only seeing the sponsored results from a search engine, that is the end game when differential pricing is allowed. It removes choice from the customer as they may only have restricted access to the web and won't be able to take advantage of the greatest tool humanity has created, the sum total of all knowledge available to everyone almost anywhere.

peja 1 point Tue Sep 27 16:17:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Your definition of differential pricing is inconsistent so I'm not sure how to answer your questions.

https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/internet/diff.htm

Differential pricing is when the same or similar products or services are offered to customers at different prices.

But the examples you give refer to how certain products don't count against data caps, etc.

That may be a differential pricing problem, but that's not THE differential pricing problem.

The real differential pricing problem is that the exact same product offered by Rogers costs twice as much in Ontario as it does in provinces with more competition, like the Praries or Quebec.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/21/wireless-prices-canada-compared_n_5360228.html

http://mobilesyrup.com/2015/07/09/why-do-phone-plans-differ-depending-on-the-province/

Ace170780 Canada 1 point Tue Sep 27 16:31:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

If ISP's want to implement, then we need to separate the pipes from the content and run them as separate businesses otherwise they are just gatekeepers who are going to gouge at every opportunity and kill the competition. I don't think the net needs more regulations that favor the few.

TLDR: call it what you will but I do not support preferential treatment.

brizian23 1 point Tue Sep 27 16:45:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  • What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? There are none for consumers. The large incumbents, name Bell, Rogers, Telus, and Shaw, would simply use it as an attempt to lock-in end-users to their products.

  • Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Violation of net neutrality, effectively creating a tiered internet service, benefitting only large corporations and hurting small businesses, startups, and end users.

  • Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? I believe that the concerns grossly outweigh the benefits, and letting the service providers decide has gotten us into the mess we are in with outrageous prices and poor service.

  • If we should step in, how should we regulate it? No data caps. No throttling data. No preferential treatment for data (either by type of data, or brand of service).

cushpapi 1 point Tue Sep 27 17:55:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I don't think this is necessarily the right place to post this, but please do a better job of Regulating these large Telecom companies. I called rogers today and they basically reneged on promises made to me in order to extort more money from me and force me to change all my plans... These companies get away with unethical business practices because us Canadians have little choice for competition. In no other industry would such practices be accepted, please don't budge an inch to give them more of what they want, they are hosing Canadians on a monthly basis.

yakmatoob 1 point Tue Sep 27 17:56:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Prevent differential pricing. Regulate to enforce net neutrality.

theletterqwerty 1 point Tue Sep 27 18:13:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

It allows a provider to streamline their service offerings and cut costs. By incentivizing their clients to download content that's already on the provider's side of the CDN, the provider reduces the amount of data they need to pull from other networks.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I think it's anticompetitive. Incentivizing one kind of usage is the same as disincentivizing other kinds of usage; if my imaginary provider Robs Cable says I can watch all of the movies on their ShowFree service, and charges me (or counts it against my data cap, same thing) for watching movies on a competing service we'll call Webfilms, that's an abuse of their position. It also chips away at net neutrality a bit, which isn't something I think our communications regulator ought to allow.

It also open the door to a host of other shady behaviours. For example, the provider might throttle or degrade traffic that isn't from their own streaming service (while continuing to advertise "maximum" speeds that are only reachable when using the provider's own service).

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I believe they do. The major providers have consistently shown that they are unwilling or unable to use the privilege of self-regulation to act in consumers' best interests. The last few times you forced them to change, the "new" ways felt unsatisfactory and a bit contemptuous (like the adjusted "system access fee" or the basic cable packages with all of their addons and asterisks).

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The provider should not be permitted to discount or give away unmetered access to their own brand of content, and charge for the privilege of accessing a competitor's content.

reaperfunk 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:06:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Stop this right now. The telecomms are making an excellent profit as it is. Differential Pricing is anti-Competition. It promotes price gouging by the ISP's and is the exact opposite of Net Neutrality. Imagine if Purolator could do this same thing with the Trans Canada Hi-way. They can use it for free but UPS and Fed Ex and every other courier will have limits on how much they can haul before they have to pay overage fees. NO CAPS. NO DIFFERENTIAL PRICING Break the Telecomm hold on our lives. The internet is to big now. YES NET NEUTRALITY

Rhiann5 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:12:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Net neutrality is incredibly important and should be the basis upon which you decide any outcome; making it a priority and protecting all Canadians from companies wishing to infringe upon it. Where I choose to surf, the content I look at and what I do on the internet is not the business of a tele-communciations company. Their job is to provide the access only and be paid for doing so. They should have zero say in content control and differential pricing should not exist. CRTC should have strict regulations on these companies (Bell, Telus, etc..) and enforce punishments over and above simple fines for discriminatory behaviour. It is unfair for these companies to promote specific websites, charge more/less for accessing certain sites as they can clearly benefit financially from this practice, while making it harder for smaller businesses and servers to gain similar amounts of traffic. It is unethical. Enforce strong fines such as denying them access to bandwidths, eliminating contracts they have initiated, etc.. As the internet is a staple for almost all Canadian lives for work, communication, lifestyle, etc.. there should be as much freedom to access as cheaply as possible.

Cerubois 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:13:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Adding a bias towards some services over others defeats the purpose of net neutrality and our freedom over the internet. It will surely disrupt the commercial viability of newcoming internet services that wish to create a competitive market.
The only benefit to this plan is that service providers make more money for themselves. Every other citizen of Canada will see a detriment in both quality and opportunity. Having our choices in service scrapped, likely for a higher cost (because surely the service providers will advertise it as a "special deal"), is hardly justifiable, and it is significant enough for the CRTC to step in with a firm "No."
Ending data caps in general would not only remove the supposed need for differential pricing (if people do not have data caps, they do not need to worry about using their data on what they desire), it would help create better internet service for every citizen. There's more to be done to improve the situation as a whole, but it is a good start.

Gone-Marone 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:14:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. I see no benefit to the consumer. The only benefit I can see is for the wire(less) provider to work back room deals with paid content providers.

  2. Prices for services are ridiculous. What I pay 65/month for, friends pay 120. Adding layers of covered/charged usage likely results in people using more data than they rhink they are as some is covered some is not.

  3. As consumers we have little voice in this area. We expect our elected officials to speak for us when we have no voice. Our choices are one of the main 3 or spin offs that also add confusion to the market. Net neutrality is key and is hard to push from the individuals perspective.

  4. Enforce net neutrality. Keep telcos from bullying us.

bobsuruncleandaunt 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:21:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Not much to add in opinions as I fully support Open Media's platform and have been a supporter there for a couple of years. Their lobbying efforts before the CRTC have been vital in slowly turning the agency into what it is supposed to be. Regulating the industry on behalf of the average Canadian. There can be no doubts that data caps, competition, price gouging etc has been tolerated for too long, but should now be changed to reflect global standards. I do appreciate the fact that the CRTC is finally opening up to the views and opinions of Canadians.

rattlesnake-Jack 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:25:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Glad you are asking and I hope you will take all of this feedback seriously. Here are my opinions: 1) There are few benefits. Limits make users choose how they use data all the time. 2) Canadians pay the highest rates for internet and mobile and that is wrong. Iceland with a population of 350k is able to offer free internet across the entire nation, including much of their volcanic interior. I'm unable to get quality internet in Mono, Ontario, less than an hour from Toronto. I must rely on cellular and I get hammered by data caps and brutal pricing schemes. 3) Given I see no benefits in these pricing schemes there can only be up side to opening up the internet. I would be happy to see you step in so long as we get better service at a lower cost. My concern is that the ISPs will cry foul and claim that this will cost them so much more money and we the consumer will get shafted, AGAIN. MY other concern is that if forced into making changes the ISPs will engage in further traffic shaping in order to limit our use in other ways. 4) Perhaps you can set a price cap. How about rural internet use? My lines haven't been upgraded since the 1960's, so I have limited bad options. Whatever action you take, you must make sure it does not end up hurting us in the long run.

updn 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:25:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)

As with most things corporations lobby to push through, it's terrible for democracy and individual freedoms and excellent for the oligarchic multinationals. I've yet to see an exception.

Umbergnome 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:27:38 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I have used the internet since its release to the public. It's grown a lot, but with growth came health issues. Lots of Spam, unwanted publicity on sites, data caps, and unfair regulations that just benefit some large companies made the services I love feel like they are poisoned. So I install virus software and ad blockers, JUST to keep the frustration down a bit. We can make this an ever-better experience for all if we work together. So, let's get with some of the rest of the world, democratize our access. Let's not charge extra for some services, some content providers. Let's not put unreasonable limits on data anymore, that's just a digital gentrification, reducing diversity of content and users. Let's not hand over more control over to corporations. If they were wise about it, they'd make MORE money by offering the services we need and want, instead of dictating what they want. We wouldn't constantly be moving from company to company in the hopes of getting screwed less, only to be disappointed again. I've had THREE internet providers in the last 16 years. Bell & Primus both were unreliable, price-gouging, and both abused their powers. They made billing mistakes, I had to pay for them. So I switched. And switched again. My current provider seems reliable. But still, we have the limitations I'll mention below. All of Canada can benefit from paying attention to what the consumers need and want. From domestic to commercial use, more freedom means more incentive to spend. But that's just from a financial point of view. Think of the emotions involved. Wouldn't it feel MUCH better if we didn't have that constant bitterness and cynicism toward the services we depend upon, and the people who provide them? I also create content for the internet (ASMR videos, to help people de-stress and sleep better), and intend to make more, but there are obstacles that make it difficult. Currently, with my basic cable internet plan (the best I can afford), I can download a one hour video in full HD within twenty minutes, easily. The same video would take me 8 to 12 HOURS to upload. That's an easy example of how the system is skewed to speed up the consumer's experience, at the expense of the content providers. We are asked to pay a lot more to have a reasonable upload speed. That means we tend to limit what we put out, in time and in numbers. That means people and companies with more money are easily able to provide content, so that's what we see, mostly. We would all benefit from more diversity! Thank you!

SenorKarlos 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:28:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

End data caps in Canada and make it a non-issue. Fix prices to a lower, reasonable level, and straight up make usage capping, and preferred services disappear.

lapsslap 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:30:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

A healthy internet is an essential and powerful tool in a democratic society. Allowing free flow of content, ideas and resources creates an environment where exchange is encouraged and growth blooms.

Everyone has to be given a fair opportunity. Small businesses and individuals alike benefit mostly from having access to choice and not being limited by surplus charges. The internet is a playground where we can meet and communicate ideas with being bullied by the bigger kids. It must remain so.

There is no such thing as too much freedom. Free access to information for ALL is the surest for of economic stimulus.

JestMonkey 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:37:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Please make a point to differentiate between types of differential pricing. As others have noted, there is geographic differential pricing, where the tariff is different depending on the market, with prices lower in areas where there is greater competition (Quebec, prairies and most interestingly, Thunder Bay). Why am I stuck paying double the price for wireless service in my area when it is available at a much better price in the aforementioned areas? Consumers are feeling the financial pressure, and finding ways of addressing it by using loopholes in providers' systems.

The greatest example of this has been the trend of individuals activating Koodo plans with Manitoba/Saskatchewan numbers from other provinces for the sole purpose of porting their current number to the new plan, to save $40-50 each month.

Why is wireless service pricing dependent on competition density?

junivers 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:42:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing is stealing by another name. Just more to be embarrassed about when we could be leading the world in intelligent and fair-minded internet policy. And data "caps"? Like there can ever be too much truth or fact.

Please, CRTC... we've let the foxes own the henhouse and run it to serve their fancy too long. Let us chickens live and breathe without fear for a change.

Thank you.

/R

DamagedFreight 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:54:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing is a terrible idea and will influence what content is consumed/received by users in a negative way. ALL the content on the Internet should be obtainable equally and without bias from any commercial interest.

The only thing I want my provider to be dealing with is providing me with direct access to the Internet and maintaining my line speed and reducing latency and lag on my connection to different geographical areas.

I DO NOT want my provider to be entering into agreements with third parties to offer certain content at a reduced rate that will affect my subscription price.

I DO NOT want my provider interested in what Internet connections I make or what content me or my family consume at any time.

The CRTC has a responsibility to make sure that every Canadian has access to the same Internet as everyone else regardless of their monthly bill or the speed they've chosen to view that content.

dsac 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:58:07 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are 2 sides to this: benefits to the provider, and benefits to the consumer. Since every one of the former points ultimately results in "the provider makes more money" (they wouldn't be considering/implementing it otherwise), I'll focus on the benefits to the consumer.

  • Not billed for specific content, thus reducing chargeable services.
  • Possible exposure to content they would not otherwise seek out.

I can't imagine any others.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Other than the blatant violation of net neutrality? Yes. For consumers, any possible success in this area will result in limitation of media distribution (via exclusivity arrangements), thus negatively impacting those users without access. Without adequate oversight, implementation of "traffic shaping" programs to limit speed of access to non-differential-pricing-content (as a "motivator" to non-participants to enroll in the program) are a valid concern. Additionally, and most concerning, it is unfathomable in today's marketplace that any costs (including loss of chargeable services revenue) would not be passed on to the customer base as a whole, regardless of their inclusion in the differential pricing program.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

They absolutely do not outweigh the benefits. As today's media consumption marketplace evolves from traditional "cable tv"-based content to a primarily online-based model, the carriers are looking for alternative distribution methods to maximize their profits. As has been displayed time and again, the "Big 3" telecoms implement changes to the detriment not just of their customers, but all customers in the marketplace; as the competition very rapidly moves to increase prices (I cannot recall a time when consumer prices were reduced for mobile/internet/tv, and I've been subscribing to all those services for decades) for their services, even if there was no intention of raising prices prior to the competition's change.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

By establishing regulations which deem the practice illegal. Implementation of differential pricing will not markedly benefit the consumers of telecommunications products, it will only serve to further line the pockets of the Big 3's shareholders.

squirtmasterflash 1 point Tue Sep 27 20:27:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

1) I see the benefits as potentially introducing new services to customers that are not being charged as OTT. This is the only benefit in my mind and it's clouded.

2) The drawbacks are the fact that this completely destroys the neutrality of the network you are on. rather than foster the introduction of new services, it allows the large oligopolies to simply trim service offering prices down but leaves you with no selection. Rogers will offer Rogers/Shaw streaming owned crap/garbage, Bell will do the same. All the differential pricing model does is allow them to provide treatment to their other existing services that are in the tank because people don't subscribe to them (SHOMI) and allow an unfair advantage in granting access to those services for reduced cost (be it zero-rating or actual subscription).
3) I feel the negative issues associated with differential pricing models outweigh the positives, as the providers are not looking to reinvent themselves or foster new relationships... they are mandated by their shareholders to increase the dividends. This is done by making all areas of the provider look more and more profitable, or under more and more demand. It's artificial. and ******.
4) if the decision were mine as far as legislating differential pricing, I would propose the following:
a) clearly define what a customer portal is. Define that customer portal as something that includes the customer's ability to make subscription changes to their service, sign up for new services or cancel existing services (top up pages for prepaid etc) Those should be mandated as a Zero-Rated service. Zero-rting should actually be a requirement on this. There is no reason a customer needs to be "charged" or decremented usage based on visiting the customer portals or a service provider.
b) do not allow forgiveness, or zero-rating for services that are owned under the same umbrella corporations. Bell can not offer zero-rating for streaming services coming from Bell Headend. Telus can not do the same. Rogers can not do the same.

irajacobs 1 point Tue Sep 27 20:37:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Benefits of differential pricing: if you have a data cap, this allows you to use Service X without concerns of going over your cap.

Concerns about differential pricing: This goes strictly AGAINST net-neutrality, heavily favoring one service over others.

The concern definitely outweighs the benefits. The CRTC should definitely step in.

The CRTC should #EndDataCaps or somehow ensure net-neutrality otherwise.

Zoso03 1 point Tue Sep 27 20:39:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? The only benefit is for those who only use the sites in question, beyond that it benefits the ISP for charging more for the same content we should already have.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? They could create the problem with have with Television. Items can be bundled into packages we pay to get unlimited access to each month, it will allow ISP's to dictate what we can and cannot view on the internet. This will also lead to huge price gouging where the rates of "Undifferentiated" internet will be far above standard.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? It needs to be regulated. Already with TV programming we see consumers complaining and fighting against the TV packages, for one channel we must pay $15 for a package with it including other channels we don't want. It's setup to benefit the company not the consumer. This will lead to the same deal. Example: Basic internet service is $30, this allows me to access every website with a hard cap. If i want unlimited access to Netflix i need to get it bundled in Package A, If i want Youtube package B, Facebook and twitter package C, Steam package D, Xbox Live Package E. Say each package is $10 each that's an extra $50. For an Average family this could be pretty standard. But that isn't the only heavy data usage, people who work from home and need to transfer data between client/work could eat a basic cap quickly.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Do not allow differential pricing. This only make it so the provider benefits, this will not benefit the content creators nor will it benefit the end user

For a Cap based on the speed of the plan vs a set number of hours at max use for the plan speed, for say 20% difference the cap is set to the equivalent of using the Service 24 hours straight at max speed. If they go over the Cap limit they can only be charged the maximum of what the Unlimited plan is. Example: 50 Mbps internet is $70 a month for unlimited, $56 for 540 GB. if they go over this $540 GB cap they get bill the $14 difference and get unlimited.

bankonme 1 point Tue Sep 27 20:41:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I feel like this only benefits the service providers. I'm currently travelling in Sweden and England. From talking to my relatives here, we are already being held over a barrel with our package pricing. Data caps should not be allowed within Canada unless we reduce overall monthly costs and increased data allowances within our plans.

antaresprime 1 point Tue Sep 27 20:45:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I currently pay $10 per month for 100 MB of mobile data per month with FIDO prepaid in Toronto. With 100 MB, I can check email and do WhatsApp/WeChat but that's pretty much it. I can afford to pay more for more data, but I refuse to pay the silly rates in Canada. I would rather not participate in the mobile Internet ecosystem, and save my Internet browsing for home on a wireline connection.

tyaway88 1 point Tue Sep 27 21:06:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think really the only benefit is if there's enough competition and companies aren't allowed to prevent others from the same access (so Bell can't say "Netflix, you can't pay Rogers too" and Netflix can't say "Bell, Youtube can't pay you too". In that very specific situation, the benefit is that I can choose a provider that gives me the best access to sites I frequent without capping me.

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, huge ones. A quick list includes:

  • We don't have enough varied providers everywhere to make this work

  • Providers can currently change the terms on consumers pretty much on a whim while consumers are usually locked in to iron-clad terms

  • There would be an inherent stifling of communication

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns definitely outweigh the benefits. The benefits could easily be had by banning or severely limiting data caps and making service providers follow through on what they promise with regards to speeds. Most of the concerns would be hard or even impossible to prevent/fix, and will cause years of legal battles if legislated around.

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ideally, ban it, and start regulating data caps. But, if there is no other choice but to allow differential pricing:

  1. Make providers hold to the same rules as their customers. No changing the terms of the deal part way through and then charging an arm and a leg to leave.

  2. Prevent companies from blocking one another. Youtube can't say no Netflix. Bell can't say no Rogers.

  3. Don't allow for loopholes. The $25 skinny package has pretty much eliminated trust in the CRTC's ability to follow through on punishing providers that try to skirt the intentions of the law. A repeat of that with this kind of function would be ruinous.

betrayb3 1 point Tue Sep 27 21:57:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you first of all, for taking the time to listen to the people of Canada! 1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? -The benefits of differential pricing could be used to save costs to independent consumers with limited budgets. Data is not specifically a one way transaction. In the case of advertising, why is a consumer responsible for them paying for the data that is advertisement? No ISP can determine, what truly data was requested for the consumer.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? -I have major concerns, and some of these practices we have seen in the states. When ISPS, can then limit the services of who they which, and may extort additional fess from corporations, who will only push this to consumers. This was a Case where Netflix was being throttled from US ISPS. Data limits should never be imposed.

  2. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

  3. We know the history, and we know CRTC has been one step of the corporations thankfully when it comes to being big brother. I hope that you can continue this crusade against our own corporations to limit them and prevent outside corporations from reaching in to much as well.

Data will only grow, we have to overcome data limitations, and focus on speed tiers.

secamTO 1 point Tue Sep 27 22:09:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? While I'm not hard-set against differential pricing in my immediate response, my support of it is very strongly weighted to the specifics of how any scheme will roll out. And I am skeptical that differential pricing will benefit consumers in the long term. Please see below.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? I am skeptical of differential pricing in general. I feel it opens the door to the diminishment of service, which, given the costs of telecom service in Canada compared to other industrialized nations, I would find totally unacceptable. If a telecom provider were to allow sponsored videos to be viewed without it counting towards your data cap (my assumption being that the sponsor is providing recompense to the telecom in order to provide the content for "free" to the consumer), I may find this (depending on specific circumstances).

However, if sponsored content were to be provided at a higher data rate (or worse, if non-sponsored content were now throttled, and delivered at a reduced data rate), I would find this utterly objectionable. This would then create two tiers of service within a consumer's telecom package, and the consumer themselves would have no control over what content is throttled. This would diminish the informational freedom of the consumer, and make the comparison of services between telecom providers even more difficult to parse.

Furthermore, the only way I would find a differential pricing scheme to be acceptable is if the consumer is given the clear option to opt in to the sponsored content in their telecom package. Differential pricing becomes yet another intrusive advertising scheme if consumers are given no choice in accessing the sponsored content. It's one thing if I'm interested in watching a car maker's videos (for example), and having the data not accrue costs on my account. But it is wholly different if, having no interest in automobiles, I'm bombarded by content from a car maker that happens to have a deal with my telecom provider. Then I could not care less if the content is "free"; it is a nuisance, and is diminishing (however slightly) the freedom of information access that I pay my telecom to provide.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely my concerns outweigh any potential benefits. Under no circumstances do I feel comfortable allowing telecom providers to institute any differential pricing schemes without oversight. Telecoms in this country have demonstrated time and again a proclivity to anti-competitiveness, an almost complete lack of clarity in their services (that makes it difficult for consumers to comparison shop between telecoms and their packages), and the willingness to gouge consumers if given a chance. The CRTC's job is to regulate on behalf of consumers. If any differential pricing schemes are to be implemented, they must be regulated by an independent agency. That's you.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? The core question that must be asked during regulation is: "Does this benefit consumers?" Telecoms currently earn tidy profits from their services, and while I'm not naive to a corporation's need to maximize profits, regulators should not make that an easy prospect at the expense of consumers who haven't a seat at the table (and in this country, haven't nearly enough competitive options for telecom providers).

Any differential pricing schemes should be opt-in. If they become little more than transparent advertising ploys without a customer's initial input (and request for the service), then they do not satisfy the above question. And once opted-in, consumers must have the option to opt out once more without penalty (short of having sponsored content accrue account charges or count towards their existing data count).

The availability of a differential pricing scheme must not prove punitive to those who do not wish to take part. It cannot be an excuse for telecoms to charge consumers more for the service they currently receive. It cannot be an excuse for telecoms to charge consumers who have not opted in more for their service (only to continue charging them their package rates for some content that, had they opted in, would not accrue charges on their accounts). It cannot be an excuse for telecoms to throttle non-sponsored content, and by proxy, it should not be an avenue for telecoms to provide sponsored content at higher data rates.

The terms of the agreement, the scope of the sponsored content, and exactly the type of content sponsored must be made clear to consumers, as well as any additional account ramifications for opting in or opting out. As I imagine competing telecoms may have agreements with different 3rd parties, there must be the greatest possible clarity with a differential pricing scheme to allow consumers to comparison shop -- because a scheme like this will be yet another facet of already dense service agreements for consumers to compare telecoms and their packages.

Beyond the question, I would like to say thank you for the CRTC reaching out to online communities for consultation. It's my expectation that this will provide an even richer and more representative response to the issues at hand, and I truly hope that the answers provided here this week will be given no less weight than those of other attestants. I also do hope that these consultations will now routinely seek out testimony from those Canadians in relevant online communities (particularly, as is relevant to my case, on reddit). Many thanks again for your efforts thus far.

lightrush 1 point Tue Sep 27 22:11:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

In short, it violates net neutrality and everything that entails - telcos picking winners and losers among service providers, restricting access etc.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Since there are no benefits, there's nothing to outweigh.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Prohibit differential pricing. Employ a permanent solution by eliminating data caps.

CabernetSauvignon 1 point Tue Sep 27 22:53:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Internet providers should be held at a strict arms length from media creators. That is, no internet provider should have any financial ties to promoting certain content over their channel. This should include mobile as well.

capacitor75 1 point Tue Sep 27 23:02:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? There are no benefits for the consumer, though the ISPs can freely push whatever they choose. Differential pricing might as well be called preferential treatment or agenda pushing, the people that are on the receiving end have no real choice even if they are led to believe otherwise and the ISPs have more control over what is "allowed" (zero-rating agreements) vs "not allowed" (no zero-rating and possibly increased pricing) thus influencing not only the amount of usage per site but the type of information that is digested as well.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Many concerns, just a few of them being the lack of competition (effectively catering to capitalism), the possible obstruction of certain freedoms (freedom of the press as example with canadian online media being heavily affected), and low-income households having an increased difficulty with proper access to their bills, banking, mail, contact with family members across/outside the country, etc.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? The concerns far outweigh the benefits and certainly justify the CRTC to step in and regulate the providers heavily. If they were left to regulate themselves it would quickly become a treacherous slope of fewer and fewer options with higher and higher pricing involved.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Make the www an essential service. We all pay for the maintenance of roads even though not everyone chooses to obtain a drivers license or might not be able to get it either, we all pay toward childrens benefits yet not everyone decides to have children. There are more people who connect to the internet than those who drive or have children yet even after the UN declares the internet a human right we are still debating whether or not to put it in the hands of corporations or in the hands of the people.

Corphix 1 point Tue Sep 27 23:15:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I do not believe that differential pricing provides any benefits.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I believe it would create an uneven playing field for new startups and businesses when trying to compete on a global scale.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Home and mobile service providers have been making the decisions this far, and as a result, we know that Canadians now pay some of the highest rates for data in the world.[1] In my opinion, that demonstrates a clear conflict of interest.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Make the practice of differential pricing illegal, and punish telecom companies that break the rules.

cfs3corsair 1 point Tue Sep 27 23:19:56 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

**What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?**

Um practically none for the consumer. All it does is create an unequal field for competition.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely, as outlined above. Services should cost the same. To do otherwise is, at best, morally grey business. At worst, monopolizing, debilitating, and discriminatory to the consumer.

**Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?**

The concerns outweigh the benefits (none). PLEASE for the love of everything JUST STEP IN. Where I live, it is next to impossible to get internet or services. The way things are, telecom companies are content to make revenue without expanding or upgrading services. They have no incentive because of how the system is now. Why be competitive and offer better services when literally all they have to do is sit and wait for money to come in? This isn't a problem exclusive to my geographical location. Do NOT let the telecoms decide.

To be honest, I am surprised you ask. Its like the CRTC is only just realizing that there might be an issue.

**If we should step in, how should we regulate it?**

Force companies to offer equal services costs to Canadians across the country. Force them to allow other providers to use their networks, post-haste. OR, even better, STOP letting the telecom companies license parts of the radio spectrum for their exclusive use. Let any registered telecom company use that section of the spectrum allowed for internet data transmission, without it being monopolized by any company. Also, force the companies to update networks and infrastructure. Perhaps set an enforceable standard. For example, mimicking the USA's internet minimum speed standards might be worth considering. Also, REMOVING DATA CAPS is a must. Its killing our ability to keep up in the 21st century; we are falling behind other nations that are considered less developed than us. There is no such thing as too much internet, and users should decide what services they use, not telecom companies.

Lastly, ACTUALLY severely penalize companies who do not comply.

In short, you have to interfere, and make sure companies simply cant do anything that could lead to monopoly.

Faaresemo 1 point Tue Sep 27 23:20:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I don't know why the CRTC has even allowed data caps in the current age. Canadians are more and more mobile as the months progress. We use our phones for practically everything these days. Gone are the times of "I need to find a computer."

In the current era, the internet is as much as a standard community as any other public facility (park, mall, etc.). That anything should limit my ability to convene with others is preposterous. This includes limited service areas (ruralities and small towns) and applies to both mobile internet, and wired internet (there are northern cities that still don't have the proper infrastructure to access the internet at all).

If the private companies won't do it, then I think it's time to take things into your own hands. The government's responsibility is to make the lives of its citizens of the highest standard possible, and so if Canada has to invest money to ensure that we have limitless affordable internet (on its own budget, not Bell/Telus/Roger's), then I'm cool with paying the extra taxes.

HatWabbit 1 point Tue Sep 27 23:27:53 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

1- What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

  R/ Although consumers may think it benefits them, only the telecom companies imposing differential pricing benefits from it.

  2- Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

  R/ - Absolutely. Differential pricing hurts the economy in the long run. It considerably limits consumer choice and virtually eliminates competition.

  -It is a mechanism that conveniently hides the bigger problem, data caps.

  -The Internet should really be treated as an essential service and not as a luxury. Any effort to minimize its importance jeopardizes the society's well being. Differential pricing and data caps are threats to this well being.

  - The paying consumer should decide what services to use and not the telecom company.

  3- Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

  R/ - As a tax payer I expect and demand CRTC to step in and protect us (PLEASE!). The big telcoms in Canada have a long standing history of price-gouging and unjust treatment to Canadians and smaller competitors. Enough is enough.

  4- If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

  R/ -Eliminate data caps once and for all. Without data caps differential pricing can't stand on its own.

nukedathlonman 1 point Tue Sep 27 23:32:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you for opening this up and asking on Reddit.

I don't want to rehash other peoples contributions - there is a lot of good points that was made but there is two sticking points in my mind and it makes me think this is a horrendous idea. At it's most basic form it's just yet another form of traffic shaping (to which the CRTC (thankfully) already said no to) except this will be used for preferred content providers. It also completely goes against net-neutrality ideals. There was a Pokemon Go example eariler. What if I made a competitive product, but no one want to play it because I'm not preferred. Oh wait, perhaps I can give various ISP a kick back to become preferred, but then my competitive product just become a whole lot more expensive. And I'm only a start up on limited funds? Wow, talk about stifling out new competition to Pokemon Go. Just like the promotional Bell TV app that was on my phone when I got it a few years ago... I didn't even try it... Just amounts to the same thing.

PBRidesAgain 1 point Tue Sep 27 23:43:20 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Do not allow differential pricing it kills net neutrality.

Additionally end data caps. I have friends in the UK and Europe who pay pennies for ten times the service we get in Canada.

The alleged "Canada is so big" is no longer a valid argument. Canada is big but our population centers are not.

20gb/month phone plans unlimited calls & texts for £20/month. Meanwhile we're paying three times that for 2gb of data.

Fix the broken system that's controlled by the big telecoms.

Ban data caps.

fareedkuhafa 1 point Tue Sep 27 23:45:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Users, not telecom companies, should decide which services we use online: Telecom giants should not be permitted to zero-rate data, and make websites they don't like more expensive to access.

Differential pricing (or zero-rating) seriously limits choice and stifles competition on the Internet. I am totally against it.

elite_killerX Québec 1 point Wed Sep 28 00:02:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix?

    En tant que consommateur individuel, la différentiation des prix peut être intéressante si elle s'applique à des sites / services que j'utilise déjà ou que j'aimerais utiliser. Elle peut aussi me pousser à me tourner vers des alternatives à des services que j'utilise, mais qui n'en font pas partie.

  2. Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix?

    Je suis très inquiet de la distortion que cela peut introduire sur le marché du contenu en ligne. En tant que développeur d'applications Web, je serais vraiment perdant si mes compétiteurs bénéficiaient d'une bande passante non-mesurée ou à moindre coût pour nos clients, au point d'être carrément une concurrence déloyale.

    De plus, cela donne (à mon avis) beaucoup trop de pouvoir aux fournisseurs d'accès à Internet. Vu l'(absence de) choix disponible, les consommateurs seraient à la merci de leur fournisseur en ce qui concerne ce qu'il devraient et ne devraient pas voir sur Internet. Cela s'apparente à une forme de censure.

  3. Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques? Ou devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider?

    Ceux-ci jouissent déjà d'un quasi-monopole (un autre dossier!) et n'évoluent pas dans un environnement compétitif normal. Dans ce genre de situation, il est approprié d'encadrer strictement les pratiques des différents joueurs.

    Même sans tenir compte de ce quasi-monopole, l'accès à Internet est trop important pour le développement d'une société saine et diversifiée pour permettre qu'on en restreigne ou décourage l'accès à certains secteurs.

    Cela s'applique autant aux fournisseurs filaires que mobiles.

  4. Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques?

    Le CRTC devrait interdire ce genre de pratique. J'irais même plus loin en disant qu'on devrait interdire les limites mensuelles de transfert de données.

Mahat 1 point Wed Sep 28 00:03:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There are few benefits if any. For those who barely use bandwidth, it could be a benefit. For anybody who streams, and looking forward to a future with a heavier industry presence online, it could severely hamper development. Not to mention it would further remove the big telecoms motivation to upgrade their networks if they where allowed to manage delivery of their services in a preferred manner.

It would only result in increased costs for the consumer, while we already have the worst internet in the world for the price. Further gouging would happen as the internet becomes more and more of a requirement for modern living.

MairusuPawa 1 point Wed Sep 28 00:30:41 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Pas de différenciation des prix. Rien. Vous, fournisseurs d'accès Internet, devez rester absolument neutres vis à vis du contenu circulant dans les réseaux. C'est pour ça qu'on vous verse mensuellement des sous; ça et le développement des infrastructures permettant cette absolue neutralité des échanges.

C'est non négociable.

ChronicDanque 1 point Wed Sep 28 00:43:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am against differential pricing and data caps. Vancouver Island, BC.

Millsy1 1 point Wed Sep 28 00:44:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?: - The only benefits are to the companies who get on the lists. That or the ISP themselves. In Canada, it would be much easier for Facebook or Google to pay one of the 3 big ISP's and cover 80% of Canadians. In the states, there would be too many ISP's required to 'pay off'. Basically this would be a legalized bribe "If you pay me $10, I will get you through the border quicker".

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?: It is impossible to have differential pricing without knowing exactly what websites I am visiting. This means that if someone has an issue with the bill, the ISP must be able to prove that I wasn't visiting a site on their list. To do that, well... they would see every other site that I have been visiting. Dating, Adult, or anything else. It really doesn't matter, no one should have access to my browsing history.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?:

Where is there a benefit to the public? The idea that you would be able to save money on a few sites? How does that outweigh the fact that there are billions of websites that -could not- be on the list? It is absolutely an unfair advantage under any sense of the term.
And to allow such access to a person's browsing habits is a massive invasion of privacy.

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

They should have zero say in the matter. It should not be allowed at all.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?:

It should be a crime to have this in place, entirely banned in every respect.

zombifai 1 point Wed Sep 28 01:12:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  • What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

To me there are none, to the Telcos, its a tool to make more money, by stifling competion and coraling users to those services preferred by the Telcos, presumably because they stand to make money of users use those services and not others.

  • Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, I can already feel the datacap squeeze. It feels like my for a while (since I moved to Canada over 10 years ago) there has been a pattern of my Isp, Telus, actually charging me more while actually lowering my service. Years ago there was no such thing as data-caps, they didn't even meter it. At some point they started metering and having unenforced caps, some point later they lowered the caps (still no enforcement) it is only a fairly recent development they actually started enforcing it. So it seems I actually pay more now but my service at the same time is becoming more limited as well! Shouldn't we expect things to get better rather than worse?

I sense that one of the reasons this happening is because Telus now also offers Telus TV whereas they only used to provide Internet and Phone service. With the arrival of streaming services like Netflix we are starting to see folks 'cutting the cord'. There's a very strong incentive for Telus to counter this, for example, by limiting how much internet an internet customer can use, effectively, this putting a cap on how much I can use Netflix whereas if I have Telus TV, I can watch as much as I want without paying cent more for the privilege of leaving my TV on while wandering about the house.

Interesting fact: Telus offers 'Unlimited' internet for an extra charge. However, this costs more if I'm not a Telus TV customer! This is effectively a very concrete example how this 'differential' pricing is directly designed to prop-up Telus TV. It literally says if you have Telus TV we don't care as much you use more internet, but if you do decide you cut the cord, then we care more and you'll have to pay more to access competing services.

In my opinion the data-caps and pricing are not about infrastructure limitation at all, but are in fact exactly as the pricing model suggests, its about propping up Telus and killing Netflix and their ilk.

  • Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Since I see no benefits the answer is clearly NO. To boot there are very many concerns. Letting Telcos set differential pricing models based on specific services and content, and at the same time also have those same Telcos stand to financially benefit from providing services that might otherwise receive stiff competition from independent internet-based services is such a huge conflict of interest it is simply unacceptable.

  • If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

1) Abolish data caps would be a good start.

Ideally, you have to regulate it so that Telcos are not able to artificially prop up their own (or their 'friends' services) by limiting or making more costly to access competing services. Giving some services a 'free pass' effectively is the same as making the other ones more expensive.

2) If datacaps cannot / will not be abolished then:

At least put a stop to bundling practices. Especially bundling pricing where Internet pricing and use is somehow tied to subscribing to the ISPs other services (such as the example of Telus TV subscribers, who can more cheaply get unlimited internet packages). Ideally, Internet, TV and phone packages should all be priced independently. My internet should not costs more because I decided not to buy into Telus TV or Phone and chose to use Netflix and a competing VOIP provider instead).

If data caps and usage based pricing models are allowed (beyond just a price based on the speed of my connection, but actually based on how much data I use in total), then such pricing should be strictly regulated to be neutral. All data should be treated equal and all data should cost the same per MB / GB. For example if Telus sets a cap and overage charges, they should not be allowed to exempt the data used by Telus TV (which is also transimited over internet!) from these caps and charges.

3) There is a bit of a conundrum that most ISPs also provide services which are really 'send and receive data' services at their core, but do not transmit their data over the internet. For example land-line telephone service or Cable TV.

These 'legacy' services are facing increased competition from wholly internet based services. Even if all internet data is treated the same and priced the same the non-internet based services are implicitly exempt from internet data caps. This is effectively also zero-rating those services. The ISP therefore still has an implicit incentive to stifle competion for these services and thus artificially limiting how much I use the internet... even if the data caps and pricing are neutral towards purely Internet based services.

I think the conclusion is that the only way to avoid this conundrum and its inherent conflict of interest is to abolish data-caps altogether.

canadiandev 1 point Wed Sep 28 01:12:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It is 1's and 0's. Data. Information. You can't ascribe differential pricing to it any more than pricing water from my tap differently for a shower, drinking, cooking, or watering the lawn. Further, there are no caps on it either. Same for electricity, or gas.

westsidegal1 1 point Wed Sep 28 01:22:30 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? Differential pricing (or zero-rating) seriously limits choice and stifles competition on the Internet: the next Reddit or Twitter could never get off the ground in a world with zero-rating. The internet should be a level playing field for innovative new ideas.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes plenty- Canadians are trapped by data caps: For wired Internet, data caps in most of the world are unheard of. For wireless, caps in other nations are far more reasonable than those in Canada. I struggle with data caps and speed which is unfair. We should all have the same speed. When I dont use my long distance I am not charged for it but its only $10 a month but with data that I buy that is for 150 GB a month because I cant afford unreasonable unlimited plan which when I dont use all of the 150 GB that is allotted to me then it should be rolled over to the next month so that I can ensure what I already paid for will be used at some point in time. I cant watch TV on the net, I cant do my sons home work because, I cant even write an email because all this eats into my data capacity and the 150 will get used. I dont have choices and the big 3 made sure of that. There should be unlimited for telephone, unlimited for data like it use to be and we should be able to choose our own channels (if we can put that one in there) Bell is still charging a large amount of money and not allowing us to change our channels and if I could get the unlimited data I would go onto the net to get my television programming. No more allowing these companies to steal from us. You can see that TV stations are closing down every where because they are taking over.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Yes these concerns outweigh the benefits and what benefit is there. No allowing the companies decide they will be the ones that will make it worse for the little guy, for the low income families, middle class to not have accessible internet and keep our children from learning and becoming tech savvy. We beg of you think about everyone's right for a bright accessible future that is fair to everyone and not just the rich.

There is no such thing as “too much Internet,” given how essential online access has become to our everyday lives. If we don't tackle this now, Canada will fall even further behind. I should only have to pay for 1 internet and have access to it through the different technology that I have. I have a Rogers phone with Bell internet at home. Rogers has recently found a way to not allow me to use my phone wifi at home or anywhere else. I dont have a data plan on my phone because I cant afford it but need it while I am away. I am a single mother and need to ensure that I have access to GPS, school work and emails for all sorts of reasons and if I cannot combined them using 1 internet or 1 data plan then that is just a waste of my money and plainly absolutely ridiculous to pay for redundancy. Unlimited at home or access to it while away is important so that I can speak to family members in different cities and keep up to date on the technology and the news. I can do school work and research and I can plan and get business information about creating and starting my own business and that means having the unlimited data so that I dont run out and have to wait 4 or 5 days like I had to last month because my data ran out and I had to wait for the next month billing to kick in. Yet when I dont use my data for the past 4 months then that doesnt get rolled over and that money was wasted. So I have the right to get what I paid for and if we cant get unlimited then we must have the roll over with no caps so if there is a time that we need it we use what we have in the bank sort of speak.

Users, not telecom companies, should decide which services we use online: Telecom giants should not be permitted to zero-rate data, and make websites they don't like more expensive to access. What do you think about letting ISPs artificially pick winners and losers online? We need transparency and strong enforcement to ensure telcos stick by the rules, and face penalties when those rules are broken. I have trouble understanding my data plan and getting any answers. Even with the TV, satellite BELL makes up rules and then breaks them and then doesnt have anyone answer to them. I was told too late about passing the data limit and charged an extremely ridiculous amount that should have never happened. Bell gives me an email and then sells my email to every company in the world. They then dont have the technology to keep the email platform working and it is so bad that I miss important emails that I am charged for and when I delete emails, they reappear over and over in my in box and guess what my data plan decreases due to that crap because while they make money they refuse to fix the bugs in their email before they even tested the crappy product. They told me that my internet would be $40 for ever and then all of a sudden after 2 years they changed the rules and then stated that I had to pay for the new plan. Which is crazy. They found people no moving of the plans so they had to create rules and didnt grandfather the ones that took the plan they were selling. The same thing with the phone and the TV. I specifically now ask that this will be for ever and no limit in time and the telemarketer will say anything to get the sale but when the time is up that they feel is good enough it is jacked up on your bill. Yes get involved it is time that something is done.

TwoPlankinWiz 1 point Wed Sep 28 01:23:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think differential pricing is a dangerous and slippery slope to losing net neutrality. While I have in the past had these plans, in high school I had a Koodo phone plan with unlimited BBM, Facebook and Twitter, I think there is an issue with how differential pricing is done. What happens if I want to use a different video provider other than say Youtube, who would have paid to have differential pricing for any reason? It's not an ideal solution, because say the rest of the plan is great but this, you're stuck paying for something that is not beneficial nor you want but have to pay for for the rest of your good plan. I don't think differential pricing is a good idea nor do I think it helps the consumer in any way

ReBooty 1 point Wed Sep 28 01:28:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Any differential pricing changes could be beneficial to some people in the short term, but horrendously unfair to competition and growth in data industries in the future.

shadowt1tan 1 point Wed Sep 28 01:35:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hello,

There is a big issue on pricing especially for cell phone plans. An example of this is how Manitoba has cheaper rates than Ontario. What makes no sense to me is how can 5GBs of data with unlimited calling cost so little in Manitoba but in Ontario and other provinces cost so much. Data caps should be banned as well as compiling services to sweeten the deal. Rogers is a great example as they offer free Spotify and some people actually use Apple Music or Google Play. This is completely wrong and same goes for data caps they should not exist nor should these price differences between Manitoba, Quebec and Others comparing to British Columbia, Ontario and Others. Something here needs to be regulated and result in much more affordable rates. These companies match everything and provide no difference between the "Big 3"

KotoElessar Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 01:36:00 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Its an open secret in the industry that the cost of providing data is quite literally fractions of a cent per gigabyte, the current system allows the incumbent providers to charge exorbitant rates to consumers and third parties, keeping prices artificially high and stifling competition, development and innovation.

Allowing differential pricing could very well exacerbate the situation. Charging advertisers for the bandwidth used to watch their ad does appear like a good idea but if a realistic price was charged for bandwidth usage then the issue would be moot.

The CRTC in my opinion needs to acknowledge that there is a monopoly and should consider either separating isp's from infrastructure or even nationalizing the infrastructure. This will likely be an unpopular opinion but this valuable infrastructure should be treated like roads or rail as it is extremely valuable to the future of commerce and communication.

I do believe that separation of infrastructure from incumbent control will allow for realistic market prices.

KotoElessar Ontario 1 point Fri Sep 30 00:07:55 2016 UTC  (0 children)

A full infrastructure system review (Copper, Fibre, Mobile Electric, Gas, Roads, Rail, Waterways, Waste) should be done and maintained. A similar report was done in the US early in the aughts for a PhD thesis; it was classified by the US DOD as it revealed multiple weaknesses in the critical infrastructure that runs the nation.

A_Largo_Edwardo 1 point Wed Sep 28 01:40:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Before I start I would like to say, for the record, hi mom. Also that I don't really have much of a clue as to what I'm doing here and that there are posts in this thread which are far more fact based and contains enormous kernels of truth that should definitely be considered in the CRTC's deicision.

So I begin.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? I don't know if there are any to Canadian citizens. In the short term, we could basically have the same plan except get 'free'[1] data outside of it, but that doesn't solve the oligarchy which our internet providers have formed.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Tons of concerns. If sponsored data is implemented, then my privacy is being violated. As well, net neutrality is not being respected. This disincentives smaller companies and start-ups from growing. Which is of course is bad both for innovation and economic growth. What differential pricing does is give an economically unfair advantage to corporations which probably don't need the advantage in the first place. It just feels sleezy to me, like the sort of thing you see that guy in the trenchcoat do at that dark alley near your house that you always sort of want to walk through somewhere deep down in your selfconscious but are too scared to because of that guy in the trenchcoat but like that doesn't stop you from imaging yourself doing it, which sometimes is a thrill into of itself as you pass that alley once again and return to the glowing orbs that were enveloped in the momentary shadows of said dark alley.

I am not okay with internet providers and application services making exclusive deals. What it is doing is leaving out other application services and in many ways creating a hegemonic superstructure on the Internet. But the Internet should remain a place in which we are free to choose our ideology and not have it be economically imposed on us. This practice hurts people who exist in outcast circles of the Internet and pushes people into gravitating towards certain applications which they might not want to use, but find that because it is more economically viable, they'll just put up with. This type of mediocre complacency should not be accepted by the CRTC, if only for the name of progress and freedom.[2]

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Of course they do. We should not let service providers decide because they don't have us, Canadian citizens, in mind but instead the capitalistic enterprise. While the CRTC has our best interest in mind. I don't see why you shouldn't step in. What should you do? Ban it preferably, but if you really can't, then make it illegal to have service providers give our data out for any reason. That would solve the privacy problem. Also to let application services go directly to the CRTC and have them petition to have their website/app not count for a specific providers cap. The CRTC would in fact enforce this petition and let them transcend the say 2 GB cap. Like for example, if there existed a P2P Non-profit charity app which somehow used this back and forth of data in order to raise money for say homeless Veterans in Canada, then an internet provider would not have it in their best interest to allow that app to be outside of their cap. (given how much data that would cost them) But our Canadian society does have an incentive to have that app in heavy circulation. So the app creator would petition to the CRTC to force internet providers to allow that app to not be counted towards a cap.[3]

[1] given that it is, in fact, not free and that the sponsored data part of differential pricing gives me a case of the howling fantods. I am not comfortable at all with letting service providers give companies my data. To me, this is a clear violation of my privacy.

[2] I'm being sort of dramatic and hyperbolic here, I know.

[3] I know there's some counterargument of striping internet providers with their freedom, but I am privileging the good of society over corporate economic freedoms.

Dougness 1 point Wed Sep 28 01:49:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I would be open to advertisment not costing me my data. That is all. All intentionally viewed content should be equal

techyvrguy 1 point Wed Sep 28 01:56:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

data rates need to improve for wireless service.

There is a problem with the system when someone coming in from another country roaming in Canada are paying less for Data than we are....significanly less. Data available needs to increase for the rates we pay. Overrage charges are also over the top for what canadians get.

sukhoi_vegas 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:02:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

No differential pricing. The internet should be considered an essential utility, not a service. Net Neutrality protects the end user, Canada should enact laws to enforce net neutrality, not allow companies to decide which sites we can see, and at what rate.

End Data Caps. Upgrade Telecom infrastructure.

metallic_lace 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:13:29 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

A. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

It could have benefits, but I'm not sure the concept would be utilized in such ways. The ridiculous state of our data plans, especially on mobile devices needs to be addressed, especially when you look at the cost to the company versus the cost to the consumers. The benefit would be not using up your data on things that should be free to use (for example using location services while searching or tracking your location on google maps or other gps tracking systems is a ridiculous data sucker for something that is programmed into a GPS device and doesn't require internet costs). For services that can be considered essential they should not be included in our data limits.

B. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Of course, as many people have mentioned the likelihood of companies creating more monopolies on services (or trying to push us to use their branded products), as well as increasing data prices by some backwards logic or throttling service past a certain data usage. Many of the internet and phone service providers in Canada have shown again and again a disregard for the consumer and quite frankly non-discreet price collusion (you cannot deny it when the same packages have the same prices across Bell, Rogers etc.) since they know better service is not available.

C. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

They (the service providers) should never decide. IF it is something that is going into practice it should be regulated. As some other people mentioned it should be framed in a way to avoid prioritization and forcible use of certain apps, websites etc. that are branded to that particular service provider; it should be delegated for categories of use (eg. video streaming, downloading purchased media etc.). The government quite frankly cannot trust these companies to treat customers fairly in a way that will make this change valuable without them manipulating it in a way to create an unfair advantage for themselves or to make more money and undercutting current services. The whole state of data plans in Canada is abysmal, especially given that we are moving in a direction of globalization where the internet (and its wealth of knowledge) is becoming almost a human right to access there is not enough competition and good customer service is unheard of.

D. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Again, as others have mentioned, both prices need to be regulated to avoid increases to our already abhorrent data pricing as well as management to avoid monopolization of data services. The point is to avoid companies saying: you pay $50/month to use XGB, and every MB over is .50 cents, however if you use all our services/apps for video streaming, internet roaming, checking your email, playing games etc. it will be free. This will allow the companies to frame it as though they are providing us with a better service, however they are not, they are just forcing us to use their expanded services and getting a higher profit if we do not.

Final thoughts: I am not sure if this is a good idea or not. There are fundamental issues with our service providers that are already not being addressed and monopolies that need to be removed to allow fair prices for customers. This is not something that is a priority amongst the slew of issues in this industry. Furthermore asking people on reddit may be a good way to get a sample of opinions, but you should be studying (by scientists) other markets that have already utilized concepts like this and determine their efficacy, strengths and weaknesses before proceeding.

flameofanor2142 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:14:42 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

I'll focus on the second question, because the others have been repeatedly well answered before I arrived by impressively well-informed individuals. Pat yourselves on the back, r/Canada, you done good.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Discriminatory pricing has the potential to interfere with an increasingly important service that should be accessible and usable to all, and obstruct and potentially corrupt the flow of information that is, and will be continue to be, absolutely necessary for a free and open society.

While it might seem overly dramatic, the choices and standards that the CRTC decides to enact and enforce in the coming years will have a massive impact on tens of millions of Canadians and the generations that follow them. The Internet is more than Google, Facebook and the "dank memes" that Reddit is (in?)famous for, it is a force for communication, co-operation and the advancement of knowledge. You hold in your hands far more power over the future than many may realize.

We are still in the infancy of the digital age, and because of the ongoing evolution of technology it will only become more and more difficult to fix regulatory issues and find solutions. Once the power to further influence the masses is given to corporate interests, I am sure we will find it very difficult to undo should it become necessary.

There is quite seriously no better time than the present to create a strong bedrock of standards and regulations that can adapt to the evolution of new technologies and ensure equal access to all of our citizens, and ensure that so powerful a tool is not used against those it should empower.

That's all I have to say, except for the following: Ladies and gentleman of the CRTC, we know you can bark, but now is the time to show us you can bite.

Also: Thanks for reaching out like this, it is very encouraging and I look forward to potentially seeing more of it in the future. Please realize that each subreddit is like it's own community, some being more or less toxic than others, so if you explore the site and see something offensive, it's likely that very few of those people are subscribed to r/Canada.

**My post was edited multiple times for clarity and grammar.

KeiroD 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:16:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I hope the CRTC realizes that with this sort of move, that careful consideration is used because once you make policy based on feedback... you'll get a lot of pushback.

Expect that pushback, especially from incumbents such as Bell and Rogers to attempt to influence CRTC in a negative manner. Specifically, in convincing the CRTC to be extremely lenient when at this time in Canada's history, the CRTC needs to be more aggressive in fighting for the consumer.

Just like the FCC today. You should follow Tom Wheeler's example.

ieatspam 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:17:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The only way I feel this would work is if the network was free but you paid for the content. So using the network no charge but that network now can decide how and what I can access. If I pay for Internet access you as a carrier cannot dictate how I use my services. I do not support the proposal as recommended, and data should be separated from content completely. Even still I'd go further and say a media company cannot own data distribution networks of any kind.

EvilJellyDonut 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:21:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

If you use these services then I guess it would save money. But I probably do not and neither do my parents.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Free data so advertising doesn't cost us data. If I am paying for data I don't want to see advertisements feels like double dipping. If I use data for work then social applications and others that would be free do not apply to me.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I prefer there is a governing body to step in and say hey you made billions of dollars in profit. How's about giving Canadians a break. Create a fair price for service.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Internet is a utility everyone should have access and there should be no limit because it is not a limit resource. Calculate the actual cost of delivery plus maintenance.

King_cheetah 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:23:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This practice is competitive and anti-consumer. It would be in the best interest of all Canadians (except those who own telcoms) if it were banned.

Osayidan 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:24:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

1) There is no benefit to the consumer. This prevents fair competition and severely limits consumers from using the services they want freely and without worry.

 

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

2) Yes. For as long as I have been using internet services in Canada, I have had to be careful "how much" internet I use, and on what service. This is not what a free and open internet should feel like.

 

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

3) Yes, please do everything in your power to put a stop to this nonsense. I'm tired of feeling like I am in a 3rd world country when I access the internet. Our country was once the world leader in telecom services, now we are severely behind, this has large economic impacts, and prevents Canadians from accessing online services in the same way citizens of other, more technologically advanced countries can.

 

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

5) Abolish the concept of "data caps" (data transfer limits per month). Canada is one of the few countries in the world that still has these limitations on wireline internet service. This is preventing online services from being of practical use (or even affordable). Is it justifiable to have to say "no sorry we can't watch any more netflix until next month, or our internet bill will be too high! also please stay off of youtube". If there are no monthly data transfer limits, then there is no need for differential pricing.

 

My TL;DR: Canada needs to "get with the times", we're almost 2017. Our internet situation is unacceptable. Our speed to price ratio has a long way to go to catch up to other developed countries, and we are one of the few remaining countries who still employ monthly data limits on wireline internet services. This needs to be stopped ASAP.

thefinalfight1 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:24:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Please stop differential pricing. Uphold net neutrality. Declare a broadband as close to a Canadian right as posible and allow companies to truly compete with each other.

Letting service providers agree amongst themselves what will best serve the public will only allow them to become anti-competitve.

Mpdifranco 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:26:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? There are no benefits of differential pricing for the consumer. It stifles innovation, and allows service providers to profit off of something that should be considered a utility.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Not only does it violate net neutrality, but it allows service providers (who are also content providers) to give themselves an unfair advantage to third parties. The only parties who stand to gain from differential pricing are the service providers.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? The CRTC absolutely needs to step in and regulate this. Time and time again the service providers have proven that they only have their interests in mind with ridiculous pricing and absurd data caps.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Service providers should be forced to remove data caps. Canada has some of the most limiting data caps in the world. Most countries don't even have data caps for a wired connection. Data caps on mobile data are extremely limited and encourage extreme rationing.

_Stryd3r_ 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:30:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing (or zero-rating) seriously limits choice and stifles competition on the Internet: the next Reddit or Twitter could never get off the ground in a world with zero-rating. Do you believe the Internet should be a level playing field for innovative new ideas? Canadians are trapped by data caps: For wired Internet, data caps in most of the world are unheard of. For wireless, caps in other nations are far more reasonable than those in Canada. Data Caps on smartphone use trap users when some critical activity requiring Data pushes you over the cap which seem to occur just when you are outside WiFi range.

crackalack 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:33:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hi CRTC,

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Sponsored data could allow for more effective advertising to consumers, as consumers would have less of an incentive to avoid advertisements due to their data cost, and perhaps this would encourage companies to invest more in internet content-creators.

Zero-rating would allow customers greater access to certain websites/apps without paying excessive overage fees, which to some extent is desirable.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I think that there are two main problems with differential pricing. The first is more a systems-wide concern. The only reason that differential pricing is even a discussion point is because data is so expensive. It costs telecom companies next to nothing to transmit data, and yet consumers pay enormous markups in Canada relative to the rest of the world. In a fair market, opposing telecom companies would compete to offer consumers cheaper rates for using data services, and the prices would fall. This is an issue of concern to many Canadians, and the big three Telecom companies have been systematically working to minimize competition, although I appreciated it when you stepped in and forced the big three to allow smaller carriers access to their fibre networks. I suspect there is some collusion going on, as the big three all seem to raise their prices together, and change their plans to offer very similar deals, all of which are egregiously over-priced. It's shameful how they treat the public, whose tax dollars subsidized the creation of these very networks! I implore you to bring more diversity and competition to this market, and investigate and end whatever anti-competitive practices are being employed by the big three telecom companies.

While differential pricing may seem to offer a better deal to consumers, it doesn't address the source of our telecom woes. If introduced, the best outcome is that Canadians remain understandably upset about the telecom market, and work for change. The worst outcome is that Canadians, now able to watch all they like of certain videos on certain websites, and listen to as many of certain songs as they wish, all with hefty advertisements, will become adjusted to a new status quo, where the content they can access on a regular basis is severely restricted. They'll be presented with the internet, but with the internet as the telecom company would like them to see it. This raises many scary questions. Will companies charge higher fees for visiting websites or watching videos made by their competitors, or critics? Will they censor what we see, shaping our opinions, which increasingly are informed by the net? What about companies that have a political agenda? Are we okay with companies being able to undermine the freedom of discussion and sharing of opinions that characterizes the internet? There are many sound business decisions that companies could make if differential pricing were legal, which would lead to terrible consequences. The internet is a portal through which millions of individuals are informed about the world, and by which they shape it, and we can't let companies control our means to do so. It's important to put measures into place now to preserve our citizens' access to the internet, as in the future, with our consumption of bandwidth increasing, and without data costs coming way down, zero-rated content will be the only content that is widely accessible.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, whatever transitory benefit is outweighed by concerns about fair access to content on the internet, and concerns that companies will use this to placate consumers with curated content, rather than competing with eachother to offer us fair prices for data. We can't let service providers decide, as such companies might seek to prevent us finding out about other plans, or minimize their critics; they've already tried manipulating the national sentiment against foreign service providers, so can we really trust them to keep the internet unbiased if they can stand to gain from doing otherwise?

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

You need to take a clear stance against it, and fine severely companies that seek to do it. Please try also to help create a more competitive market, where the incredibly low cost of transmitting data is passed on to consumers, as opposed to a price that's agreed upon in a back room by the major telecom companies.

Lakhjhajj 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:38:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Canadians are trapped by data caps: For wired Internet, data caps in most of the world are unheard of. For wireless, caps in other nations are far more reasonable than those in Canada.Look at what T-Mobile has done in United States. Nothing less than amazing. Making everything UNLIMITED ON WIRELESS WITHIN REASONABLE COST. WE NEED THAT IN CANADA. AND SINCE WE DONT HAVE T-MOBILE HERE IN THE GREAT NORTH, WE HAVE YOU CRTC. U CAN BE THAT SAVIOUR WHO NEEDS TO AND CAN MONITOR AND CONTROL WHAT THESE BIG TELCOS CHARGE PER MONTH AND REGULATE THE PRICING SO THAT HAVING WIRELESS DATA WONT COST AN ARM AND A LEG.

Hammergrayboy 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:39:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I can't think of any benefit from differential pricing except to the telecom companies. They seriously restrict online access, which is an essential service for most Canadians.

windummy2016 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:44:42 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Hello,

As a life-long resident of Rural Canada, I am among many who rely on the internet for many vital services. My high speed is laughable in relation to what urban residents enjoy and is tower based; this translates to frequent service interruptions and omnipresent slow uploads. Often, I must use my cell phone which means I must subscribe to and maintain an additional plan with a restrictive cost dependent data cap. Given the excessive costs rural residents are already forced to pay, I expect to be given the right to curate my own personal information environment. I require free and un-throttled access to the internet for work and business, safety and to engage and learn in the new meta social environment. Zero rating, aka differential pricing, will only serve to further inhibit what I believe to be my right to access, curate and utilize knowledge and information and to maintain access to public services and public safety and education information . I do not want to be subjected to the manipulative consolidation that has occurred in print and television media within the internet mileu, I want all data sources and streams available to me when I choose, I want net neutrality and an end to absurd data caps, lets join the rest of the world rather than continue to be mired in this moor of corporate control of public open source information. For many Canadians, the internet is already an essential service that we have to pay for; there is no Rural wifi network! existing data caps are an extant punitive cost we are forced to submit to.

.

l3france 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:47:07 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) The only benefit I can think of is that it can bring down Canada's extremely high internet costs.

2) It is incredibly unfair for some people to have easier/cheaper access to an essential form of communication. It undermines net neutrality, allows ISPs to be gatekeepers of the internet, and harms small companies who will be unable to have the same level of access.

3) The concerns outweigh the benefits by a massive proportion. The service providers should not be allowed to decide, as they will choose the most self-serving options, not what is best for the Canadian people.

4) The internet should be considered an essential service, and should be equally available to all Canadians, and equally available to all companies. It is a critical part of today's life, and is too critical to be allowed to be designed by a few large companies. It must be designed and built in a way that will help Canadians today, and in the future.

revolting_blob Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:47:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I absolutely do not support differential pricing. There is no scenario that I can think of where this could provide a benefit to the consumer. ISPs should be regulated tightly to ensure that they do not prioritize traffic for any business interest over any other interest, public or private.

As a consumer and Internet user, I should be able to decide for myself how I access data and what I do online. From the ISP's perspective, one packet of data is essentially the same as any other, and they should have no business shaping my Internet experience. This kind of control can only tend toward further monopolization and abuse, not to mention affecting my bills for using a service that I'm already paying to access. It will also choke technological innovation in Canada for anyone but those with the money and connections to have their services prioritized by corporate interests.

knightelite Saskatchewan 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:55:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Doesn't really seem to be any from my perspective.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Limited choice of ISPs, and similar plans from various ISPs means that there often isn't any option. Differential pricing forces people towards particular service providers for their online video needs, who may not actually have a superior product, but are only more appealing because of Zero-Rating. Getting access to the service that might be preferred might require paying more to get a larger data cap.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

They easily outweigh the benefits, and the CRTC should step in to regulate the Telecom industry more heavily in terms of the types of plans that they can offer.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Regulation should remove data caps, as they have no actual technical reason to exist, and are purely a money grab from the ISPs. If ISPs feel the need to differentiate their services, then they should actually compete on speed, price, availability or latency rather than artificially limiting access to the network, or penalizing users for not using specific products owned by or sponsored by the ISPs.

pipsname Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:56:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Would this include IPTV services that some how manage to use a ton more data than any high usage downloader but some how managed to stay under the radar when ISPs talk about usage based billing.
Now that 4k tv is a thing the low end of each frame is 35 Mbps PER FRAME and companies like Bell advertise that they have the highest quality.
When you take price point per usage for each an internet plan and an IPTV plan the difference is crazy.

anythingffs 1 point Wed Sep 28 02:59:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Could be a way to improve access to public services. Eliminate charges for accessing services related to education, government, health, public broadcasters, etc. Basic access for all.
  2. My concerns are that providers will use (are using) their positions as ISPs and content licence holders to overcharge for choices that don't result in bundles and other lock-ins to their other offerings.
  3. The CRTC should absolutely regulate. Net neutrality should be preserved. The last mile and wireless infrastructure should be run by not-for-profit orgs with government oversight. They should be separate from the content and upstream providers that provide the services over the infrastructure. This would facilitate true innovation in content and services while the infrastructure is built to service all Canadians as fairly and well as possible.
  4. Keep working to separate the business of critical infrastructure provision from the content business.

roubent 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:06:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm against differential pricing, because it's in direct opposition of net neutrality. Net neutrality is absolutely crucial to the sustainability and continued developed of the Internet, and the phenomenon of the "global village".

maractite 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:07:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) For apps/services that are unique (ie there exists no real competing service), data-heavy, and not owned by a provider (eg Pokemon Go), it provides an incentive to consumers to offer zero-rating for this app as a sort of supplement to their current data cap. However, instances of this are rare, and the potential for abuse offsets any consumer benefit this would provide. In these cases, it would be better to outright increase data caps for all services.
2) My main concern is providers implementing differential pricing, then changing data plans to effectively prevent customers from using any other service. (for example, changing data pricing so $60 will get you 2GB of data, then 1GB, then 250MB, then no data at all unless you're using their approved services)
3) I feel that zero-rating should not be implemented. Rather than compete by offering "incentives" through preferential treatment for a few select apps, the providers should compete through providing more general benefits to consumers through cheaper/larger data plans and allow consumers to choose the services the consumer wants to use, rather than force consumers to use the provider's approved services.
4) The best method of regulating differential pricing is to prevent it outright, and let providers compete by providing incentives such as higher caps/cheaper data to consumers.

partsguy100 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:21:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think the oligopic internet providers should be forced to offer national pricing and give the smaller ISP's the opportunity to create niche packages for consumers. Far too often pricing is regional and consistently outside my region. I switched from Teksavvy to Rogers this spring as the packag offerred was under what Teksavvy could offer me. Im afraid in 18 months Tek might not be around and I was complicit in eliminating competition.

I think ISP's should be banned from 'shaping traffic' and should also be banned from watching my actions on the net. Don't get me started about ISP's fighting injunctions for / information of people suspected of downloading pirated material. They should stop selling out their subscribers and have a policy to fight these requests from the couts.

LucDevroye 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:21:57 2016 UTC  (0 children)

In view of the social and educational benefits of the access to information on the internet, I believe that every Canadian should have a minimal free service, guaranteed by the country---just like health care. It is THAT important. A certain x-Mb/second speed, unlimited. Not the maximal speed, mind you, but one that permits everyone to participate and benefit and grow.

The issue being discussed here is differential pricing, which goes beyond the basic needs. I assume that companies are saying that if all users have unlimited capacity and unlimited speed, then the internet will crawl to a halt. We need official verification of this by officials that are unbiased. Without that information, how can one form an opinion?

I would really be upset if special pricing were to be introduced for visiting ordinary (non-streaming, non-movie) web sites, for ordinary clips of the type shown in Youtube, and of low quality streaming of sports events, for example.

In fact, to make the companies happy, one could argue about low quality versus high quality streaming of movies for example, and work that into a pricing formula.

In any case, the government SHOULD regulate, and keep a balanced view.

Right now, I am paying 95 dollars a month for an internet service in Montreal that is about 6 times slower than the service people get in Chicago at a fraction of the cost. It is expensive and slow. How can there even be a discussion about increasing prices on a differential basis, when the status quo is already bad? So, to recap: (1) internat free for all at a limited speed; (2) internet should be cheaper than today for the lousy speed we have now; at that speed, there should be no limits; (3) perhaps let the companies decide on extra pricing for high quality streaming (high definition, large bandwidth) with an annual check of what "high definition, large bandwidth" means because these numbers change with technological advances from year to year.

Luc Devroye (McGill University)

nofilterdrake 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:22:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Absolutely none, just encourages sketchy deals in back rooms that don't benefit anyone except for the company profiting off them. The beauty of the internet is your freedom to choose what services you want to use or see.

  2. The freedom to pick what companies you want to support and use, let's say Crackle enters into a deal with the ISP's that you won't pay for data used. I could see ISP's lowering already incredibly low data caps because we don't need all that "extra data" since your video watching needs are covered. Data caps are already incredibly low and unnecessary, as someone who lives in MB it's disgusting what large Telecom companies expect Canadians to pay for little to no data.

  3. I absolutely believe the CRTC should be involved in anything to do with the freedom of the internet whether it be via ISP's or telecoms.

  4. Everything done should be for the benefit of the consumer. The providers making more money off of already expensive plans shouldn't be able to say use company a because they were willing to pay/pay more than b so you have more incentive to use their service. If company a's data doesn't count neither should company b's plain and simple.

a9249 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:23:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It is not right that the same people who are owners of the dying industry at the hands of the internet are also the gatekeepers of our internet access. There is a massive conflict of interest there thus stronger regulations are necessary to protect our freedom. This is not only a human rights argument, but an economic one too. The ability to treat all traffic equally spawns innovation. Limiting that stifles new industries and would put the nation's tech sector back decades.

jayisonreddit 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:25:09 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

There really isn't much to say that hasn't been said a thousand times already, both by other redditers and also by the US when they had this discussion. But I'm going to comment too because apparently it hasn't been enough.

The state of Canadian internet (home and phone) is horrifying. We have the highest prices in the western world and the lowest data caps. There's absolutely no way this should have been allowed to flourish the way it has. In Europe you can get a 5GB mobile data plan that works in the entire EU for $50 USD. In America 5GB is roughly $50 USD as well. To get a plan like that in Canada is $86 USD. The ruling you made outlawing 3 year contracts was a good step in freeing Canadians from the shackles of the 'big three' telecom, but you made no provisions for how much they were allowed to price gouge us in return for that ruling. Our plans went up horrendously just for the sake of the 2 year contracts. It was a step in the right direction but it was implemented horribly. Please don't make the same mistake this time round.

Okay, here are your questions:

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? Internet Service Providers will benefit the most from this. They will be able to restrict our internet choices and profit from everyday Canadians even more than they are already. There is also benefit to people who use only one service and have no plans to change. If you use Netflix exclusively, and Bell offers free Netflix, you will benefit. But this is cause for concern as well, which I'll continue in the next question.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? This is a cause for concern because if Netflix-users are not already on Bell in that example, they will have to switch their entire Internet Service Provider to take advantage of this. And why not just stay on Rogers and use Netflix regularly (not for free)? Well, because suppose Rogers supports Shomi, and lowers our data caps so that we can only happily watch with Shomi, thereby increasing the likelihood that we will have to pay overage charges if we have too much Netflix usage. Or they may just flat out charge extra for any Netflix connections.

Another scenario: I use Shomi and am happy with it. I'm on a 2 year Rogers internet plan. They offer Shomi for free and that's great news for me. 1 year later, Shomi gets some content pulled and stops offering as much new content. So I cancel my Shomi account and buy a Netflix one instead. Now suddenly I'm paying double for Netflix - one charge for the service, one charge for not using Rogers' preferred service (by Rogers' fee, or by overage charge). To escape these fees, I will literally have to change my entire Internet Service Provider. And then of course I would have to pay Rogers for cancelling my contract. And pay for a new modem rental. And pay installation fees. And have a few days to a week of no internet. And what happens if my building only uses Rogers? (which is another huge issue in our internet service, but I digress). And what happens if my area only gets Rogers, and Bell isn't an option for me? This will greatly discriminate against Canadians who do not live in populated areas with more choice of Internet Service Providers.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? Letting the market decide is honestly a foolish idea. It's all well and good to say 'vote with your money' and assume the market will do its thing. But that scenario only works in a place where A) there's no monopoly (or effective monopoly / triopoly, if you will), and B) users have free access to all parties. Canada is disqualified by both those points. When the market decides, the regular Canadians get screwed over. We've seen it many times and we're seeing it now.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? You very much should step in. If you have any interest in protecting Canadians, if you have any interest in bringing us into the world-class internet market, you will step in. You should regulate it by introducing a government-run telecom company. I've seen that idea floated a few times in this thread already, and we know it works because they're already doing it in Saskatchewan. It keeps the market alive and competitive, something the majority of Canadians have never seen in this country. You should also outlaw data caps. I know, it sounds shocking, but they're arbitrary and only exist to price-gouge. It's true. Telecom companies don't lose any money by offering more data. It's a switch. It's not even a physical switch. If that limit comes into effect at 2GB or 5GB or 50GB, it costs them absolutely nothing. The infrastructure is still there, the data running through those cables is still there. It's just being throttled by the companies. A FAR more fair way to do this would be to abolish data caps, and charge for network speeds, since those actually matter in terms of infrastructure. Infrastructure that has barely been updated in decades, mind you. With all the money these companies collect, we should have far better service throughout Canada. But we don't.

Internet is not just a privilege in this world. It's a necessity. We need it to find jobs, and often to keep those jobs. We need it to contact our loved ones. These high prices hurt low-income Canadians and keep them down. This plan of differential pricing hurts everyone in the long-term. It's a step in the wrong direction for giving Canadians fair access to internet. Please do the right thing.

a9249 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:26:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Regulation is simple; all internet traffic should be treated equally. In fact take that a step further and force all connection to require encryption to the destination server, so that no snooping or traffic shaping would be possible.

jonaston 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:28:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I appreciate the CRTC doing this public consultation in a much more democratic way than most public consultations are conducted. Thank you.

I think the bigger problem (and the elephant in the room) is that what Canadians REALLY want the CRTC to tackle is the ridiculous stranglehold a few very large telecoms have over our lives – and how deeply they are reaching into our pockets at every possible opportunity.

Canadian consumers essentially have no decent alternatives. We pay more than just about anyone on the planet for what amounts to terrible service, over a network backbone that was heavily publicly funded so long ago that it is now obsolete compared to many other country's standards.

In my view, today, internet service delivery should be treated as a public utility – and not in private shareholder hands. How do we get there? I have no idea. Well, I have some idea. Telecoms (and other big business) could be paying their fair share of taxes, for starters.

Thanks again for your ear.

ddotca 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:29:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. The only benefits are for big Telcos as differential ricing is another disguise to stifle competition in detriment of Canadians.
  2. Of course I have concerns because that would increase the stronghold Telecoms already have on consumers giving them additional means ("legal means") to discriminate and charge as they feel. They should be told to remove all data caps so that Canada can move forward to be at the same level of countries where net-neutrality is enforced. As we stand, Canada is being held back to satisfy Telecoms' insatiable greed.
  3. The concerns do, absolutely, outweigh the benefits to Canadians and the CRTC should definitely step in to defend consumers rights. Service providers must NOT be allowed to decide.
  4. Categorically forbid "price differential" under ANY guise, no half measures, please! Force them to remove data caps, there is no technical justification to impose them, only greed. Enforce net-neutrality. Internet IS a public utility: Regulate charges imposed by service providers. Promote innovation and progress in Canada by breaking the grip that's strangling the Canadian consumer. NOTE TO CRTC: Big Telcos already charge, in Canada, one of the highest, if not the highest charges for communication services which are mediocre when compare to their cost. In the mean time, they completely ignore CRTC rulings if it threatens their greed. I would like to, as a tax-paying Canadian consumer, ask CRTC to enforce rulings already issued.

xylantexodus 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:35:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Differential pricing will make more money for the companies involved in developing and maintaining the infrastructure used to communicate on the internet. This can be considered a benefit, but raising the price for consumers when ISP's already charge thousands or tens-of-thousands of the percentage cost of maintenance would be seen as devious at best by the customers that they more or less have a monopoly over.
  2. I am concerned that differential pricing will end up costing consumers more in multiple ways. First, setting unreasonably low data caps will prevent low-income customers from accessing online services that would be available to them otherwise, or it would force these customers into a censored format controlled directly by the ISP. Second, providing free access for customers to certain services will reduce divercity in Canada. It can be argued that this format doesn't intend to limit online content, but by providing some content for free while imposing data caps on the rest of the internet, users are forced into curated viewing windows. This would fundamentally change the internet from a communications platform where everyone is considered equals into a content delivery service where the decisions of a few affect the lives of many. Third, the fact that a company like Bell creates media as well as controls the infrastructure that media is delivered on should be seen as a conflict of interest. I believe all infrastructure should be publicly owned and operated. Whether that's communications, transportation or power shouldn't matter. I hold this belief because these things should be provided to everyone equally, so if that can be accomplished while services are privately owned that would saticefy me. Differential pricing directly opposes this concept, and so I directly oppose differential pricing.
  3. Providing free access to sub-par services should not outweigh the social, cultural and economic costs that differential pricing would induce. The very existence of the idea of differential pricing highlights a bigger problem in our data services today. There's a big disconnect between how data delivery actually works and how it's sold to consumers. Delivery of internet service depends on bandwidth availability. Bandwidth is how much data can be transfered on a line at any given moment. The only limitation to this is based on how many people are using these lines at the same time. There's no magical limit to how much data one person can transfer in a month beyond the speed of delivery (bandwidth) multiplied by how much time there is in a month. For example, 5Mb/s x 2 419 200 (number of seconds in 28 days) means there's a theoretical limit of about 12 terabytes, or 12 000 gigabytes in a month.
  4. Continuing on this idea, a more appropriate way of charging data usage could be modelled after electricity delivery, where internet costs more during peak periods and less at off-peak times. This would still be inappropriate, but it would fit better than differential pricing. Ultimately, I believe the government needs to impose pricing limits based on the actual cost of maintenance for these data services. Something like 10x the cost of maintenance should allow for expansion and upgrades easily. If these companies cannot afford to function within these restrictions, perhaps it should be considered that they are poorly managed or have grossly misappropriated their funds.

C1RCA302 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:37:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

In an ever growing and expanding Internet we are falling behind. Files are getting larger, data is being shared more often, and everything is always trying to update to keep services viable. Canada is falling behind.

How can it be justified to allow the ISPs to govern themselves when all they are looking at is their bottom line and how much the board of directors can profit? Roger's, Bell, and Telus have taken hold of the markets and kept it. Even the smaller companies that try to offer better rates end up falling short because they have to rely on these three giants who screw them over too.

There should for sure be no data limits and a way better pricing structure. If you look at the price ranges for the same packages across Canada from province to province it's ridiculous. Just because someone lives in Ontario, GTA for example, or BC they are expected to pay significantly more. Also as previously mentioned files and transferred data are becoming bigger and bigger as the tech industry evolves. Just look at Netflix and how it's getting more and more subscribers every year. We can't be having to constantly watch our data limits just to enjoy entertainment.

All the same can be said for phone data usage as well. From province to province pricing structures vary significantly. And once again data transfers and files are becoming larger and larger. Keeping data limits stops Canadians from being able to use their devices that they worked so hard to pay for to their full potential.

Data limits are just a way for the telecoms to gain more money without lifting a finger. They are either forcing you to pay them upfront for the flip of a switch, or making you limit the way you spend your free time on a service you are paying for. And if you go over any of the limits they make you pay a ridiculous fee, even though this extra data has cost them nothing.

Right now as it stands the only ones benefiting are the high ups in these companies. While Canadians are having to suffer. We have gone on with this for far too long. Let's stop this nonsense.

sousac 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:41:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential Pricing is a lot like Pizza*

Imagine a city where three or four large companies own the roads. In this same city some of the same companies own some of the pizza delivery restaurants and are business partners with others. Other pizza restaurants are privately owned.

If you happen to order from a restaurant owned by or affiliated with the road company there is no road usage fee. If, however, you prefer another restaurant - one that is owned by an independent - the road company will charge both you and the restaurant a usage fee.

Over time this shapes consumer behaviour and the best independent pizza restaurants begin to wither and fade into insolvency. In the aftermath of this economic pizza downfall, you now have only a few pizza restaurants to choose from. Its boring, mundane, and lacklustre.

Owning roads should not create a competitive advantage if you also own pizza restaurant. Roads are public, open, and a public necessity. The Internet is more like a roadway and less like a commodity.

AlsoHorny 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:46:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am wholly against this idea.

This can set an ugly precedent. Soon it could be the way that only those paying for a service from a telecom could have cheaper rates while paid rates for services not included could go through the roof. There would be even less to stop the excessive gouging that we as consumers face here in Canada.

Everyone has the right fair and equal access to all elements of the web. Data caps and 'zero-pricing' are a fix.

footree 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:55:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am against this and so should every Canadian be

kaimokaimo 1 point Wed Sep 28 03:56:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This will simply give the big service providers another opportunity to strengthen their monopoly over the internet in Canada. I find it offensive that we pay some of the highest rates in the world for sub par service. The presence of data caps in this country causes me to believe that the CRTC exists only to preserve the status quo which is unacceptable. It saddens me to know that Canada will fall behind economically as a result of this.

boranin 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:01:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are none. It's anti-competitive and monopolistic. Goes against Net Neutrality like others have pointed out.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

It is absolutely CRTC's job to regulate the practices. The entire wireless/ISP market is fairly monopolistic in nature and the consumers don't have any real practical choice

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Regulate these ridiculously low data caps service providers offer, enforce Net Neutrality, or better yet, force service providers to lower their rates for other content/apps if they attempt to offer differential pricing for their own content/apps

MrGuttFeeling 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:02:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I don't trust the CRTC to do what is right for the consumer.

Justin-Bakker 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:04:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

First off I'd like to thank the CRTC for creating a transparent process for public consultation! Bravo and please continue with this method to help insure that the public at large has a voice.

Now to the question at hand. Should differential pricing be allowed? The short answer is NO! The reason being that it creates favouritism among websites and sets a poor precedent about the regulation of the internet as a whole. If we allow ISPs to decide which websites can be accessed free of charge we are essentially giving them permission to limit our exposure to information. The backbone of a democracy is access to information. This is why we have libraries that are publicly funded. We do not allow some books to be free while others are charged for rent at a premium. That would be absurd! The same logic applies here. The internet is the new public library. It should be considered as the essential utility that it is. Not only should we not allow differential pricing, but we should also have no charge for access to this plethora of human knowledge. A state run, fully transparent, open, and non-restrictive ISP should be established as a check against private ISPs. We need a publicly funded ISP to set a precedent for all companies wishing to have a private service. In short, a publicly owned ISP would negate the need for private ISPs and their ridiculous money gouging ways. If we had a publicly funded ISP then we wouldn't even need to have this conversation about differential pricing because we would all have complete and unfettered access to the internet as a whole! So please, as a first step, do NOT allow ISPs to create differential pricing. It is immoral and unjustified. There is no argument that can be made to say it will benefit Canadian citizens. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

wicko 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:04:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. This does not benefit the user, it's a net loss. Artificially restricting bandwidth, then removing that restriction for a small subset of services - it's hard to interpret this as a benefit.

  2. Under what conditions would a service be included in this exemption? Likely the services that benefit the provider - whether it be the provider's own services, or the popular services who are able to afford the costs. This makes it more difficult for a start-up to gain traction. This might also divert users from some services to the ones exempt - not because the exempt service is of higher quality, but because of bandwidth concerns. What's most concerning to me is this appears to be a form of control over the content I view. What business does a service provider have doing such a thing?

  3. I think the concerns greatly outweigh the benefits, as there are no benefits. I would expect the CRTC to regulate this. It has been made clear that service providers think little of user concerns - they are only motivated by money.

  4. I would expect the CRTC to go beyond just regulation of this behaviour, and prevent it entirely. In fact, I think the CRTC should question whether data caps should exist at all.

I really hope the CRTC considers doing far more than this, however. The Internet has become a requirement to compete in this day and age - it has become an essential service. It's time to treat it like one.

Canadacorps 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:04:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think zero rating is a terrible idea, and instead the CRTC should call for an END to data caps! There is no such thing as too much internet, and eliminating data caps would level the playing field, ensuring that the telcos cannot charge a premium for content other than their preferred (see self produced, and marketed) content. This will also ensure that the internet remains an open and competitive marketplace for Canadians.

If zero rating happened, you would be, in effect, squashing innovative Canadian startups that could become the next Reddit or Twitter, simply because the big telecoms would zero rate their own products and services and force us to pay high data fees to access other lesser known content. This kills innovation in the Canadian marketplace and creates an unfair advantage for filthy rich telecoms who want to exploit the working folk even further while lining their own pockets.

Aside from this, with levels of the government itself eliminating paper, ie. Alberta license and registration renewals going with ONLINE ONLY notifications, the need for removal of data caps is higher than ever, because critical notices could be missed by people simply because they cant afford the exhorbitant fees that service providers impose through the use of artificial "caps" on data usage.

We need YOU, our CRTC, to champion the cause of the Canadian people and give us a STRONG and TRANSPARENT enforcement of the rules and hold the telcos responsible and accountable to those rules that govern the marketplace. This means NOT allowing them to create loopholes and stop their schemes to crush the wheels of progress and innovation. We NEED you to be our defender of an internet that is open and fair for all.

baxtre 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:07:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data caps, and the rules that ensure that our "top 3" do not need to compete has hurt Canada as a competitive internet juggernaut. To compete globally in the modern age we need to remove data-caps and remove restrictions that telcos have been enabled to enact (whether through crtc action or inaction)

johnathamilton 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:19:38 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I support network neutrality. The current model of mixing content and transmission has allowed telecoms to attempt to favour their own content businesses at the expense of their network customers. This is a conflict of interest. It's like an electrical transmission company which also happens to own a power generating company to distort the competitive market by favouring transmission rates for those customers who buy their electricity from that producer. We would never stand for that. Secondly, caps promote abuse and inefficiency of data. With data caps, telecoms are not motivated to make data more efficient. In fact, they are motivated to make it less efficiently hence clogging up the very data network capacity that they sell. Elimination of caps would motivate these telecoms to compete for customers in numbers and strive to make their networks more efficient. Improved network infrastructure would be rewarded with more customers.

SparkyTemper 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:22:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

This is the slippery slope that government wants. Make ISP's into gatekeepers and suddenly they not only have the right to monitor traffic, but the responsibility. Then, when someone is streaming a movie, not only are they charged a different rate, if that movie turns out to be "legally questionable", it's logged for proof and possible prosecution.

When I, someone who values my privacy, decide to use a VPN to encrypt all my traffic and tunnel through to a different location, since they can't tell what I'm doing, will they limit my bandwidth? Charge me the higher rate?

There is no benefit from differential pricing. Mobile phone providers have proven that. All it is, is an opportunity to charge more for services. This might turn out to be a reduced bill for a few months or years, until we're paying twice as much as we used to.

How do they prove what they bill? If I have a disagreement about how long I watched Netflix, what are my resources?

What if someone hacks my wifi? Big bill incoming!

dittomuch Outside Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:34:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Differential pricing allows companies that partner with providers to gain market share in an unfair way distorting the market. Take for example Facebook in south east asia which through differential pricing is effectively free and has had the net effect of preventing people from starting online services. Why invest in a website and online ordering if only 10% of people can see it when you can instead put your resources into a facebook presence that 90% can see. This has reduced web adoption and technology has stagnated because of it.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I believe it will create a circumstance where each provider will have a set of businesses they promote and work with creating consumer confusion and a distorted market especially for new and up and coming companies.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

There needs to be a firm rule enforcing net neutrality 100% with absolutely no exceptions. Bell/Rogers/Shaw as bpoth primary suppliers and as media content owner will distort the media market if not prevented. Differential pricing allows effectively for price fixing by ISP's using their own content as a bait and switch.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Do not allow it at all 100% regulate against differential pricing. All packet traffic must be treated 100% equally when it comes to bandwidth usage.

TROPtastic 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:40:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Ordinary consumers won't see benefits unless they happen to use the same services that their internet provider is providing for free or at reduced cost (eg. if Rogers has a special deal with Shomi, then Rogers customers who love Shomi would be happy)

  2. Many concerns. The flipside to some people being better off is that everyone else would be worse off. Canada's telcos see internet pricing as a zero-sum game, so if they are providing some data for free, they would definitely increase the cost of other services to match. In the not-so-hypothetical example above, the Rogers customer would pay more if they decided that they wanted to watch Netflix one day instead of Shomi. Other customers who don't watch Shomi and watched competing streaming services instead would see literally no benefits and would only experience higher prices. More broadly, differential pricing is anti net neutrality due to its inherent objective of treating data differently depending on what source that it comes from. Internet providers already have far too much influence in Canada when it comes to setting the price of internet services, so they definitely shouldn't have the ability to decide what services Canadian consumers should use more frequently.

  3. Absolutely this needs to be regulated. The CRTC should ban this practice outright in order to ensure that Canadian internet customers are protected from shady deals and opaque pricing structures, which would certainly appear if the CRTC allowed Canadian internet companies to start applying this practice. Banning zero-rating would also ensure that Canadians aren't penalized for their online media choices. The internet companies can't be trusted to self-regulate since they have had a poor track record when it comes to selling fairly-priced (relative to the rest of the world) internet services to Canadians.

  4. That is up to you, but I imagine that regulating the internet companies as utility companies (because in 2016 that is what they are) would be the most effective way of doing so. There would possibly be a legal battle to decide if internet companies are actually utilities, but I'm confident that by keeping the best interests of ordinary Canadians at heart, the CRTC would be able to defeat the rich lobbyists and lawyers that RogerBellus would pull out in defense of the status quo.

Cerxi 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:42:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

They allow the companies to charge more to customers who use more. This would be acceptable, possibly, if prices weren't so absurdly inflated to begin with. But given that Canada has some of the highest prices in the world, for some of the worst service in the world, stacking an additional fee on top is frankly ridiculous.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yeah, my concern is that it's just another way for these companies to squeeze more nickles and dimes out of our pockets without actually offering anything new. They're worsening the service we're currently being offered and demanding more money to have it restored? In what world is this okay?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Look at the state of our telecom network. Third-world countries have better networks than we do. This is not, even slightly, an exaggeration. Our service providers, backed by the government's unwillingness to foster competitiveness or prevent collusion, have created an industry that is literally the laughingstock of the world. I'd say they've proven pretty handily that they cannot be trusted to decide anything.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

In a perfect world? Wired connections shouldn't have data caps. There's absolutely no reason, no excuse for it. That aside, I'd say require them to either lower prices overall or improve service (preferably both), before being allowed to enact charged data caps. Don't let them charge us more for the same pathetic service.

lavaslippers 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:52:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The internet is the most useful and effective means of information transmission and communication. It should be considered a utility. Differential pricing would result in sponsored, corporate influence over what types and sources of data people use and would therefore eliminate Net Neutrality. Data caps are merely in place to incentivize the subscription to higher-priced plans; they are not in place to protect the limitations of the networking equipment, as has been claimed in the past.

The prevention of differential pricing would serve to protect users from corporate interests. The elimination of data caps would serve to encourage more use of the internet, which would open more people to access information and remain in regular contact with other people, remain up to date in current events and would lead to them accessing more advertising on websites.

ICEFARMER 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:57:19 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

This will limit information that consumers have access to. Large corporations will have beneficial treatment and have detrimental effects for small businesses. This will allow the ISPs to hold information for virtual ransom. This will ensure that corporate messages will override the will, opinions and potentially rights of consumers. This is an affront to net neutrality. There is also a massive privacy concern as this would dictate that ISPs monitor consumer interactions and communications.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. This will simply make things more expensive for everyone and the pricing in Canada is already far too expensive compared with other first world nations.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

It essentially demands that the CRTC become involved to protect consumer rights.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Guarantee net neutrality and ban differential pricing.

snowtr 1 point Wed Sep 28 04:57:23 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is just another way to say Net Neutrality, which we already said we don't want. We don't want this cr@p either.

j-spice 1 point Wed Sep 28 05:10:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Great to see the CRTC engaging with Canadians on important issues like this. I feel admiration and pride for this Blais-led CRTC that is tackling important issues to protect Canadian consumers. The Wireless Code was and is groundbreaking. The TV regulations are interesting. Keep up the good work!

EmperorOfCanada 1 point Wed Sep 28 05:11:07 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is the sort of idea bad ideas have so they feel better about themselves (E. Cod)

Don't look at what the telcos are promising to do, but look at what they can do that makes them more money and secures their position. This is what will then be the first thing. Don't worry they will figure out ways to abuse this even more.

Look at what they did with the "skinny" packages. They abused the crap out of those.

But to be specific, this is clearly to do two things. First is to attack netflix.

But second this is to really really hurt the little guy. If you go back in time you can find all kinds of services that the telcos came up with or did deals with such as Bell doing a deal with Lycos. Had this sort of thing been in place they would have probably featured lycos and hurt the upstart google. This is not good for their customers. This is only good for the telco and their friends.

If you want to look at how this is going to boil down simply look at protection rackets of the mob. The telcos will say, "That is a very nice service you are offering, too bad if something happened to your data." They are angry that other people are making a profit and that they aren't getting their taste.

If these telcos were all that great their services would be all over the world. But they aren't, they are only in Canada. Why is that? Why did they freak out a few years back when they thought a major US player was coming. If their services were such good value then a competitor would get no traction.

But the worst of all, and a great example of their way of doing business will be that the shills both paid and their own employees are going to come in here and vote posts like mine into oblivion, while voting up their clearly shill "talking points.".

If you look at the true mood of most Canadians they are deeply angry at the telcos. They know that they are being royally ripped off. There are all kinds of excuses provided by the telcos about Canada being a big country, but those don't hold water. Other vast open countries provide services with population densities similar, and they provide them cheaper. The desperate avoidance and doing everything they can to prevent real competition is a perfect example of how they operate and the reality of all their excuses. If they truly were operating in a difficult environment in this vast country, then they wouldn't worry about competition as that competition would have to operate in the same vast regions. As a test suggest that the CRTC will allow foreign competitors to operate but only if they provide good coverage to the rural areas. See how they will politically maneuver and spend zillions on PR campaigns.

You don't have the blessing of the Canadian people to give the telcos anything they want. If you want to know what the Canadian people will wholeheartedly bless, just look at anything the telcos ask for and do the exact opposite.

NOTE: It is late at night and the shills are not at work in their Toronto PR offices. Look at the voting and comments now; then look at how their will be a sea change come 9am Toronto time.

G8kpr 1 point Wed Sep 28 05:20:29 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am a bit late to this, but this sort of pricing structure is dangerous... It's a slippery slope to let Rogers and Bell dictate what apps or services will cost less or more data. It will give an advantage to popular apps, and new apps will struggle to gain a foothold.

if there is a better netflix app that comes out in 5 years, who is going to use it, if it costs more vs. the current netflix app.

Also what if Rogers comes out with their own version of streaming video, and allows their app for free, but you need to pay for data for netflix. This is a conflict of interest.

Or if a company can choose to lower or have zero data costs for certain apps, does that mean that they can "raise" data prices for other apps?

Are we going to end up in a world where my cell phone package has a list of apps I can use for zero data costs, and several others that are half price, and then plans are packaged based on apps that they use?

This sounds like cable TV all over again, and it scares me.

iamtdot 1 point Wed Sep 28 05:40:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I don't understand why the ISP's should be allowed to dictate to the end users in these ways. We are being gouged, manipulated and taken advantage of by big Telecom. There are smaller ISPs and CNOC who are just as adament that playing field be leveled. The data caps placed are not nearly adequate in this day and age. We should technologically be equal to our global counter parts, yet instead we are under threat of having our rights once again ignored.

We need to move forward and remove caps without being charged exorbitant rates and ridiculously high overage fees.

Users, not telecom companies, should decide which services we use online.

Differential pricing (or zero-rating) seriously limits choice and stifles competition on the Internet.

We need transparency and strong enforcement to ensure telcos stick by the rules, and face penalties when those rules are broken.

Please help ensure we get access to reasonable speeds without unnecessary data caps at an affordable rate for the general population.

Fishheadman 1 point Wed Sep 28 05:50:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Please stop the price gouging and data caps it is absurd. I have a tiny 50 MB of data on my phone plan. That is not even enough to download some mobile apps. As soon as I go even 1 kb over I get dinged $5 dollars. I refuse to use data until it is actually affordably for the average citizen. It is a FACT that these companies make absurd profits off data caps and overage fees. The provide the LEAST amount of service as possible for outrageous prices because they have been allowed to stay in the infant age of internet while real people need multiple GBs of data at an affordable rate.

My wife gets only 500 MBs data and pays over $80 for this.

For home internet it is not much better. The only company I have seen with a reasonable pricing structure is Teksavvy (in Ontario).

Again it is a fact these companies make unfathomable profits off users with these caps that have no place in this day and age considering that it costs them essentially nothing to provide the service.

anudderbruce 1 point Wed Sep 28 06:37:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The people that will be most adversely affecd are the ones who can least afford it. Those people who are students and have low income will not be able to access the diversity of the web restricting their ability to create valid theories or genetate an informed opinion on many topics including voting and climate issues.

EKmoreGG 1 point Wed Sep 28 06:52:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

If the providers control the caps then differential pricing can't be sustainable. Especially considering the obvious implication of certain apps not having caps is that there's no need for a cap in the first place.

kataflokc 1 point Wed Sep 28 06:58:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Only a robelus lobbyist could even have written this question. There is no benefit to anyone but them and their ceaseless obsession with lining their shareholder's pockets -- and there never will be. While it does give certain (uninformed) consumers the illusion they are receiving something for free, it does so at the expense of competition and the development of new technologies and, ultimately, allows protectionist control of media and technology.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The internet must be a level playing field for new entrants or innovation will stall. We simply can not have ISP's picking which new technologies will win or lose.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Canada does not have competition among wireless or wired ISP service and, as such, there is no other option but for government to step in and regulate this -- with fierce aggressiveness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban data caps and forget about just banning zero rating -- go all the way and ban per-usage billing entirely. Mandate that, if an ISP provides service at all, they must provide unlimited wired and wireless data. Period!!!!!

And, then put serious teeth in the law. We need intensive scrutiny and aggressive enforcement to ensure robelus and wired ISP providers follow the rules, and face harsh and meaningful penalties when those rules are broken.

Sabiduria_LA 1 point Wed Sep 28 07:08:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? It's a practice where telephone companies strike backroom deals to make certain apps data free but not others, while using ridiculously low data caps to force you into their ‘preferred' services.

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Arguably, it's because of net neutrality regulations, we're now seeing the rise of various zero-rating schemes that attempt to get around Net Neutrality regulations.

EX: if you're an Internet user whose ISP zero-rates a video streaming service, say, Netflix, how likely are you to use that service over one of the many other existing or yet-to-be-developed streaming options? In this way, not only is your ISP pushing you toward the service of their choice – possibly because of an explicit agreement they've made with this company – but they're also threatening to kill innovative new services that may never emerge because everyone is chasing the best deal.

3)Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes the concerns outweigh the benefits. We can't take any steps backwards in net neutrality. This decision should not be in the hand of a few, that's how monopolies are started. People should be allowed to create their own sites & not be blocked by big companies with tons of money.

4)If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

You should allow the public to decide what they want to visit. There should be no limits to the internet, we can connect with people around the world & take online college courses from universities in other counties. Especially when we consider how essential online access has become to our everyday lives.

For wired Internet, data caps in most of the world are unheard of. For wireless, caps in other nations are far more reasonable than those in Canada

A CRTC report released this year says Canadian households spent an average of $203 per month on communications services in 2014. That's an increase of nearly $12 a month or 6.2% from 2013.

Just 59% of the lowest income households have internet access compared with 98% of the highest income households.

Right now, two-thirds of our lowest income earners have cellphones, compared with nearly 98% of our highest income earners.

We can all imagine how difficult that is to gain employment, to be connected in our social world without these affordable devices in our hands. So that growing gap is concerning. Especially as more and more Canadians are finding themselves trying to find jobs in the so-called digital or information economy.

believeit-wheniseeit 1 point Wed Sep 28 08:14:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? Ummm... None.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes! Existing monopolies are vouchsafed their gouging, and innovation gets suppressed -- CONTRARY to the open Internet concept.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

Yes and yes.

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Hell no! Corporations have no real concern for consumers' best interests until their gouging begins to affect sales.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Everything should be charged equally as internet is now a necessary 'utility' like a telephone, not a luxury. If you can watch TV shows 24/7 via a cable subscription, then you should be able to download data 24/7 in the same way. If you can talk for unlimited minutes on a cell plan, then you should be able to download the data rate for unlimited time as well.

Data caps must be done away with, and ISPs must become absolutely neutral with no Zero-rating involved in how a consumer accesses any part/site on the internet.

Joxer007 1 point Wed Sep 28 09:17:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I would love to use my smartphone to is full potential but with a data cap i can't, i have a cap of 6gb on my plan and i use at least 90% of it every month. But sometimes I have to stop using my data a week or 2 before the end of my cycle. I use an average of 30 gb on wifi alone with my smartphone plus my 6gb. This limit keeps me from getting the best of my smartphone.

JTRIG_trainee 1 point Wed Sep 28 09:31:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Beyond cynical that we get what we want. An end to colluding monopoly. An end to being ****** up the *** by the colluding monopoly.

They charge for bits but they don't give the money to content creators? How can they meter bits and not pay content creators? It's a scam, and they ought to be in jail for stifling our competitive advantage. We are a laughing stock. Africans get higher tech than us.

dgrossu 1 point Wed Sep 28 10:33:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Considering that education and human development are done through internet including eLearning or mobile learning, there shall be no data cap on the internet usage. This is the modern way of communicating from around the world. Also, pricing shall not be differentiated per categories since the new computer system can take the loads without any issues.

BrettRey 1 point Wed Sep 28 10:53:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am not aware of any benefit for individuals. It seems to me that this practice only benefits large established players, making it anti-competative. The harms to customers flow from there. I have no expertise in regulation, and so I won't suggest any particular regulatory approach except to say that the result should be unambiguous: within any given ISP's services, all internet content should be equally accessible and equally priced.

hades182 1 point Wed Sep 28 11:02:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The Internet is ubiquitous now. Differential pricing would be the same as if you paid a different price for electricity whether you use a Samsung fridge or a Ge. It would be horrible for competition. Also what about the smaller companies? They would never be able to be part of this pricing arrangement.

polkarooo 1 point Wed Sep 28 11:10:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Benefits: ISP owners get to roll around in more money. Content developers can buy access to the market. The promised benefits for consumers are not going to happen. They're so ridiculous I'm not even typing them out because you and I both know they're complete BS. Let's not kid ourselves.

  2. Concerns: isn't this just a different way to attack net neutrality? I mean, if we re-label poison as honey, that doesn't make it taste any better. And we both know the potential benefits are lies, or will be re-packaged. Instead of "these don't count against your data," it will be, "For $10/month, get the add-on so these don't count against your data."

  3. The concerns come from pretty much every single user on the Internet. The benefits go to pretty much every single ISP owner. I'd venture that 99% of the population doesn't want this to happen. And yes, it should be regulated. And it's really easy to do. You just do what you're currently doing, no extra work really to maintain the status quo which has worked quite fine.

  4. ISPs shouldn't be allowed to favour data for one reason or another. Their job is to provide internet access, not decide on content or promote/advertise different content/services/products.

Also, I am not sure if I am incredibly impressed or incredibly afraid of government policy being influenced by Reddit comments. A bit of both. But kudos for this initiative. I think it's a great experiment in improving democracy and hopefully a successful one for everyone.

Sassyspicoli 1 point Wed Sep 28 11:40:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

End data caps and there will be no need for differential pricing!

I am against differential pricing AND data caps.

ACProctor 1 point Wed Sep 28 11:51:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There are a lot of great comments here about how this affects the customer. Which are absolutely true, this is a price gouge, and Canada's ISPs are really shameless about their treatment of customers.

But I'd like to add another perspective. This is horrible for businesses. The ISPs are creating a false scarcity that only bigger companies can afford to pay around. This is basically racketeering, and stifles the opportunity in one of the most important and fastest growing sectors of the market. For Canada to be competitive in the tech industry, we need our internet to be open and neutral.

DannyG16 1 point Wed Sep 28 11:51:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing is really bad news, it's a form of censorship. If you train the mass population to only get their information/news from the "free source" because the rest of the internet has a direct cost against their low data cap, then you're basically controlling information and thus influencing the population.

Don't we have enough corporate greed in the world already? This will NOT help customers save money, they will will only benefit the big 3's bottom line by creating a new revenu source for accepting huge cash payouts to the highest bidder that wants to sell their information as the truth.

I expect the CRTC to HELP Canadians, to put loop-hole free rules and regulation to PROTECT us from these kinds of things from happening.

We are living in the Information Age, no body here is asking for FREE unlimited internet from a monetary standpoint. We're asking that the internets stays FREE from a censorship standpoint. Not to mention privacy concerns this new program will require.

The only CAP we should introduce is on profits from these corporations. Greed is a sin after all ;)

Cheers

PhelanPKell 1 point Wed Sep 28 11:59:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing is uncompetitive by its very nature, and counter-intuitive to the spirit of the Internet. Other countries have been very vocal about this, and rightfully so. Such as when Facebook tried to bring "Internet" to India, but it would be restricted to Facebook (and maybe a few partner sites), and they (India) wouldn't accept that garbage as a solution.

While we're at it, let's vocalize how antiquated data caps are in the first place. They're like taxes, in that we're promised they are used to our benefit, but we either rarely see the results, or it's so intermittent as to be laughable. Data caps are a way to force people to pay more for less, and then push them in to paying for more than they need, just like current cable TV models. So when a million subscribers pay no less than $45/month (with modem rental, before taxes) for Internet that in some places doesn't even deliver on close to the promised results (HINT: Upgrade your 20 year old lines Bell), one can get an idea as to how much of a joke data caps become.

As for how to update or handle this dilemma, I think my above rant makes things clear. Remove data caps altogether.

tentenfive 1 point Wed Sep 28 12:06:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think this will just benefit big telco companies and put the internet out of reach of poorer canadians. telcos just want to gouge as much money from people as possible. Why is the crtc enabling this? internet was meant to be a level playing field. Crtc is now creating a class system where it is not needed and not generally wanted. Why does crtc keep pushing this for big companies? Canadians have said no to this many times, yet crtc keeps pushing this on behave of big companies. If crtc cannot represent interest of average canadians, why does the crtc exist in the first place? I ask again ..Why is the crtc enabling this?

Iz-GOod 1 point Wed Sep 28 12:08:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'd like to preface by saying I'm currently a Videotron mobile user with access to certain music apps that do not count toward my data cap.

  1. I can see the benefit if someone was using the vast majority of their data limit for that particular service, however the real problem here is the data caps.

  2. I do have concerns with it, as it can become quite confusing what is and isn't included in the data cap. It's not that easy to figure out if something is being counted as you're using it. And what are the regulations for them changing these agreements? Can they change the agreement at any point? Can they change it between contracts? It's really not clear and worries me.

  3. I am a strong supporter of government intervention in cases such as these. I do not think the companies have the consumer's interests at heart, but certain governmental bodies such as the CRTC do. I would fully support an intervention in this matter.

  4. Well, honestly, I think it makes more sense to push towards ending the data caps, thus solving the problem in itself. I realize this is a separate discussion, but data caps seem quite restrictive and expensive, and I'm not sure if they're truly needed by the companies or if it's just a way to make more money.

ssong 1 point Wed Sep 28 12:17:00 2016 UTC  (1 child)

I think we should enable free, basic-rate (64kbps) Internet on all mobile phones at all times. Sounds crazy perhaps? The overhead to operators would be marginal as operators gear up for faster and faster services and the benefits to all (including operators) would dramatically outweigh the cost. I would:

  • Spur adoption of data services. If things are expensive to try, people will hold back from trying them and they'll spend all their time trying not to fail. If the cost of experimentation falls though then people will spend a lot of time experimenting, which will allow them to fail informatively to learn something from the things they tried.
  • Legitimise data as a means of government/civic communication. If everyone can access basic data services just by having a phone, then it is easier to justify government investment in e-services.
  • Decrease the digital divide. Democratising access to data through free low-bitrate access would create a true on-ramp to the Internet and its vast diversity of services and interactions.
  • Open up vast new markets to data service providers. The network-effects of millions of new data users would dramatically increase the value of data services in general. Spur innovation in low data consumption applications. If you know that you can reach everyone at a very low speed, it would spur both the public and private sector to develop applications that consume less bandwidth in order to reach more people.
  • Offer a 'neutral' Internet experience, without a built-in default, whose only bias would be to favour service providers who make their services the most lean and efficient

More on this at https://manypossibilities.net/2015/11/zero-rating-a-modest-proposal/ and http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/free-web/471198/

olieSPE 1 point Fri Sep 30 21:43:05 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I totally agree with this proposal. I would add a few points: - differential pricing has been around for a long time: you pay a lower rate for 100 MB compared to 1GB. You pay more for faster access - 1mb/s versus 50 mb/s. That is essentially differential pricing. - what is the purpose of regulation? To provide access to people that currently can't afford it. To improve access and to cover the digitally marginalized. Free, basic-rate internet solves these problems. - zero rating is a non-debate in the context of free basic rate Internet.

Araeven 1 point Wed Sep 28 12:22:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm concerned about differential pricing. This leads too slow innovation and stifles the small start-ups. How can a new business ever compete with a mega corporation when the user does not have to pay for any data used on the corporations website. This leads to a lack of choice for consumers. I don't think differential pricing should even be an option. I am also against data caps, they artificially limit our internet usage. We already have a cap on the bandwidth of the connection we are buying from the ISP. A data cap makes no sense, it's not like the internet is used up like a roll of paper towels. There is always more internet, it is not a finite resource. p Please consider removing data caps and only using bandwidth to determine pricing. I should not have to buy faster/higher bandwidth internet to increase my data caps.

cbstryker 1 point Wed Sep 28 12:24:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Others have chimed in about the topic, but I feel I should put in my two cents also.

All internet traffic should be treated equally. In fact, an internet service provider should have zero knowledge about the traffic about its customers (I know this is a technical impossibility). All an ISPs job is to provide a conduit to the data; wherever and whatever it may be. An ISPs is the company that builds the roads; they don't sell the products in the store. They are the courier that delivers the products from the retail company, they shouldn't know what's in the box. At least that's how it should be.

Differential pricing should be banned

I find the very concept insulting and vexing. I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts on how wrong the concept is. It violates Net Neutrality. I do not care what ISPs feel are good deals to reduce data caps for certain services. These are internet fast lanes; plain and simple. I also do not want anyone telling me which services I can use. If I want to use service X for watching movies but my ISP says I can only get enough bandwidth when using service Y then that's a major problem.

This will also destroy any chance for new companies and startups to have a fighting chance.

nataliedasilva 1 point Wed Sep 28 12:28:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you for asking. 1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? No, as a consumer, there are no benefits of differential pricing for me. It limits my consumer choice, as well as threatens innovation, freedom of expression and the diversity of voices.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Absolutely, for the reasons stated above and because it reduces competition and allows the telecom companies to influence how I use data. Telecom companies essentially have a monopoly on the marketplace and this further supports their position to keep others out of the market. This limits consumer choice or forces people to pay higher fees.
  2. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? There are no benefits for the consumer so yes, these concerns are significant enough to justify CRTC stepping in. The home and mobile service providers are not capable of making the right decision for the consumers and by allowing them to decide is unfair.
  3. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Yes, yes, yes. The internet should be treated like other utilities with regards to regulation. Rates should be set for internet access by the CRTC based on cost to provide, fair profit (unlike electricity), and cost to improve infrastructure. No capping, no throttling, no preferential data. Please refer to the system set up in Europe, they are so far ahead of Canada with respect to affordable data and competition in the marketplace.

ulti_phr33k 1 point Wed Sep 28 12:31:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Net neutrality needs to be enforced upon every Internet service provider. Data caps are not only annoying but are also dangerously expensive. As everything nowadays runs through the Internet, we need for everything from checking our all-important email, working from home, or even sitting down on the couch and watching Netflix, because what ISPs/cable providers show on TVs isn't what we want to watch.

Connected to data caps, are tiny cellphone data caps. With the skyrocketing costs of things like housing, cellphone plan pricing is getting pretty out of hand. With each generation of smartphone, customers are being asked, and sometimes forced, to switch to plans that are more expensive for less value. It's not a matter of the device not supporting the current plan, it's a matter of the provider wanting to charge more money.

Most people expect that once they get home to their WiFi, they can stop using their cell data plan, and instead use their WiFi which shouldn't be limited. But it may be, and if you use it too much, you get charged like crazy for going over your limit.

ISPs regularly offer their own services or partnered services at a zero ratings, but these services are usually low quality offerings compared to what's available on the free market. Why not just have everything equally available?

Data caps cost nothing for ISPs to create, but they stand to gain a lot from someone who goes over their cap; essentially it's free money for them.

They passed the costs of creating these networks on to customers, either through higher pricing of plans, or through accepting government grants which come from taxpayer money, and now they're charging customers exorbitant amounts to use them. How is that even remotely fair?

And lastly, what happens to the low income households, that can't afford to pay for unlimited bandwidth from an ISPs? They might hit the cap, but not be able to pay it right now, which ends up with a spiral of interest charges, fees and annoying debt collector calls. This could all be eliminated if we just removed data caps!

Come on CRTC, do the right thing! Force ISPs to stop metering data, and don't let them raise their plan prices as a result!!

mauriceh 1 point Wed Sep 28 12:35:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

You already know the answer.
Differential pricing is evil, discriminatory, and counter to freedom and fairness.

tonymsclark 1 point Wed Sep 28 12:38:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Any form of data caps on the internet users will stifle innovation and the advance of the internet capability. I am against any data cap. To ensure that there are no data caps and in all other CRTC policy decicions the process of making decisions by the CRTC should be transparent to the general public.

simonmtl 1 point Wed Sep 28 12:48:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Je ne vois aucun bénéfice pour le public, il s'agit clairement d'une autre tentative désespérée des "Big 3" pour conserver leurs clients et leurs profits.

Il n'y a pas de mal à inciter les Canadiens à regarder du contenu local, mais pas à l'aide d'incitatifs financiers qui en bout de ligne, ne profitent qu'aux fournisseurs Internet.

Nous sommes déjà prisonniers des tarifs les moins compétitifs au monde en matière d'accès Internet, le CRTC doit protéger les Canadiens avant que cela devienne pire.

ewtoombs 1 point Wed Sep 28 12:50:57 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Differential pricing and zero rating are completely unacceptable, since they unfairly favour large and established companies over small or new companies, stifling innovation and causing stagnation. The practice must be banned.

Orion9k0 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:03:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. No benefits either as a consumer or business owner for differential pricing.

  2. As a business owner, differential pricing would make it prohibitively difficult to compete and enter any market making use of telecommunications via 'data'. I do not see any benefits to differential pricing except to creating monopolies for established companies.

  3. Absolutely the concerns outweigh the benefits, as a business owner it would make it extremely difficult to both enter the market as well as compete.

  4. Nationalize telecommunications. The use of data, either via landline based connections or wireless, is now more important than both radio, television, and phone lines combined. It is important not just for business use, but also emergency use, education, health, finance, etc. etc. Canada is already particularly far behind in telecommunication options relative to many other countries which is becoming a barrier to market entry for new businesses. At the very least, a substantial increase is needed in wireless data caps - In the 10GB, 20Gb and higher providing help to Canadian small businesses.

Calibau 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:12:22 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

There seems to be a little ambiguity regarding the definition of differential pricing. "When same products or services are offered to customers at a different price" is the definition you have on your website. I can interpret this into two issues:

  • People in different provinces paying different prices for the same Internet/cell plan.

  • An Internet/cell provider exempts a certain website or service from counting towards my data caps.

It feels like discussion is more geared towards the second interpretation, but I want to preface by saying both are wrong, and have no benefits to the average consumer.

  1. The only benefit I can think of is to customers who heavily use one site/service over everything else. For example, if 90% of my data was spent on netflix, i would benefit if netflix did not count to my data caps. But only a small % of the population would benefit from this. The real benefit would lie with an ISP with a service to push.

  2. Yes, my concern will be regarding the precedent this will set. ISPs should only be concerned with providing data. The job of policing data should not be given to them. The simple reason for this is that as a private corporation they will only act to further their best interest. Once we allow them to differentiate between different bits of data where does it stop? What if a few years down the line ISPs want to stop serving some bits altogether? What if Rogers wants to block access to netflix to push their own steaming services? What if as a Rogers customer I cannot access the Wind mobile webpage? What if certain ISPs try to block data that goes against their best interest?

  3. The concerns far outweigh the benefits. In the 21st century the Internet can and should be considered as a necessary utility, and it should be regulated as much as possible. Some countries have even stipulated that access to Internet is a basic human right, and as such it should be protected. The perceived benefits will only affect a small fraction of users, while the majority will be forced to use services that the ISP/mobile providers want to push to further their own corporate interests. Let us not for a second forget that these providers will do anything to get the maximum amount of money possible from the customers. Why does the same cell plan cost more in Ontario, than it does in Sask? Why do Canadians spend so much on Internet? It's because the providers can charge whatever they want due to the lack of regulation/competition.

  4. I'm not sure I have a good answer to this. If anything, I would prefer Internet to be treated as a utility and be regulated as such. Or atleast, reduce the barrier for entry and allow for some competition. The current oligopoly is extremely anti consumer.

The Internet should remain neutral. As a regulating body you should be doing everything in your power to ensure that it continues to be neutral.

One last thing to consider, if the Data providers are willing to allow unlimited traffic through certain sites, do data limits need to exist? Or are they there simply to squeeze out more money from the consumers?

Thank you for reading.

hemingward 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:12:55 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? This question is bordering on the absurd. Lets say I have a highway, and that highway charges a toll to everybody except those who drive a Ford Tempo. Would you say this is a benefit to the consumers of that road? No, no you wouldn't. It's a benefit to the gatekeeper of that road. Differential pricing is a horrendous idea, one which would crush any form of innovation, adoption of new technology, while providing greater reason for those in power to become complacent in their own technology. It's completely unfair for the consumer, and benefits no-one. The only thing that benefits everyone is one that is completely simple: Enforce net neutrality for all. And that includes removing data caps (the fact they charge for data caps is something I don't understand, it's not like the more I download the more "wear and tear" there is on a Telco's infrastructure. Way back when there never used to be data caps - this is something recent, and has no reasonable place for consumers).

  2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes, everything. First and foremost they are a completely unfair business practice for consumers, as well as any company which tries to enter the market as a competitor. Differential pricing is extremely dangerous and only benefits the 3 major Telcos by further ensuring their oligopoly.

  3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? There AREN'T any benefits. Zero. Not a single one. There shouldn't be data caps in the first place. We absolutely cannot let the oligopoly decide "what's best for the consumer," as they've shown repeatedly - through the world's highest prices, to some of the worst service provided - that they do not care, nor do they need to care, about the consumer. Telus, Rogers, and Bell own over 90% of the market, while also controlling over 90% of the distribution rights of content. There is no benefit to further entrenching their dominance over consumers by herding people through small content. For example, Netflix will count against the cap, but their own ****** Shomi product won't. How is that, in any sense of the word, fair? And how is that fair to other businesses? What about startups? What about non profits? None of this is fair. Period.

  4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Simply put, don't allow it. And remove data caps. And enforce net neutrality - a free and open internet is what has allowed the technology to thrive as quickly and as massively as it has. The Internet has become so crucial to every single person's daily life that it should be considered a public utility, and enforced as such.

alavov 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:14:23 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The "some services are easier to obtain/use" is just the other side of "some services are harder to get". That's a soft form of censorship. Even worse - a corporate censorship, because corporations will decide for us what we should and shouldnt' read/see. No! That's not what Canada is about.

Grennum 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:25:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? I do not think there are any long term benefits to differential pricing. In the short it may seem like it reduces the cost some use cases, but since it will lock out competitors to whatever services have preferential pricing, it will only serve to fracture the internet and limit innovation.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Very much so. The pace of innovation on the internet has existed because it is open. As soon as the ISPs start treating their own content as more important, that innovation will stop.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The service providers have proven time and again that they care only about short term profit. The proof of this can be seen in two ways. The first is the utter lack of real competition or differentiation between the providers. The second is Canada's extremely high costs of both mobile and fixed internet. DO NOT let them decide at all.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Net Neutrality needs to be protected. Clear regulation needs to be written. That regulation needs to ban the discrimination of internet traffic. Any and all services need to be treated equally. Some Quality of Service management is acceptable as long as it is clearly documented and open. This means that any service may take advantage of the QoS controls, not just those offered by the provide themselves.

danilito 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:26:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

All the downvotes because CRTC. All the downvotes

MaNeDoG 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:28:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm not particularly for or against differentiated pricing or certain services being offered without consuming data, but I have a big problem with the state of data caps. Elsewhere in the world companies have data caps that are in-line with general use, ie: 500mb included for free, 1gb plans being not very expensive(less than 30$ at regular price including unlimited talk and text and a phone on contract). What we pay in Canada for mobile data is outrageously expensive. Moreover, internet at home has become a basic necessity, the service should be unlimited no matter what speed a consumer chooses to pay for. There is nothing more that needs to be said about it.

sewalsh3 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:41:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What an Opportunity for the CRTC to support Flourishing and Thriving Life on this Planet by ensuring limitless access and use of the Internet for All. All of Humanity and Life of this Planet benefits with Openness, Transparency, and Personal Freedom, for those are important factors that foster creativity and growth for the highest good of all. We are One Life Force with Earth. Everyone deserves open access to the internet without discrimination of any kind.

The Internet should be a level playing field for innovative new ideas for the benefit of All.

Canadians are trapped by data caps: For wired Internet, data caps in most of the world are unheard of. For wireless, caps in other nations are far more reasonable than those in Canada. The Internet allows connection among humans and provide a vehicle for creativity for the benefit of the planet. We, as Conscious Humanity have evolved past the acceptance of Artificial constrictions and limitations that only benefit a few while taking from the majority.

There is no such thing as “too much Internet,” given how essential online access has become to our everyday lives. Openness, Transparency, Freedom and Cooperation, for the Highest Good and Benefit of All is the new paradigm we have now entered in to for the Flourishing and Thriving of Humanity and Our Planet. I see the CRTC supporting the Flourishing of All Humanity for the Benefit of Quality Life for All on this Planet.

In line with supporting A Flourishing Life on this Planet, Users, not telecom companies, should decide which services we use online: Telecom giants should not be permitted to zero-rate data, and make websites they don't like more expensive to access.

I see the CRTC supporting the Flourishing of Creativity and All Life by strongly enforcing transparency to ensure telcos stick by the rules, and face penalties if those rules are broken.

Thank you.

In Joy, Shirley Walsh, Carleton Place, Ontario, Canada

soo_many_questions 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:46:18 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

I am sure that my opinion will be the same as may other here but I feel it is important to add my voice to the chior.

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The only benefits of differential pricing are for the service providers. The only benefit the consumer gets if they stay within the service providers defined online bubble.

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely with our service providers also being the producers and distributors of the content produces an unfair advantage for the production and distribution arms of these companies. The internet is no longer a privilege but a requirement to live and work in the 21st century

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely, it is clear that there is no market place competition in Canada. All the big service providers have nearly the exact same pricing structures in place, and it seems that they move nearly in lockstep with each other. These companies by their past actions have proven they are unable to provide quality service at competitive prices without strong over sight. To add weight to this argument I am a share holder of Bell Canada.

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Differential pricing should not be allowed, Looking to the long term the CRTC needs to enforce the rule that the internet in Canada is neutral and put a stop to these end runs that these companies continue to pull. If these companies are unable to accept the rule of Canadian Law then I believe they have proven themselves unfit to have a protected market place and that protection should be removed and allow foreign players to truly enter (not like the Virgin entry into the Cellular market).

edit: formatting

cdnj Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:47:01 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Whats going to stop the large telcom companies from pricing out smaller content providers?

This seems like nothing more than a way to control competition through regulation.

whats the benefit for the consumer? I get cheaper rates for certain providers content and their affiliates that can afford to make deals with telcoms, and pay more for everything else? that does nothing for me as a consumer but limit my choices and force me to use services I dont want.

Didnt the public made this clear to the CRTC through all the net neutrality debates?

DrSnikerFreak Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:48:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Most of us here on this subreddit support Net Neutrality and allowing this will destroy it.

DrSnikerFreak Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:50:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Make it illegal for ISPs to throttle specific websites (e.g. Netflix, Youtube).

Vote_for_Malcolm 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:50:55 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I see no serious benefits, as a consumer. (who's interests are the CRTC's main focus) Except for very casual users, consumers will not save any money.

I can see some benefits garnered through abuse of the system for corporations. Perhaps it can be administered and managed fairly, but the potential for abuse exists and I do not trust corporations to deny themselves profits for the greater good of Canadians. (Why I think the CRTC's regulatory role and duty to protect Canadians is of the utmost importance.)

Net neutrality is already under attack in the USA, as seen in the unprecedented case of Netflix having to pay more to Comcast as they grew, to maintain the same internet speed. The beginnings of a "Internet fast lane" in the USA, and it's not something I want in Canada.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Several.

Right now, anyone can put up a website on the Internet and instantly get access to the entire web's traffic. If differential pricing becomes a norm, you would have to negotiate with thousands of ISPs to get access to the same audience for your website. If you couldn't afford to pay, you could be missing out on potential web traffic. This seems very anti-competition and can only make it harder for small and medium sized businesses to compete with larger ones.

Second, there is a conflict of interest with ISPs who manage the Internet infrastructure. To push more companies to pay for access to their "fast lane", they may slow down their "slow lane". If not, there at least would be little incentive to keep the slow lane maintained and running to a satisfactory speed.

Lastly, it could lead to market collusion. If MyFlix is competing against Amajohn Primo, but Amajohn Primo owns or is related to an ISP, they could throttle the connection of MyFlix to gain an unfair competitive advantage. The temptation to crush your competition my slowing down their connection to Canadians could be too great for some corrupt individuals, but even if it's not, why give them the temptation? Power corrupts, as we have seen already happening in the USA with Telecom giant Comcast vs. Netflix.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I feel the concerns definitely outweigh the non-existent benefits. As the owner of a company that primarily exists on the internet in Canada, I do not wish to add the complications of having to negotiate or pay to access the Canadian Internet audience. It is important for Canada's future that the Internet remains a fertile ground for innovation on the Internet. Our economy has transitioned away from manufacturing into an information economy, strangling Canadian small businesses and innovators could be very dangerous to the future of Canada.

As I have discussed above, I feel that the potential for abuse is great and that regulation of Canada's already bloated and expensive ISPs will do good for the future of Canada's Internet and the innovation that is possible with the current system.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Differential pricing, fast lane, zero-rating pricing, whatever you want to call it, should be banned outright. However, it can't end there because ISPs will just create faster private roads for those companies that can pay. I'm not sure what a further solution would be (why I vote for smart people to make policy decisions on my behalf and not come onto Reddit asking us what to do, though I DO appreciate being able to give input when there aren't many smart people I can vote for these days) but I can tell you the answer will be found with a strong focus on net neutrality which will protect Canadian small business's ability to compete on the Internet.

Pronost 1 point Wed Sep 28 13:57:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is plain predigest and racist in many ways and i hate using both those words but it is what it is. We cannot allow the big phone/data companies to dictate based on their best interests as to what services will be free streaming with prioritized data and the little guy that is just starting up has to go into the slow service lane which in turn will make it much harder to publish their services to the masses. We need competition in order to drive innovation and just look at Bill Gates who bailed out Apple... why... because competition is needed to progress forwards and now look at the devices we have today from all kinds of vendors. There is no easy fix but how is the rest of the industrialized world dealing with this and keep both the provider and the customer happy. The rest of the world seems to be doing a pretty good job and they have faster and better internet service than we do in Canada. These major canadian ISP's will become like the airline companies and charge and gauge on everything like the new luggage charge that came out at the same time between 2 major airlines <- tell me that wasn't negotiated behind the scenes first. Same with the electricity utilities providers in Ontario. We cannot let that happen. All these CEO lately see is nothing but $$$ and how much more profit gains can we achieve this quarter.

greencanoe 1 point Wed Sep 28 14:08:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

*** What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? *** If someone wants to use the product the ISP's are giving away data free, then there's a slight cost savings. But there are so many negatives to doing this. It's not worth it and dangerous to the Internet.

*** Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? *** I think it creates an artificial popularity for a service and stifles competition. I don't want ISP's to have influence over what products are used. Canada should embrace the continued and necessary growth of the internet and ban data caps altogether.

*** Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? *** I believe this should be regulated so that it doesn't happen. Keep the Internet open with level playing fields. Telco's should be allowed to make a profit of course, but not at the expense of forward progress.

*** If we should step in, how should we regulate it? *** One, do not allow differential pricing. Two, seriously look at banning data caps. The more Canadians use the Internet the better. Three, keep hounding the telcos to stick by the rules and use plain and understandable language in their contracts and billing.

BigBluFrog 1 point Wed Sep 28 14:08:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

We need your opinion about differential pricing:

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?
Obviously. I wouldn't be here otherwise.
The Big Three get to pick how much and what you can see. It effectively snuffs out their competition. It's blatantly anti-competitive.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?
You need to regulate. They will never be fair to the consumer on their own. They've proved that. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?
No preferential treatment. They will claim to provide the consumer fair-priced services, but you folks know as well as we do that you can follow the money. We lose and they win.

majesticjondi 1 point Wed Sep 28 14:29:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Telecom companies in Canada have proven time and time again that they have no concern for what's best for consumers and are really only concerned with profits. Unfortunately the Internet is an essential service for some Canadians -- I'd argue that I'm one of them.

I live on Mayne Island, BC. It's home to about 1,000 year round residents. The main industries here are tourism and all of the services that support tourism/the retirees that make up about half of the population here. I don't work in tourism, I work in software for a company on the other side of the continent.

I couldn't do this without an internet connection. The first thing I checked before making the decision to move here (from Alberta) was whether there is broadband internet available. There is (provided by Shaw). It's not as great of a connection as you could get in downtown Vancouver obviously, but it's still adequate for doing my work.

The reason I only put it in the "adequate" category is because of the data cap that Shaw has on my connection. I pay them for the best connection I can get here (30 MBps). That connection comes with a 300GB data cap. Frequently, my usage will be double that every month.

The first few times that happened and I was contacted by Shaw, I started scrambling to cut usage: I cancelled Backblaze (an offsite backup service I was using), I limited my kids' use of Minecraft to a couple of hours a day. I removed Netflix from everybody's iPads -- now it's only available on the TV. That helped a bit, but gradually I've crept back up and I now consistently use about 550 GB per month.

Every time Shaw calls to "inform" me of my excessive usage, I ask them if I can just pay them more than the $85 per month that I already pay them for Internet service alone. They tell me that they don't have anything more available here. My only option is that I can switch over to one of their unlimited plans which max out at about 2MBps... which just won't work.

You're asking specifically about differential pricing (which relates to the low data caps). The trouble for me would be then my Internet usage would be in the hands of 3rd parties. My job dictates that I use certain applications/services. I would be paying the same (or more -- I know that the 30 MBps plan from shaw doesn't cost $85 in parts of Canada where there are actually competitors in the market) for less service. I'd be left here praying that Google works out a zero-rating deal with Shaw so that the meetings I have every week aren't counted towards my data cap. Additionally, this incentivizes Shaw to lower data caps further in order to encourage customers to use their zero-rated partners. If my data cap drops any further, or if Shaw starts rigorously enforcing their data cap -- I'm at risk of losing my job.

Having a usable internet connection is necessary for my livelihood. I don't have any other options. I can't switch to a competitor because there are none. I can't pay for a bigger plan because there are none available here. I believe that the price I pay for the speed I get is fair but the limits set on my account are just too low. Differential pricing won't improve things for me, they can only make them worse.

datsmn 1 point Wed Sep 28 14:40:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It bothers me that portions of my data are used by my various providers advertising at me. I'm paying to watch their advertising.

midterm360 1 point Wed Sep 28 14:41:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

My feeling on pricing on any internet of data in Canada is that it is way over priced and yet has become a necessity for anyone who is hoping to be competitive. Cell phone bills and internet has become price gougey and awful. I'm in university in a highly competitive field. I make -40000$ a year and that is just to keep up with everything going on around me.

Bring cell phone price down. Eliminate data caps. Regulate FIBRE OP better. If it is 100$ in my province and only 30-50$ in another because there is competition over there and not here it's obvious that providers can still afford to make a profit at a lower rate. They are taking advantage of the rest of the country. It feels like there is nothing I can do about it and I'm stuck in a monopoly.

about differential pricing

a service provider exempts data from a particular application from a monthly mobile data plan

That sort of policy seems to be at high risk of inviting corruption and unjust business practices. It could allow telcom companies (in effect utilities companies) to strong arm service providers netflix/hulu/youtube etc into bad deals that would be bad for both the companies and the consumer. You might not think it will be a problem now, but in 5, 10 or 15 years it could be devastating.

The solution isn't to meet them in the middle, they've had free reign for far too long and Canadians pay some of the highest rates in the world for our services. I request that you step up and regulate them. Of course they are going to protest on account of all this money they are making (and often just sitting on).

thoughtshapes 1 point Wed Sep 28 14:42:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Access to information is essential to my career, as it is increasingly to most Canadians. Differential pricing is a dangerous route to take that will create a system of haves and have-nots in terms of information access. The current state of information pricing in the form of data caps across Canada only benefits large telecommunications companies, and is a major threat to our ability to compete in a global economy.

lbuchs 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:06:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Unlimited data will create equality for all! Charging for data packages creates a multi-tier system of access with only the wealthy able to experience all aspects of the internet. We are a country where this kind of prejudice is unacceptable.

RuhkRG 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:11:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

To the consumer and the public, there aren't any. Differential pricing solely benefits the seller/corporation. It allows them to control what we use and access.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes I do, the ability for a service provider to decided what I should and should not be 'charged' for to access is a manipulative practice. The internet has become a necessity to exist in our modern society, like electricity. Would the Government of Canada allow a utility provider to say.. offer reduced hydro rates if you had only GETM brand appliances? I certainly would hope not.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I think some regulation is required at this point, the incumbent telecommunication providers have shown that they are not capable of delivering/offering a good product for a fair price.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I like the idea of Internet access being treated similarly to a utility like electric or gas. ISPs should be able to charge for providing the connection and for how much we consumer (whether is be a rate per GB, a single price for Y for X GBs, or a set price for unlimited quantity).

ehManiacal British Columbia 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:19:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

After reading over what it is, I do not see any benefits for consumers. It looks like an easy way for companies to promote certain services while being able to throttle competitors who aren't willing to shell out fees and bribes.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Since I don't see any benefits for consumers like myself I strongly agree that the CRTC should regulate and sicourage/ban this practice.

Consumers would benefit far more from lower prices, higher data caps (or no data caps, they are largely cash grabs as it is), elimination of overage fees, and encouraging more actual competition in the ISP market.

Thank you for your time and reaching out to people like this, I'd like to see more public consultations like this!

bionicbadger 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:23:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) There are no consumer benefits for differential pricing, the only advantage is for the ISPs offering their own services.

2) Differential pricing is the beginning of the end of net neutrality, and should not be allowed. It will lead to ISP censorship and traffic shaping through pricing. The consumer is the loser in all scenarios with differential pricing.

3) Absolutely it should be made clear that differential pricing should not exist. Data is data, and the origin of the packets and what they contain should make no difference as to what it costs the consumer. The 1s and 0s don't cost any more, so the consumers shouldn't have to pay more because someone decided that they can squeeze more money of people. It should regulated like a utility. 4) It should be regulated like a utility with fixed prices for fixed service according to region.

BorealForest99 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:23:49 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

It provides potential direct and indirect income streams for the ISPs. Direct income from in companies paying for being in the zero-rating category, thus driving traffic to the company and their advertising revenue, indirect in bidding against other ISPs by including more popular channels in the zero-rated category and thereby restricting competition. Of course business plans will be more complicated than this but these are evidently potential income streams.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Indeed I do. I see differential pricing as a way to maintain data caps into the indefinite future. I also see a real threat to democratic functioning of society. Who's in and who's out of the capless portion of the service will be affected by political influence. This poses the potential of locking in a distinct liberal or conservative (small initial letter on both of those please note) point of view in the provision of internet content for all Canadians. This is very serious threat to democracy. Avoiding this bad consequence to to democracy I think requires an absolute neutrality, neutrality than is unavoidably contradicted by any conceivable differential pricing plan.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I believe the concerns far outweigh the benefits, especially as related to the inherent threat to democracy and the lock-in to data caps. The CRTC should step in and impose an utterly absolute form of net neutrality.

The CRTC cannot allow providers to decide on their own because of the potential political influence and impact on democracy. If the top six ISPS in the country are owned by 6 left-leaning people or governed by left-leaning boards, then we will have a left-leaning internet in Canada. The same applies in the counter case where conservative-leaning influences predominate.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

*A) Impose absolute net neutrality. *

This is the only way to prevent a severe degradation of democracy (in either political direction) in the country.

*B) Remove data caps altogether. *

Data caps are an old technology hangover. On wireline links on the backbone we have gone from 1 Gb/s per fiber to 80 Gb/s as a standard capacity on SINGLE FIBER. In the near future 400 Gb/s will the standard. The company I work for is currently introducing amps, terminals, mux/demux/ and transponders that operate in the 10 to 20 Terabit/s range on a SINGLE FIBER. 10 terabits/s on the backbone means that per fiber capacity has increased by 10,000 time in the last 15 years.

Although the increase in wireless capacity is probably not as dramatic, surely it must be 500 to 1,000 times greater than 10 or 15 years ago.

I can understand allowing ISPS to charge for new build-out for new service or new technology, but not for charging for increasing capacity on existing physical plant.

Data caps no longer make any sense at all.

There is one aspect that will contradict that last statement: no data caps at all on wireless would allow consumers to drop their wireline connection and pay only for wireless. So pricing must take this into account to prevent the wireless service from being overwhelmed. Wireless can't match wired in capacity just yet.

But for wired, disallow data caps completely and impose strict net neutrality. The increase in wired capacity in the last 15 years has already provided enough financial benefit to ISPs in terms of infrastructure build-out requirements Operations, Administration and Operations of the last decade. Increased capacity = reduced cost.

helimancdn 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:25:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? The Internet is a Utility the same as water, roads and electricity, it is not the same as Cable TV. Not allowing equal access to the entire thing jeopardizes the entire benefit of the Internet. Differential pricing should never be allowed or even considered a possibility. The strongest wording possible to eliminate it and never allow anyone to implement should be used in your rules and regulation development.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Absolutely. It is simply a way for big telecom to force us to pay more to them and their partners in order to use the Internet. They are trying to be sneaky by charging the same amount as before with a data cap, and then allowing their "special" content for no additional cost/data. That is the same as charging more for the regular Internet. We are not that stupid, we see what they are trying to do. At the CRTC, you should see the same thing that we consumers see.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? Net neutrality is paramount and should be regulated so that nobody can twist access to their benefit.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Transparency from the incumbents would be a start. Networking is a complicated game and there is nobody better at it than big telecom as they stand to gain the most profit from bending it their way.

I am not sure of the best way to regulate it but monitoring it is a critical part of following up on regulation. Without monitoring, regulation is powerless.

DashBlaster 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:30:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Access to the Internet is no longer a privilege, it must be considered a right in the same ethical stream as "freedom of the press." Data caps, like in differential pricing, are complete and utter ********* because data is not an nonrenewable resource like water. Differential pricing is the equivalent of a library selling you an initial library card/membership, then charging you extra each time you take out "certain" books.

If net neutrality is compromised, everybody loses.

6890 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:31:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm heavily against the idea of Differential Pricing and fear that the CRTC is seeking "expert" opinions from industry professionals with a bias. I sincerely hope those reading these comments take their messages to heart that differential pricing will most definitely harm the Canadian public.

One major point of concern of mine is this line from your website:

Supporters of differential pricing generally contend that these practices enable consumers to benefit from free or discounted services, and potentially a greater choice of and more innovative service offerings.

Emphasis mine. By allowing the service providers to be essentially bribed to play favorites with who can utilize the service lines innovation will be stifled. Entrenched monopolies will be in the perfect position to starve out the small business competition by buying privilege on the service lines. There is absolutely no way I can see a pay-to-win model of service offerings being beneficial long term to any citizen of Canada.

Regulate ISPs as essential service utility providers. They merely meter our usage and send bills. They must keep their fingers out of who gets what data, for how much and when.

Dennis_C41 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:31:37 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Response:

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? The benefits are entirely achieved by the service suppliers.

  2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? When I compare differential pricing in other provinces, I am very concerned. The differences between provinces are artificial and based more on what can be squeezed from their customers rather than an attempt to attract more customers by offering better services and prices.

  3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? I realize that the bandwidth capacity of a given line or tower can be adversely affected by the number of customers using a given node at a given time. However, research (in Canada and other countries) has shown that this only occurs at certain times of day and the issue is exaggerated by the telcos in order to gain acceptance for differential pricing. Therefore the CRTC should definitely step in and regulate the industry. Let the telcos decide on how to avoid or mitigate any bandwidth bottlenecks.

  4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? My preference is for the CRTC to forbid zero rating, data caps and different bandwidth pricing. Let the telcos gain customer share by offering the highest bandwidth and fewest service slowdowns (due to congestion) for the lowest monthly cost. If telcos insist on data caps then customers should receive a rebate for the data cap that is not used and that rebate should be equal to the cost for exceeding the data cap (ie. if you're over –you pay, but if you're under – you save). Net Neutrality (in all regards) must be seen as a customer's Bill of Rights, and any attempt to deviate from that right or to impose limits or to stifle innovation (by third parties) must be discouraged or thwarted through regulations.

SadMadMan 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:33:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you for opening up this discussion to Canadian internet users. We are the ones who have the most at stake in this decision.

  1. There are no benefits of differential pricing. It simply allows ISPs to charge more and deliver less. They make more money by charging content distributors for preferential treatment, and consumers get less access because of bundled packages and reduced competition.

  2. My main concern is that differential pricing violates the spirit of net neutrality. It makes ISPs the gatekeepers of data by allowing them to control the price. Especially with their artificially low data caps, differential pricing allows ISPs to completely subvert net neutrality by pricing most consumers out of data services not discounted by their provider. Just because they aren't literally slowing or blocking competing traffic on their network doesn't mean they aren't suppressing it, and that shouldn't make it legal.

  3. Not only do these serious concerns about differential pricing outweigh the nonexistent benefits, but they warrant a very serious response from the CRTC to set a strong example for the future and the rest of the world. ISPs cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, as they have proven time and time again by their anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices. The CRTC must step in.

  4. The simplest way to completely eliminate this particular problem, differential pricing of data, is to eliminate data caps. If consumers don't pay for additional data, zero-rating won't mean anything. There is no need for data caps, the technical reason for them disappeared a long time ago. They only exist now to gouge customers who use more data. Even without differential pricing, low data caps tilt the playing field by favoring less data intensive services. In many parts of Canada, including where I live, unlimited data plans are simply not offered. Data caps should be banned, or at the very least, affordable unlimited plans should be mandatory. And don't stop there. Prices will still be unreasonable. Canadian ISPs need to either be forced into real competition, or simply nationalized to work for Canadians instead of against us for a change.

shaze 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:38:20 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think we should just create a national ISP subsidized by taxes, in order to create some competition and regulate the market by example.

I don't believe that nitpicking at the egregious conditions of the current market to be an effective overall solution.

jfowlie 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:39:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

So, what the ISPs want to do is make internet service more like mobile phones: complex, rife with issues, filled with disatisfied customers, and an opportunity to grab more cash from consumers. Sounds like a winner!

Charges for providing internet service need to be simple, straightforward, and reflect the cost of providing the service. They cannot bias the net toward any particular service or provider (can you imagine how this could affect political advertising?), and it needs to be open. The internet might have been founded with a limited military scope, but it exploded when access was based on free and open communication.

To apply the infrastructure that the ISPs want to have in place would require more equipment, more oversight, more policies and procedures -- all to provide less service. This seems like the wrong way to go, and I'm honestly surprised and disappointed that the CRTC is not giving ISPs a definitive 'no'.

This is not good for consumers, and it is most emphatically not good for Canada.

dncentralpark 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:43:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? >> Some contents can be consumed free of charge or at discounted rate
  2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? >> It goes against internet neutrality and limits competition.
  3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? >> As an internet user, I don't believe these benefits worthwhile. CRTC should regulate this practice.
  4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? >> CRTC should ban this practice.

sostrich 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:55:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing cannot be allowed, especially when our only options for residential and mobile internet access are from vertically integrated content providers. If this was allowed they would have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to implement even tighter caps caps, to direct as much traffic as possible to in-house content, and content providers with licensing deals.

This would be the first step towards changing the single most important communications tool in human history from an open network into a cable-tv style service; and put Canada at a huge competitive disadvantage in the digital economy. Canada is already a laggard in the world of high tech, and I feel the telcom oligopoly are net contributors to this problem, let's not give them the power to further cripple this nation's innovation.

Personally I think the networks need to be broken up into utility operators, service providers, and content providers, and vertical integration should be prohibited; but that's a whole other ball of wax.

Count_Spockula Lest We Forget 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:56:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential Pricing is an admission by content providers that current data caps are unreasonable. As such please move to both outlaw Differential Pricing and to mandate unlimited data usage. Thank you.

mactroneng 1 point Wed Sep 28 15:58:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing offers no benefits to subscribers, only to service providers by allowing them to exempt those own data from their own unnecessary data caps.

Rather than outlawing differential pricing, outlaw data caps and the differential pricing arguments cease.

Zakarin 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:05:05 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Main benefits allows the consumer to purchase the exact product they want. People whom are only using the internet for time intensive tasks don't need prioritized traffic. This allows the ISP/provider to makes sure their costs are bore buy the heaviest users and can traget their infrastructure growth appropriately.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. ISP could prioritize their own offerings or the own services to the detriment of other providers. ie Shomi vs Netflix - this would be very detrimental to consumers and requires stiff regulation and enforcement.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Give that you're asking us for advice - yes the risks currently outweigh the benefits. If the regulator doesn't understand the situation then there is no way to regulate it - and the prospect of the regulator being "captured" by the providers is to great a risk to take.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Will need some method of monitoring traffic to ensure that the ISP's are giving different priorities to to type of content - not specific providers of said content.

WhitehorseWill 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:05:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? The benefits all accrue to the Telco's who are already delivering internet and cellular services at costs far in excess of what other major western companies are charging which has the effect of making Canada less competitive and stifles innovation.

  2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Since the major Telcos are also media conglomerates, this is a sure fire way for them to self deal and use differential pricing to corner the market in the fields they choose to play in and will result in further corporate control of our media to the detriment of the fifth estate.

  3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? Very definitely, the Telcos are out of control and need to be regulated much tighter than they have been before.

    1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Do not allow differential pricing ... period... this is a farce where bits and bytes take up the same amount of bandwidth. Data Caps are also another problem for Canadians who suffer under some of the most expensive internet services in the western world.

revolting_blob Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:10:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I just posted this in another thread but I wanted to add it here, "for the record".

Mobile data in Canada is already terrible. I have my phone set to stop using data when i reach my monthly cap (2GB), so i usually end up going a week or two with no data at the end of every month. All I use is facebook and reddit (I download my spotify playlists to mitigate data usage), and I try not to watch videos. This is literally worse than mobile in a third world country.

ThePiachu 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:11:17 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Differential pricing dictates what content you should be consuming. This is completely disingenuous, allowing service providers to extort content providers (YouTube, Netflix, Pokemon Go, etc.) to put their products in "the fast lane". Moreover, the same service providers often provide competing products to the ones available online (Shaw, Telus, Coast Cable, Rogets, Bell, etc. offer both TV and Internet) - this incentives them to cripple services like Netflix or YouTube and drive the consumers to buy inferior products they wouldn't have to otherwise (I've stopped consuming TV altogether years back thanks to all the shows I can watch online at my own convenience for example).

The only possible valid point for differential pricing I could see would be location-based differential pricing. Being charged more per data transferred in a remote location vs a city centre, or having different internet plan cost based on the location one lives in. That being said, such differential pricing has been ripe for abuse - a mobile provider charging one Canadian less than another for "canada-wide free calling, XGB Internet", whether they live in British Columbia, or Saskatchewan (compare BC plans vs SK plans - for example, Virgin Mobile "BYOP Unlimited + 5GB" is 90CAD in BC, while being only 48CAD in SK...).

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It is anti-consumer and incentives extorting content providers. It incentivises the current content providers to settle into a comfortable oligopoly and price-gauge the consumers in locations with no competition, while providing more honest prices in areas with actual competition. Service providers should be completely impartial in the service they provide, focusing on delivering the best product they can, and not just on getting more money from the consumers and content providers.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, those concerns do outweigh the benefits. Please step in and regulate. The mobile service providers in Canada have been criticised many times for oligopolistic behaviours, which doesn't bode well for any amount of honest self-regulation.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Classify Internet, both wired and wireless as a public utility , common carrier , or both. Routinely check for any possible violations (data throttling for example) and fine accordingly.


While we're on the subject of service providers, I would also like to comment on the state of the mobile internet in Canada. It is horrible. Prices usually go into several dollars per GB if not more. Compare to places like Poland, where you can get as low as ~1CAD/GB or even ~30cents/GB. Mobile internet providers can support a lot more than they currently offer - just look at Telstra from Australia. Mobile internet providers have stagnated their prices for years, and I very much doubt they didn't invest in modern infrastructure to lower their costs of operation.

This is anti-consumer. The mobile internet industry needs a massive overhaul in Canada - it needs to become a public utility to encourage more competition to enter the market and drive the price down for end-users.

tinynewtman Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:13:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. The benefit of differential pricing
    Differential pricing appears to be a boon to the attentive public; after all, they are getting media they ordinarily consume for free. However, I believe that we are mislabelling it a benefit; instead, if we take data caps to be a given for everybody, we are just reinforcing the viewership. Instead, the main benefits from this plan lie in the media production and broadcasting groups. The added publicity they get from this media having a lesser charge rate increases their viewership, which grows their potential return from advertisers.

  2. The concerns of differential pricing
    The fear I have of differential pricing is that it will stifle the content availability for the public. As a broadcasting group is earning money through enforced data caps, it can state certain groups for which the data cap does not apply. This in turn means that a consumer can only access a limited quantity of A per month, while their access to B is unhindered. This grants the supplier control over what their customers is able to access. For things like politics, the inability to access a party's whole platform is antethetical to our modern view of democracy; allowing ISPs to select what we are allowed to hear/watch/see is antethetical to open-market captialism.

  3. Do the concerns outweigh the benefits
    I would definitely say that the concerns of allowing a corporation to police our usage of the internet outweigh the minimal benefits to consumers; data packages are infinitely extensible (for Telus, 100GB of extra data on demand costs $15, the same amount as giving your plan unlimited data), and are not providing much in the way of value. We would be better off if we did not engage in this slippery slope.

  4. How do we regulate this
    Uphold the principles of Net Neutrality; an ISP should not be assigning limits, judgments, fines or any other value to the content of the data you transmit/receive. To do otherwise is to step onto the slippery slope.

As an aside, since we have seen the extensibility of data caps, I would advocate that ISPs stop asking us to limit our usage of data. We pay them to provide access, not to provide content. To limit this is to take your car off a maintained highway so that other drivers can use it.

0nieladb 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:13:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm not nearly eloquent enough to go into detail... but please maintain net neutrality.

angrycat Northwest Territories 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:20:57 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I'll take a more technical look at this. If I'm a ISP, it is possible to have arrangements with content providers to have them move or connect their infrastructure in such a way that makes it "closer" to my network, which basically means that my customers don't have to hop around the internet as much to reach the data center where the content is. The benefit is faster service to my customers, as well as less congestion on the outgoing connections to my network. This was fairly common in Australia which has fairly strict data caps, some Australian ISPs would exclude content that was downloaded from within Australia as counting against their data cap. This helped reduce congestion on the undersea connections to the rest of the world. This encouraged content providers to build infrastructure in Australia and provide it locally, this meant Australians would be able to access the content more quickly, and without stressing the network as much. The downside was obviously to the content providers who had to pay money to move their infrastructure closer, probably passing the cost to the customer. But we're talking about a continent deep in the South Pacific Ocean. We're in Canada, sharing the continent with the US which hosts the majority of the backbone of the internet, so performance benefits of localizing content are marginal.

I suppose it boils down to having two different ways of paying for the same thing. I could either have a service offered through differential pricing be excluded from my data caps, but the cost of that service is inherently higher to cover the underlying costs of data usage, OR, I could have the same service count against my data cap, but I pay less for the service because I'm paying for the data it uses myself. Frankly I prefer the latter scenario because I prefer to only pay for what I use.

So in conclusion, I see no appreciable benefit as a consumer.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

First, a reduction in competition. It's obviously up to the data provider to determine which services are part of differential pricing, and any services that compete or don't operate in the interest of the data provider may not be included.

Secondly, it means higher costs for customers. Even though a service is exempt from data usage, the service will probably cost more to account for that. On top of that the additional overhead of managing and accounting for data usage, the cost of which will be passed onto the consumer.

Rather than making a service part of differential pricing, just let service providers provide a discount if you're part

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely the concerns outweigh the benefits. Canada desperately needs competition, and these companies are using every loophole to prevent that. If you don't regulate, prices will go up, service quality will suffer, and by the time it's clear something should have been done it will be too little, too late. These companies only operate for their own benefit. The CRTC needs to regulate their behaviour in the best interest of the consumers.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Treat all data equal, period. I expect an ISP to connect me to the internet and to relay all data sent or requested to or from my devices. No filtering, no throttling, no selective service. If you want to really make a difference, and have bronze statues built in your honor, regulate ISPs. Prevent them from being affiliated, owning, or being owned by any entity that provides content services. Prevent any relationship or affiliation that would lead to any conflict of interest providing internet access to consumers.

SergeantRegular 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:21:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. There are no benefits to end-users or consumers. This ONLY benefits the incumbent service providers, who already enjoy FAR too much market power over both their customers and their business partners.

  2. ISPs already serve as gatekeepers on both ends, once to allow customers access to the wider internet, and again to technology companies to allow them access to their digital customers. Differential pricing will simply allow these service providers to force further monetary concessions from both sets of customers, while providing zero incentive to actually improve services.

  3. The concerns absolutely outweigh the benefits. Differential pricing should be banned outright. Net neutrality is fundamental to the phenomenal economic growth the internet has brought, and differential pricing is the fundamental opposite. The service providers should not have a say in how they are regulated, as they will advise and pursue the most profitable route for them, regardless of benefits or harm to customers or other industries.

  4. Ban differential pricing outright. Data caps, or "usage based billing", "zero rating" or "differential pricing", triple-play packages, service bundling, these are ALL detrimental to the services and only serve to improve service provider profits at the expense of consumers and other technology companies. Further, they actually DISCOURAGE investment in improved infrastructure or technology, as the artificial scarcity of bandwidth or data is used to justify blatant cash-grabs. Ideally, a solution of local loop unbundling would form. In this system, service providers would be forced to open the physical lines to multiple providers, promoting competition in internet service without requiring costly or destructive redundant infrastructure buildouts, and it would spread the cost of network upgrades as well.

plysepter 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:22:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hello everyone and thank you for considering our opinions. I am very excited to provide my opinion on the matter.

Question #1: There are currently no strong arguments that I support which would deem differential pricing a good idea for Canadians as net neutrality is the most important long term goal Canada should fight for in this area.

Question #2: Absolutely. Net Neutrality is vital for the continued freedoms that we all enjoy online. Differential pricing conflicts with this as it gives priority to specific services. This is a huge concern to me as a software developer as it is highly likely that these partnerships would only form with big name companies. This guarantees added challenges to face for new start up companies as they will not be able to compete with other companies that provide "free" data options.

I also do not believe that the telecoms should be in control over these practices as they already have Canadians paying some of the highest rates for services world wide and have proven in the past that they will only do what benefits them (when the CRTC had to make Crave and Shomi non-exclusives).

Question #3: The risk of loosing net neutrality is extremely terrifying to me as it is what allows small websites and apps compete fairly with large companies. Though I also do not believe that data caps should be enforced, I would much rather have a restricted cap of equal data than to permit specific uses free benefit. This issue could very quickly become a new version of internet "fast lanes" which would quickly destroy competition that can not afford to pay for the privilege.

Question #4: In my opinion the best way that the CRTC can be involved is to prohibit any form of favoritism to services, whether this is a "fast lane" or differential pricing. I would love to hear that the CRTC implemented a new law that ensures that net neutrality is enforced in Canada. This will ensure that competition big and small get equal opportunity and ensures the telecoms do not have control over who gets better access to which services.

It is also advisable that punishments for the tops of the telecoms be made and enforced to promote companies to not try and bend the rules.

Summary: Thank you once again for the opportunity to express our opinions on the matter and I hope that the CRTC can protect Canadians by stopping and preventing these practices. If the CRTC would like clarification on any of my statements, please feel free to contact me and I would love to clarify.

Sincerely, Plysepter

Pictokong Québec 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:24:03 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Questions : Nous sollicitons votre avis au sujet de la différenciation des prix :

  1. Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix?

Le seul avantage important d'une politique "tarif a zéro" par exemple, est pour l'utilisateur du service qui profite de l'offre. Par contre, elle nuit aux personnes qui n'utilise pas le service en question (puisqu'elle ne profite pas des rabais accordés et doit donc payer plus pour une utilisation similaire au fait qu'elle n'utilise pas le service"gratuit")

  1. Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix?

Oui, la différenciation des prix permet aux FAI de contrôler de facon indirect la consommation internet. Par exemple, un FAI residentiel pourrait declarer un service de vidéo en ligne "Canflix" comme n'utilisant pas de donnés alors que son compétiteur plus populaire, "Netflix" compte dans l'utilisation. Ainsi. Le consommateur doit payer une surprime pour utiliser "Netflix" ou bien changer de service et s'abonner a "Canflix". Ceci enlève donc le pied d'égalité des entreprises sur l'Internet. Que ce soit mobile (cellulaire) ou residentiel (câble), les désavantages sont similaires.

Il y a aussi la possibilité d'entrer en conflit d'intérêt majeur. Par exemple. Vidéotron pourrait offrir son service gratuitement mais pas le service de radio-canada, son compétiteur. Il encourage donc le consommateur a utliser son produit d'une manière que je juge injuste (Radio-canada ne pourra profiter de ce rabais si Vidéotron n'est pas d'accord)

  1. Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques? Ou devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider?

Oui, le CTRC doit restreindre la porte de tels reglement pour le bien-être du consommateur.

  1. Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques?

Le CRTC doit rendre illégal le fait d'avantager un type de traffic / une application des donnés mobile et residentiel (câble) de facon unilatérale. En aucun cas les FAI ne devraient privilégier un type de traffic.

Qui plus est, le CTRC devrait augmenter la compétition dans ce secteur par d'autres mesures. Les limites de donnés sont un exemples de pratiques qui ne devraient pas apparaître dans un environnement plus compétitif.

talkingintoawatch 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:25:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)

THE INTERNET IS NOT AN OREO. Differential Pricing is an admission by content providers that current data caps are unreasonable. Data caps throttle our business sector, and damage Canada's ability to compete in real-time financial activity. Thank you.

penderzen 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:32:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. I think the benefits are clearly for the service providers and there are no benefits to the consumer, who may lose the ability to access internet content.
  2. I have many concerns about differential pricing. The internet should be a level playing field. It is one way that anyone can access all types of information and it should not be filtered through differential pricing.
  3. I DEFINITELY feel that the CRTC should regulate internet service providers. I think it is your job as a public regulator of communications to protect consumers and allow access to information. There is much more harm than good in allowing differential pricing.
  4. I am not an expert in regulation, and would leave that up to the professionals.

mbopin 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:36:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I don't want internet providers to choose who they offer for "Free" and who they don't. They are in the business for profit so their motivation for promotion is not in my interests. They will attempt to steer public opinion to what is the most profitable ... that's what business does. I want to choose who / what I read so I can have as little bias / propoganda sent my way as possible.

Differential pricing is ok if it doesn't block any content. I would prefer one affordable fee for everything but we pay too much now and I think that will not get better soon. If the Canadian internet and mobile market was more competitive and less restrictive perhaps market forces would force the pricing to go down but it is currently too restrictive. The CRTC has its hands full trying to make sense of all this. If we must have zero rating change the game plan ... have the CRTC choose public 'free' sites that ALL carriers must offer for free (I don't think they would like that because it takes away the competitive advantage) but it would level the playing field and that is what we need.

usernamehell4ever 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:55:06 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

The fact that this is even on the table reinforces my concerns that the CRTC has no interest in the well being of Canadian citizens.

"What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?"

As a citizen the only benefit would be that some content would not count towards my data.


"Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?"

I have concerns, yes. So should you...To allow the ISPs to decide which content is "sponsored" would have a huge impact on competition, stifling creativity and ideas. The internet is a powerful global tool, and to limit our countries access has the potential of limiting our countries potential. Limit long term growth of our countries so some large companies can generate even more profit? Are you seriously asking this?


"Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide"

In my opinion, these concerns vastly outweigh the benefits and are significant to warrant a look at corruption withing the CRTC as well as be a strong factor in my future voting.


"If we should step in, how should we regulate it?"

Again, I would suggest an outside body first looking into the CRTC. On this issue I would say I have not enough familiarity to suggest a plan of action on this, however I feel like net neutrality is the real issue here, and this proposal should be outright banned.

CrackItJack 1 point Wed Sep 28 16:59:59 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Aucune différenciation ne devrait être permise. Sous aucun prétexte.

It certainly appears to be unanimous here: Differential pricing should be forbidden.

Workywork15 Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:04:56 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Zero-rating is in direct conflict with net-neutrality and therefore I think it is inherently bad. However, I think that providing zero-rating for a service that doesn't provide a direct benefit to the company is slightly better. A prime example of this is Videotron's unlimited music streaming. They offer a wide range of applications which they have no financial interest in, all to provide choice and incentive for consumers. If Videotron owned the streaming services, like Bell and Rogers, then I would have a bigger problem with it, such as the zero-rating for Shomi and Bell Mobile TV.

I think all of this talk about zero rating and differential pricing is a symptom of the larger issue though, which is unreasonable data caps. If companies like Videotron, Bell and Rogers will allow you to stream a certain service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and not incur charges, then does their argument about "network congestion" really hold water?

In the case of home internet services, the telecoms are charging you for a certain speed and then trying to double charge you for using the speed you have purchased. Looking at Bell's Fibe 50 plan, which is $79.95/month at a speed of 50 mpbs. So you are paying a hefty price for your speed, but if you actually took advantage of those speeds, your bandwidth would be completely gone extremely quickly.

For mobile phones, each of the big telecoms tout the "fastest network in Canada" or something similar. What they don't tell you is that if you actually take advantage of those speeds your measly 500 mb or 2 gb of data will be gone in a matter of hours. Not to mention the ridiculous overage charges that you will incur and the fact that it is impossible to automatically shut off your data when your limit has been reached to limit additional charges.

I would also like to see something done about the collusion and price fixing in the telecommunications industry before I will care about differential pricing. It is absolutely ludicrous what the big three companies are getting away with. Three companies cannot have the same expenses and come to the conclusion that they must charge the same amount for the same services. A quick glance at any of their websites and you will see identical pricing for identical services.

moelottosoprano 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:19:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

adding price variability to the system would create a multi-tiered revenue stream resulting in higher payers getting priority treatment.. this would serve to further monopolize the canadian industry and would lead to infrastructure stagnation and runaway price inflation.

Joshuages 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:20:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Are we paying less? Like, less than half of what we're collectively paying now? Then do it.

They're adding barely any new infrastructure and my price for cable and internet has essentially doubled since ten years ago...on a network that has had improvements that don't justify the expense.

Don't give them any further tactics to increase pricing or make more money. We are getting completely hosed and this is another way for them to further hose us.

jellicle 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:30:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There aren't any for the public. The several large corporations which provide 100% of Canadian broadband access will be able to effectively extend their monopolies into new areas though, so it would prove beneficial for those corporations.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

In anti-trust law, this concept is called "tying". Anti-trust law often discourages it. Canada already has MAJOR problems with insufficient competition in broadband and wireless. Allowing the few providers to get even more lock-in power would be a huge step backwards.

Allowing this differential pricing would encourage high rates for data, low data caps, and other negative features of the current Canadian marketplace. ISPs are currently charging thousands of times the amount they pay for data (profit margins on data of well over 99%). Do we really want to increase those profit margins?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns hugely outweigh the benefits, especially as there are no benefits to the consumer.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

All Canadian internet and wireless providers should be required to act as non-discriminatory carriage providers. They should be required to offer wholesale access to competitors at prices truly reflecting their costs (not inflated). They should be prohibited from tying their other products and services into internet access.

aod_shadowjester 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:31:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) Differential pricing provides customers who are financially restricted access to popular services, allowing them to keep up with the times, and allows for differentiation between very similar offerings between service providers. 2) Differential pricing restricts Canadian service provider customers' choice in services, artificially inflates cost of services, and severely harms the capability of new entrants into the market that compete against the popular services. It also encourages and distracts from the harm that data caps do against Canadian customers and their Internet consumption. 3) The concerns are huge, and are harmful to Canadian entrepreneurship and Canadian competition against popular international service offerings. It also can unfairly penalize Canadian customers, as it limits choice in services and the costs for the contract between the Internet service provider and the service provider end up being baked into the monthly cost (and becomes "invisible", not free, due to lack of transparency in service costs). 4) Preferably, regulate it heavily: ensure fully transparent pricing, eliminate data caps and differential pricing, and eliminate pricing collusion. I would also prefer to eliminate restrictions on new entrants into the market, especially foreign service providers, provided they follow Canadian privacy and information storage rules. We need price competition on service offerings to lower overall cost of Internet and mobile data access, not additional services to differentiate service offerings that enable artificially high Internet access costs.

noisethisis 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:31:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Firstly, I am a Canadian living in Ontario close to the GTA. I vote and I expect to be heard by my government and governing bodies.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Yes. The benefit of companies offering differential pricing/considering it is that they are admitting that current data caps are not high enough for the money people are spending, and that they easily have the available bandwidth and infrastructure to offer higher/unlimited usage for similar costs. If they didn't have the infrastructure, then they wouldn't be able to offer unlimited streaming for their apps or "partner" apps without losing money.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Very much so. They make backroom deals, which are sometimes hostile towards other, competing companies, and give unfair advantages to companies that can make the best deal. The major companies will try to force their own streaming apps/services on customers because they are "exempt", unlike Netflix or other available services. This is anti-competitive, AND most of all, anti-consumer. As a Canadian who is now paying MORE money, for LESS data than 2 years ago, it's appalling how backwards our cell and internet is in Ontario compared to places with REAL competition like Quebec or Alberta.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

For all middle class and low class citizens in Canada, these concerns are real and are dire. Please step in and regulate these practices. We need a free, and neutral internet without preference to sites that can pay a hostage fee to these companies that already make money hand over fist. This will shut out competition and innovation for start up companies while allowing the major players/internet providers carte blanche to KILL these innovative companies.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

They need to be treated like utilities. The internet is a REQUIREMENT for modern life and is not an option any longer. The ability to access it must be considered a right of every Canadian from now on. We must be given affordable, unlimited internet options on our phones and in our homes. The current pricing model for most provinces are currently so out of control that many Canadians are forced to go to Tim Horton's or McDonalds to use the free internet provided there. That is absurd for our modern country. Take a gander at Europe for what prices should more reflect! I understand we have more area to cover in Canada than Europeans have, but when telecom companies are making the insane profits they are, there is most DEFINITELY substantial room to reduce costs to consumers.

PLEASE! Make the INTERNET a UTILITY! Remove DATA CAPS, lower prices, and BAN differential pricing!

BoatfaceMcGee 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:35:54 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

I have mostly copied a reply from a previous post which I feel best represents my opinions:

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? Differential pricing has some face-value benefit. Given the existence of data caps, differential pricing allows consumers to access popular apps at a reduced cost. This allows those same consumers to use their limited data access on lesser-used sources. Effectively, it has the opportunity to improve overall access to data for consumers, if implemented well.Differential pricing can also introduce a new realm for competition. Content providers are asked to compete for access to the differential pricing scheme. Assuming an otherwise-even playing field, this competition would result in better businesses accessing the differential pricing scheme and worse businesses falling out of favour. Differential pricing can also increase competition among telecommunications companies. Rather than arguing for the fastest wires, the biggest data caps, or the cheapest service, this adds a new value proposition: the best access to free data. I might prefer one company because it gives free access to Netflix, Shomi, and Crave, while its competitor only provides access to Shomi. Finally, differential pricing has the potential to reduce costs for consumers with respect to access to content. Differential pricing creates a new source of income for telecommunications companies. This income can defray some of the cost of providing telecom services. Assuming strong telecommunications competition, this provides a new avenue for the companies to reduce reliance on consumer fees. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?
Absolutely. Most of the benefits described above rely on assumptions about the telecom industry. As mentioned, differential pricing introduces an opportunity for competition in access to the differential pricing scheme. However, this competition must be viewed through the lens of the landscape of the industry. At the moment, content providers would be vying for favour with a small number of telecommunications entities. This creates a large amount of consumer power in the hands of the telecom giants. There is similarly little supplier power, given the substantial number of content creators who would wish to access the service. This lopsided competitive atmosphere encourages abuse by the telecom entities, rather than access to a new and interesting competitive market. The competition between content providers is also superficial. A reasonable telecom company, when selecting who should access its differential pricing regime, would be concerned about two features. First, who can pay the most money? Second, who would be the most interesting to our customer base? This means that the competition between content providers would be tainted by a huge barrier to entry. Namely, the content provider with the most money or the most well-established consumer base is the one who gets access. It would be nearly impossible for a new start-up video streaming service to compete with the likes of Netflix, Shomi, and YouTube. The balance of competitive power is shifted in favour of heavy-hitters like YouTube if zero-rating is available. If YouTube were to pay for access to this regime, it would also have the incentive to encourage the telecom company to charge more for competitors' services (e.g., Vimeo). Although zero-rating does not allow for increased cost to other services on a targeted basis, it certainly allows for increasing cost to access data generally. This encourages an end-game of a true consolidation of power among service providers. If consumers can access Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, and other major content provider platforms for free, it encourages collusion between that content provider group and the telecommunications group to increase cost of access to other data. This consolidates power, reduces competition, encourages oligopolies, and edges new content providers out of the market. Even if consumers currently would benefit from access to their most-used sites, this encourages the status quo and reduces incentive to develop new content delivery platforms.
The new value proposition is also superficial. A consumer may differentiate between telecom companies based on who offers the most interesting free data, but the telecommunications industry is subject to oligopolistic pressures. In my market (Calgary, a major city), I only have realistic access to two telecom providers. I don't have the ability to make real decisions, and the providers know this. With a small number of major players, there is great incentive to "work together" even while not working together. There is no race-to-the-bottom on price or race-to-the-top on quality. There is only an incentive to maintain status quo. I have no confidence that these providers will use this new opportunity to create a strong competitive advantage. Finally, the notion that end-consumer prices could be reduced is, quite frankly, unlikely. Once again, oligopolistic pressures cannot be ignored. If the telecommunications industry were relatively inexpensive to enter and if the market were full of competitors of every size, this would be a reasonable end result. Instead, we are faced with the selection of only a couple of large, important players.
As stated above, the end-game of zero-rating is for the large content providers and the large telecom providers to group up and restrict access to non-preferred data. This group becomes a gatekeeper for access to content. Content providers that cannot pay the fee or that compete directly with an important business partner of Bell or Rogers or Shaw or Telus could be priced out of the market through no fault of their own. Simply by having the audacity to dare compete with a large content provider, they can be pushed onto the non-zero-rated path. The easiest way for telecom giants to encourage content providers to purchase access to the zero-rated path is to make non-zero-rated content especially expensive. This leads to my biggest concern. Telecommunications giants can use the zero-rated scheme as a weapon. By increasing the cost of access to data and simultaneously zero-rating major content providers, the telecom giants discourage access to non-zero-rated data. This gives telecom giants a powerful tool in their negotiations with content providers: pay us, or get into the expensive-data line. This does not increase competition. This does not serve consumers. All this does is give telecom yet another tool to increase barriers to entry. If your content company can't afford the toll to become zero-rated, a telecom company can effectively sentence your data to death, pricing you out of the market. This puts too much power in the hands of telecommunications giants. They are already an oligopoly. Allowing zero-rating would give them a new weapon, restricting competition in an ancillary field. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? I argue the CRTC needs to take a role in regulating. Not just a role, but an intrusive and highly-active role. The telecommunications industry is controlled by a small group of players, and the CRTC represents the only shield Canadian consumers have. If the CRTC does not stand up for consumers' interests, nobody will. Internet and data access are mandatory in modern-day society, making consumers slaves to the rules created by the telecommunications industry. The opportunities for abuse are clear. The free market does not operate in a field with such high barriers to entry and such strong, consolidated powers. If the CRTC does not regulate fiercely and actively, consumers will suffer. A quiet or passive regulation will be ineffective, given the creativity and resources of the large telecommunications companies. If tax lawyers can find ways around the Income Tax Act, telecommunications lawyers will have no issues circumventing passive CRTC policy. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? A blanket ban on zero-rating is the easy and cheap solution and Certainly I think the best thing to do. But if the CRTC is of the view that zero-rating and differential pricing has value to Canadian consumers, then you must take an aggressive and active role in regulating, acting solely in the interests of Canadian consumers. I encourage you to take an aggressive stance to prevent further steps towards the erosion of net neutrality. In my view, an adversarial process is the only solution. If an adversarial stance is not taken, regulatory capture is inevitable. Consumers only speak to the CRTC through divided voices and occasional public opinion processes, while the industry players get frequent opportunities to advocate. Collaboration cannot exist when one group has greater access. The CRTC must stand up for the voiceless consumer group. There must be a presumption that telecom companies want to take advantage of consumers, and those companies should bear the burden of rebutting that presumption. The specifics on regulation ought to fall to the CRTC. But I urge you to take steps to become a regulatory body to be respected. Securities commissions, for example, are strong, policy-driven, consumer-focused groups. But the CRTC does not have the reputation it should from the perspective of consumer protection. While I acknowledge that Europe, Japan, and Korea do not have our geographical issues in telecom, the state of Canada's telecommunications industry is embarrassing on a global scale. The CRTC has the power and the opportunity to solve this. Please, on behalf of all Canadian consumers, have the courage and the strength to regulate actively, aggressively, and in the favour of consumers. Because if you don't, nobody will.

not_a_moogle 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:36:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

differential pricing only makes sense on tangible goods/services. I expect a train ticket to cost more based on the millage I'm traveling, since it requires more physical goods (fuel) & people's labor to get me their.

Downloading a video vs downloading a song, vs browsing reddit shouldn't cost more. yes, the originating point of the data might come from somewhere else, but it's cost to get it to me is negligible. Differential pricing would only make sense 40 years ago when it was to help build the infrastructure. Maintenance costs should already be absorbed into currently monthly bills. If it's not, then either the companies are not charging enough, or they shouldn't be in business in the first place.

jeepcambo Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:37:38 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1.What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Differential pricing would allow companies more freedom to customize their products, possibly responding better to the needs of customers or allowing other app providers to subsidize data used in their applications (e.g. perhaps Uber would want to pay for the cost of its data use for drivers). This assumes that they have the motivation to do so as pushed by competitive forces.

Differential pricing may allow telecomm companies to innovate and improve their network infrastructures. Prioritization that comes from differential pricing may allow consumers to use valued services more than without.

2.Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

There is already a problem of oligarchic competition in this space in Canada. I am concerned that allowing differential pricing will cause the large telecomm providers to gain more market power. This is because they will try to subsidize their own services to unfairly advantage them over that of competitors (e.g. telecomm owned streaming service vs Netflix).

As the large telecomm companies already control much of the market in an oligopoly, they will then hold a similar oligopoly over the prioritization and subsidization of services through their differential pricing schemes. App developers who wish to subsidize their services' traffic will have little choice but to do so through the already-market-controlling large telecomm bodies.

3.Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

As both a consumer and a stockholder in Rogers, Bell, etc., I consider both sides of this issue. For society at large, it is not beneficial for these companies to have such market-distorting power. They are largely immune from true competition and instead have only a façade of competition between one another.

I advocate a stance of non-intervention in general for regulators except where regulation would improve the health of the market in general. In this case, the telecomm market is poorly functioning due to the severe lack of competition. The CRTC should intervene to improve these conditions.

4.If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I see it as especially important that large telecomm firms should not be able to unfairly advantage their own services through differential pricing because this contributes to their monopoly power. For example, if Rogers were able to temporarily loss-lead a streaming service to compete with Netflix, with the aim of shutting down competition and then restoring profitable price levels, this would weaken the health of the telecomm marketplace as a whole.

It is less important, though still somewhat key that net neutrality be maintained to maximize consumer choice. This extends to the case where a telecomm company has the opportunity to differentially price a third-party service. This still creates a condition where the operator of utility infrastructure influences the products used upon it. I believe this contributes to monopoly power and must be regulated against. Utility companies, including telecomm, inherently enjoy much more monopoly power than other industries due to their large infrastructure investments.

For these reasons, I believe CRTC intervention is necessary and differential pricing should be prohibited. At the very least, the CRTC should continue to prevent the differential pricing of a telecom's OWN services. However, on balance, the differential pricing of a third-party's services is also negative for society and will reduce consumer choice in the long-run.

auric_trumpfinger 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:40:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data caps I understand, prices are high due to city folk subsidizing those who live far away is a reality in a country like Canada.

What is not good is when the few telecoms companies in Canada are able to extend their monopoly beyond the hardware and into the services (which could rightly be viewed as utilities in my opinion, but regardless).

I shouldn't have to pay extra on my power bill to use a non Ontario hydro brand oven or washing machine, why should I be forced to use their competionless offerings chiefly because they are the ones who own the wire on the pole.

Kache 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:42:50 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Differential pricing grant ISPs and media companies (sometimes even one and the same!) free bargaining power. The end user receives a negative benefit of lost freedom of accessibility due to being funneled into discrete noncompetitive choices.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing

The public often does not understand what data really is and what it costs. Providers would have policymakers believe the fallacy that data is like a cassical tangible good, falsely equating "more data" with "more product".

Data is information - to copied and re-transmitted, unlike classical tangible goods like pizzas and burgers. The marginal cost of an additional copy of information is infinitesimal to the marginal cost of an additional pizza.

Data is agnostic - in the same way that electricity whether it powers a light bulb or a computer, there is no fundamental difference between any any two pieces of data, and there is no cost difference between 10Mbps of video and 10Mbps of text.

The cost of data is measured only in bandwidth. For example, after setting up a signal lamp the additional cost of re-transmitting a Morse code message is primarily only the time spent transmitting.

ISPs may claim that data caps and differential pricing serve to prevent service outages and slowdowns, but that is as invalid as thinking a law to limit allowed time/distance driving or charging tolls would prevent rush-hour traffic.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Undoubtedly, yes! Letting ISPs benefit off of the public's misunderstanding would like freely permitting scams and false advertising.

ISPs need to be regulated because the ISP market is a natural monopoly, as is most network-based goods. As a network, the net value increases as the number of additional disparate networks falls and the size of the primary and universal network grows (e.g. connected roads, electric lines, train tracks).

If we should step in, how should we regulate it

Prices should be regulated to reflect the true cost of providing service. Internet access should be regarded as a public good/resource in the modern age. Technology advances and changes quickly, and both the public and policymakers need to stay informed lest we be cheated by special interests.

Frontspac 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:43:55 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think the CRTC should nationalize our telecommunications infrastructure and just rent the bandwidth to telecoms, using this power to ensure fair pricing and reliable, accessible non redundant services.

gris-gris 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:46:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

So, just so we are clear. Telecoms in Canada have recently added data caps to cell phone lines and home internet. We all know that these data caps are completely arbitrary and reflect another attempt at these companies to gouge consumers.

Now they are coming along and asking to provide "differential pricing" which is a complete affront to net neutrality, and are going to convince us that the "benefit" to us it that we get to visit certain websites free from counting towards the arbitrary data caps that should never have been imposed on us in the first place?

The internet is an essential service in the modern world. It should be treated as a utility. Consumers should pay a flat rate for internet service and not be subject to any data caps.

The answers in this thread are very consistent, and very clear as to how we the consumers feel about our internet and mobile service in Canada. Please do not allow the telecoms to convince you that this differential pricing is some sort of benefit to customers, it is not, and quite frankly it offends me.

iamasatellite 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:48:50 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

For the user, no real benefit, although it may appear cheaper (but that's because you get unfair pricing when you don't use the approved/free/sponsored data service -- I doubt the differential price will be noticeably cheaper than could be provided if all data were treated the same)

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. It is not fair.

  • It allows companies to coerce you into their other services, or services of companies they have deals with.
  • It allows them to discourage you from using other services which may be better or have a cheaper subscription price (but costs you more in data).
  • It stiffles innovation, because it adds costs to trying unapproved data sources.
  • Users of non-approved data would be subsidizing users of free, approved data.
  • It is against the principles of net neutrality - it creates favoured information. This can be viewed as a kind of censorship.
  • It takes away choice from users by trying to get them to use all the same services ("I'm with Rogers, so I subscribe to RogFlix because the data is free" "Oh I already had Bell internet, so I switched to BellFlix because my kids were using too much data with Netflix" "There's some great new counterculture music on this new service called PrairieTunes, you should check it out" "I've got RogerTunes already, and the data is too expensive, I can't check it out")
  • The purpose of preferential pricing is to destroy competition, not encourage it or compete fairly.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I do not see any real overall benefits. I believe the practice should be regulated or rather disallowed.

Please do not let the companies decide. Their interests are not the same as those of the users, and they will not have the best-interests of the users in mind, which is quite possibly harmful when the service is information. Ask anyone and you'll hear numerous stories of how their phone or internet companies have taken advantage of them.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Just don't allow it! Your ISP should get you your data, not influence what/whose data you use.

anarrogantworm 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:51:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Never.

Stop pretending you're listening and help us.

If the CRTC would grow a set maybe they could actually get to work doing what they are supposed to do and regulate this oligopoly instead of writing in loopholes for them!

Bust that trust! It's hurting Canadians and you can stop it.

unimatrix_0 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:51:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits are simple to see: people who exclusively use one service on the internet (eg. Netflix) but not much else (from a volume standpoint), can get an excellent rate, provided the service is covered under the zero-tarif provision.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The key concern about pricing issues is that an ISP (or collection of ISPs) can push content from certain sources and nearly exclude content from others. It's not just a matter of advertisers getting their content pushed, but it is inextricably linked to political leanings of the ISP parent company. Pricing is one of the key factors for in directing consumer behaviour, but that is not the mandate of an ISP, nor what I am after when I seek to connect to the internet.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns far outweigh the benefits.

Let's assume something similar had happened in TV. In this hypothetical world, the ISP parent company is in bed with the Rhinoceros party, such that every other political party's ads would become pay-per-view after airing just a couple times. The Rhinoceros party would get favoured air time, and the other parties would be disadvantaged.

Like it or not, this would become political platform, where lobbyists and corporations have opportunities to shape the information Canadians get to aid their own gain. See Rupert Murdoch censorship.

Letting the ISPs decide leaves them to serve none but their own interests (which remain: continued exorbitant prices, advertising revenue by selling user information (see Verizon's Super Cookies), and the push towards a legalized monopoly, which you are thankfully resisting).

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

You should regulate it by preventing ISPs from channeling content either by throttling speeds, or by making certain content more expensive.

avalanches 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:55:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are none for Canadians who use internet. It divides content. It only serves the current communications companies.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. I genuinely fear it. It is a rain-slick slope.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The government should step in and end it, whether it's Mobile data or Home internet.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

By banning it.

NorthStarZero 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:56:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? To the public? Nothing. And I include "outsider members of the private sector" as "the public" in this definition. If I invent some sort of killer app that directly competes with a provider, what's to stop them from making my traffic more expensive than a competitor, and thus shutting me out of the market, despite being a superior service?

  2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes, The Internet has evolved far beyond what it was in 1997, and is now, effectively, a utility. It's a pipe for bits. What makes it so useful is that it is a reliable pipe for bits and it is agnostic to what those bits are and who is on either end. As soon as you allow inequality between bits, you stifle the use of the utility.

  3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? Hell yes, regulate this! No bit on the pipe should be more expensive, slower, or treated in any conceivable way different from any other. And this regulation must have teeth! Breaking the law must HURT the service provider, so that they don't try and get away with shenanigans trusting that a percentage of their customer base won't complain.

  4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? It should be illegal, via legislation, to charge different rates, throttle speeds, or cap quantity of bits for any reason. Start treating the Internet like the utility it is.

eddmoney 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:56:10 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

This goes against the fundamentals of net neutrality. Exempting Netflix from data plans isn't worth sacrificing net neutrality at all.

GiveAratsAss 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:57:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? To the users there are none. For the companies, however, they can use them to unfairly promote services they own; and try to control information. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? It is unfair. It inhibits freedom of information and freedom of thought. Canada already has the MOST expensive mobile (wireless) and is in the top 20 for wireline, networks in the world. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? YES! It is already too bloody expensive to be connected, and the service providers keep raising the price. Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? NO. They have proven that they can't regulate themselves, time and again. It is not in their interest to provide their service for a fair price. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? These companies make billions of dollars for providing the service, which they had to pay almost nothing to install; because they receive taxpayer dollars for infrastructure improvements, in the form of government grants. Cut off their funding and fine them double, but also make it illegal for them to pass this onto their customers in the form of rate hikes and service fees.

xibipiio 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:58:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think the concept is novel, I mean CBC and local tv stations and radio stations are free, in a way. However, I dont trust for a second companies in power of providing a neutral internet to choose what content is free. I think that CBC and any other government CULTURAL programming should be free to watch over the internet, GOOD UNBIASED JOURNALISM should be free to consume over the internet, any and all civilian-government or civilian-company transactions should be free to the consumer. These companies charge way too much for cel phone data as it is, for internet packages, for cable and satelite, them using their egregious charges to leverage the consumer into watching their programming is evil.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I think the concept could be executed well, I don't think for a second the companies that provide internet in various forms in Canada have any business doing this for their own benefit.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

Ansolutely step in, stop this, shape this, mold this, do something.

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

We as Canadians are collectively laughing and shaking our heads that Donald Trump is potentially the next POTUS, lets not pretend we collectively agree as a nation "let the free market decide". Good grief.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Do away with it as a concept that service providers have any say in shaping. Create CBC content for free consumption on the internet. Maybe set up CBC stations around the world so that we can get live unbiased thorough well educated journalism broadcast easily and readily and high quality through all internet providers.

tamrinkhan 1 point Wed Sep 28 17:59:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Net neutrality is sacred. Do not mess with it ever.

crking99 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:05:03 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1.What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

-- The only benefit (not to consumers) of differential pricing is to force content providers into horrible deals with the telecom providers to prevent loss of clients to competitors. It is a lose/lose proposition for the end user.

2.Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

--Based on the history of actions by the telecom providers I can see nothing good coming from this. Based on their history of trying to force the content providers into paying for 'access' to their networks (see "Netflix is paying Comcast for direct connection to network") as well as screwing the subscribers for every penny possible.

3.Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

YES!

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

No! Like that actually works???? I have to say that's like putting the wolves in charge of the sheep!

4.If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

-- No 'free' over-the-top deals at all, including for the telecom providers own add-on services. Demand that data is provided by the providers at cost plus a reasonable markup.

eplusl 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:05:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm completely and utterly opposed to differential pricing and data caps. Here in Québec (Montreal) we get price gouged even when compared to our neighbors in Ontario, for sub-par service level, sub-par speeds and arbitrary data caps that amount to nothing more than double dipping. I work in IT, and I'm from Europe, so I've seen first hand that claims that removing caps and keeping the Internet neutral will drive quality down are completely debunked. The claim that they want to do this in order to increase the quality of service for consumers is disingenuous at best. They're motivated solely by profit, as European companies customarily demonstrate a higher quality of service with no caps and no zero rating for a fraction of the price.

If the CRTC is truly tasked with serving the needs of Canadians at large, this question wouldn't even be up for debate.

Please take all steps necessary to eliminate zero rating, data caps and traffic throttling.

-a French resident of Montreal for 7 years.

Burns_Cacti 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:07:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I simply, both from experience and principle, do not trust my local ISPs to use this in a way that remotely benefits me. I fully expect such a system would be used to "cable-ify" the internet, and there's a reason I am on the internet and not paying for nor using TV. I am categorically opposed to the idea on every level, as I believe an open and free internet is a powerful tool for ensuring human rights.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Hypothetically, more competitive deals that benefit the consumer. Practically speaking however, history tells me this is very unlikely to play out, and nearly all of the benefit is for the provider.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The cable-ification of the internet resulting in data caps, lower speeds, higher prices, restricted content and a reduction in consumer agency.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes. I strongly believe that the internet should be a place of enforced neutrality. I'd prefer differential pricing and content locking to be halted entirely, but I'll settle for what I can get. Regulation of ISP pricing models and anti-competitive practices is very important to me. Our neighbors to the south have a plethora of examples to look to on the dangers of monopolies and corporate influence run amok.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Stop the practice entirely. All data should be treated equally, data caps are by and large a case of artificial scarcity and shouldn't be allowed.

robofunk_ 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:07:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Without accurate and real-time bandwidth metering how can a consumer monitor their internet usage properly? Telus updates their website usage meter at most twice per day and this is absolutely unacceptable if you want to fully utilize the data you are paying for. And when even tiny data overages do occur why is it acceptable to charge 5$ for 10GB of data when a GB by Telus' own pricing is only 13 cents per GB (150Mbps Optik 650GB @ 85$/month)?

Allowing zero-rating will just incentivize ISPs to increase their policing of data caps and lower data cap ceilings and increase overage fees. These days I want to be able to pick a choose what media services I use and zero-rating is just plain anti-competitive.

SpikedLemon 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:15:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data is data. Allowing zero-rating (free service) is data that the consumer could use, otherwise, for themselves. It is subsidized data over which the consumer has only limited sphere of choice. We are only fooling ourselves if we think it's truly free.

This wouldn't, of course, be as much an issue if we had more affordable and higher data limits available. If I had unlimited data: I couldn't care about the waste of zero-rated content because I'm not subsidising it and can use my data freely.

LizOpines 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:16:05 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Zero-rating seriously limits choice and stifles competition on the Internet: the next Reddit or Twitter could never get off the ground in a world with zero-rating. Do you believe the Internet should be a level playing field for innovative new ideas? Canadians are trapped by data caps: For wired Internet, data caps in most of the world are unheard of. For wireless, caps in other nations are far more reasonable than those in Canada. There is no such thing as “too much Internet,” given how essential online access has become to our everyday lives. If we don't tackle this now, Canada will fall even further behind. Users, not telecom companies, should decide which services we use online: Telecom giants should not be permitted to zero-rate data, and make websites they don't like more expensive to access. We need transparency and strong enforcement to ensure telcos stick by the rules, and face penalties when those rules are broken.

jmasterfunk Saskatchewan 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:19:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Zero rating of data should only be allowed on service related pages provided by your ISP. I should not have to use bits from my data bucket to pay for a page presented to me from my ISP that states I am out of data, or to purchase more data.

I would also like to only see sponsored data be allowed in the case of firmware updates from device manufacturers (Downloading iOS updates).

Stevelec 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:22:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

NO WAY! This is nothing but a sleazy attempt to get around net neutrality rules. Get rid of data caps altogether or make everyone pay the same. No fast lane for big media companies.

zippyslow 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:22:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing I believe would be detrimental as most on this topic appear to be. The most obvious choice would be to make the internet a regulated utility.

It really is a shame that RBT have been able to monopolize for so long and no one seems to care enough to stand up and do something about it.

I don't have much more to offer other than my support.

mHtt British Columbia 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:24:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband

3 birds with one stone

-end price gouging by stagnant enterprises who are leaching off of Canadian Academic innovation and infrastructure funded by tax payers.

-allow alternative revenue streams for municipalities. they can compete among each other to land big business investment based on their quality of internet service etc

-help support grass roots efforts already undertaken to these ends: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_wireless_network#Canada

paulstanwayjr 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:25:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Stop differential pricing now! Politicians, how about looking after the Canadian public instead of allowing the public to be gouged for using the Internet!

GoodAtExplaining Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:26:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you for this opportunity, CRTC folks!

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think that's dependent on what restrictions the CRTC places should it approve differential pricing. I do not believe that differential pricing is beneficial to the Canadian telecommunications landscape, but if carriers reduced or removed caps, differential pricing wouldn't be as large of an issue.

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

As we have seen, certain measures in the marketplace tend to stifle innovation and make a free internet more difficult. Bell's attempts to institute Usage-Based Billing were roundly met with scorn, and my concern is that, were differential pricing implemented, we would see several technical and other hurdles in place that would simply make internet more expensive for all involved. As an example, Comcast in the US is dealing with issues with respect to how they count the data a customer uses - In companies as large as our telecoms, this sort of distortion of data use or indeed general access to the internet feels like something of an inevitability.

I'm also concerned about my ability to use the internet generally. This sort of measure would also hinder resellers such as TekSavvy and Start. Both of these companies offer services similar to the Big 3, but do so in a far more effective manner. This would be a further hindrance on their business model, and would prohibit choice in the marketplace.

Additionally, I feel that this would severely impact the concept of net neutrality, and could potentially lead to users seeking out circumvention measures in the network as a whole. This would jeopardize the network and its performance, and inevitably lead to legal action from telecommunications comoanies

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

As a consumer, I don't feel that there are enough regulations placed on internet service in Canada generally. Witness the recent 'skinny' packages from the big 3. While it's an admirable work from the CRTC, the companies involved did their best to obfuscate or obstruct customer choice in this matter. I would feel more comfortable with the CRTC mandating the internet as a public utility, frankly, as that would abnegate many of the issues Canadians have with their service providers generally.

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

While I'm not an expert, what I would like to see is a panel without a majority share of former telecom employees on the panel. There are a number of non-profit groups dedicated to preserving net neutrality, and I would think that alongside CRTC personnel, they should be present in any hearings or panels dedicated to the subject. I am not in favour of adding a greater level of regulatory bodies in the practice, but I am concerned that the level of regulation around internet service, particularly with respect to caps and obstruction of traffic is already an issue, and allowing ISPs to take further measures to restrict service will not result in technological advances that benefit users.

As a sidebar, I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide feedback. In the future, I would very much like to see the CRTC tackle the issue of caps, both in terms of monthly allotments as well as speeds, but also billing practices among the Big 3. Bills are often obfuscated or unclear with respect to how data usage is calculated. While Measurement Canada can and does enforce deviations in regulations in a number of industries, consumers have no such protections when they are over their cap with telecommunications - We have no way to access or test the equipment, and often overages are blamed on us rather than the provider's equipment.

Again, thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to more dialogue in the future!

crocodoyle 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:28:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Uphold net neutrality

ColRockAmp 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:28:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing will allow ISPs to gouge customers and businesses. It's nothing less than hostage taking and demanding a ransom, the hostage in this case being internet access, something the United Nations declared a human right back in 2011. It must be made illegal to protect not only the rights and ability of all Canadians to express themselves and seek out unbiased and uncensored information, but also to protect Canadians from ISPs that have a track record of gouging their customers for the sake of their bottom line.

nater419 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:32:23 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Please get rid of data caps, even what I would call a "soft cap" by companies such as MTS where once you go over a certain GB/month, you get such low speeds it's almost impossible to use (this is in cellular services, but I think the same applies to internet).

dustybizzle 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:34:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Copying this from a different comment as it sums up my opinion succinctly:

1) I see very little benefit to consumers, aside from perhaps a few dollars saved on a monthly bill for certain users' usage patterns.

2) Zero-pricing is in direct violation of net neutrality. It stifles competition by making it possible for ISPs to make access to websites that pay said ISP cheaper and/or easier for the consumer

3) The concerns overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits. Net neutrality, once violated, would be extremely difficult to recover without drastic measures. The CRTC must step in and ban zero-rating.

4) Step in by banning it. Please do not do half measures, this is too important.

Fenixx117 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:35:23 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Why should we trust the government to do anything morally or efficiently?

The internet is the only true bastion of freedom left on earth and governments are now just realizing that if you can control the flow of information online, you can control the people.

The internet must remain as unregulated as possible. Allowing billion dollar companies to buy their way into your frontpage and push out small startups will actually narrow ones perception of what is actually happening online.

Just look at the blatant censorship on YouTube, Twitter and Reddit for wrongthink. Governments and corporations will use excuses like "hate speech" and "not family friendly" to push their biased narratives while throttling all other traffic from websites that have just as much a right to exist as any other.

I'm all for cheap internet but ensuring certain sites for news and information get a free pass ensures that more people will flock to the free sites thus creating an artificial monopoly on the "truth"TM

If people only believe what the CBC or some other government mouthpiece tell you, then we will end up with a monoculture online where all non-subsidized sites are treated as fringe and will be discounted, even if they have something legitimate to contribute

Say goodbye to the 'marketplace of ideas' where all sources of news and entertainment can battle it out on an even playing field for views. The CRTC will now decide what is "appropriate" and forevermore tip the scales towards centralized control

Thanks but no thanks.

In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. Indeed as John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important–in fact, it would become even more important–that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view. - Christopher Hitchens

tordre 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:41:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hi Thank you CRTC for reaching out to canadians via this unconventional method.

  1. The obvious benefit is the appearance of free stuff for the end user.

  2. The obvious sacrifice is freedom. It paves the way for tiny data plans being supplemented by these zero rate services. meaning some people will not be able to look at things other than whats approved by the ISP. It paves the way for ISP to open their own services and because they are the only free data version of such a service they essentially become de facto in canada. sets up the ISP into a censor role for the government, something most should fear. In addition it allows the ISP to strong arm global media providers into paying unnecessary fees in order for them to be featured as a zero rate service. In addition it also could be interpreted as ISP to make visiting certain site cost more than the conventional rate. Which is another form of media control that is not welcome.

Additionally it makes shopping for an ISP a much harder decisions having to cross reference graphs to see which gives me more of the services i use

  1. Yes the only benefit is a price decrease on paper the cost to the end user. The cost is that it will continue to leave as as an afterthought on internet services. it took us 5 years to get half way competent versions of the world wide favorite music and tv streaming services, this most definitely will hold us back where the next big thing in web is. You should step in and put a stop to such uncompetitive practices before it is too late.

  2. Yes please step in and put a stop to it, it is not a neutral practice and it will end up hurting the canadian technology sector even more.

phileq 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:42:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is probably thinking way outside the box with regard to practicality but the corporations that provide the service should not simultaneously own the infrastructure. Many are arguing that broadcasting and telecommunications infrastructure should be government owned (the same way as roads/highways, electricity, water, etc.) to eliminate corporate monopolies and to promote actual competitive pricing. Perhaps this means we all end up paying the same amount (i.e. lower cellular and ISP bills may be compensated by higher government taxes) but it creates a fairer system, in my opinion. Although this may sound good in theory, the mechanics/politics to proceed with something like this may be, like I said, quite impractical to implement (not to mention other unforseen issues may arise as a result).

stardustcross 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:42:31 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? - I can really only think of theoretical benefits, that could be marketed towards consumers. Like how some cell phone plans would allow unlimited "social media" (like data used through Facebook apps). Not sure if this is a thing anymore. But in today's day and age, such restrictive measures shouldn't even be a thing.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? - Absolutely and it is that "big players" are getting to shape the content we access/consume too much. Google/Facebook already have the power to do this with their algorithms and now ISPs want to be able to influence consumer behaviour? Differential pricing is a problem because it's a pricing that doesn't reflect reality (cost of providing the service). If accessing certain things like Netflix actually costs more (by size) than streaming a Youtube video, then I understand paying more, but it doesn't. DP just adds a convoluted pricing structure which doesn't serve the consumer. Also, all data/knowledge out there should be as easily accessible.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? - Yes. There is not enough competition in Canada to allow companies to self-regulate. There are already enough monopolies (or oligopolies) in Canada taking advantage of the public when there is nothing to keep them in check. Like a certain toll highway in Ontario: want to take a ride on it? Prepare to pay for (1) a transponder, (2) a per trip cost, (3) a per kilometer cost, (4) account fee. Imagine when Rogers is able to charge people per Netflix video watched, or per website viewed that isn't on their "white list" of Rogers-affiliates. Anything that can be measured can be billed, and it will be a sad day for the public if that happens to the Internet that belongs to everyone.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Disallow any sort of differential pricing. Remove ridiculous data caps, or cap per GB/fees. There is no "regulating" this.

therealAce 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:43:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The idea that an internet service provider themselves could ever decide which internet services get lower data costs than others, that is a very dangerous idea. Any ISP with a mind for profits would be quick to make deals with competitors seeking to find an advantage against Netflix and Youtube and the like. The internet would quickly become a game of "Who can pay the most ISPs for the most access". Please don't let Canada become the first grounds for this type of experiment.

Really, what we should be talking about is an end to data caps altogether, not more creative ways to charge them. My television provider never charged me based on how many hours I spent watching TV per week.

Ideally, what we really need is a publicly owned ISP. The internet has proven too valuable of a service to leave in the hands of a handful of conglomerates making little effort to appear to be in competition.

Thank you.

dalinsparrow 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:44:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Please tell sasktel to **** off with the monthly data caps.. Makes zero sense

Merrittkr 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:46:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The CRTC should DEFINITELY step in and regulate. Absolutely everything regarding cell phone & internet in Canada feels rigged by monopolies, and everyone hates it. At this point in history, I think it would be wise to think about government run communications - corporations are not working.

aniseshaw 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:48:29 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Many previous responders have echoed what I would say: differential pricing is a direct attack on net neutrality. While all of us are both on wired and wireless internet, we are quickly moving off of our personal computers and onto cellphone data plans. Whether it's a modem or LTE, if the internet is necessary for day to day life in Canada, it needs to be protected. This will have to be an effort in all areas of government - from municipalities providing free wireless hotspots to the CRTC vehemently protecting net neutrality.

While many people have discussed repercussions on the consumer, I want to quickly mention repercussions on the job sector. Differential pricing is very much a silent attack on netflix, and a way for the telecoms to force the content giant into paying them money for the luxury of their service being exempt from data caps. While shomi is a perfectly reasonable competitive service, it is not a content creator. I work in entertainment in Vancouver, and netflix employs THOUSANDS of entertainment workers here for original content that is enjoyed around the world. Shomi does not. Netflix thrives on a competitive marketplace, and while I understand the telecoms may be struggling under the technological shifts happening around them, whether or not they stay viable is not the consumer's responsibility. They have struggled to adopt new technology, and tried to stifle it at every turn instead of embracing innovation. Differential pricing would make a very ironic situation of Canadian entertainment employees being gouged for watching the shows, youtube videos, music and other content that they helped create. If that doesn't sound like a clearly unethical two tiered system, I don't know what is.

rere123rere 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:51:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

iiii

Ribbys 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:51:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I want to pay for speed on the network, and a reasonable bucket of data at that speed. Current pricing is insane compared to other developed nations. Differential pricing does not help, as it is clearly just another way for the networks to generate more income by going into a deal with Netflix, or YouTube. How does the National Film Board of Canada fit into that? or a non-profit operation? This uneven playing field is not competitive, it is anti competitive.

If someone is abusing their access, then sure, there should be a process and procedure to look into that. I understand bandwidth is not unlimited especially over wireless.

Resolute45 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:52:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1.What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I suspect that you knew what sort of answers you would get by asking Redditors, but as a consumer, there are no benefits. We are instead offered the illusion that YouTube (as an example) signing an agreement with Bell (as an example) to zero-rate their data is a benefit to us. It is not. It is a benefit to Bell, who gets paid by Google, and a benefit to Google, who drives people to their platform at the expense of others.

2.Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The consumer actually loses because if differential pricing is allowed to stand, our choices will be increasingly limited to what the ISPs allow. This is not only actively hostile to the consumer, but threatens to infringe on our rights as citizens as our freedom of choice, speech and association is impacted.

3.Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The harm to the consumer vastly outweighs the benefit to the ISP. Yes, the CRTC should step in and regulate.

4.If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Differential pricing should be illegal. Full stop. This is an issue that is of far greater consumer concern than either three-year phone contracts or basic TV cable options were. Particularly given internet access is every bit a utility that telephony and electricity ever were. As such, the system needs to be regulated to ensure the widest access possible to the consumer.

Drethis 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:54:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1.) There is no benefit to the consumer.

2.) There is a high likelihood that this won't be used to the advantage of the consumer. The idea of a tiered pricing model is an antiquated approach to a model that shouldn't exist to begin with. I, as a consumer, should not be penalized for choosing a non-sponsored product over a sponsored product. They should all be treated equally. This goes against the principle of net neutrality.

3.) You should regulate it by not letting it happen at all. This isn't in the interests of the consumer.

4.) Don't let these companies offer differential pricing.

Thoughtulism 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:55:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

This is a biased question as it implies that content providers and the telecommunication medium are not separate items. I see them as totally separate and the idea behind differential pricing is fundamentally flawed. The benefit seems to be large conglomerate ISPs offering both home and cell phone services to avoid their telecommunication medium from turning into a commodity network by controlling content and thereby increasing the price.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. I'm concerned that differential pricing is being done so that content gets prioritized / de-prioritized on the network without my input. If I do want choice, then I am forced to pay more for a more expensive plan. This is likely being framed as "providing cheaper plans" by ISPs, but in reality it's a way to push people to higher plans to artificially bump up revenue when they should be lowering the cost to consumers instead.

Traffic shaping is a necessary evil of an ISP to provide a fair network to everyone, however, it's a leap to go from this to the need for differential pricing plans.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Critically speaking, who is benefiting from differential pricing plans? ISPs. There are two things that are needed by consumers: 1) consistent reliable internet access, and 2) investment into the network to satisfy long term bandwidth growth. Differential pricing is about the ability for ISPs to charge consumers for the bandwidth they consume and then charging the independent website or content providers for that same bandwidth that has been charged to the consumer thereby maximizing profits without raising consumer prices. The downside to this is that websites and content providers that cannot pay (e.g. startups) get poorer service. This is anti-competitive as it favors larger content providers.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Make regulations to enforce the following:

1) ISPs cannot discriminate to provide better, worse, restricted, or unrestricted network speed or limits based on where the content comes from, nor charge websites for any network capacity already provided as part of a consumer's internet plan. A consumer's plan will pay for purchasing an end to end channel to any website they wish without restriction.

2) Require ISPs to offer comparable plans so that consumers can compare.

3) Plans should be clear (as well as standard among the industry as specified above). e.g. 5GB download / 2GB upload. After that individuals get throttled to 25%.

4) Create common charges for internet peering.

5) Regulate how much money gets put back into the network upgrades.

6) Cap the costs to consumers

7) Prevent ISPs from modifying internet protocols such as DNS to do redirect.

VampyrosLesbos 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:56:23 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1 - Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix?

Le seul avantage que j'y vois est la capacité d'avoir une limite de téléchargement efficace plus élevée que ce que les fournisseurs de services Internet nous proposent. C'est bien beau d'offrir certains services en ligne gratuitement, mais les prix des services Internet restent abusifs.

2 - Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix?

Si le choix des services pour la différenciation des prix est laissé aux fournisseurs de services Internet, c'est un risque terrible pour la neutralité du réseau Internet. Les fournisseurs de services ne doivent PAS avoir la capacité d'imposer un choix au consommateur (que ça soit directement en censurant ou indirectement en assurant un accès gratuit/facilité de certains services).

3 - Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques? Ou devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider?

Mes préoccupations l'emportent sur les avantages et je pense que l'intervention de la CRTC est nécessaire pour réglementer la différenciation des prix pour protéger l'intérêt des consommateurs et assurer la neutralité du réseau Internet.

4 - Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques?

Ces pratiques doivent être réglementées afin que les habitudes d'utilisation de services en ligne des consommateurs ne soient pas affectées par la différenciation des prix par les fournisseurs de services Internet. Je pense que le rôle de la CRTC doit être de protéger l'intérêt des consommateurs en assurant la neutralité du réseau Internet.

Un exemple injuste : Si j'ai l'habitude d'utiliser le service "Google Play" pour écouter de la musique et que mon fournisseur de service Internet commence à offrir une consommation illimitée pour le service "Apple Music".

Une solution qui ne considère que la différenciation de prix : La solution serait de réglementer les pratiques de différenciation des prix afin qu'elles ne s'appliquent pas à un service spécifique (i.e. Google Play/Spotify/Apple Music) mais s'appliquent plutôt à un format particulier (i.e. Formats audio/Formats vidéo/etc.) afin de permettre à d'autres services de croître et ne pas forcer un oligopole involontaire des services de streaming. Si la différenciation des prix est assurée sur un FORMAT au lieu d'un SERVICE, alors c'est un projet extraordinaire pour les consommateurs.

Une solution qui règle le rapport qualité/prix déplorable des services des fournisseurs de service Internet au Canada : Forcer les fournisseurs de services Internet qui ont le contrôle des infrastructures de télécommunication (i.e. Vidéotron/Bell/Rogers/etc.) de fournir un service minimum gratuit lent (e.g. 8 Mbps avec 100 Go par mois) et un service minimum payant abordable (e.g. 24 Mbps avec 300 Go par mois). Indexer le prix de ce service minimum au revenu de la classe moyenne et payer ce service pour les foyers n'ayant pas assez de revenus.

topupdown 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:58:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Possibly benefit: Consumers may be inclined to subscribe to online services subject to (lower) differential pricing thereby increasing subscribers.

  2. Many many concerns.

    • The providers are free to pick-and-choose winners of digital services by granting differential pricing to some which will disadvantage others.
    • Providers may not be inclined to offer differential pricing to services which compete with their own.
    • Providers may form exclusive agreements with services which would shut out new entries.
    • If most current high-usage services enter into differential pricing agreements with most providers (likely), new services will also need to enter into the same pricing agreements which creates a barrier to entry
    • International services may see this as a barrier to entry into the Canadian market and choose not to complete.
  3. Yes, these concerns outweigh the benefits.

  4. A complete ban on differential pricing agreements (ultimately on prioritisation of any data over any other data).

Providers are paid by consumers to deliver data, any agreement with 3rd parties or policy beyond this is a disservice to consumers.

moun7 1 point Wed Sep 28 18:59:29 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I dont have anything new to add but I want to show my support for the general concensus of this thread. I support net neutrality and very much dislike data caps.

Differential pricing is nothing but excessive greed from ISP and provides no benefit to the consumer.

tekni5 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:01:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

#1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

For the most part there are little to no benefits for the end user. The service provider may generate more revenue through content/service licensing and lock users into certain environments.


#2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Unequal treatment of data will result in further monopolies and stifle innovation.


#3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

CRTC needs to step in and enforce the principles of net-neutrality.


#4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Keep protecting customers and legislate against any attempts by service providers to introduce differential pricing.


StealthATK 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:01:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I just have to offer my two cents as well, and echo the VAST majority of voices on here.

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

To the average Canadian, I see no benefit in the long term. Benefits to the consumer would include lower data consumption on services included in the zero bundle that they were using already, but would severely hinder the exploration of new services, and/or cause higher prices in order to access different services. The benefits would be both surface deep, and shortly lived.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

HUGE concerns. As mentioned above, this would be a scary precedent to set for consumers. Internet pricing will very likely become more obfuscated (like so many others have pointed out), and Service Providers will be HEAVILY incentivized to cut deals with content providers to both lock consumers into set packages, tiered deals, and to squash start-up competition.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely, the concerns outweigh the benefits. These decisions should NOT be left up to the ISP's to self regulate, because they will be beholden to their salaries and their shareholders. We need a free and open internet to be available to all, not just those who can afford it (or only available to low income folks with select content, curated by whomever is footing the bill to keep in the zero-bandwidth tiers).

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Regulate it as a utility. Reasonable access, reasonable profit, and reasonable pricing. Everyone should have access to a free and open internet, and not be gated, marginalized, or extorted.

To quote NWmba, "...Rates should be set for internet access by the CRTC based on cost to provide, fair profit, and cost to improve infrastructure. No capping, no throttling, no preferential data."

Thank you for taking the time to read these responses, I hope you weigh the opinions of the general public (and the public who respond USING the service in question) appropriately.

ricgal 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:02:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no benefits

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I understand the speed issues but not the data caps issue. Why do we have cheaper data plans in Manitoba than the rest of the country? It is because there has been true competition. But that is about to go because one competitor has swallowed up another. If companies have to cooperate to be more competitive and increase profits, then let them work at this aspect instead of giving them gifts of increasing their charges.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

These services need regulation.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Set a maximum charge for unlimited data. If data tiers are under consideration, they should be Unlimited GB, 20 GB, 12 GB and 6 GB. The providers should supply a free 3 GB account to every user.

DigitalOSH 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:02:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Questions: We need your opinion about differential pricing:

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

No perceived benefit

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Strong concerns regarding 'preferred traffic'

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

Absolutely, and yes

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely not

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Do not allow any kind of preferential treatment for any kind of traffic

princeedwardislander 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:02:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

This does not benefit anyone except for ROBELLUS.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, it will basically allow a landslide of services to further remove and nickle/dime our data entitlement as consumers.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

yes, the concerns outweigh the benefits. We need net neutrality.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

just make it punishable by repossession of public infrastructure utilized by the vendor.

zasperated111 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:05:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) Large companies will benefit by it. They will be able to afford the higher priced premium packages. The independent, small user will suffer and they are the ones who bring most of innovation and new ideas. 2)I have concerns that this is just another money grab by the large Internet providers - why else do it? I certainly do not believe it is to offer cheaper pricing. 3) It has to be regulated until it achieves an open market fair pricing scheme. Only if competition was really there for the providers might the concept of supply/demand pricing really take effect and regulation could be removed. I don't see that happening in Canada in the near future.

SercerferTheUntamed 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:13:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing looks to be cable packages with a new mask.

Right now we have flat data caps and a flat rate that allows the consumer to chose what media they like to consume freely.

With differential pricing I'm concerned that the overall data cap will be reduced limiting consumer flexibility and the potential of tack on packages that pigeon hole consumers into an overall more expensive commitment.

IE: I have a 1TB limit I can use freely in anyway I choose. Uploading streams, browsing, watching Netflix and downloading games from steam.

With the new differential model, I'm concerned that my overall cap will be reduced to some meager level and I'll have to pay a premium fee to enjoy Netflix or to upload content or to have a low latency connection to game.

cjbest 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:16:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Canadians want net neutrality and the end to data caps. Please protect our rights to access information without bias and with acknowledgement that the costs for internet access in this country are far out of step with the rest of the developed world.

mrpanicy 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:16:38 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits are completely on the providers side. Sure the consumer may benefit from the provider using differential pricing, but it's at the expense of other services. It's completely anti-competitive.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

As above. It's completely anti-competitive, and gives way to much power to service providers. Look at Rogers and Shomi, they owned it and gave zero rated it, so Netflix ate into your cap, but Shomi doesn't. Tell me how that is legal!? Ban data caps.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Concerns are all people have about this horrible policy. The benefits are entirely on the already over powered telecoms side. This is an anti-consumer practice.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban data caps. It will fix this problem right out the gate. And then when they try to give tiered service to websites (which I am sure they will try), slap them with huge fines. Then make the Internet a protected utility.

BushyDio Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:16:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

End data caps, keep the web free. This is a middle ground between that and the current situation that works in favour of the Big 3 that have been screwing Canadians for too long.

redkingca Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:18:18 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no benefits to the end user. Differential pricing will quickly be used to drive "additional"services/content out of the pockets of most Canadians through restrictive pricing.

As an example an ISP, in my case Shaw; can offer a deal on their streaming service(Shomi) and would penalize me for using Netflix, by setting Netflix as outside the "approved" list. This is easy to do as customers pay for the ISP's service on top of the regular internet bill(which is double dipping) and it would be easy to drive customers to using only their "approved" services. Simply by "adjusting" data caps and raising over limit fees could cut average Canadians off of services such as Netflix, Chromecast, or Apple TV.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

How will this differential pricing be regulated and enforced? What is to stop the ISP from using this as financial club to beat Canadians with for not using the internet in the ISP "approved manner". This is an obvious attempt by ISPs to generate additional revenue from Canadians who choose to browse content or use services other than sites/services hosted by the ISP or an approved partner.

How will the ISPs be monitoring the data for the differential pricing? And will Canadians have access to this data? What tools are the ISPs offering to their customers to help Canadians monitor their usage? Who will be monitoring the accuracy of these tools? What is to stop an ISP for stating that a customer used 50 GB of data outside the "approved" discounted content and billing as such, when only 20 Gb was used? How will Canadians be able to appeal this? What penalties has the CRTC planned to stop abuse by an ISP for over charging?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

What benefits are the ISPs offering Candians? The financial penalties are obvious, but I have not seen any benefits advertised or offered by any ISP. How have the ISPs explained the additional expenses they incur by allowing Canadians access to the entire internet? And if it going to be cheaper for an ISP to provide access to certain internet services, how will these savings be passed onto Canadians?

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The CRTC should block this idea. The cost to and ISP to provide internet access for 1 GB is the same no matter what the source. A 1 GB block of data that originates in Manila does not cost the Canadian ISP more than a 1 GB block of data that comes from Chicago or Calgary. So why should an ISP be allowed to charge more for data outside their approved content?

Preferential treatment of content is just one step from censorship and the ISP gets to charge money for it.

*edit - I just found a great website link from /u/randymarshe. Join the fast lane is a great example of that Canadian internet service will quickly become if differential pricing is permitted.

the1bobcat 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:19:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I've read most of the posts on this request for comment. I haven't seen any comment regarding the fact that most if not all ISP's and most mobile (at least the big three) providers are the content owners/exclusive providers. If we accept this fact we have to understand the reasons for them wanting gated access to their service.

I would like to give a long well thought out response to back up what everyone here is saying. I would like to post links to articles and research papers proving metered data and allowing preferential, sorry differential pricing, is bad for the consumer and net neutrality. I would love to believe the CRTC is actually listening to the arguments of the Canadian public. I would love to believe this will make a difference. Sadly, I doubt this will make any difference in the CRTC's decision. They are just looking to see how many people they will piss off when they side with the money, sorry ISP's, as opposed to the Canadian public.

The CRTC has already made their decision when they used the ISP's wording of differential pricing instead of preferential pricing.

Now I'm on a government hit list.

blueleonardo Québec 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:29:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It has become more and more evident over the years the 'internet' is an indispensable communication, work, and learning tool. It is as important as electricity and needs careful regulation which prioritizes Canadian citizens access over telcos or private profits.

1) Main benefits are towards large corporations, multinationals, who can afford to offer this type of 'free data' usage, giving them an other differentiating factor for their value prop. The other benefit will be to Canadian ISP's who will either increase the price of their data plans or reduce the amount of datacaps.

The consumer may have a short-term benefit. For example, if Netflix is to sponsor data for Bell, most consumers wouldn't need high data caps, or would be able to avoid paying fees (as Netflix is a large consumer of data). But this advantage comes at the cost of further entrenching Netflix into our lives.

2) The concerns with differential pricing include the erosion of net neutrality. Undermining of smaller competitors who cannot afford to offer the same plans as larger companies. Increased costs for Canadian consumers, either in the form of data limits or in the form increased pricing for internet plans.

More so, the average Canadian is already overpaying for internet costs, this will only continue under these types of rules. Larger companies will continue to grow at the expensive of smaller organizations. Most of this will end up benefits foreign corporations, like Apple, Netflix, Spotify etc...

3) it doesn't seem like there is upside for the consumers here. The reality is that we're already starting the conversation off at a disadvantage. The market is already positioned as an oligopoly, with high barriers to entry because of gouv. regulations (not to mention aggressive tactics by incumbents).

It's imperative that we do not allow ISP's to dictate the rules. Sadly, they have shown a complete unwillingness to do what is right for the consumer, and act in monopolistic ways whenever possible. Quarterly profits trump Canadian innovation.

4) Stepping in would entail creating strong net neutrality rules with would heavily penalize any IPS found to be offer 'deferential' pricing. More-so, a complete change needs to happen to the market, whether that's opening up the market to new competition, having the gouv. create price ceilings, and remove data caps, or going as far as to nationalize the network infrastructure and resell it to ISPs who would then be forced into competition on price. But that's a pipe dream. Good luck

johnchaffey 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:29:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The internet is like a road (remember "highway"?). All Canadians should be enabled to travel it's full extent. When corporations place artificial restrictions and tolls on our highway system, purely for reason of profit, it negatively impacts our freedom of speech, of opinion, of outreach, meeting, discussion. All this would be restricted based on ability to pay. Is that a Canadian ideal? It is SO dishonourable, and our right to access this instrument of communication should be protected. It is one of the fundamental responsibilities of Government, to protect the rights of its citizens, not sell them for profit.

Jerks_took_my_name 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:31:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It may be that I'm not understanding how differential pricing will eventually be used, but, I do like the idea of being able to pay to stream certain services without concern for data - much like buying TV packages. If I have Netflix, Crave, Shomi, NHL Gamecenter, etc, as purchased packages with unlimited wireless streaming that would be very very good. Say I buy them for home but can enable them when mobile, that would be fantastic because even with my 4GB cell phone plan I can still hit my cap without even watching any streaming media other than social media stuff.

On the other hand, Canada has really high costs to consumers on our telecommunications, and I have absolutely no faith or trust in the big three companies. I don't know how, but I fear they can and will use this rather than for value adding, as a way to get more money from consumers without any added benefits whatsoever over the current state of affairs.

I think regulation is necessary and needs to be increased because Canada is simply far behind much of the world in this area. In this age, access to internet should be a basic human right and it's not right for us to be treated how we are by the big telecom companies who stifle any competition from smaller start-ups, resulting in a sort of mexican standoff.

Far_Side_60 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:31:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Open the boarders and let Bell/Telus/Shaw get real competition!
  2. Kill the current Oligopoly
  3. Offer Manitoba Telus prices for all Canadians - Unlimited Canada-wide inbound/out bound calls plus 5 GB data plan for $48/month
  4. Unlimited internet download for radio and video content from any Canadian ISP
  5. Let every ISP operate in every province on unlit fiber that they are hoarding through subsidies and tax incentives.
  6. Stipulate that all Offers follow all 6 Un-confusing offers for easy comparison.
  7. Force every ISP to show all costs and make them binding per the contract.
  8. Penalize ISPs for poor service (customer & Internet speed)
  9. Publish stats for all ISP on a weekly basis on all of their networks.
  10. Implement reimbursement for any and all outages by duration.

quentinp 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:42:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing would increase the already significant influence the major telecoms have on our communications. Any cost savings that would be an apparent benefit could just be applied to Internet as a whole. If telecommunications companies are going to cry congestion at the last mile they certainly should not be adding more traffic that does nothing but benefits them.

lvg77 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:42:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? Apart from the obvious benefit for the service providers (SP) and their respective corporate clients, there could be some benefits for the particular service end users (ex. better pricing and choice).

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Differential pricing has the potential to seriously undermine the competition on the internet. This risk is even higher in Canada where we have only 2-3 SPs which are already in control of 90% of the market. We should not forget that one of the reasons why internet became essential for our everyday lives and brought significant scientific and business benefits, is that it presents equal plain-field for all the participants. Differential pricing will undoubtedly impose entry barriers for new initiatives and business startups. We will certainly not see the next Netflix or Facebook appear in a world where a few SPs have the power to collude with large already established businesses to completely deny access to market to any newcomers.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? My concerns definitely outweigh any benefits and justify some kind of regulation.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? I a not sure of how the exact regulation should look like but it has to take into consideration the following:

  • Internet has become a necessity and everyone should have access to it at minimum possible cost.

  • Regulations should foster higher competition among the SPs (Canada is falling behind in terms of both wired and wireless internet access and end user pricing).

  • End users, not SPs, should decide which services they use online.

  • Regulation should improve market transparency and impose strong enforcement of the established rules.

mdr-fqr87 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:44:32 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I actually just recently switched to Videotron for cellphone services and was amazed at the number of music services that would not be part of my data usage. While this is great - I think this tends to favor certain companies. While Videotron's offerings were ample, we are finding that other companies limit it to very specific services - such as their own. On the flipside, having it count towards our usage would not be favorable - I think the reason we don't consider it favorable is due to the prices we are charged for data usage as compared to other global markets.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes - I think it ALLOWS for companies to monopolize their services. If we had more favorable data usage rates against other global markets, I don't think consumers would look for differential pricing as much. I think differential pricing is indirectly favored by consumers due to the high costs of their data usage plans, whether it be cellphone or internet.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

Concerns do not outweigh the benefits as it just narrows the market in towards certain services and limits consumer choice and competition.

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I'd prefer that the government focuses not on differential pricing, but rather the service fees we pay versus other markets.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Regulate the other fees we pay and I think it would indirectly solve differential pricing.

nyda 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:47:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The CRTC hasn't done squat for our country in order to elevate us in the digital age as far as I'm concerned...

We're one of the countries with the most costly internet plans and the slowest speeds available...

CRTC should not only fight for net neutrality but also to stop the monopolies, gentrification and price gouging that's going on in the industry right now.

We should be one of the most technology advanced country in the world, it's time to start pushing the big corporations to do better. (Rogers, Bell, Videotron, etc.)

Hivac-TLB 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:47:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hello. While I may not be in the correct topic. I believe that Canadian cell phone data plans are ridiculously expensive.

liefthelucky 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:51:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Easy, none. Differential pricing, in essence, sounds like a scam to everyday users and money in the pockets of big companies.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

There is a lot of concern and very little benefit. Net Neutrality is a step towards the future and taking that a way is taking a sprint in the other direction. Letting big companies pick and choose favourites can lead to monopolizing and less competition. Phone service providers in Quebec have real competition, and their prices show that. Here in Alberta it's companies that own other companies and all the prices stay around the same. A certain cellphone or ISP plan on the west cost of Canada should remain the same OR VERY SIMILAR the price in interior Canada, the east coast, and the territories.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Allow Net Neutrality to remain intact. And greatly increase Data Caps to where it's redundant or remove data caps entirely. I may be young, but I remember our 768kb/s connection not having a data cap a decade and a half ago. As connection speeds got "faster", companies imposed a data cap, and our family -specifically my dad- was on the phone weekly talking to our ISP about it, "I never paid for this service, give my old service back or I'm leaving.". That went on for years until he gave up up for a measily 500GB cap, that a family of 7 reaches in less than a week.

NO_AI 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:52:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The Zero rating scheme,as that is what it is a simple scheme, that is of no benefit to canadian internet users. Needless to say, but I am going to anyway, I am opposed to this system.

All Data must be treated as equals. Internet users should be billed for the services they choose and use.

It has been proven that it costs below the 1¢ mark to transmit a GB (1000MB) of data, if ISP providers were honest they could charge a 100% markup on that and charge users a 2¢ fee per GB used per month over and above the plan fee, I currently pay just under $1000.00 per year for internet, which I require in order to do my job.

Additional data caps and prioritized traffic, could cost me and or my employer significantly more, if an ISP were to put forward that you must buy a VPN package in order to use a VPN on their network, something the Zero Rating scheme opens the door for.

So I reiterate ALL DATA MUST BE TREATED AS EQUALS.

Charging more for a fast lane or not charging at all for an associate's data, is anti-consumer and anti-competition and very much in the domain of monopolistic behavior. This is not something Canadians should ever have foisted upon us.

SRVrox 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:52:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Look to Europe as a great model for internet access and pricing. their pricing structure is fair and competitive at the same time.

we have been held captive by our providers for far too long. it is time to break the chains, throw away the old and develop new, innovative processes that the rest of the world can envy instead of laugh at.

Drayzen 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:52:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  • What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I don't think there are any benefits towards giving certain applications or types of data preferential treatment.

  • Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I feel like differential pricing causes problems because it allows there to be favortism. In the United States, Comcast owns NBC. What if Comcast decided that all NBC streaming did not count against your data cap (Data caps are absolutely terrible and hurt the growth of the internet) giving preferential treatment to their own service. Another example would be a smaller company trying to make it into a competitive segment. A large company can gain an advantage by working with an ISP or Mobile provider to secure a benefit, thus hurting the smaller company by manipulating their position.

  • Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

Yes, they do outweigh the benefits, which are few. You should absolutely step into this and help protect the consumers. The internet is not just a leisure activity, it is a tool. If we allow businesses that only have a vested interest in growth instead of providing a great service control the future, they will always lean towards the outcome that benefits them most.

  • Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Again, by letting the wireline and wireline providers decide, they will force the consumers to adapt to a system they set that has no consumer protections. They will always error on what makes them the most financial gain.

  • If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I would expect that the Government would step in and regulate the providers by ensuring that they are not allowing differential pricing for different types of content. When I request something be served to me, I'm requesting a data stream. The providers should not be allowed to interpret that data as anything other than data. You must be allowed to pay for a speed, and receive your data at the speeds, nothing more. By prioritizing data you are allowing the ISP's to tell you which type of data you can or cannot get for free, cheap, or included in your internet package. We must keep the ISP's out of the data, and ensure that each packet is treated neutrally.

boomWav 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:56:09 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix?

Les consommateurs peuvent éviter d'utiliser une grande partie de leur bande-passante mensuelle en utilisant des services choisis par le fournisseur de service.

Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix?

J'ai plusieurs préoccupations. Premièrement, puisque les limites de bande-passantes sont très basses, je me sentirais forcé d'utiliser les services qui n'utilisent pas ma bande-passante. Je préférerais utiliser mes services préférés. Je ne veux pas que mon fournisseur choisisse pour moi. Ce n'est pas son rôle.

J'ai aussi peur que ça rendre la compétition plus difficile. Les nouveaux services auraient une barrière de plus à traverser. Je pense que cette pratique favorise les services établis.

J'ai aussi beaucoup d'interrogation sur la logique de ce type de pratique. Si mon fournisseur de service peut m'offirir une bande passante illimité vers le service X, pourquoi ne peut-il pas m'offrir une bande passante illimité vers le service Y? Si il n'y a pas de contrainte technologique, est-ce une pratique de fixation des prix?

Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques?

Définitivement. Je pense que l'accès Internet est un service essentiel pour tous les canadiens. Nous devons être très prudent pour ne pas que les fournisseurs de services puissent contrôler son utilisation. Il serait intéressant de comparer le coût d'accès Internet avec les autres payés industrialisés à travers le monde afin de s'assurer que le Canada reste compétitif. Notre territoire est beaucoup plus grand à couvrir que l'Europe mais si, pour être compétitif, nous devons utiliser d'autres stratégie pour le développement du réseau, peut-être que c'est ça que nous devrions regardé.

Ou devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider?

SVP, ne laissez-pas trop de pouvoir aux fournisseurs de service. Il est important que le bien des canadiens passe devant le profit de ses entreprises. La compétition est toujours très difficile dans ce milieu et nous n'avons pas assez d'offre. Souvent, nous sommes coincé à utiliser le seul fournisseur disponible et nous sommes alors à la merci de toute ses décisions. Ce n'est pas comme ça que nous aurons du progrès dans ce secteur.

Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques?

La pratique devrait être interdite et les fournisseurs de services devraient avoir à prouver que limité la bande-passante est nécessaire au bon fonctionnement de leur réseau. On ne doit pas les croires sur paroles. On devrait effectuer des enquêtes sérieuses sur leurs pratique afin de pouvoir identifier où est le goulot d'étranglement. On doit permettre aux canadien d'avoir un service Internet de qualité. Les limites de bande-passante limite l'utilisation de ce service essentiel. Je pense que c'est dans l'intérêt de notre société de s'assurer que nous ne nous faisons pas avoir.

Personnellement, j'ai eu, pendant plusieurs années, beaucoup de problèmes à gérer mes limites de bande passante. Aujourd'hui, sur mon cellulaire, je dois toujours faire attention et limité mon usage sinon je dépasserais ma limite après seulement quelques jours. Est-ce que c'est ça le futur de l'internet? Des gens qui doivent toujours se restreindre afin d'éviter que leur fournisseur de service ne les pénalises? J'aimerais bien voir plus de transparence afin de vraiment comprendre pourquoi les prix sont comme ça. Ça deviens cher lorsque tes services de télévision, de téléphone et de mobile gonfle ta facture au tier du prix de ton hypothèque. Est-ce vraiment le coût réelle? J'ai des doutes.

eveninglion British Columbia 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:56:15 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I can see possible benefits of allowing access to government sites and public services (e.g. libraries) under differential pricing/zero rating. This could let people with limited data to access to important information without chewing through their data cap.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Many. Differential pricing is a symptom of the data cap system currently implemented, which is incompatible with the reality that more and more of our lives rely on having access to online services and products for multiple hours a day, every single day. Differential pricing itself is a implied admission by ISPs that the data cap system is restrictive (i.e. Our average customer only has X amount of data per month because of our data cap, but we want them to use our service/this sponsored service, so we're going to exempt usage of said service from their data cap).

ISPs should not get the chance to influence my usage of other commercial products and services. The principle of net neutrality dictates that data should be treated equally. One could imagine a scenario where services promoted by the ISP has zero rating, while a competitor's service (e.g. a video streaming service) could perhaps cost more than "other" data, maybe justified as a "high bandwidth fee". Or perhaps ISPs might throttle speeds to competitor services while marketing their own services as having access to "fast lanes".

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I believe the concerns largely outweigh any benefits, and I do think the CRTC needs to step in to enforce regulations. Back in April 2016, someone on Reddit took screenshots of phone plan prices from Canadian service providers:

http://i.imgur.com/NVsdNIE.png

https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/4e9yjw/competition_in_canada_a_comparison_of_canadian/

There is practically no variation. This is the so-called "competition" that occurs between service providers here. I do not trust them to decide on a fair and reasonable pricing model for any of this.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

As mentioned above, differential pricing is a symptom of data caps. So, I ask that the CRTC move to end the use of data caps. Canadians already pay outrageous amounts for telecom services, among the highest rates in the world:

https://openmedia.org/en/confirmed-canadians-pay-some-highest-prices-some-worst-telecom-service-industrialized-world

Service providers should not be allowed to limit data usage to tiny amounts in this increasingly online world. Between activities like video games and online video streaming, we send and receive more data than ever before. Data caps artificially restricts our use of those paid products and services. Service providers should stick to their namesake and stop trying to become online gatekeepers, what I use my internet service for after paying their high prices should be no business of theirs.

Mastermaze Manitoba 1 point Wed Sep 28 19:58:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? There are no benefits to differential pricing, at least not in the long run. Some consumers may not have an issue with the practice if they only use the services that major ISP's already offer, but that will not be true for the majority of consumers and the practice will only limit consumer experience by stifling competition in favour of existing ISP's, which will drive down innovation and competition. The existing ISP's will likely see mid term increases in profits, but this will not be sustainable in the long term as consumers become increasingly frustrated with the lack of innovation and high costs. Canadian consumers also have the advantage of seeing this exact scenario play out in the US, which will make it much more difficult for Canadian ISP's to hide their price gouging and lack of innovation as Canadian consumers will be much more aware of the risks to the Canadian market by comparing policies, prices, and services in markets in other countries.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? There are some short term benefits for the consumer, and some mid term benefits for major ISP's, but in the end it will only result in massive consumer dissatisfaction, stifled growth for any industry that relies on the internet, and major damage to major ISP's reputations. Its a bad deal for all stakeholders except the top managers at the major ISP's who will likely make a ton on money from the practice and then bail out before the ISP's start taking flack for it from consumers.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? The benefits of differential pricing would only benefit existing major ISP's for any significant amount of time, and even those benefits will deteriorate in the long term as the practice of differential pricing steadily increases consumer dissatisfaction. Given that, it is impossible to conclude that differential pricing is a worthwhile practice, as it will benefit none of the major stakeholders in the long run and will actually further damage an already broken market.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? You should step in, thats why the CRTC exists, to stop things like this from happening that will degrade consumer experience. There is only one way to deal with this, and that is to ban differential pricing outright and put significant fines on ISP's who are caught violating the rules. We need to empower and increase the number of small ISP's in Canada, not help the existing major ISP's grow their 3-way monopoly in the wireless market and their 2-way monopoly in the wireline market.

Sidenote: Canada is an incredible nation, please don't let that reputation go to waste by letting greedy corporation leaders dictate the markets and maintain their stranglehold on public utilities. Thank you to the CRTC for taking the initiative to consult the online community like this, it really gives a lot of us hope in the future of Canadian regulations and policies.

Ace2100 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:00:40 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Ok. I don't like to comment on things that I don't really understand. The description of differential pricing in the post was a little vague for me so I tried to find more on what it all means. CRTC - you really need to make it easier to find things on your website! But you can find some interesting things on the site when you get the hang of it (or by accident). So here are my thoughts.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? I know others won't agree but I think there may be a few. If I don't have to pay to access my account tools or software updates for my phone - that isn't a bad thing for me and I can't see how it hurts anyone else. If I get some other free content - maybe a movie trailer or a month free trial for a new app or game - I don't have a problem with that either. And I can't see how that affects net neutrality (but I am sure someone will correct me).

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes. I am concerned about who decides what apps or sites will not count. I don't want my ISP or wireless company deciding that it is only their stuff that doesn't count. I also don't want small, interesting apps to be shut out by big players. I also don't want my ISP to control what I can and cannot use. Most important - I don't want my ISP prioritizing any traffic over other traffic. If the app doesn't count against my data cap fine but it should not get special treatment on the network itself. Those things concern me.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Honestly I don't know. I am human and I like free and discounted stuff. I don't want the CRTC to stop me from getting free stuff.(Sure it would all be free if we got rid of data caps but travel wouldn't be so expensive if I grew wings either) But I don't want ISPs taking control of the Internet. As others have said they should be the pipe that delivers the Internet to me. So I don't know the answer to this. Is there a medium option where the CRTC only regulates if (probably when) things go sideways and the ISPs are only helping themselves and shutting out others?

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Not sure how things are regulated now exactly. Create some rules that need to be followed so everyone knows what is allowed and what isn't. Then fine ISPs that cross that line.

JuiceChevelle 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:08:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Stop it. No differential pricing. NO data caps. Keep it fair for all sites and consumers.

Farren246 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:08:46 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. There would be no benefit for consumers.
  2. Telecoms would be able to price gouge anyone who didn't use their preferred fast-lane / zero-usage media services. "Upgrade to the bundle and save," has the caveat "or I'll charge you exorbitant fees for the one service you do buy." Offering preferred services requires the ISP to snoop every packet passing through their network, which is a huge invasion of privacy.

  3. Due to privacy concerns, a non-neutral Web is essentially a human rights violation as it places the consumer under constant unwarranted surveillance. If the CRTC allows the dissolution of net neutrality, the supreme court will need to step in to stop it.

  4. The solution is simple - do not allow ISPs to monitor Web traffic to determine the content, type or destination, and do not allow them to discount any services (their own or otherwise).

Hawk_015 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:12:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think other than allowing preferential treatment to big names and putting too much power in hands of ISPs it also delays the widespread acceptance of unlimited or higher data caps. It basically makes it so ISPS can get away with 10GB caps because "Netflix/Shomi is free" meanwhile as a person who uses high data amounts from a small no-name company I have to pay $80 a month for an unlimited plan (instead of competiton from all the Netflix users pushing it down).

SolomonKull 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:12:20 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Everyone who has any sort of knowledge on these issues says the same thing: the CRTC works for the interests of the corporations who exploit us, and not for the people of Canada.

Why does the CRTC tirelessly work against the desires of Canadians, but bends over backwards to defend the "rights" of the business who exploit the system for profit? Why does the government give preferential treatment to corporations, even when those privileges come at the expense of Canadian citizens? Isn't that one of the basic tenants of fascism?

SolomonKull 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:13:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs6qTW5UIAAusOW.jpg

Why do you allow corporations to bend us over like this?

mnjiman 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:18:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

It could allow for consumers not to worry about bandwidths while using certain services, however there are too many different services to keep track of for this to make sense.

In which case, there are no benefits for Canadian citizens. All the benefits goes towards internet providers, not the consumers.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

My first concern is Data Caps in itself. They exist only so service providers can avoid having to upgrade their networks and to force consumers to stick with cable. The end result means Canadians have less options.

Differential pricing will allows service providers a monopolistic control over the services that are provided over the internet. Service providers WILL abuse the system if they are allowed too, as long as its legal.

Differential pricing will also give service providers a new way to charge even more while giving service providers direct control over their competitions in other services they provide.

Differential pricing will also stagnant the economy by making it difficult if not impossible for new companies and markets to arise via the internet.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes these concerns do outweigh any possible benefit, please step in and take control of the situation. Our internet prices are terrible as it is.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Do not allow differential pricing at all. It will not aid Canadian Citizens nor help keep our Canadian culture. Please, for the love of all that is Canadian, do not allow differential pricing to exist.

Note: Please get rid of Data Caps all together. Internet Providers are making money hand over fist and internet is such a fundamental service, it should not be as expensive as it is.

Snacktasticus 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:18:38 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you for inviting public opinion on this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to help shape policy that I believe is getting more important every day.

1- The only benefit would be that some of the data used would cost me less

2- the concern is that the data that costs less is determined by the company and its shareholders, how easy it would be to only show content that is tailored to the company bottom line as opposed to open and honest information? The opportunity would likely present itself to lower overall data caps(by making data prohibitively expensive) to pressure the consumer to stay within the free data stream. All of this reduces freedom of information, the foundation of net neutrality.

3 -These concerns far outweigh the self serving "benefit" to the consumer. Self regulation is a joke and has failed everywhere it's is instituted. Why would they set policy for the protection of the consumer? The government needs to protect its citizens, that is its primary reason for being. Regulation is needed and it should protect the true neutrality of the internet.

4 - step in and ban the practice. period. My ISP provides a connection, nothing more required. If they want people to consume their media they should have to compete fairly for that right. Not force it through restrictions on the competition

KindaDutch 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:18:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Uphold net neutrality. End data caps.

Unrelated, the fact that Saskatchewan, Manitoba and other provinces have cheaper cell phone plans because of competition from SaskTel, wind, and other companies is insulting.

zesty_zooplankton 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:20:40 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I don't see any for the citizen, the consumer, or small business. In fact, differential pricing seems to only benefit huge corporations and the ISPs themselves.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It represents a way for the parties deciding on the "difference" in price to control via cost what people access. It's a tool for financial censorship, and with monopoly already being a grave concern in telecommunications, I just can't see any merit in giving ISPs yet more tools to control or influence what Canadians do and see online. Furthermore, this kind of biased access would further strangle Canadian entrepreneurship by allowing companies with deeper pockets to pay their way into Canadian markets rather than compete on the basis of merit.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I think the concerns are more than significant enough to warrant regulation. Canadians already suffer at the hands of the monopolistic service providers, with access speeds, service quality, and costs that has been called "third world.". Our internet is a national embarrassment, and allowing ISPs to implement "differential pricing" would be a travesty.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Classify internet as a public utility. Disallow differential pricing, differential speeds, bandwidth caps and speed restrictions, forcing ISPs to charge per gigabyte. Nationalize the network infrastructure, and open up the market to competition. Follow the legal models of countries where internet access and policy are far better implemented than our own.

MNM1245 Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:22:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hello CRTC! I'm glad to see you branching out into various places to gather public opinions. Hopefully this is not the last time you come to reddit (or other less mainstream sites) to gather public opinions!

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

In theory, I like the idea of differential pricing because it lets me use more data than my data plan may allow. Some services such as Netflix, or Spotify can use large amounts of data and not counting them in my totals would be great.

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

YES, plenty. I DO NOT TRUST the telecom companies (Bell, Rogers, Telus, etc.) to make any decisions in favour of the consumer. If it was left up to them the only services that would be exempted from their data caps would be the services they own such as Shomi, or CraveTV. This creates an unfair competitive environment, where consumers may feel forced to use one service because they know it won't make them go over their data plans. This isn't right.

I also don't trust the telecom companies to listen to consumers and allow services they actually want through the data caps. It will only be who lines the telecoms pockets the most.

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I think the concerns GREATLY outweigh the benefits. The CRTC should 100% be stepping in to regulate the telecom companies because they 100% cannot be trusted to do anything in the public's interest. This has been shown through years of horrible service from them in every regard.

Both mobile, and wireline service providers should be forced to abolish data caps because technology is progressing too fast for data caps to hinder us. Data caps limit economic opportunities for small businesses, as well as force consumers to spend less money on the things that are actually important to them.

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Differential pricing is a stepping stone plan that doesn't solve the real problem. The REAL problem is data caps. Society (not just Canadian) is moving towards a more connected future. The internet is only growing. Data caps should be abolished because they are only used to charge consumers more money for the internet services. Canadian tax payers helped pay to run all these lines, and we shouldn't be forced to pay exorbitant prices for services we helped to fund. If differential pricing is used how long will it even be used until data caps are so unreasonable that the CRTC is forced to abolish them?

ParadoxSong 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:24:19 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing, in essence, Allows an ISP to triple dip. Charge the consumer outrageous prices not matched by any other country. Charge the providers of content for the ability to deliver to the consumer, as after all, with data caps or slow speeds, consumer choice IS eliminated. If content is slower to load or costs you more money, it is not a choice. Then they get to dip again whenever a consuemr goes outside the sphere of companies they control or have extorted enough money from, as now the data caps are actually even lower than they are now because nobody was using as much data anyways, since everything they SHOULD be using it for like videos or movies now has an in-house option and you take an ISP already getting 100 dollars from a consumer instead of more like 40 to one that is makes hundreds with all the combined fees and extorted prices! Supporters of differential pricing make it sound like companies are struggling to make ends meet, when that is not the case. Companies are inherently evil. They follow the path of the most money, and if you allow differential pricing, they will find the ways to make the most cash from it. There is no comparison to any other service, as the internet is unique, necessary, and needed for everyone to work in this world.

Regulate it.

The point of competition for ISP's and mobile service providers should be Speed, reliability, quality, and price. It shouldn't be on how high they are willing to raise artifical limitations.

No Data Caps. Differential pricing cannot exist if data caps do not exist. Additionally, ISPS should not be allowed to selectively change the speeds to certain services or networks, in order to create sponsored data without data caps in place.

adambard 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:25:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The beneficiaries of differential pricing are telecom companies and their stakeholders. The ability to prioritize certain services gives them enormous power over the entire (Canadian) internet. An uncharitable commentator such as myself might liken deals created with certain services to "protection money" demanded by organized crime groups against people conducting business in their neighbourhood.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I firmly believe that the internet (and access to it) is best treated as a public good, to be provided without bias to the people of Canada. Differential pricing would undermine the Internet's unprecedented and enormously beneficial function as an unbiased medium for information and entertainment. It would grant more power to the already-powerful and work directly against consumers.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

It should be banned altogether.

Canadian telecom companies have a long history of collusion and anti-competitive behavior, evident to anyone who has ever had to shop for their own cell-phone plan. They cannot be trusted to act in the interests of Canadians.

t33guy 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:29:23 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am a computer professional. It is my strongly held opinion that Differential Pricing is a bad idea. It attacks a basic strength of the internet (and thus the World Wide Web)-net neutrality. The internet is an important medium of communication and innovation. It would be a very bad move to damage the principles on which it operates. It is important to avoid Differential Pricing.

Kosh401 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:29:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you for reaching out via reddit. I hope you get useful and relevant feedback that you may otherwise not have.

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Essentially zero benefit to the end consumer. The provider and their marketing partners are the ones who will benefit.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, many. Primarily that my provider will be influencing what content I can reasonably access (heavily, in some cases). Net Neutrality must be established and maintained.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, our concerns are more than significant enough to justify the CRTC imposing regulations. The large providers (Rogers/Bell/Telus) in each Province have shown zero goodwill and earned zero trust with the end consumer to ever warrant allowing them free reign and control over how we choose to use the service we are paying for; if I CHOOSE to access the providers' content then I will do so and should be free to do so with whatever plan I am paying for. I should be just as free from any influences or controls to access any other content type I choose to as well, regardless of what plan I am on.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

We're already past the time when the Internet should be regulated as a utility. It is an essential service and integral part of our daily lives, whether it's for leisure, work, or education, we should have freedom of use with it just as we do our other essential utilities.

Thank you again for being proactive by seeking out feedback here on reddit. Hopefully there is more communication along these lines to come.

Cheers

cloudmerchant 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:30:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It would be great if our government did something to benefit the people for a change, rather than corporations. Differential pricing is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in my life, has zero benefit to the consumer, and allows corporations to control what I can see, read, do, and participate in online. That's not freedom by any definition.

Indigo_Sunset 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:31:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

They allow a habitual forming experience where consumer practices are shaped by the ISP offerings. This may include variations on the 'first x is free' promoting usage levels unsustainable by the consumer when pricing is normalized and encourages higher fee collection by the ISP by promoting partners that have paid for the promotion.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The suggestion of the Internet as the great equalizer, a level playing field available to all, is fractured. As an example, would a company like Netflix be able to enter the marketplace under a differential pricing scheme that solely promotes the ISP and it's pay for play partners while under excessive bandwidth caps and high latency (local caching without prepayment to the ISP would be considerably less available under partnership guidelines)?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

As the mandate of the CRTC, regulating the incumbents is the entire reason for its existence. That Saskatchewan is the cheapest province for service is solely due to the availability of competition that is effectively non existent every where else in Canada. The attempt at aquisition by Bell would have narrowed the field even further. If, at any time, any of the incumbents claim 'this will be great for consumers' have a look at whether it's really just better for the incumbents.

Net neutrality is a slippery slope where profit will always trump public interest.

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely not. There has never been a decision made by an ISP that has been in the interest of Canadians. The CRTC was expressly formed to ensure public interests.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Offer the ISPs a rhetorical choice; would they rather have differential pricing, and increased international competition for service in Canada? Or, would they rather not bother with the whole thing. The answer would likely speak volumes.

FourierT 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:32:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hi,

Here are my views on this issue as a Canadian citizen.

  1. I see no benefits to the customer for differential pricing.

  2. The following are two concerns I have regarding differential pricing:

*It can be used to entice new customers by allowing something to the effect of 'Free Netflix Usage' for a limited period and then charging exorbitant amounts thereafter.

*Companies and businesses that do not have the leverage to negotiate such agreements with the telecom operators will be at a huge disadvantage as the customer now must pay a premium to access their site and services. This essentially kills competition and the customer suffers as a result.

  1. Yes, these concerns definitely outweigh the benefits in my opinion. I think the last thing the consumer wants is for the service providers to decide. Their primary motive is profit, and to maximize it they already collude in terms of services offered, pricing, etc. There is no real competition in this domain and the CRTC has failed us in this regard. Giving the service providers even more power to take advantage the Canadian customer is the last thing we need.

  2. Differential pricing should be banned entirely. If I'm using 1GB of data to watch Netflix or 1GB of data to watch porn, it makes no difference to the service provider. The amount of data I am using is the same, and puts the same strain on the network.

I admire that the CRTC is trying to get public opinion but I genuinely do doubt that anything will come of it.

ineedscissors 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:37:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Net neutrality yes, data caps no.

pluralzzalpha Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:38:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Q1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? A1. Differential pricing seems to only benefit the provider that provides it by making me the user happy "sometimes". For example, I was always jealous of my sister who used a provider who allowed for unlimited Facebook usage. This meant that she could post unlimited and high-quality Picture Images and Video Recordings. Right now I use Fido and I pay 90 dollars a month for 2.5 GB of data. If I simply use Waze GPS and FB for the month and pay careful attention to not update any applications or view or upload any video (Facebook Live Video, Skype, YouTube, YouTueb Live, FB Voice Chat, SnapChat and many more) then I usually don't go over my data cap. But when I do it's pricey. My US friends are always on FB Live. Broadcasting from all over the place. I can only do it from my home when I'm connected to my Home Internet or when I'm connected to a WiFi hotspot that allows it.

Q2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? A2. If it's offered it should be offered by everyone and the billing scheme should be transparent. Not many cellular companies in Canada seem to be offering it lately that I can tell. Fido definitely doesn't.

As for my wired home internet if they are doing it it's not clear at all when they do and it is never indicated on my internet bills.

What I expect is for ISP's to be transparent about their internet billing policies. E.g. When they use one of NetFlix's "Open Connect Appliances (OCAs)" they in effect reduce as much as 80 percent of their internet traffic. When a user streams a Netflix video from an OCS the data path is local and costs the ISP way less in internet bandwidth. They could pass this saving on to their users but they don't.

I also run a small business live streaming video. It is very difficult to get any home service or even business service that can support the 3 to 5 Megabytes Per Second upload speeds needed for any quality live streaming event. When I do stream the event can easily last 2 to 3 days and with any sort of data cap this type of internet usage is basically impossible. In the USA it is easy. Sometimes I can even do it on a Celular device. Unheard of in Canada.

To be able to do any sort of video streaming and to use any sort of video services you need lots of bandwidth and no data caps. Just streaming a 5 Megabyte/per second video feed for 8 hours will eat up 18 Gig per hour and 144 per 8 hours and so with a data cap of 400 GB per month I could stream only 2.7 days (8+8+6 hours) or so. Most home services can't do this. And most home service only support max of 10,000 Kpbs upload and you need at least 40,000 Kbps to do 5 megabytes per second.

Data calculated using http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/data_transfer_rate/

Here's a good reference article to help you understand why data caps make it difficult for any user, even technically savvy users to understand data usage https://www.puretalkusa.com/blog/video-streaming-data-explained/

"Just how much more data are we talking about? According to Netflix, using their “High” data usage setting runs through 3 GB per hour when streaming High Definition (HD) videos and 7 GB per hour for Ultra HD. The “Medium” setting only uses 0.7 GB per hour for a Standard Definition (SD) video.

If you're sitting on a 5 GB data plan, that 7 GB/hour probably has you sweating! Obviously, the best solution is to always stream Standard Definition videos, right?

Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Bitrate (the amount of data you stream in a given period of time) varies across video streaming sites, so you how much data you're using on Amazon & Hulu could be very different from Netflix & YouTube. And while some video sites, like Netflix, give you the option to change your data (or bitrate) settings, others might automatically adjust video quality for you based on available bandwidth. This means your 4G device (when connected to the 4G network) could automatically stream super high-quality videos-and automatically run through that precious data."

Q3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? A3. Absolutely. The CRTC could do a lot in conjunction with the Federal Government to enforce competition and cooperation. CRTC could publish open and independent assessments to the Canadian public so that we could help solve our problems.

I work for a major bank and as most people know some fo the major Canadian banks are going through some major growing pains. But because of great leadership the changes are paying off. One thing I notice is that when the voices of the critics die down or become less vocal this is a good thing. It implies something is being done right. When "Core" problems get fixed people focus on other things like quality of life and innovation. E.g. If we don't build a national electric car infrastructure for charging electric cars then nobody will buy them. Let the competition in and they will build the necessary networks to do the business they want to do. Regulators, Government and Business should work together and solve the key bottleneck issues and this will solve the larger problems.

If you make the core internet fast and cost less per Gigabyte then the services layered on top will be supported properly and will flourish. I might have a great car but if I can't get good gas or the roads suck then I might blame my car manufacturer for the problem. But it's not their problem, know what I mean?

Q4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? A4. If feel that the there is not just one solution that the CRTC should consider to solve this problem. But here are a few ideas:

a) To allow 5 or more top tier competitors as a first step. This is most likely the most effective one. Competition alone accounts for the best services in most cases. This is cited in many studies as the largest driver of change. It allows service providers to leapfrog each other and to incite technology upgrades.

b) Remove conflicts of interest. E.g. Core infrastructure and Services should be segregated. Taxes on Services should fund core services. Core services should not be "for profit" but deemed as core services and all profit should just be folded back into making more core service offerings in more areas of Canada.

c) The next thing the CRTC should look at is defining the "Internet as a necessary service", Set higher definitions for what "High Speed" means and enforce / regulate the players to share infrastructures E.g. It takes a certain amount of money to build and maintain the internet backbone. But if each area was divided up into segments that didn't overlap then each core internet provider would then provide interconnected services. This would reduce the overall cost and allow for everyone to cover more ground.

d) Today if you look at the Wireless networks and many of the wireline networks they are an overlapping mess. In many cases there are 4 and 5 overlapping wireless cell towers providing same services to specific cell networks and each company is forced to lap their service areas. Yes, Canada is a big country but with some encouragement, guidelines and regulations from the CRTC the CRTC could guide the core infrastructure players to work together to solve a bigger problem. This way Canada gets a state of the art fast core network infrastructure built and the little outlying rural towns get fast internet. E.g. I visited Tofino BC in September 2016 and I spoke to the locals about their internet and found out that a major internet provider connected that area via Fibre lines. If the CRTC mandated that this area only needed to be serviced by just one core service provider and made regulations that allowed only local ISPs to connect into and share those core lines this would help the area in a major way to offer high-quality internet to remote areas like Tofino.

Why not let Microsoft, Amazon, Google or Facebook help build our core internet infrastructure? The CRTC in conjunction with the Federal government could create and enforce corporate tax at the corporate level that would fund this core internet infrastructure? Or in lew of tax the companies provide core services to Canada that in turn support their core product offerings. A question I would ask it this "Does Google want Canada to have fast internet? You bet! More internet means more usage means more revenue. Let them play, I say!" just create some collaboration and in some cases make it easier for them to do what they want not harder. Best Regards, Luke Morrison

Vyper28 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:38:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None really, They are trying to push the benefits on us like "free services" but in reality, time and time again, we have been shown that we will get nothing unless we pay for it.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely, With so much of our media/telcomm/network infrastructure dominated by 3 major companies, It's not unreasonable that, given the opportunity, they will use these regulations to stomp on major competitors.

Take netflix, as IPTV solutions grow, we need strong competitors to keep the prices down. With these new regulations, I can already see the "sponsored data" position being abused to give Shaw, Bell, Telus owned alternatives to Netflix an unfair advantage. Sure you can stream 2GB of Netflix data, but our TelusTVweb platform is a sponsored service so on all Telus plans it doesn't use your data. But you still have to pay for the TelusTVweb subscription separately. I don't imagine they would charge a fair rate to competitor to become a "sponsored partner" when they would make more forcing people over to their own TV platform.

The fact is, we are not "running out of internet". These Telcoms are using their position of control to try and force regulation and fees on us. The infrastructure was paid for by Canadians with huge Tax exemptions and funding. We should control it, and we should not be giving an inch to these companies in terms of the ability to charge more and more.

Data plans are shrinking, 5GB used to be easy to get, now it's promotion only and rare in most places. Sponsored Content will be almost essential with this system and I believe data plans will continue to shrink under these changes. As data plans shrink, Telcomms have more and more control over what we can do with our data VIA sponsored content.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The cons far outweight the pros. It should not be allowed at all, and letting them decide is a laughable choice. They do NOT have Canadian's best interest at heart, they only have profits in their minds.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I honestly can't see any way you could, it WILL be abused. The only way I could possibly see it working, is if you were able to regulate the data amounts for plans (Because under this system, they are hugely encouraged to reduce data size, as data amounts are reduced, sponsored content becomes almost necessary). Honestly, It's a huge step BACKWARDS for Canada. Internet should be unlimited across the board. Anything else is simply a cash grab by Telcom companies. If the big 3 claim they cannot provide unlimited access (which is a lie as most users are very low useage anyway) then we should be forcing them to give up any control they have over our network infrastructure and get other providers easy access to setup alternative services.

You can't regulate this without the possibility of abuse. In fact, I would say the LIKELYHOOD of abuse. The fact is, It strongly encourages providers to REDUCE network access for their subscribers, in order to force other companies to pay sponsored content fees. It would be hugely damaging for any smaller startup businesses attempting to use the internet as a distribution method. They would be on a completely separate playing field from a mammoth business with the cash to burn, and likely would never be able to afford the sponsored content fees to make their service viable. For example, Youtube could afford to pay all 3 big Telcomes for sponsored content access, but what if you want to watch something on Vid.me? You would have to weigh everything against your data limits (which I'm SURE would decrease under this regulation). Do I really want to watch this enough to use some of my 1gb of data?

It's a very bad idea, we can't take this much of a step backwards...

ignisnex 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:47:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I do not think that content should have different pricing based on what it is or where it comes from. This enables businesses who run Internet infrastructure services to effectively filter the internet, with profit as a motivator. It would absolutely be abused.

All data should be treated and priced equally.

Personally, I believe content creators should be split from infrastructure. It breeds incentive to favour their own content along their infrastructure, even if laws prohibit such a thing.

I think the way to fix this would be to split content creation businesses from Internet delivery infrastructure and then run said infrastructure as crown corporations, being funded by tax dollars to maintain and upgrade the raw, unadulterated lines. Private ISPs could then lease bandwidth along the infrastructure to peoples homes. This encourages competition as it lowers the barrier of entry to the industry, and also creates a level and fair basis for the businesses to operate. It would also stimulate job creation at the same time.

This would also minimize the ability to have certain content favoured over other, thus enforcing net neutrality.

Lhun 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:55:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I have followed the changes to the internet pricing structures since data caps started. I was a strong opponent when bell started "bitcapping" in the late 90's and early 2000's and I deeply remember the fallout it caused, over on forums like DSLReports. I was a subscriber to a sublet company and received a bill in the thousands, (which I fought and won, due to a lack of change of service terms acceptance) back when it was $7.95/gig overage.

It's happened all over again with cellular. Wind Mobile has my business because they're the only carrier with fairly "unlimited" fair mobile internet for heavy users.

My point: The mere EXISTENCE differential data practices proves that the "cost of bandwidth" to providers is entirely made up. Infrastructure costs are one thing, but there is ABSOLUTELY no physical difference in the electricity or infrastructure used to push backbones at 100% capacity 24/7 and 0% capacity 24/7. The electricity used is exactly - - exactly the same.

Differential pricing for a select few apps will simply lead to coders designing "masking" apps (tunnels) to allow unlimited data like they did with kindle's always on cellular wikipedia access - (google it) and for the everyday user will lead to product monopolies, user fragmentation and unfair business practices.

myawesomeaccount 1 point Wed Sep 28 20:56:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I don't think there is any benefit to differential pricing. Data is data. It doesn't cost more to transmit one megabyte of music compared to one megabyte of text.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I absolutely do have concerns. I believe that service providers would greatly throttle anyone that isn't paying for a "premium access" subscription to the service provider which would hinder their access to the information they which to receive. It could be news videos, news radio streams they normally wouldn't have access to, or other forms of data transmission that the individual would believe is vital for themselves. Service providers should not need to know the content of the data or type of data their users are transmitting so long as it's done in a legal fashion and the proper authorities are not requesting to know about the data. It shouldn't affect the service providers in their abilities to deliver services nor shape their policies due to how users are using content. It would allow service providers to greatly limit access to major online distribution services through bandwidth limitations and offering to reduce that limitation along with counting towards the data cap by signing a contract to for a large amount of money. It's making companies pay because they're popular. That's similar to making a car company pay for road repairs or putting a limit on their sales per year in the country. It's anti-competitive to punish companies because they've become popular.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

As far as I see, there are no benefits. The concerns greatly outweigh any potential benefits. I saw major problems with how Rogers was able to allow exclusive access to NHL GameCentre Live to their subscribers while leaving everyone else without access. There are many parts of the country without access to their cable or they have poor wireless coverage for. It's not fair for them to give their customers extra benefits while paying the same price for NHL GameCentre Live. The CRTC should step in and regulate the practice by preventing service providers from being tied to media companies.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Service providers should be separated from media providers. They should have no ties to them allowing for conflict of interest. Allowing Bell to be a service provider that could enact differential pricing that would exempt CraveTV, a streaming service they offer, while putting limitations on competing services would be a major conflict of interest. The same could be said for Rogers allowing NHL GameCentre Live being exempt on their services. There also shouldn't be sister companies permitted similar to what Shaw and Corus has where they share the vast majority of the voting shareholders and often exchange executives as time goes on.

The backbone of Canada's internet infrastructure should not be monopolised as it has been by a few, large companies. Those companies purchased other smaller ones to become what they are now. They've become anti-competitive to the point where wireless services prices aren't competitive unless there's an additional party that has a lower price, like in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

THS89 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:01:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hello. Canadian Citizen from Toronto here giving my simple thoughts:

PLEASE SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY.

Differential pricing goes AGAINST Net Neutrality.

Also: Canadians get VERY little Data for how much we pay so please do something about this.


1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

NONE.

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

YES. It gives an unfair advantage to companies offering services which don't count towards data caps.

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes the concern is real... The CRTC is there to PROTECT THE CONSUMERS, not the Big 3. CRTC's job is to regulate so please do so...This is like me asking if I should do my Job which is ridiculous

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Again, YOUR job so figure it out. My suggestion....FOLLOW NET NEUTRALITY. Get rid of ALL Differential Pricing and force the providers to provide more Data for the price we pay. This way they don't have to be worried that their consumers won't have enough data to stream their services which would normally get a "free ride" with differential pricing.

InsidiousObserver 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:03:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Paging @bytewave

zarbles 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:03:29 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There are many valid points here on why differential pricing is bad. And I agree with them, so I won't bother re-hashing what's already been said, except to say that it obviously does not favor the consumer, and restricts their choice.

My main bullet point or message to the CRTC would be "Uphold net neutrality. End data caps."

Hopefully, all these comments actually gets their attention and they do something about my main message, which is:

"Uphold net neutrality. End data caps."

Maybe one last time for good measure: "Uphold net neutrality. End data caps."

AntmanIV 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:06:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

As an american, I won't attempt to influence your decision beyond this thought.

This kind of differential pricing would necessitate deep packet inspection. A real world equivalent would be allowing your mail carrier to read every letter and decide what to charge based on what you wrote and to whom. Traditionally, mail carriers have not had access to such personal, private space, and for the same reasons, this could be a burden on consumers.

mib5799 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:08:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

tl;dr: Influence public policy: tell the CRTC what you think about service providers exempting customers from data charges for certain data you download or upload (like music or TV shows) (what we call differential pricing).

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The same as I think of the practice of tipping. It's shifting a mandatory cost off of one party and on to another. The cost is still there

It's just a shell game now.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing

It makes everything pay to play, or more specifically, pay to win.

A simple metaphor is transportation.
You have a bus pass.
You can take a cab somewhere.
Or the bus.
Oh! You've already taken the cab 3 times this month.
You can't take the cab anymore this month at all. You have to take the bus. Which is crowded, slow and unreliable. Plus covered in ads. And you have to subscribe to a new email newsletter every ride. It's run by the BookFace Transit Corp.

Or you could still take the cab. But now it's $100 to go 3 blocks.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Regulate regulate regulate. Look at history, because service providers certainly are. All the other public benefit services are regulated BECAUSE they engage in abusive practices BECAUSE those abuses are profitable.

Whenever a corporation has a choice between money or morals, it will choose money. It's required to by shareholders.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Forbid the practice. Or better yet, shift internet to being a public utility/crown corporation.

Another form of differential pricing in mobile is the pricing of cellular plans in Canada.

Specifically, cellular plans in Saskatchewan versus elsewhere. That's absurd

dontmindifididdlydo 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:15:10 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are undoubtedly benefits for the parties that are trying to implement it, but from a consumer perspective there is very little benefit to be derived from it.

The only positive that comes out of this is that users of certain popular services don't have to incur charges for heavy use of those services. However, this is only a benefit when the default state is a crippled experience. It also locks in a competitive advantage for those particular services that prevents new competitors who might even be better.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The other posters have already gone in some detail of the huge litany of things wrong with differential pricing. The CRTC recognizes that net neutrality is a huge reason why this is bad, but I'd like to emphasize that net neutrality is not just some principle that is good to have. Net neutrality has very real practical applications and consequences. Allowing ISPs to make editorial decisions about content places all the power in their hands to decide competitive winners and losers, and decide even political winners and losers. It would eradicate free enterprise on the internet (and, by extension, take out a huge chunk of free enterprise in general) and the marketplace of ideas. The internet is no longer a separate "space" from the physical world, it's an extension of our society and our individual selves and will play an increasingly central role in all matters. It is a critical infrastructure that should be treated like infrastructure rather than the private property of a few companies to play favourites with as they see fit.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The wired and wireless service providers have consistently demonstrated that they will not voluntarily act in the public interest. When left to their own devices they have consistently reduced services while increasing prices, and acted in even more anti-competitive ways. The CRTC has played a first-hand role in reigning back some of the greatest abuses. Now is not the time to let them act in the same oligopoly that they have been consolidating for decades.

The CRTC has the legitimate mandate to regulate telecom services for the public good and Net Neutrality (generally, not just limited to differential pricing) is one of the core fundamentals of telecoms in the modern society and economy.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ideally, the "last mile" infrastructure should become utilities that operate only the infrastructure, possibly even as a public/private partnership with independent oversight. Access to this infrastructure should be easy and cheap and open to "everyone". The big current ISPs and small independent ISPs should not be discriminated against in accessing this infrastructure. This utility must not discriminate or police the network content. Revenue from this should be sufficient to self-sustain operations and maintenance, possibly even with a surplus. Public funds could also be used for large infrastructure development projects, this is okay because the result would effectively "belong to the public" rather than the property of one particular company.

Currently, the backbone infrastructure is much less concentrated in ownership, backbone ISPs cooperate to facilitate rather than impede the free flow of information, and - although still high - the barrier to entry is significantly lower than the last mile. It is an adequate situation that can be left alone for now.

Infrastructure companies should not be in the business of serving content as well - it creates a natural incentive to act unfairly.

Kvothealar 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:18:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

(1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The only benefit to differential pricing comes with many assumptions that are, for lack of a better word, naive. Simply that it would end up being cheaper for the consumer. However it is plainly obvious that if the oligopoly that is going on with ISPs in Canada is losing money in one place, they will make it back twice over from somewhere else at the cost of the consumer.

(2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The Canadian ISPs will charge more in general, but charge less if we use services they make money on in a different way. All this will do is cost the consumer more money in the end, but will then change our browsing habits.

ISPs will then be able to control what services you use on the internet.

Example: They may charge extra for Netflix, but offer free service from CraveTV (Bell) and Shomi (Rogers). This then directly affects their competitors and the market becomes even more corrupt than it is.

Simply put an ISP would then hold the power to shut down their competitors. What happens if Bell decides to charge $50/mb when connected to Roger's website?

These companies are going to completely ruin the internet if they be allowed to continue as they are. As it is Data Caps and throttling are hurting consumers enough.

(3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

ISPs need to be regulated.

(4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

In fact. The U.N. has declared that access to the internet is a basic human right: Link. Perhaps it is time that the Canadian Government declares internet to be a necessary service and should control it themselves. There is no free market for the internet in Canada, it's an oligopoly , and such a bad one that it is even used in grade schools as an example of an oligopoly.

Simply googling Oligopoly in Canada you will see that every single hit on the page referrs to our telecommunications and mobile oligopoly.

However the practices these oligopolists are using violate Canadian Competition Laws. Why are we not protected from this?

At the very least the government should perform a study of the actual cost required per GB to provide a service to Canadian Consumers and then force Canadian ISPs to fix prices.

There should be

  • No data caps.
  • No differential pricing.
  • Fixed prices for transfer rates. You pay different levels for minimum guaranteed transfer rates (not up to transfer rates).

The ISPs will complain but it will force them to compete against each other to build the infrastructure required to get customers on prices the Canadian Government has confirmed to be reasonable to charge. If they aren't able to provide the service to that price level with a guaranteed quality when the Canadian Government has found that it is easily possible to provide the service for such a price, why shouldn't the government offer it's own internet service and undercut them?

drewthevander Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:19:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. The only benefit I can really think up is it will allow you to get a smaller data package if all the services you mostly use data on are included in the differential pricing, but this has other downsides as well, such as consumers only choosing ISPs that have the service they use, so new company will have no way to compete unless they somehow get a Netflix etc deal for differential pricing.
  2. By allowing companies to say, 'this data is free' , it also allows the reverse to happen, where most data is free, and the companies get to pick and choose which data to charge customers extra for. Also It makes it harder for new ISPs to get into the market, as consumers wont consider them since their netflix spotify etc will count towards their data cap, forcing them to choose a higher tier package. It will also make it harder for new streaming services to enter the market, as they will face the same problem of counting towards the customers data cap.
  3. I think the concerns outweigh the benefits. All data is equal. There is not limit of data, only bandwidth limits. I think regulation is needed here.
  4. All data is equal, so it should all count the same coming down the "tube" By allowing companies to say, 'this data is free' , it also allows the reverse to happen, where most data is free, and the companies get to pick and choose which data to charge customers extra for. Ex: Checking our sports page does not count towards data, therefore "free" but checking our competitors sports updates does count towards data cap, effectively allowing them to charge the customer for not using the companies preferred sports reporting service. The CRTC should regulate the companies to ensure they allow all data to flow regardless of who owns the original data.

Jsmac2016 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:20:19 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) The pricing enacted by the giant telecoms is currently unfair. We pay the highest rates in the world for cellular data and mobile plans.The new "skinny" packages offered for cable are loaded with hidden costs; which could be viewed as the telecoms way of meeting the crtc's requirements while also making switching to such plans unappealing. 2) I believe these prices reflect the monopoly of the industry ;let's be honest they (Rogers,Bce and Telus) fix rates (in terms of data and long distance costs). The question here is why haven't out politicians enacted antitrust legislation (or at least threaten it). 3) If in the states Verizon can offer no hard caps on mobile data; we should be offered that as well. 4) if this council hasn't already notice most of the younger generation would rather use an android box and get programing for free as opposed to paying unreasonable amounts of money for poor content selection.

J.S. Macleod

Aranak 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:20:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

La seul chose que je peux dire en temps que consomatteur ses que bell et videotron,et toute compagnie de cellulaire (Au Canada) charge trop chere. Je vous remerci d'avoir laisser a de petite entreprise utiliser leur ligne. Mais sa regle juste le bobo temporairement a mon avis. Internet illimite au etats unis coute presque rien pour cellulaire et domicile. Et pour les prix de cellulaire qui parte a 45$CAN si ta le moindrement un peu d'internet alors qu'au etat unis ses 20$US. Il y a probleme je sais pas si vous pouvez les regler mais je me permets de donner mon opinion en esperent que sa l'aye servie a quelque chose.

eltron Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:22:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thanks for asking us here on Reddit, this is pretty amazing that the Federal government is consulting us on a reddit.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

As a customer and consumer, I do not think there are benefits to me personally.

For instance, say I only consume internet from my phone, and I want to get out of the habit of using Facebook. But 'Facebook data' is differential, aka free, and I'm able to watch as much news video from Facebook that I want. I'm now tied to get all my video content through a platform, which might not personally represent my political or personal views.

The only benefit that I can see is that I can watch full length shows via cellular network and not have to worry about using all my data. The reality is that I'll forget what platforms are "free" as soon as I leave the store, and will always be worried that my "free" platform might not be free tomorrow.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I do have concerns, and that is it's not a consumer-first policy, but a industry-first policy. Who gets to pick what platforms are free, and how often they are added, adjusted, or removed? The provider? The provider will only allow platforms that they are friendly with.

Primarily I personally don't like it as it goes against basic principle of net neutrality. It allows the service provider's friends, aka sponsors to provide a privileged content over everyone else.

This seems very apparent with the recent rise of Netflix and how the industry tried to block, slow down, and just not play nice with the smallest and coolest kid on the block "Netflix". Going forward, I can see that if the next big video site will have to negotiate these mega contracts to reach all users, which for a small startup is next to impossible.

The internet as a medium isn't supposed to care if you're popular platform or not, but just provide access to it.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes! Being a client of cellular industry for over 15 years, I feel that the industry has zero respect for the customer, and the industry will do whatever they can to extract more profits from their customers while providing less.

As a whole, we've been limited to these horrendous 1 or 2GB data plans for almost 10 years! We, as a customer, have seen little to no increase in any sort of service or value that pertains to cellular internet usage. Sure, we have super fast networks now that support 4G or LTE speeds, but when I can watch a 30 second ad at 1080p HD resolution and accidentally consume all my data with single ad video, I'm livid.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I have a real issue with data caps in general. Imagine buying a new car and you were only allowed to drive it only so many miles and then you'd have to pay the 'road company' for more miles to drive. We would think such an business model would be ridiculous, but it's the same argument for cellular networks. Cellular networks are expensive to setup and cheaper to maintain. Roads are also expensive to setup and costly to maintain. Roads are a "public" infrastructure that everyone has a right to use, whether it's on foot, or on a wheeled device, you're able to ride along on as much of the road as you want without having to worry about going your 'road cap'.

Make the internet a public right for all peoples and not a right for certain businesses to own. Stand strong against a industry that has lost control of their own industry (TV) due to disruption of the internet and are striving to now to control the new chapter of ways people consume content.

Tryves 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:23:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

I don't often comment but this is an issue that requires mention. I am absolutely against differential pricing. It is simply a tool to begin eroding all neutrality in an attempt to limit competition and force users to only use company approved services. The CRTC should completely disallow this practice - everything over the internet needs to be treated equally, if the system is struggling with the amount of data then they need to improve the backbone. We already pay significantly more both for home internet and cellular data than many other countries in the world this would be one further kick in the *** we do not want.

In an ideal world there would be a government run internet that the companies can compete against - we don't have enough competition to be getting fair prices.

robotsandteddybears 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:26:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm against anything that undermines net neutrality which this will do. I'd rather they just remove data caps and leave the prices where they are.

bladedandh 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:28:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data caps is out right theft . It is like going to the store and PAYING for a WHOLE cake(speed, which is the true cap of the month.) and being told you can eat 1 slice(cap). Then the eat more pay more bull!. But you already did pay for the whole cake(speed).

PhalanxLord 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:29:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Questions: We need your opinion about differential pricing:

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Likely cheaper internet, less expensive access to certain sites and programs.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Plenty. My primary concern is the effect on innovation. If you make website Y while an ISP gives "free" access to similar website Z then why would people go to website Y? It is instantly an uphill battle for anyone who can't afford to pay off the ISPs. People like free which means that by making certain things over the internet free the ISPs get to manipulate consumers so that they favour those websites and products.

The ISPs can claim people have a choice but it's like telling people they can pay for Pepsi products when unlimited access to Coca-Cola products is already included in their bill. There will be an obvious bias towards the products already paid for over the products people would need to pay a second time for.

Another concern is privacy. ISPs would need to watch how people use their internet very closely and see which sites they access in order to determine if they will charge them or not.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I am of the opinion that the concerns massively outweigh the benefits. Corporations have historically proven that they are not to be trusted. Look to what has happenend in other countries like the US. There have been corporations that have installed root-kits, included software in their devices to perform a man-in-the-middle attack on their own customers, etc. You can try to claim that our corporations are more trustworthy but I have yet to see any convincing evidence of that. There are many corporations that consider fines for breaking the law to be a mere cost of business rather than a real deterrent.

There is also the issue that it's a lot easier to justify things done for the corporation. After all, isn't it the business that is at risk (possibly losing a pittance to fines compared to the potential profits) and not the person? Even if you don't agree with it sometimes you do what you have to in order to keep your job, especially as things become more expensive.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Enforce net neutrality. Maybe make it a utility kind of like hydro (I don't know how viable that is). These days you can't even apply for jobs without internet access since many businesses don't accept applications in person anymore. It's not something that's nice to have but an actual necessity in modern-day life. If I chose I could live the rest of my life without ever leaving my house; work over a VM, have meetings and interviews over programs such as Skype, order food and items using online retailers. It's not a toy. It's a really really big deal.

If you make legislation then make sure it has fangs. We don't want to kill businesses but they also shouldn't be able to consider breaking a law to be a cost of business in the same way as paying employees or purchasing materials. The internet is the most important human technology ever created. It connects the world and every day our industry becomes more focused on it. We shouldn't let ISPs determine how it's controlled.

ANEPICLIE Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:36:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Questions: We need your opinion about differential pricing:

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

In my opinion, there are no benefits to the consumer for such schemes. It is simply an opportunity for providers to shake down companies for additional fees in order to prioritize their data, and to promote and prioritize their services above those from other companies.

Allowing such discrimination between data sources is simply inviting further oligopolization of the already notoriously concentrated telecom industry in Canada.

For the consumer, it superficially appears a boon, but if this is allowed the telecom providers will continue to push the envelope. In the end, it's not out of benevolence that they are doing this - it's because they see a potential revenue stream in selling the premium status to other companies.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It should not exist. It is simply a new tactic for the already fabulously profitable telecoms to further oligopolize their market.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, the concerns outweigh the benefits. The CRTC should give telecommunications companies zero leeway on this. It should be a hard line, aggressively enforced. The CRTC should prevent it from happening in any form, period.

Knight_Blazer 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:37:03 2016 UTC  (0 children)

As someone who works as a software developer for a mid sized Alberta company differential price seems disastrous to me. Already we are dealing with enough trouble with sub standard service from all of the big 3 Internet provider. Differential price will just insensitive continuing to operate out dated infrastructure and continue to rely on meaningless data caps. The fact is without reliable internet access there probably isn't much of a future in this country for people like myself.

Octospider 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:39:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. ISPs will favor their own services and/or they will extort other service provides (e.g: Netflix) into paying them a fee to be zero-rated. This may also lead into exclusivity deals (e.g: Bell gets exclusive zero-rating rights to Netflix).

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Concerns definitely outweigh any potential benefit. Please ensure differential pricing never happens. Uphold net neutrality.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Canada consistently ranks poorly in global telecommunication practices. First, data caps must be prohibited – they are a farce. The big three (Rogers, Telus, Bell) are an oligopoly and should be broken up. However, I prefer that a national crown corporation be created that offers actual competition and fair prices (think Sasktel).

MrGruesomeA 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:40:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?
  2. The benefits are enjoyed by the providers who can now lock their users into content that they choose to provide and increase the scope of their oligopoly.

  3. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

  4. Yes.This is a huge step away from Net Neutrality and Fair Competition, concepts that facilitate consumer benefit.

  5. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

  6. Yes, the concerns outweigh the benefits. I think the CRTC should be much more involved in regulating the communications sector. Data caps should not exist for home internet usage and if any form of cap does exist, it must include all traffic.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? - If differential pricing for certain content (music, video, etc.) must exist, it has to include all providers of that of the content, not just the telecom companies. If Rogers, Bell, etc. want to exclude music from the data caps, then they must apply that exclusion to all music providers, not just themselves.

MagicmikeGG2 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:41:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is a terrible idea.

deyesed 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:41:46 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

  1. Any "benefits" are the sugarcoat on this poison pill. Look at AT&T's UVerse for example - it's basically predatory pricing against other streaming services.

  2. If the Internet is really the information superhighway, then it needs to be treated as one. A good physical analogue to differential pricing is allowing construction companies to toll vehicles that use the roads they build, except for certain makes (like their own/their partners'). When put in those terms it sound preposterous, right?

  3. It is imperative that net neutrality is strongly enforced. See my above example.

  4. No differential pricing, point blank.

While we're at it, current advertising of Internet speeds is extremely misleading. Instead of selling speed caps that have almost no bearing on day-to-day usage speeds, make the telecoms sell speed minimums (i.e. Minimum x mb/s for at least 99% of the year, with rebates otherwise). And in the realm of unrealistic wishes, incentivize plans with larger data caps or get rid of data caps altogether.

Rustov Alberta 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:44:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits aren't there for the consumer/general public. This will continue to serve those who control the internet "taps". I say this loosely since data caps are outrageous as is. There is no shortage of data transfer. Removing an ISPs ability to impose a data cap would be the best course of action. We cannot progress by imposing false regulations like differential pricing. I don't want to be stuck with an ISP because it doesn't "charge" for data on a service I use. At this point I'd no longer be free to switch ISPs without incurring costs. Net Neutrality is extremely important. ISPs would turn around an lower data caps and force us to use "approved zero-rating sites".

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. I feel that the ISPs and media companies (typically one and the same) will use this to benefit their bottom line even more so. With people working from home, or watching their favorite website, or building a business, introducing this kind of billing system would be detrimental to Canadians.

Choosing to start a business that an ISP doesn't particularly like would mean they could use this as an excuse to make this kind of Zero-rating to their advantage and potentially hurt my business. There should be no rating what so ever on any website.

People working from home generate traffic and if the business doesn't fall into a zero-rating this could mean either the business and/or the employee has to incur higher bills.

My favorite site might be off the beaten path as well and not included in the zero-ratings. This would mean I might not get to support the site/creators anymore as a result.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Concerns heavily outweigh the benefits as the benefits can (and likely will) be twisted by the ISPs.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Regulate this by introducing a ban on differential pricing. I don't want to pay more based on my web usage, it defeats net neutrality. While we're at this put a ban on data caps as well.

The_Nim 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:44:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What we need is more or better streaming services, as a Rogers customer I am very disappointed with the fact that shomi is shutting down and I am left with nothing but a sub par Netflix. With amazon prime and other streaming services being American only, I feel this leaves us Canadians with no real option to watch exclusive programs which used to be shared with shomi

BrianBoyko 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:47:19 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hello. First, I want to say how awesome it is that Canada's government is actually asking the opinion of it's citizens before deciding policy. Now, I'm not Canadian, but I'm currently trying to legally go through the Express Entry program and become a resident.

I can actually get you in touch with a Net Neutrality expert, Lawrence Lessig, (professor of law at Harvard University School of Law). He's on vacation with his family in Iceland, but he might be able to spare a phone call or two, so send me a PM and I'll try to get in touch with him for you.

But here's my understanding of differential pricing:

Put quite very simply, removing net neutrality allows ISPs to charge different prices for different customers. The problem with this model is that large, established companies who can afford to pay exorbitant prices for the best level of service will be given an advantage over smaller, less established companies.

One good example is Netflix. Netflix is a juggernaut today, but back not very long ago indeed, it was a DVD rental-by-mail service. It could never have made the transition to a billion dollar company if existing media owners and television studios either explicitly or implicitly colluded with ISPs (in the case of Time Warner, they outright own the Road Runner cable Internet network) and made sure that the only companies able to afford the low-latency, high-bandwidth connections streaming high-definition requires were the existing media conglomerates.

Now, it's not true the Netflix pays the "same price" as everyone else for their Internet connections -- but they pay the same price per gigabyte as every other commercial entity in the space - Hulu, Amazon Prime, Youtube, etc. They do try to have a competitive advantage in the form of performance, but they approach this technologically, by having servers co-hosted by Akamai. (So that when you watch Netflix in Ottowa, you don't have to get the bits all the way from Los Angeles...)

But what if Netflix were to be charged more per gigabyte than other competitors. Take Time Warner, for example, which operates cable tv services, movie studios, tv networks, all of which have had to change their business models to handle the changes that Netflix brought to the entertainment market. Remember, they also own the ISP. Without net neutrality, they could very well force Netflix to downgrade to a lower service quality tier by charging them more per gigabyte than other services that don't compete with their interests. This would give their HBO Go and Hulu-based offerings better compared quality.

This is just one example out of many every day. The Internet is bringing us new ways to intercommunicate, and most of these services are not coming from established players but disruptive startups. But disruption is bad for the established players, so they will do what they can to preserve their own business interests and the successful business models they don't want to change.

If there is one thing I would recommend, it's that you do take the chance to talk to Lessig or Joi Ito, either one of whom could provide a much better explanation of how important net neutrality is, not just to technological innovation, but also to an open and free democracy.

-- Brian Boyko -- Soon to apply for Express Entry as a Software Engineer.

ManofManyTalentz Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:47:23 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The sooner the CRTC designates access to the internet in all its forms a public utility, the sooner Canada will be able to actually progress. As it stands, ROBELUS is profiting massively at the cost of our entire country not progressing.

Net neutrality is essential. Create a single maximum cost for unlimited usage.

Heavily consider running a crown corporation, if that fails.

C_h_a_r 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:47:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1.There is no benefit to the consumer, only control and benefit to the ISP.
2.Differential pricing is unfair to the consumer, as it pushes people (via bundle pricing) towards services that financially benefit the ISP.
3. Yes, eliminate it. 4. End data caps as well as differential pricing.

Morgsz 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:53:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think it stinks. Consumers will pay more for less.

That combined with controlling what we view is highly disturbing.

sabetts 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:55:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. benefits of differential price

Awesome for the telco oligopoly. Instead of being a conduit to connect producers and consumers they can play gatekeeper, pushing consumers towards certain apps and websites. By deciding which apps/websites get preferential treatment they stand to make a lot of money in backroom deals. Plus when a telco company decides to launch their own app to compete with existing ones they can give their product a huge advantage and stifle the competition. Who Benefits: The big internet companies make more money and increase their marketshare.

  1. concerns

Capitalism works when there is plenty of competition and a level playing field. Under these conditions internet services reflect the real cost of providing them. differential pricing allows providers to skew the market and destroy competition, consequently destroying consumer choice. Given that bandwidth caps do not reflect a real limitation of the hardware that provides internet services, differential pricing further distorts the relationship between cost and services. Nothing good will come of it for consumers or Canadian innovation. It is simply a short-sighted cash grab and ultimately we all lose.

Giving the gatekeepers of the internet (telco oligopoly) even more power will stifle Canadian companies that use the internet to create wealth.

At this point, the internet is a public necessity--something individuals and businesses need to be successful--and ought to be regulated as such. From that perspective, differential pricing makes no sense.

  1. Do my concerns outweigh the benefits?

Yes. Net neutrality is vital to the health of the internet.

  1. How should the CRTC regulate it?

Ban differential pricing and get rid of data caps.

Deez_nutzes 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:56:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Excessive government regulations stifle innovative ideas. The internet and content are changing rapidly. If excessive regulations are not placed on ISP's the market will reward those providers with plans that meet the needs of customers at prices they are willing to pay.

Morgsz 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:57:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think it is terrible,

Canadians will pay more for less.

But further to that is private interests will control and manipulate what we view and do online. Threads like this one would be under paid content and we would only be able to see what the providers wish to provide us.

It is terrible.

Not that it matters they will cram this through as something else or just keep trying and trying until they get it.

Landscape_love 1 point Wed Sep 28 21:59:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The short term are good, because the user is less restricted on the usage. But the long term is very bad, see #2.

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

What will happen is that the only things that will be free in this model is the products/websites/companies that pay ISPs to make their data free. In the end, the customer will lose, because it will force us to use services that are "promoted" by ISPs. It is unfair for businesses, for competition, therefore, the customer.

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The benefits are null compared to the cost for the consumer. The CRTC should regulate those practices to avoid biases towards certain products/business. Never let the ISPs decide, they will chose what's in their very best interests.

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Either fight to anhilate data caps OR allow a certain type of product to be included in the internet plan. For example, including any video services in the plan. That means that if you watch a video/film on netflix/reddit/facebook/youtube/vimeo/ etc. will not count in the data plan. That way, there will be more competition. An other example could be music, whatever service you use, as soon as it's only music, it can be allowed. Do not let ISPs decide the exact service provider is free, but the type of product. That would be a step in the right direction.

XNtricity Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:00:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?
    There are no beneficial aspects to differential pricing. Allowing ISPs or carriers to dictate which services are given "special treatment" or usage/cost exemptions essentially drives competition out of the market; reducing consumer choice, and preventing the self-regulation of prices through said competition.

    It may initially appear that differential pricing benefits consumers, however that perceived benefit dissolves as certain services are chosen by consumers not because they are the best in the market, but because there are no other choices; preventing the necessity of innovation through market monopoly. If consumers have nowhere else to go, why should money be spent to improve the service?

  2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?
    I do: services will no longer be chosen because they offer something unique, worthwhile, or are simply better than the competition. If a service is given special exemption from caps, speed limits, etc. competition dies out, creating monopolies and stagnating innovation.

  3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?
    Yes: these concerns absolutely outweigh the benefits, and ISPs/carriers have proven time and again that their decisions are harmful to the average Canadian.

    Example: data caps on home internet service. Data caps are a limit on the total amount of data transferred in a given period (usually in a month) while using an ISPs service. By placing a cap on service provided and charging for more use of the service, ISPs create a chilling effect where Canadians are deterred from using their connection how they see fit, and instead may be forced to use services that are exempted from these caps in order to prevent reaching their monthly cap: this is forcing the consumer to choose a service that may not be right for them just to avoid overage fees.

    If an ISP cannot service their customer base without restrictive caps, they need to invest in their infrastructure. Caps prevent this monetary investment, and instead cause Canadians to pay more for less.

  4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?
    Uphold the spirit of net neutrality rules, not just the rules themselves. These rules are continually trying to be sidestepped by ISPs and carriers through loopholes and technicalities that increase their already-ridiculous profit margins. Net neutrality stands for equal access to all services available through the internet, regardless of ISP or carrier. This promotes competition, allowing new products to enter the market to better provide consumers with the freedom to choose what's best for them.

    Differential pricing (and data caps) don't belong in Canada, and don't serve to do anything more than stifle competition and cost the consumers more money.

jonathondalton 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:02:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

As a Canadian content creator on the internet (I make a webcomic), there is no way in heaven or earth I can compete with Bell or Rogers as an equal if they can throttle download speeds on a whim. I can't do that. I don't own an internet provider. Net neutrality is vital. Can-con flourishes when any Canadian can make a website and have it be seen by Canadians (and the world).

TricksterPriestJace 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:07:05 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There is no benefit to consumers for differential pricing.

Back in the days of dial ISPs competed with each other. Some would offer a lower price. Some would offer additional services (like AOL's suite of unique software). Real competition existed as changing providers was easy, there were in most markets many different options.

Today we don't have a competitive service industry, we have a monopoly or duopoly utility. Low speed internet simply isn't viable, web pages (and especially the ad services that support them) are made with the expectation that the user has high speed. Once you establish a saturated monopoly (as in a monopoly that nearly everyone uses) your only option for growth is increasing rates.

However ISPs know that as a monopoly they can only increase rates so my h before the CRTC slaps them down for it. So they came up with a simple plan to increase rates and make it look like customer choice. They make the service horrible and charge extra for what you used to get.

Internet speed used to be limited by hardware. Now they throttle the speed and charge you extra to be back to where you were. Data usage used to be limited by time. Then customers overwhelmingly chose unlimited options. Now data caps are added, to charge usage on a service you already paid a premium for unlimited access so they can charge you again to stay unlimited. Now they want to impare service again, this time by charging extra for using a service that they do not get a kickback from. If they get this service the next step is to insert ads and charge extra to get around them. Maybe charge extra for privacy where they don't track your every move for advertising and data mining services.


The only way to allow these practices whioe allowing consumers to have their rights to privacy respected is to decouple the ISPs from the hardware backbone suppliers. Force the cable, fiber, and cellular carriers to allow their customers to use their hardware for competitor's services like telephone was. Let me pay a flat physical hardware fee to cable/tower co that is regulated and allow us to choose whatever ISP we want to connect to through that line we like. But I guarantee if we had that kind of competitive marketplace speed limits and data caps would disappear and the market for 'whitelisted only ad saturated cheap internet' would be negligible.

Ne0r15s 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:09:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'd like to start by saying the wording of these questions is shameful and preys on those uneducated in the actual understanding of such a policy.

  • The benefits I see (still big negatives for everybody else).

Big businesses get to pigeonhole smaller ones into premium priced data rates and consumers would be forced to use isp sanctioned data sources to avoid overage charges.

Isp's that offer cable services can ensure a consumer buys their cable packages because they won't be able to afford to pay overage charges for using services that the isp does not own.

This is very profitable for isp's and those that get net 0 contracts with them.

  • However it is anti-consumer, anti-small business, and anti-competetive.

It restricts freedom of choice for consumers and burdens them with additional costs if they try to use other services.

  • Of course the concerns outweigh the benefits. The only benefit that exists is the absurd amount of cash these isp's and net 0 contracts will take in at the cost of consumers and smaller competition.

  • Make it illegal. Open the market for competition. Make net neutrality a priority. Remove data caps. Also, stop making decisions that favor big business over all else. Oh! And don't sneak this stuff through in some sort of omnibus bill.

Based on the wording of the questions however, I'm pretty sure I already know how this is going to proceed. Maybe someone else should be in charge of this decision so that consumers don't end up with the smelly end of the stick this time.

Guido125 Québec 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:18:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Enforce net neutrality. The consumers always loses out here if you don't.

On a related topic - Canada has some of the worst data plans and ISP plans in the world. It's time to step up and do something about it. Phone land lines are well protected and offer competitive pricing. Why aren't cell phone plans and ISP plans?

TLDR; regulate the hardware like land lines to encourage competition, and enforce net neutrality.

Cezna Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:19:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I really don't want to see the CRTC go down this route of allowing zero rating.

It gives an unfair advantage to large, established content providers, and service providers that have their own content offerings. Both of these would compromise the kind of innovation and competition that we need to ensure the best ideas succeed on the internet, and with the percentage of internet usage happening on smartphones constantly growing, all content providers need to be able to be competitive on mobile if they want to succeed. A fully neutral and balanced internet is vital for that kind of competition to exist, and zero rating hugely compromises net neutrality.

If a big service provider wanted to boost their own service, even if was inferior to the competition, they would be able zero-rate their offering while continuing to charge ridiculous data rates for all of the competition, forcing anyone who wants to access high-data content like video from their phone to use the service provider's offering. Or they could charge their competition huge fees to be zero-rated, increasing the cost of operation for large businesses to the point where they might decide it's not profitable enough to operate in Canada. This would also shut out up-and-coming competitors who can't afford to pay the zero-rate fee.

If the CRTC allows zero rating it's ensuring a future where service providers can extort huge fees out of large companies like Netflix, Google and Spotify, unfairly boost their sub-par offerings and completely shut out small competitors that might challenge their offerings. This will inevitably lead to more consolidation and monopolisation of content and higher prices for lower quality services for consumers.

I hope that the CRTC will listen to reason and ban the practice of zero-rating as well as taking any other steps needed to protect net neutrality. While on the subject I also hope the CRTC will ban data caps, another trick pulled by service providers to increase profits while keeping Canadian consumers from having high quality mobile internet like other modern nations.

21stPilot Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:20:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1 What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

For the consumer? I see none. Any potential benefits are overshadowed by the irresponsibility most Canadian telecom companies are infamous for.

2 Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. I believe a differential pricing system is highly susceptible to abuse by the ISPs that offer it. I believe differential pricing is almost innately anti-competitive, since it favours certain online music/video providers over others.

3 Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely yes, the concerns associated with differential pricing outweigh any possible benefits.

I also believe it would be best for the CRTC to step in and regulate both wireline and wireless providers. For years, both network types have imperviously existed in an oligarchical structure. This has lead to unreasonable data caps and overpriced services.

Canadian telecom companies have proven that they are unwilling to provide a fair service, and for that reason I support CRTC intervention in their industry.

4 If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Differential pricing should be unequivocally banned. It undermines the purpose of the Internet, which is the free spread of information.

Subject1337 British Columbia 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:27:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you for coming to the people affected by the laws and policies you are making for input and solutions. Allowing corporate lobbyists to be the only voice in any discussion is a recipe for disaster.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits of differential pricing are artificial and do nothing to adjust for the poor state of prices in mobile and internet packages. Providers claim that these practices enable them to offer better bonuses or incentives which improves quality of life for the consumer, but the current state of Canadian telecommunications has the providers in a state of near-monopoly. Considering that they face no competition and are able to drive prices upwards at will, differential pricing offers the consumer very small upsides in a situation that is systematically and objectively bad for them in the first place. Differential pricing could have upsides if true competition existed, as providers would have to push prices downward and available content up. However this is simply not the case.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I absolutely have concerns.

Mobile and Internet providers have a near monopoly on the services they provide. They use sly and underhanded tactics to avoid laws about collusion and price fixing, while achieving the exact results those laws are meant to dissuade. Other users have mentioned in great detail the ways that companies like Bell, Telus, and Rogers will "signal" to their competitors about changes they plan to implement (Driving prices upwards), and silently, without conversation, the other providers follow along. These sorts of practices are inherently anti-consumer and have resulted in bloated internet and cell phone packages that make Canada comparatively one of the worst first world countries in the world in this regard.

Differential pricing, zero-rating, sponsored data, and all affiliated practices gives power to the providers to continue abusing the practices I mentioned above in new and creative ways. The last few years have seen the greatest surge of "cord-cutting" to date, and it's because people have found new, more competitive options for viewing the content they want. Introducing differential pricing to the age of internet gives them the ability to begin monetizing "packages" and "bundles" of services again, similar to how cable TV has always been (and is currently dying because of). What the consumer wants in this scenario will not matter because consumers do not have the power to take their money elsewhere to dictate market trends.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

These concerns absolutely outweigh the benefits, and I believe the CRTC should step in.

We've been letting the market and the providers decide how to regulate themselves for far too long and it's resulted in Canada's internet being called "third world" by the CEO of Netflix himself. However the market can only regulate itself when strict anti-monopoly policies are in place and competition is readily and openly available. Any competition in the telecom industry is instantly bought out and absorbed into the "big 3" who continue their tirade of terrible prices and infrastructure.

The "price signalling" mentioned above should be closely monitored as it is responsible for a large part of the issues outlined above. A free market is NOT working for this country, and Canada's citizens are behind the times because of it.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Firstly net neutrality needs to be upheld as the law for these industries. My ISP or mobile carrier should never be able to differentiate any bit of data I get from external sites from any other. The websites I navigate to, the content I download, and the things I watch should all be considered equal and indistinguishable. The implications of allowing my data to be restricted, "fast laned" or sponsored create and idea of the internet that is frightening. Providers alone would profit, and users alone would be hurt by it.

Secondly, competition needs to be addressed. I'm aware we already have anti-monopoly laws, and anti-collusion/price gouging laws, but these are insufficient. The companies have found a way around these laws, and while operating legally, are violating the spirit of the law. They are holding customers hostage by charging more and more each year for something which is becoming as necessary to human living as electricity.

The solution to this issue could be multiple things, but one in particular I would like to see is as follows:

  • Subsidies or federal grants to MUNICIPAL governments who wish to build their own network/fibre infrastructure. Mobile or Internet. We've seen great things come out of small cities and counties who construct their own networks for their citizens, and it greatly drives down prices of other competitors in the area. I specify municipal because a federal project like this would simply be too great an undertaking and may take decades to fund and complete. The politics of a project like that may be out of the scope of what the CRTC can bring to the table. Progress may be made quicker and more efficiently when handled by local governments. It creates jobs in the construction of this infrastructure, and will provide passive income back to cities as their citizens pay for the services over following years.

Philosopherknight 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:29:57 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? As a user I do not see any benefit to me. I would rather all content I view be treated equally and not have to worry about which source of data is on which stream of billing.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes, I think the Telco market is already very limited in CA compared to other regions of the world. By allowing differential pricing you will just be making it even harder for other competitors to enter the market (both on the telco side, and also on content provider side).

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? I don't see any benefit to the customer or Canadians by allowing differential pricing. So yes, the concerns certainly outweigh the benefits.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Data should be treated equally regardless of source or channel. There should not be preferential treatment of data. Data should be treated equally, just as any Canadian citizen should be treated equally.

DataEquality

AllDataMatters

BoscoCharlieGo 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:32:24 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are many benefits but they all favour the telco incumbents who have been buying up media content and services. I see absolutely no benefit for Canadian consumers.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I would like to think that the concerns are self-evident but perhaps an example using another industry is the best way to express the problems. Let's imagine that at some point in the past, the Government was lobbied by the large automobile manufactures to be given the Canadian highway system to run and maintain on behalf of Canadians. The argument presented was that it would save the Government money and Canadians would get better service on their roads. After a few years of being paid by the Government for maintenance expenses, they lobby for the right to introduce limited tolls so that they can afford to add more lanes and offer faster service to the consumer. After a while, all roads become toll roads that are defacto owned by these companies. It becomes such a hassle to stop and pay at many booths, that drivers "choose" to purchase toll passes that are good for unlimited use in a month, now offered by the toll companies. But, of course the price of the unlimited use passes continue to rise so much that cheaper limited use passes are made available and become popular since people have to drive and do not really have a choice. After a short time the unlimited passes are discontinued by the companies due to the fact that some road hogs were using more than their fair share of the toll roads. Many newspaper columns are written slamming the road hogs. Now remember that it is the auto manufacturers that control the toll rates and passes. Now they propose to tie the use of their highways to their brand of vehicle. If you buy a new Ford, you get free access to all Ontario multi-lane highways but other brand vehicles will continue to have to pay. These deals will be played to the consumer through the dealer franchises, who in this story are also owned by the manufacturers. Can you imagine the profits reaped by the auto manufactures on the backs of consumers who have no real choice but to buy the company's vehicles in order to be able to commute to work? And it all began with a policy decision by the government far in the past that had no way of predicating the current situation.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns are great and seeing as there are no benefits we must step in and stop the profiteering of the service providers.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

First, it is long overdue to break up the providers to separate media providers from the internet providers. going even further would separate last mile access infrastructure completely from the internet providers and let the market decide the winners. Only the last mile would need to be heavily regulated with equal access to any internet provider.

Second, get rid of data caps in both broadband and wireless industries. They are nothing more than a profit gravy train for the telcos while stifling the Canadian economy.

_fortune 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:35:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Benefits to the consumer? I think they are few and far between. Differential pricing primarily benefits the telecom companies.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I have many concerns about differential pricing. It fundamentally opposes net-neutrality. The telecom companies need to have less influence on what we consume, not more. Under no circumstance should they be allowed to favor certain services over others. Data is data, it should all be treated the same.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, my concerns absolutely outweigh the benefits. If anything can be done to prevent this, it should be done.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Do not allow it.

If there are concerns about services using a lot of data (Netflix, Youtube, etc.), then data plans should become cheaper, and there should be options for getting rid of caps altogether. As Canadians, our prices are among the highest in the first world, while simultaneously getting worse service and fewer choices.

Janooba 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:36:15 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Differential pricing is tricky, to the consumer, initially it sounds like a great idea! It couldn't be further from the truth though, I don't think differential pricing benefits anyone other than the ISP in question. It stifles competition and routes traffic through their own media outlets. This goes against the most basic principals of net neutrality! We wouldn't even be having this discussion if we didn't have ridiculous (and completely exploitative) data caps.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I'm concerned that, by allowing ISP's to exempt certain services from caps, we will be opening the doors to even more price gouging. Service Providers will be able to hold companies hostage, charging them fees to be exempt from data caps, and companies will be forced to pay since their customers can't afford to use their services with these limited data caps.

This is a step backwards in technological advancement. We need to just remove data caps once and for all, and join the rest of the world.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

We, the citizens of Canada, need you to step in and regulate these business practices because internet access is no longer a luxury, and is required in every day life. You need internet to find and apply for a job, to gain access to employee services, to do online banking and pay bills, to access learning resources, and to do ANY job in the technology industry.

I'm a game developer and programmer, I frequently use upwards of 400gb of "data" a month just to do my job. Data caps and price gouging are holding me, and millions of others back. We can't vote with our wallet, since they have a monopoly on the market, and are working together to keep out competition, therefore we need you to step in.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban the practice, ban data caps, and regulate the pricing.

Bring Canada up to speed with the rest of the world.

RaiderOfALostTusken 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:37:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. If I had to think of a benefit, I kind of like the idea of that zero-rating type deal. I mean, TV is TV, and if I got to watch TV on my phone at no data cost, I don't think I'd care whether or not it could only come from Bell. If that was the trade off I had to make, then so be it. I don't usually use data for streaming video anyways. Also, I understand that corporations aren't public servants. They should be able to price things the way they need to in order to create a profit.

  2. Though I listed a benefit above, I can definitely see a problem with what I've listed. I acknowledge the importance for corporations to be able to make a profit; however, there are concerns that the telecom situation in Canada is slightly monopolistic. I understand that Canada is a big wide spread out country, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to have data plans like our neighbors to the south. In addition, I think that differential pricing could create conflicts of interest for service providers - the ISP market is kind of a natural monopoly it seems due to the difficulty in breaking in to it. I don't think it's reasonable for Netflix to have to break into the ISP market in order to be more competitive. Data is data, bits are bits, and whether they are used for music, movies, word documents etc. they should be priced the same.

jaymef [🍰] 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:40:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Lots of great answers here. differential pricing is not fair, please do not allow it.

GalvanicusSpunk 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:41:13 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but my area ONLY started actually enforcing caps once Netflix came to town, in what can only be seen as an attempt to sabotage the companies plans in Canada. In fact Canadian ISP's are the reason Netflix now has a bandwidth setting to cap the bitrate. Enforcing something to sabotage a competitor... Not even sure how this was legal.

There is no excuse for capping Internet usage beyond exercising your monopoly. What is especially galling is the fact that all the ISP's (I say all, where I am I have a whole TWO to choose from) market how fast they are, then punish you for using that speed. I have unlimited internet myself, but I am paying a fortune for it. I'm on a limited income due to disability and Internet usage takes a large chunk of that income.

At this point in our existence, the Internet is a utility. Can you imagine another utility being run like Internet usage in Canada? "I'm sorry, you've used your Kw/h for the month, so we can either shut off your power for the rest of the month, or you can pay $3 per Kw/h for the rest of the month." Or worse, they throttle you so you can three light bulbs and a fridge for the rest of the month.

Charging different prices for different internet speeds is one thing. The CRTC should flat out make it illegal to cap data usage. I've written to my ISP on several occasions to ask them to provide me with actual proof of their claims that people who use "excessive" amounts of bandwidth impact the service quality. Of course they never responded, and I've certainly never seen evidence of it from either of the TWO ISP's available to me during my time with them.

Anyway, onto the questions asked:

While I do see benefits of differential pricing, they are far outweighed by the negatives and the potential for abuse. Let's take Canadian streaming services. Here is a situation where competition has led to Canadian's being screwed. Until the recent announcement that SHOMI was closing, streaming options in Canada had gone from just one, Netflix, to three. On a limited income, this competition does nothing but hurt me as a consumer as I have to pick one service to back as I can't afford more than one. With content split between the services this competition has essentially led me to paying more for less. Having certain services benefit from not using your data cap just encourages the telcos to promote inferior services, and frankly differential pricing is just handing them a free pass to screw over the consumer.

Which leads me to this. Differential pricing encourage monopolies or deals damaging to the consumer. If my ISP also has their hands in a streaming service, it benefits them to encourage me to give me free data usage with their service over, say, Netflix. The telecommunications industry in Canada is utterly corrupt to the core, a situation the CRTC has frankly sat back and allowed to happen, and any attempt to legislate against net neutrality will be abused, without question.

The CRTC should ENFORCE net neutrality, with an iron fist, and rule the Internet as an essential utility to all Canadians. (Frankly when my 69 year old mother in law is using it every day, it is an essential.) We home school and online schooling is a vital component of this as well. When a service is vital in so many areas, for so many things, it should be regulated to prevent abusive fees and charges, especially from companies that have proven time and time again that if there is a loophole, they WILL abuse the consumer to make more money and cannot be trusted.

We live in a situation where if you have the lower tier of internet, usage caps are so bad you can't even buy games digitally as you can't download them due to their size.

Finally, the hypocrisy of data caps. It's hard to believe the ISP claims of "excessive usage impacting service" when my current TV service is streaming to my TV, 24/7, over my ISP's internet connection to my house. Yet somehow streaming 3 separate HDTV channels to 3 different boxes in my house at the same time has zero impact on the service quality.

The justification for data caps is entirely based on lies. And frankly, when ISP's in Canada are offering worse value for money than the more notorious US based ones, there is something TERRIBLY wrong.

Bytewave 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:42:29 2016 UTC *  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Strongly opposed to differential pricing, the breach of net neutrality is not worth the possible advantages. Those are limited in scope and greatly overblown by their supporters anyway. It should be regulated, through a complete ban on those practices with huge fines for any offenses.

I also happen to work for a Canadian telco, and I must say, the CRTC needs to focus on playing a little more hardball with the giants of our industry if it's to live up to it's purpose. Some decisions you guys made, like forcing companies like the one I work to open its network to small resellers (who've been successfully undercutting us ever since) actually made me think we could someday break the little oligopoly party that our management loves so much. It's the only way to get good prices and good plans for all Canadians. Lately I'm not seeing any strength in the regulatory body, though, and that means crazy high prices for internet, mobile, more data caps, etc. For example, our company basically openly laughed in your face with the ****** "25$" cable plans that actually bottom out at 41$, and there's been no consequences. Management openly talks about plans to shift TV losses by increasing prices further on internet and mobile users, even saying that 'there is no hard price ceiling in our market right now for these services'. If you let them keep playing this game, our service levels and our prices will definitely be the worst in the western world, because telcos here can get away with it (especially outside Quebec and Manitoba) and all management cares about is the bottom line, not being fair. Step it up, we need some hardass regulations.

When people are willing to say the companies they work for and who they depend on for their paychecks are rotten and working against the common good, it's time to take notice and to take action.

mikefightmaster 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:45:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am an extreme supporter of Net Neutrality. My sentiments will be echoing those of many other users here.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None whatsoever - it's anti-competitive. It benefits purely big telecom and only big telecom. We already see it that in Provinces with more competition, the costs are lower. It's readily accessible on their websites - for example Koodo offers unlimited messaging, calls, and 5gb of data for $48 a month, where in Ontario it costs $84 a month for that plan but with 1gb less data. You can access it right on their site to compare.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. A few big telecom companies will reap all the profits and the consumers will be left with little to no choices about how they get their internet. It will allow them to near censor websites that don't want to pay their fastlane fees, which will in turn prevent the consumer from accessing certain services with ease - this could crush small businesses who can't afford these prices.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The CRTC should be obligated to prevent differential pricing from happening. The internet as we know it has been a huge, globally unifying tool. I genuinely believe it is a major reason we're seeing less global violence, an emergence of creativity and small businesses, and it has given a voice to those who could not speak before. There are zero benefits to the consumer - who the CRTC is supposed to protect. The moment this power is handed over to the ISPs, there is no doubt it will be abused.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Make the practice of it illegal. Plain and simple. Institute fines for violators. Protect the consumers from price gauging and ensure that the ISPs and phone providers are working competitively. Because we already see that they aren't and we - the consumers - are the one's paying for it.

Therehasgottobemore 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:52:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Please, no caps. It seems the only reason we pay so much for what other countries get for much less is because we can afford it. Talk about being taken to the cleaners for low value.

No differential pricing either. What, you think we'll get better value? Dream on!

Rachelattack 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:52:43 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Our family gets all our media through two computers. There is really only one ISP where we live, and our bill is reliably double or more what they charge for an unbundled monthly plan. We are probably average or slightly above average consumers.

I worry data caps will prevent competition and further encourage ISPs to pick on cord-cutters like us. We know we're paying more for internet alone than a package with television, but consciously adsorb that premium so that we get to fully decide for ourselves what content we watch (or more importantly, don't watch).

However, I'm not sure that privilege should amount to an internet bill that costs as much as our car insurance and power bill combined. From what I understand, differential pricing threatens to disproportionately affect folks who thought skipping the TV could be cheaper/more thoughtful route.

Thank you for this opportunity to contribute! *Edited, "affect" is the verb. Ahem.

Alame 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:53:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) The major benefit is to the consumer that can now use a given service without worry about data consumption or caps.

2) Not only is differential pricing a violation of net neutrality, it also opens the door for shady and anti-competitive behaviors. Should differential pricing be allowed, Rogers can suddenly raise prices on data caps citing that consumers don't need as much data now that services are exempt from the data cap. Users of Shomi (a small percentage of the market) receive a benefit, but users of Netflix (the largest percentage of the market) are now paying more for the same rate of data consumption, and Rogers is indirectly suppressing competition to their own streaming services.

3) The concerns are orders of magnitude more important than the potential benefits. As technology and infrastructure continues to improve we as a country should be moving away from data caps as a whole (and the state of data caps in Canada currently is embarrassing) and not providing more opportunities for Telecoms to abuse data caps to suppress competition and milk consumers for cash.

4) Enforce Net Neutrality. A packet is a packet, a byte is a byte. ISPs are a vehicle for data transportation, not a marketing service.

Da_Creator 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:56:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

100% differential pricing. And I will echo the masses and say that I think removal of data caps on both wired and wireless services will end the debate.

alphama1e 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:59:03 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Benefits of differential pricing.

This can be a great way to get certain services in a better way. For instance, if Netflix was given priority speeds and not counted in my data usage, I could watch HD videos anywhere that I can get data and I would have to pay more than my monthly subscription costs. This is fantastic for the consumer who values specific services that pay for this luxury.

  1. Concerns of differential pricing

My main concern is that while we may benefit from a few services, many will suffer in the aftermath. While, for example, Netflix may be fast with no restrictions or caps, YouTube now is slow and has the same restrictions as before. I can't enjoy all of the things I like in the same way unless they grease the wheels of the ISP in charge. It's effectively a form of legal bribery. What does this do for the little guy? Now they get less service and now can't deliver the same quality of product, even though their product may be better. The little guy gets screwed from the beginning because they can't pay for preferential treatment.

  1. Pros vs cons

This is difficult. As a consumer who pays for premium service, I want the benefits. I want better service. I love free things. However, what is really going on here? Does everyone get the same service and a few get better service? Does this degrade for the little guy? The questionable choices from the big 3 in Canada lead me to believe that, yes, the little guys will suffer and we, as Canadians, will suffer with them. How will this benefit Canadians? Only some Canadians with select services will benefit. The rest suffer. Who gets this privilege? Big corporations and sponsored services? Many of those are less than stellar (see shomi). I am willing to bet that there are going to be a majority of Canadians who use the minority of available services. It just isn't worth it. However, i don't know that regulation is the answer either. I get that the big 3 hold a pseudo-monopoly, but they shouldn't be penalized just because they're big. Success should not equal a penalty financially. This won't encourage local growth of industry. If regulation is put in place, it should remove restrictions.

  1. What type of regulation

I think regulation should be in place to guarantee a minimum service available for low income Canadians. I think there should be a better environment for competition, allowing newer companies to complete without penalties. Beyond that, I can't advocate other for more. We should pay for service. It costs money to provide it. We should have more options and pay accordingly as well. I want to be able to have unlimited data without having a second job. At the same time, it's hard to argue this and say we shouldn't have this available for business. Should a business be able to pay for better service? If we can, they should too. Should we have unlimited everything at max speed all the time for everyone? That would be nice but it would be expensive for the company and in turn the consumer. It's a slippery slope either way. I think that there is still much to be discussed before a decision can be made that benefits all Canadians. I encourage you, and other organizations, to continue to reach out to the people and ask what they think.

Thank you.

euxneks British Columbia 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:59:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential Pricing is an admission by content providers that current data caps are unreasonable. As such please move to both outlaw Differential Pricing and to mandate unlimited data usage.

There is no reason to make someone spend more on using data other than to make money. While I appreciate this is a business, the internet is fast becoming the de facto method of communication - there should be no limits nor "overage" charges - limiting communication, or charging for communication, is antithetical to a free and just society.

Thinkbeam Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 22:59:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Honestly, to your average person, I suppose differential pricing would not be a concern, simply because the average person only uses certain services. In a way, it could even seen as a positive deal.

However, I believe net neutrality should still be upheld. In the end, upholding net neutrality won't adversely affect any consumers, and the type of power the carrier/provider gets from being able to prioritize certain traffic would be extremely harmful to Canadians' ability to obtain good internet, considering Canadian internet is often already seen as behind many other countries in the world.

The providers should not be allowed to self-regulate. In no way will that lead to any progress, so it needs to be enforced.

desirecampbell 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:01:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. Differential pricing may seem initially to give consumers access to content at a discounted rate, but this will lead inevitably to an unfair marketplace where ISPs can effectively force any content holder off of their platform. Splitting consumer options into two groups "free" and "costs money" is a poor choice for consumers regardless of which group is newly created.

2. Neutrality in Internet access is important for consumer choice; without prohibition of tiered service models like "Zero-rated" data consumers will inevitably lead to poor service for consumers and stifle growth of smaller companies/content creators.

  • While getting some content for free seems like a benefit for consumers, in the long run such a system allows the ISP to promote whatever content they wish and discourage others. Watching 30 minutes of video could cost $30 in charges depending on mobile plan - a real incentive to only use the content sponsored by your ISP.

  • Charging for one use of data and not another is the first step to blocking access altogether. Eg. today Bell allows free use of CTV.ca, tomorrow Bell slows access to ComedyCentral.ca, next week Bell blocks all access to CBC.ca.

  • major ISPs in Canada have direct ties to content providers, which raises questions as to the appropriateness of choosing what content to bundle with services, and which to limit and impose monetary penalties for using. This creates an unfair advantage for ISPs and established content holders, allowing them to persuade consumers to believe that other providers have higher costs (eg. Netflix is $10 a month, but you'll also need to pay for that data) while allowing ISPs to "double-dip", they either get the ad revenue for you watching their programming, or they get to charge you for watching something else.

  • Internet access is increasingly regarded as a basic service akin to water and electricity. It would seem unbelievable for your Hydro bill to differentiate prices based on what you used that power for.

3. As above, the benefits espoused by supporters are minimal at best, and concerns range from inconvenient and expensive to nearly Orwellian.

4. Differential pricing is a clear conflict of interest for ISPs, and is an obvious affront to net neutrality. Differential pricing should be prohibited specifically and strictly. And the implication that data isn't as expensive as ISPs would imply through their pricing and data cap model should be investigated.

mrhindustan 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:02:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm Canadian, I'm 100% against differential pricing and allowing internet fast lanes or non-metered services on a metered plan.

I want the CRTC to push for fully unmetered connections for home users and cheaper data plans for wireless. We pay absolutely insane prices for wireless access and it should be far cheaper.

CuzImAtWork 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:10:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  • Differential pricing is the antithesis of net neutrality, and feel the costs far outweigh any benefits. You start with differential pricing, and it's a slippery slope. Carriers like Bell could wreak havoc on perceived competition from the likes of Netflix vs. whatever their streaming solution may be. That's just a single example.
  • Answered in question 1
  • Please step in, ensure that all data is treated equally and if there are any caps to be enforced, that they are enforced fairly.
  • Regulate it by imposing minimum caps carriers need to offer, with reasonable overage charges. Ensure that all data is treated equally - 1MB delivered from a Bell hosted site/link to a Bell customer should cost the same as 1MB from a site not hosted by Bell. If Bell wants to save money, they need to give us a reason to visit their sites, so they're charged less for the bandwidth they deliver to us, don't pass on the "savings". The internet doesn't care about the borders you have on a map, we need to stop thinking with this type of mentality.

CrazyDave2345 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:10:46 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What happens if you don't regulate

A coalition known as the Internet Defense League has been formed to protect against these abuses (net neutrality = no differential pricing).

Members include large powerful websites. Mozilla, Reddit, Tor, and Imgur have all joined. Google (and other large companies.), while not a member, has previously participated in net neutrality protests. If organizing protests is not enough, we can take the nuclear option: block all access from Canada. Billions of dollars lost. Canadian economy crashes.

Don't mess with us. We hold the nuclear football in this game of war.

Why not

Differential pricing charging makes no sense. All data costs the same to transport. The only reason to charge different prices would to gain shady monopolies. For example, Verizon won't include it's video streaming service in data caps. But it includes Netflix. Classic monopoly.

The internet is such a great place because of equality and freedom. All data is treated equally. A one-developer operation can compete with a billion dollar corporation. Zero-rating suffocates startups and innovation.

Ban it now.

fyi, i'm a developer

masasuka 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:12:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

To answer your questions simply, there are no benefits to consumers, just like there are no benefits to preferential treatment in any environment, whether it be preferential treatment of data, people, genders, races, or even products. It's all lumped into the same general restrictions of freedoms. Restriction of one's ability to consume certain types of data should be treated the same way any preferential treatment is handled, it should be flat illegal. the CRTC needs to step in and flat out ban ANY preferential treatment of data, as it only serves to allow big ISP owning media companies to create even bigger monopolies.

Archetix Ontario 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:18:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

First of all, thank you for seeking out our opinion. Especially through Reddit, which so many Canadians use.

  • What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?
    I think the there aren't many benefits because it would essentially put the control of what content is seen/not seen on the hands of the ISPs. I say essentially because, if I'm a poor person and can't afford to pay for the content that I want, all I can do is watch the "free" content that the ISP allows me to watch for free; therefore, essentially controlling what I can do.

  • Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?
    Yes, we can't allow to put the freedom of access on the hands of corporations who's only drive is to make a profit. Telecomms are there to provide access to ALL content on a level playing field.

  • Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? The definitely outweigh the benefits and the CRTC should most definitely step it. The Telecomms have been controlling the entire system for way too long and we have let them bleed us dry. It's time to modernized the structures of power and treat the internet like an essential service, because that's what it's become. Just like electricity and gas. The first thing I've done when choosing a new place live has been to look for an ISPs in the area, research prices, speeds, etc. not even, looking at other things first. That's how important the Internet has become.

  • If we should step in, how should we regulate it?
    Change the regulations, change the laws, and change the system. We've got to stop catering to profit-driven telecomms, and do what's best for Canadians as a Government should. Not what's best for companies.

yapilot Canada 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:19:54 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Unfortunately I think you are too small minded. Differential pricing is only part of a bigger problem : data cap and prohibitive price for access (home and mobile).

Internet is a necessity of modern world and we should have fast (at least 50 mbps upload/download), cheap, unlimited and neutral access !

The CRTC need to stand up and fight for us and not for the big telecom compagnies.....

x7x_ 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:21:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Policies that lead to filtration and censorship in any way, are not "neutral" to the net.

Is this really that difficult to understand?

Here's an easy check to see if it is pro or anti net-neutrality:

Does policy X make access to ANY data more difficult than any other data?
If yes, policy is not net-neutral.

PrincePhil 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:22:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

STOP DIFFERENTIAL PRICING!

Proud_Atheist 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:23:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential Pricing is an admission by content providers that current data caps are unreasonable. As such please move to both outlaw Differential Pricing and to mandate unlimited data usage. Thank you.

7465677966 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:24:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

With data caps as low as they are in most places and services like Shomi being pushed by ISPs it is not hard for me to imagine a scenario where this becomes horribly anti-competitive.

1cedric2 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:24:56 2016 UTC  (1 child)

I would like to know if you can clarify this for me?

Would increasing the barriers of entry could make it harder for freedom of speech to happen online? Would it not also make if harder to access educational or informational ressource.

Let's take a simple example, what happens when someone wants to open a blog talking about what he loves? How can help compete if major content distributor already pay the big bucks to reach readers? How does differential pricing would also create an inequality of access to content?

How about Wikipedia? They've been free until now, as long as you pay to access the Internet. With the amount of traffic going to this website, I wouldn't be surprised seeing ISP charge an extra to use them. Is this something that could happen?

I have the choice to not visit Facebook or Instagram because I'm getting all sorts of content forced on me. I believe differential pricing could make the whole Internet and place where content is filtered and selected for you by ads network or ISP/publisher deals.

edit: spelling

-crtc- Canada [S] 0 points Wed Sep 28 23:38:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

You:

I would like to know if you can clarify this for me?

/u/-crtc-/ :

I'm here to field questions, if you need it, about the process but nothing else. We will not express views or provide comments on the matters being considered by the CRTC – so expect responses to be structured that way.

YunoMyWaifu Québec 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:25:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Bonjour, merci de nous demander notre opinion.

 

1 - Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix?

Je vois les avantages que cela pourrait représenter, en particulier vu les prix exorbitants pratiqués par les compagnies de télécommunication canadiennes, mais les limitations sont grandes et avantageuses pour les plus gros joueurs seulement.

 

2 - Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix?

J'ai plusieurs préoccupations. Premièrement pourquoi est-ce que cela doit être restreint aux seules données commanditées, je m'attendais à ce que ce soit le type de donnée qui soit libre de frais, par exemple tous les vidéos. Deuxièmement, est-ce que le problème du manque de compétition vigoureuse sur le marché de la télécommunication pourrait être résolu, ou du moins améliorer la situation, par l'instauration de la différenciation des prix? Je ne suis pas un expert mais je ne pense pas que ça aille le moindre impact. Cette pratique ne ferait qu'apporter une source de profits supplémentaire aux fournisseurs sans pour autant qu'ils ne baissent leurs prix.

 

3 - Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques? Ou devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider?

Ces préoccupations l'emportent haut la main sur les avantages, et ne laissez surtout pas décider les fournisseurs qui sont, évidemment et naturellement, motivés par le seul profit. Je crois que d'autres problèmes dans le secteur doivent être réglés avant de permettre à cette nouvelle source de revenus d'être admise.

 

4 - Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques?

Il faudrait probablement bannir cette pratique avant qu'elle ne soit répandue. Il resterait toujours la possibilité de la réinstaurer si la situation change.

icarus14 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:26:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differital pricing and fast lanes are just backwards. Internet literally connects one person to the global community. It's a utility and necessity for a modern person, it needs to be cheap and available everywhere.

gprime311 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:29:32 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Zero rated data seems good for the consumer but it only helps the big the foster an atmosphere where they can choose what data is important and what data can have levies imposed on it.

NorthernMatt 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:35:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Superficially, differential pricing looks like a good deal for the consumer, but in reality, it mainly benefits the services who are selected for better access.

  2. Differential pricing violates net neutrality. It provides a benefit to the services not included in the cap at the cost of the consumer. As far as I am concerned, the duty of an ISP is to provide a connection to the internet. Packets should not be modified or analyzed in any way beyond what is necessary to route them to where they should be going. Allowing the same business that provides the internet service to be a content provider (and therefore zero rate their own content) is a huge conflict of interest. Zero rating other providers is just selling out the consumer to that provider.

  3. The providers should ABSOLUTELY NOT be allowed to decide. There should be regulations in place (AND ENFORCED) that prevent these practices.

  4. It should be very straightforward - ISPs must treat all packets equally regardless of the source or destination, and must not provide different levels of access dependent on the service. Realistically, there would need to be an exception for "hostile" traffic (denial of service attacks, etc), but it should be very strictly defined.

What I would like to see the CRTC address is the ridiculously high cost of internet service in this country (both wired and mobile), and the use of data caps. Data caps in particular disadvantage all consumers, with more impact on low income households. The low data caps set on lower-cost internet packages frequently make the service unusable for anything beyond basic email and web browsing, let alone anything like instructional videos, etc.

grflax 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:38:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The very fact that this question was asked belies either 1) a huge gulf of understanding of the very issues and industry you are meant to regulate, or 2) a terrible attempt at softening the blow when these policies are introduced against overwhelming public opinion.

Either way, I hope someone thinks long and hard about the answers here. I don't know how some people sleep at night

inkathebadger 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:38:58 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? It will not help me. What will help me is more players on the field and more options to choose from. This will not help competition in Canada, just give more power to the big players.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Smaller ISPs will not have this option. Not to mention third party services such as Netflix. My set up is independent ISP and Netflix and other video streaming services. I have unlimited catch all internet for under 70 a month. It's bare bones but it's enough and I am the bane of the big three's advertising. I found a way around the system and now they want to cut that off. I do not subscribe to cable or satellite. Also if I purchase digital content from an independent artist or content provider via Patreon or so on I will be paying twice though my ISP to access it via a stream (if I am not able to download my digital copy maybe more!).

Half the people under the low income mark are already priced out of internet services. This will price them out even further. Not to mention all the telecommuting jobs that are popping up more and more which would require things like video calls.

As well my partner is hearing impaired. We used video calls to keep in contact with our support system.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? Of course these concerns

Never let them decide, its just another way for them to gouge the consumer. This is just another way to squeeze me and their competition out.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Up hold net neutrality and enshrine it in law. Be rid of data caps.

Break up the larger companies. They should not be able to hold the keys to the content, as well as the paths to get to it. Allow for other companies to buy into Canada's market, force the current companies to play fair and not throttle indie ISPs, and stop letting them get all the damn eggs.

JSLEnterprises 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:39:46 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential Pricing is just a method used by companies to get as much money as they can from their existing and future consumers, and ultimately leads to higher median prices for the service(s).

But lets really take a look here; What has the CRTC done in the past 20 years, with regards to telecom and digital services, that has actually been a benefit to consumers rather than benefiting the reigning colluding oligarchy of Canadian telecom....

....

....

....

absolutely nothing is what.

So what exactly do you think the CRTC will do for us now other than 'have a discussion'....

....

....

absolutely nothing.

the CRTC honestly has 0 worth for Canadians.

House923 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:41:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The fact that this is even still being discussed is a symptom of a much larger issue in Canada.

"The big three" cellphone companies and the internet/TV providers have way too much power in this country. Capitalism is supposed to run properly when there is competition, but the situation right now is just an illusion of competition.

Not only do I think that differential pricing would set Canada back even farther than it already is in this internet age, but there needs to be more regulation in this industry.

In an age when everything is streaming and content is a larger data size than ever before, we still have archaic data caps that are way lower than they should reasonably be in the world we live in. The fact that one gigabyte of data on a cellphone is $25/month is just outrageous. And the post was supposed to focus on differential pricing with home internet, but I guarantee they will start throttling speeds over the cellular network as well.

So to answer your question:

1) The only benefits to differential pricing is for the already vastly wealthy oligopoly that runs our internet in Canada.

2) My concerns are not only that pricing structure like this will almost certainly force big internet companies to pay extra money or slow down their speeds for the consumer, but I believe it will also lead to a next step. If they are allowed to adjust speeds on a whim based on whatever methods they choose, the next thing they fight for will be to start selecting what groups of sites are accessible and what aren't. It can destroy the entire idea of what makes the internet so amazing.

3) Yes they are enough. As can be plainly seen by the rest of my comment, there needs to be much more regulation around this entire industry.

4) Regulation should be fair but also strict enough to matter. A small fine won't do anything. I don't have enough knowledge about this to actually spit out a number, but it needs to be high enough to outweigh the benefits of these companies enacting a policy like this. That is the bare minimum.

Groumph09 Saskatchewan 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:46:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

First and foremost, the elephant in the room is data caps. Data caps should be made illegal by the CRTC. I would go so far as to say their requirement is a lie.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no benefits. Its is pure exploitation of the customer base and goes against the idea of Net Neutrality.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It can be easily exploited. Case in point, Netflix usages goes against your cap but CraveTV(owned by Bell) does not. It is a chance for the carriers to bypass Net Neutrality because they are having a tougher time bypassing it on high speed. Differential billing is anti-competitive through and through.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes regulation is needed. Data caps need to be abolished. Differential pricing should categorically be made illegal.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

If you are not allowed to outright ban the practice, then anti-competitiveness needs to be heavily regulated. If CraveTV is not counted towards usage then neither should Netflix. Or similar scenarios.

anal_floss 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:46:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing is not a good idea. Even metered connections of any sort are a step in the wrong direction. This is just another excuse for service providers to hide behind substandard services without having to put up capital for major system upgrades to keep up with demand. Without the required upgrades, we risk falling further behind other countries with regards to Internet technology.

watershipdrown 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:49:19 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Only benefit would be to the companies selling the services and in charge of the infrastructure.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Decreased competition, increased prices, more data caps. It will limit choice and hurt the consumer.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Definitely step in, Internet access is so vital to people from all walks of life that it should be readily and cheaply available at a fair price. Allowing prioritization of Internet traffic will have long lasting negative consequences.

Data should be considered data, exactly like how electricity is paid for.

Further, the data caps that many companies enforce should be illegal, as it does not cost them any more to transfer a small amount of data or a large amount of data.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Remove any priority data traffic, remove data caps. Regulate Internet data like a normal utility.

tualatin 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:49:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Some of the costs of transmission would be borne by content producers, not just consumers. (In exchange the producers boost consumption of their particular content.)

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

That producers of obscene (like porn) or other harmful content could pay ISPs to zero-rate their content, reducing the marginal cost of consumption and pushing up the quantity consumed.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Regulate moderately.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Don't let producers of obscene or harmful content have access to these deals.

davecb_42 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:49:44 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

"What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?"

It allows an ISP to charge both the sender and the recipient, and to play them against one another to the ISP's benefit. That, of course, is not to my benefit, and so this also is an answer to "Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?"

Consider a delivery company, like Federal Express or Canada Post, who has a monopoly or is part of an oligopoly delivering to a given area. If the recipient pays, the companies have to compete to some degree, and can be regulated ("policed") by the state if they are wildly more expensive than a similar company in Sweden [hint: they are!]

If they can charge the sender, however, they can use their monopoply/oligopoly power to start a bidding war for access to their customers. They can offer a Netflix competitor a deal they'd have to be insane to turn down, the option to have Netflix be a dispropriately higher-priced service.

A sender make a deal that pays significant sums to the shipping company, our "Canada Post" equivalent, and allow the shippinmg company (ISP) to ignore customer push-back and raise the rate they charge for ordinary service. Normally the market would punish them for such a move, but here we can distort the market to the ISP's advantage, and the recipient's disadvantage.

"Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?"

I submit there is no advantage to the Canadian public, and significant risk and disadvantage to Canadian business in the bidding war for monopolistic/oligopolistic access to Canadian customers. We aren't as rich as the US, and US competitors will eat our lunch!

"If we should step in, how should we regulate it?" Very much like Canada Post: no special deals. Either the sender or the recipient pays, and the other can't offer bribes for a "differential" (AKA priveleged) service.

grmmac 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:50:46 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hi, random comment, but I am annoyed with the current cellphone situation. There are only 3 main companies (Roger, Telus, Bell) that are setting the prices and caps for mobile internet. Canada is one of the countires with highest cellphones plan prices for what you can get. Right now, if you go to get a new plan, and want some data (3G, not that much) its over 90$ which is crazy. If there anyway that more competition could be introduced to help lower the overall prices?

Cheers

Xenophorge 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:53:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There is no benefit to the consumer. Although it looks like a free lunch, it isn't. It's an attempt at control, to be gatekeepers like the cable companies of yesteryear. They'll decide for you what you want, and that's who pays the most.

Consumers pay for access to the internet at certain speeds. What they access should have no bearing on either. Data caps are artificial barriers created by the ISP's in the first place, differential pricing is their solution to the very problem they've put in place. Remove arbitrary data caps and the need for any variable pricing other than speed is gone as well.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Since there are no true benefits to the consumer, just the provider, my concern is high. The ISP's don't have the content to offer, so they want the content to pay for the privilege of getting to our eyeballs while we pay them for the privilege of finding the content. They want to insert themselves as middle men in a way that the populous generally doesn't want them to, we just have no choice. Data has only gotten less expensive as the years go by, exponentially, why has my bill only gone upwards? If you won't regulate it, who will? Certainly not the market, they control that as well, not a level playing field.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

That's for better minds than mine to determine, but holding ISP's accountable for what they're doing right now before we get into what how they want to screw us over more in the future. The internet as a utility has a certain appeal, but like the other utilities it would have to be measured correctly, and there's no way of holding the ISP's accountable for that.

AmyGrrl78 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:54:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I honestly feel that having data caps is a very outdated practice and should be banned completely. Its only used to price gouge customers, control what we do online, and stomp out competition.

Its been proved many times that data usage costs very little money. Yet they charge us outrageous fees for data we use. I think if the usage fees were fair to what that actual cost of what the usage was. People would not care as much about data caps. This is only used as tool to get more money out of us.

This also prevents us from being able to use certain online services. Like if I want to buy a digital download of game from Steam, XBOX, or PS4. That game download could put me over my data limit for the month. Then I am forced to pay a huge fee for going over that limit. Now I'm being controlled on how I can use my internet.

I also feel that allowing a company provide/own multiple services to be a huge conflict of interest. When Netflix started to become popular and people started to cancel their tv service. Its funny how quickly all the big name ISPs switched to data caps in an attempt to stop customers from switching over. Because now they will be forced to pay outrageous data cap fees. They can also use data caps as way to control what online services you use. They could offer a service that has no data usage. But a similar service offered by a competing company will cost you data data usage. Now they have just stomped out competition because it conflicts with other services they provide.

So now the question remains. Will the CRTC stand up for Canadians and ban data caps completely? Or, Will they show us they how much they are being controlled by these company's that just want to find legal ways to steal our money.

CRTC Please Stand Up For Net Neutrality!

popcap200 1 point Wed Sep 28 23:56:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am in America and I wish the FCC would do this, however I heard the phone and internet situation in Canada is pretty bad. Thank you for asking the people for advice. If what I have to say counts, 1. I don't see any benefits. 2. It will hurt competition and allows data rates and caps to be raised. 3. I don't see the benefits of differential pricing. 4. Simply don't allow differential pricing. If you really want to help consumers step in and remove data caps entirely. Again, thanks for asking public opinion on this issue!

caskethands Canada 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:03:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think consumers will perceive the benefits as, "hey I get free Spotify, sweet" but that's about where it ends. I think most of the benefit is to the carriers. They are already gouging for data, and this only perpetuates the artificial data scarcity which in turn keeps data rates high.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

By creating these separate rules for certain services carriers are allowing themselves to keep data caps low, and continue to charge the highest rates in the world for data usage. Who's to say that 2GB + free Spotify doesn't turn into 1GB + Free Facebook & Spotify and eventually 0GB and Facebook, Spotify, and Google. By preferring traffic we are effectively censoring competition.

Furthermore, if the carriers want to continue to parrot the argument that data infrastructure is expensive and bits are costly to deliver, this proves that they are lying. The CRTC needs to grow some teeth and call the carriers on these duplicitous arrangements.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns absolutely outweigh the benefits. We are being sold a bait and switch and we need the CRTC to step up and defend consumers. The industry has proven over and over that it will not self regulate, so the CRTC needs to.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

All traffic should be treated as equal! Equality ensures that all content, whether corporate or independent, status quo or dissident, established or up-and-coming has a fair space to speak and be heard.

scotchglass 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:04:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am Canadian, and I strongly oppose differential pricing. It opens the door to entirely too much control by the providers. Sorry, visiting Google is 5 cents a visit. What's that, you want to check stock prices, well you can't expect to do that for free. Etc. Charge me for band width. Pure and simple, just like natural gas, electricity, and water. Use none? Pay nothing. Let the user decide what his expenditure should be. Honestly, you have to ask yourself, if the service providers are asking for this, how could this ever result in cheaper prices. We have been getting screwed by cable, mobile and internet companies since day one. Even your recent move to limit long mobile contracts and allow cancellation back fired stunningly, I was recently offered a 2 year, 2gig unlimited calling plan with a phone for the low price of $150 a month. Oh yes, if I cancel I only have to pay the balance of the $900 phone.

Do not screw this up. Do not allow them to do this. We do not want this under any circumstances. We discuss this topic at work, no one, not a single person, not even the people who are normally horribly uninformed want this. Please, for the love of all the is precious, on behalf of my children, do not do this.

Tekuzo Ontario 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:07:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Telecommunications has largely become a utility that many Canadians rely on in their day to day life, much like electricity and water. The practice of differential pricing will negatively effect everybody. I see no benefit to this what so ever.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing

I have concerns with companies like Bell, Rogers, Telus or Shaw trying to punish me for choosing to go with a smaller competing service provider. I have concerns with these providers trying to punish me for using a serivce like netflix or youtube instead of paying for television services through them. I am reminded of the Usage Based Billing controversy from 2010/2011

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits

Yes they do, especially when I am trying to start up my own small business and rely heavily on my internet and need to have unlimited bandwidth / throughput at fast speeds

How should the CRTC regulate it

Enforce net neutrality, all data should be treated as equal, all prices should be equal for everybody.

mushr00m_man Canada 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:10:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I doubt I have any points that haven't been covered. So I just want to add my voice as someone who thinks net neutrality is incredibly important, and I'm strongly opposed to allowing differential pricing.

Arbitrary_Hobo 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:13:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no demonstrable public benefits of differential pricing.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I have many. It promotes hidden, anti-consumer relationships between companies. It promotes extortion of companies with effective business models on the net, and will stifle innovation there. Rent-seeking is not productive.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Incumbent providers should not be permitted to decide for themselves. They should not be permitted to use their complete control over canada's network infrastructure to reduce competition in other arenas.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

A complete ban on differential pricing would have some effect. The correct response to this sort of behaviour is to break up incumbents into regional incumbents, which can then spread and compete against each other. Like the Bell breakup.

Mphindi 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:14:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits to me? None at all. To the telcos? That they can use the system to throttle competition and restrict what information people have access to.

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Differential pricing is a horrible idea. Not only would it stifle competition and creativity, it directly contradicts the concept of net neutrality by funnelling people to the sites and information provided by entities that have enough money to buy the ISPs favour. The telcos and ISPs absolutely shouldn't be allowed to be the gatekeepers of the Internet and give preferential treatment to some data over others. A free and democratic society depends on the exchange of ideas and information, and as the Internet provides an incredible platform on which these exchanges can take place, restrictions on data can become dangerous very quickly.

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns absolutely outweigh the benefits! If there's one thing the telcos have proven over and over, it's that they don't give a damn about the consumer and they absolutely can't be counted on to do what's in our best interest. They can't be given control over our access to something so important as the internet and free access to information. The deep inspection of packets required to make differential pricing work also raise some serious privacy concerns.

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I don't think that regulation is the issue. Data caps need to be prohibited outright! The internet has become so important that it needs to be treated as a utility. Data shouldn't be given preferential treatment based on source, destination, or content.

themadengineer 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:18:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I don't have much to add, but I feel it is important to comment simply as an additional voice.

The argument can (and is) made that differential pricing enables access that otherwise wouldn't occur due to bandwidth caps. However, this practice allows service providers to act as gatekeepers - limiting you in what you can or cannot see or do online. This fundamentally limits online innovation and hurts Canada's ability to develop online entrepreneurial activities. It caters to the majority (who would likely care less as long as they are only going to popular "exempt" sites) at the expense of the minority. Differential pricing should never be allowed. If there are bandwidth limitations then this is the service that service providers should be competing on. My comments apply to both wired and wireless services.

wrinkles88 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:22:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

The CRTC. Haha. You ever get frustrated at work because you tell the higher ups about something then a year later they come to you and ask you what to about it, then a year later the cycle begins again? That's this **** show now.

joewith 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:22:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Tout d'abord, je tiens à dire que je suis agréablement surpris de la méthode de consultation. C'est très moderne comme façon de procéder!

Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix? Si un consommateur utilise abondamment un service, il peut effectivement y avoir des économies.

Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix? J'en ai plusieurs. Les voici:

  • Une compagnie qui exempte un certain service du calcul des données lie involontairement l'utilisateur à ce service. La clientèle pourrait préférer un autre service, mais comme elle doit payer pour l'utilisation des données qui en découle, elle va tendre à utiliser le service qui est "gratuit". En bout de ligne, le consommateur a moins de choix. La sélection d'un fournisseur d'accès à internet devient aussi encore plus complexe car il faut tenir en compte des services "gratuits" offerts dans l'offre du fournisseur.
  • C'est tout simplement une grave entorse à la neutralité du net. Je vois facilement un passage de "l'utilisation du service untel est illimitée dans le forfait" à "l'utilisation du service untel est priorisée par rapport aux autres service" se produire à plus long terme. Cela pourrait même dans le pire des cas conduire à "il faut payer un montant supplémentaire par mois pour avoir accès aux services autres que le service untel". Le consommateur est dans tous les cas pénalisé; l'internet doit être neutre pour éviter qu'il devienne un gâchis comme la câblodistribution (nous nous rappellerons que les chaînes privées n'avaient autrefois pas de publicités).
  • C'est une illusion de bas prix pour le consommateur. Nous payons déjà trop cher. Les factures ne descendront pas avec cette pratique. Cependant, les FAI vont assurément recevoir un gros chèque de la part des services qu'ils privilégient.

Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques? Ou devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider? Vous devez à coup sûr intervenir. Les telcos sont des chacals, des requins, qui n'hésitent pas à tout faire pour saigner le consommateur à blanc. Cette pratique peut conduire à des abus, et ne représente pas de réelles économies pour le consommateur.

Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques? Interdire la différenciation des prix et faire respecter de manière stricte la neutrealité du net. Autrement, nous pourrons nous ramasser avec une situation comme celle-ci

myinternets 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:28:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing should be illegal. I think the internet should be treated as a utility in the same way as electricity and water, considering that our economy depends on the internet just as it does electricity.

The lack of net neutrality would be akin to the electric company charging you more per kilowatt-hour for buying a certain brand of lightbulb. Or charging you more when being used for entertainment instead of work.

It is a conflict of interest to have the internet providers be allowed to decide what travels over their network and at what priority.

ElFalconPoncho 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:29:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) The benefits to differential pricing are seen only by ISP's / cable providers.

They may argue that differential pricing allows some websites to have better speeds. What they (conveniently) do not mention is that "better speed" was already available.

It's as if Hydro deciding that they would provide "the best" power coverage to companies willing/able to pay more. If you didn't pay extra, you would get progressively worse power coverage until you hit the "standard speed". Obviously this isn't okay. Why would artificially limiting internet be?

2) Of course I have issues with differential pricing. It only exists to line the pockets of ISPs/cable, and to keep any potential competitors out (see Netflix vs cable).

3) The CRTC should treat internet as a utility. Like a utility, all Canadians deserve the same speed, and since "data caps" are also a sham, we should all have no data cap. If you leave it up to the providers, they'll do what's in their interest, which is to make money at our expense.

4) Regulate it like you regulate telephone or electricity. It's the same thing.

rescued-fruits 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:34:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. There are no benefits to me, that I can think of. Companies are the only ones receiving any kind of benefit here, being able to make a bigger profit.
  2. I am very concerned about differential pricing. It will cause companies to have monopolies, so they can charge more and provide sub-par services. Everybody uses the internet nowadays, it's not smart to let something so widespread and, in a way, so needed, affected in a way where the means to having it are easily altered and made more difficult, or where quality can drop.
  3. I believe the concerns outweigh the benefits. I do not think companies should be in control of this.
  4. Maybe we should classify internet as a utility, the was the US has.

seriald 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:36:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing is about the worst thing that can happen to our Internet, not only does it go against everything that the Internet stands for, but it also only benefits the content providers and ISPs in the long run.

Every Canadian should have access to stable and faster Internet then what they currently get without having to pay additional to get access to Netflix, YouTube or what have you.

YouHaveCatnapitus 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:36:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1-The benefits of differential pricing sounds like it would enable the internet provider to get money from companies providing content rather then just the consumers they are selling internet to. These benefits might sound good coming from a telecom provider making it sound like it will reduce the price that the consumer will have to pay for internet by making content distributors also pay money.

2-Considering that internet providers in Canada are among the most disliked service providers that have to be dealt with I wouldn't trust what they have to say on behalf of differential pricing. A salesman who is dedicated to the sale or has no idea what they are trying to sell will not mention any downfalls of the product in his sales pitch and it is up to the consumer aka Canadians and the CRTC to start asking questions at that point about the product being sold. I fully expect if this rolls out to be like a cell phone agreement that sounds good while in store with the sales agent but once you have been on the plan long enough and start seeing the fees and hidden charges and areas with no coverage you regret choosing that plan later on and the company makes it feel like its your fault for making a bad decision. I would expect token gestures for Facebook or other applications to not count towards data caps. It would probably ramp up after the public accepts it as a part of having internet in Canada like dealing with data caps. I expect free data for certain applications to slowly start tapering off as I don't expect many companies to be willing to pay much to get access to just the Canadian market of internet users and almost any application that the internet provider doesn't provide themselves to be subject to the data caps that just keep getting lower. I also expect them to justify providing even lower data caps saying that they already provide so many certain applications to be exempt that users won't mind(can't do anything about) their 500GB general data usage cap being reduced to 50GB. All of this in an effort to get more people over the data caps so that they can charge more fees and addons to obfuscate the true monthly cost of the plan. I can't even imagine trying to explain to my mother that Facebook on her phone has free data but Google is subject to 500MB of data only after her plan is changed without informing her and she is hit with an unexpected fee. This is after I have had to explain what free WIFI is and how she can't just buy a router and expect to get internet to her home without paying an ISP. I expect cell phone and internet companies to see far more calls to their call centres asking why they were charged fees as they thought one application was exempt from the data usage only to found out it was not exempt either due to malice, incompetence or a user tried to hide their activity from their service provider. Will data providers provide their users a breakdown of which websites or applications are using the majority of their data instead of right now where all data usage is pooled together? That sounds even harder to erase then just clearing your browser history to hide what websites you've been visiting for the average internet user. I also doubt your ISP would be willing to clear the website history they are tracking when its related to how the customer is billed. This information and would then be accessible to hacking attempts on the data provider instead of only accessible through hacking the consumer. I along with many other internet users do not want the internet providers determining which data packets get preference over others. In all honesty if this differential pricing practice gets implemented world wide it makes me wonder whether entire countries would request differential pricing from other countries for access to their internet. Much like how tariff wars start on goods from other countries entering countries. Would Canadian telecoms say the cost to connect a Canadian internet user to a server in Europe is not a cost they are willing to burden if a European server has the same differential price structure for other countries data? Will we start seeing long distance data usage like long distance calling? $0.05 per request to a European website?

And yet data providers would probably undo all this differential pricing should a competitor like Google Fiber enter the markets. I keep reading on Reddit that the established competition to Google Fiber increases data caps and speeds and reduces prices in order to keep the customers they have angered greatly. It also amazes me how fast that competition implements it once they realize the situation they are in. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2989109/networking-hardware/google-fiber-competition-makes-att-cut-cost-of-gigabit-service-in-some-areas.html reports differences of $40 by AT&T where Google Fiber is not offered. https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150413/08435930635/mere-threat-google-fiber-has-time-warner-cable-offering-speeds-six-times-faster-same-price.shtml reports Time Warner increased speeds by up to 6 times as fast compared to before Google Fiber entered the market. Google Fiber seems to be able to provide what customers want in terms of cheaper and faster yet the established companies in Canada are saying what Google Fiber does is too expensive for them to attempt. I wonder whether there is the same type of price, speed and data cap disparity in Saskatchewan where Sasktel is available as competition versus what is available in Ontario? I get that it costs money to provide data to rural areas but the established data providers still have not improved infrastructure within major cities. Frankly I feel that data providers in Canada don't want to improve infrastructure unless they are forced to either through regulation or competition. It seems to me that it is only too expensive for new companies to get established in providing data to customers. Any infrastructure improvements by the established companies would be long term and affect their short term bottom line. It is idealistic to expect profit driven companies to improve infrastructure when their competition also is not improving infrastructure and they are both already providing data that consumers consider worth paying for as they have no alternatives. Since the data providers focus is so short sighted if a viable alternative does eventually come in like Google Fiber they will be scrambling just like AT&T and Time Warner in the US as they are attempting to maximize what they can with what they have as they realize just how angry they have made their customers that any attempts at retaining them will be rejected when that viable alternative comes along. These companies have no wiggle room for deviations in the status quo and so try to regulate out competition and regulate new data pricing structures in their short sighted favour as new regulations are cheaper then fiber optic cables being installed. So when the average Canadian says this in simpler terms such as "allow foreign competition" or "no data sniffing" or "faster (aka no data caps) and cheaper" the above rant is what they mean in detail.

3-Differential pricing in my opinion is a step backwards in terms of providing data and a can of worms that shouldn't be opened. My concerns outweigh the benefits being sold. I believe that the CRTC should regulate against differential pricing and stop Canadian data providers from wasting money on differential pricing that will put data providers further in the hole money wise if something like Google Fiber comes along which won't spend money on differential pricing. The customers are not requesting this new pricing structure. They are not asking for even harder to understand billing structures. The customers are not demanding content providers pay for their internet bills so that they have to pay less per month. This idea has been mentioned numerous times yet I can't think of a single person on Twitter or Facebook demanding this get implemented because there are so many detractors who understand how it works better than I do that dislike it and are vocal that they dislike it. Differential pricing sounds like a company driven idea that has not been fully thought out or is simply misleading in terms of what the CRTC or any other regulator has been told.

4-Say that Wireline and Wireless data providers are not allowed to provide differential pricing.

bangonthedrums Saskatchewan 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:39:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits are very limited. It may make it more convenient for people to access certain content like streaming video but that content will likely be sourced by the ISP as well (somewhat unrelated: I believe that ISPs should be forcibly separated from content-producers; IE, Shaw the internet company should not be the same company as Shaw the media conglomerate. This would treat internet as a utility, which it increasingly is. It is 100% necessary to have access to the internet in our society, and having the ISPs be influenced by their media arms only corrupts the industry)

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, many. This will stop internet innovation and goes against the core principles the internet wasn't necessarily founded on, but the principles it certainly has grown to accept (free and open access to information, with a neutral provider)

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

YEs, the concerns outweigh the benefits, and are significant enough to warrant CRTC involvement. Internet should be treated like a neutral utility, and should not be influenced by media.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban differential pricing outright

robrdufour 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:40:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hi, I did not spend 2 hours educating myself on the intricacies of the matter but I strongly believe that internet access should be equitable to all parties, that is for me: no differential pricing. Thank you.

PontiacChamberofComm 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:40:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am a consultant living in the Pontiac region of Quebec. I am also a member of the Pontiac Chamber of Commerce. We are located just outside of Ottawa (30 - 100 km) and yet our region suffers from terrible internet and wireless service. Many of our members do not have access to high speed internet services. Equally important, large areas of the Pontiac do not have wireless service. Our ability to attract investment and new footloose businesses is severely compromised by this. An argument offered by service providers, is that they need higher margins to deliver services to less densely populated regions like ours. Our poor service puts the lie to this argument. The CRTC needs to ensure that Canadians in general, and rural regions like the Pontiac in particular, have access to better internet and wireless services both in terms of price and quality.

LtCommanderWoof 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:44:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm sorry for not adding anything to the conversation other than to comment on how this thread is so incredibly well moderated that it should serve as a high watermark when trying to demonstrate the very best potential that Reddit can have in today's public discourse.

Well done /r/canada mods, you knocked this one out of the park.

Geos13 1 point Thu Sep 29 00:53:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? I don't think there are any benefits to the consumer. Maybe an initial lower cost of the content being supplied but the service provider is expecting to recuperate those costs long term by gaining a strangle hold over the market that they can then exploit.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? As stated above it allows the service provider the ability to decide the winner among content providers and so ultimately control the content. Which leads to lower quality selection of content for the consumer as well as siphoning money from the content providers for access to the consumers.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? The benefits are non-existent and the service providers are motivated by profit which in this case does not align with the consumers interests. We need an advocate to protect our interests and that is the role I believe our government is meant to fulfill.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Service providers should not be able to influence the content provided in any way. Their role should be limited to the actual infrastructure and support needed to provide service.

Akesgeroth 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:05:52 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The supposed benefits are that people would get better access to certain internet services by not being overcharged for them. This however is a fallacy: All it would do is give the telecom corporations the power to decide which streaming services are successful or not, as an example. It would give rise to a culture of bribery, cronyism and corruption. It would destroy competition.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely. Computers don't care about what kind of data you're sending or receiving. They care about how it is being transferred, and how much of it. Charging customers depending on what kind of data they download would not only be extremely intrusive, but unjustifiable. It would be like pricing gas depending on what brand of car you use rather than on how much you buy.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

These concerns indeed far outweigh the inexistent benefits. The "benefits" aren't: They're a lure to fool people into thinking it's in their interest to allow large corporations to prevent competition, to control the market and to decide who's successful or not. They're a smoke cloud meant to hide the fact that data caps themselves are hardly defendable in the first place.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

First of all, let's take my "pricing gas depending on what brand of car you use" analogy from earlier. What stops oil corporations from doing that? Well, we have laws regarding this, laws meant to defend our free market. It is reasonable to assume similar laws are supposed to be applied to telecom.

Second of all, the regulation of the telecom sector should be done by breaking the cartel they've established. There is obviously price fixing going on, there's collusion to prevent new players from entering the market, and now they're attempting even more brazen tactics with this "differential pricing" absurdity, and all of that is because no one is enforcing our anti-trust laws on them. The fact that we're discussing strengthening their cartel is beyond absurd, it is grotesque.

Finally, break data caps. Data caps on cellphones are barely defendable. Data caps on a land line are a thing which doesn't exist on most of the planet and for a good reason. These things happen precisely because there's no competition, so they can just cheat consumers out of their money now that internet access has become nigh essential. 20 years ago, data caps weren't a thing because the internet was nowhere near as important as it is right now, so if they had tried to push this absurdity on people, said people would simply have stopped using the internet. Not using the internet isn't much of an option nowadays, so they can push these ridiculous things on people. If there was actual competition in the telecom market, players who don't force a data cap on people would appear and those who do force data caps would quickly lose all their customers to them. I used the gas and car analogy earlier, but this is where it breaks down. You charge people for gas because it is a limited resource which must be extracted and refined from oil. Data transfer over the internet however is a zero cost operation. All that matters is developing and maintaining the infrastructure. Once that is done, the amount of data being transferred is irrelevant. At most, you have to expand the network to handle the increased load. But considering that the "big three" have been hostile to allowing other telecoms to expand into Canada, such as Google Fiber, it's obvious that network expansion isn't a concern of theirs and thus not a justification for data caps.

In summary

Differential pricing is a freak proposition which would not even be considered in a competitive market, only enabled by the current telecom cartel. Allowing it will make this country much worse.

ZVM_achi 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:09:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

If you stay within the walled garden of your Internet Service Provider's (ISP) selected services, their tiny data caps are only unreasonable instead of outrageous.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The benefit of differential pricing are entirely for the ISPs, not the consumer. They get an extra revenue stream by charging web services to reach their customers more effectively. With differential pricing, and ISPs pick the wining web services (typically their own) while preventing competitors from ever effectively reaching the public.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns outweigh the benefits enormously. Canada's home and mobile ISPs are already very profitable due to the lack of competition. Giving them a path to drive out competition in the new market of web services, is completely anti-consumer. Canadians already have some of the worst data caps in the developed world, and differential pricing provides incentives not to change. If we want Canada to excel as a place to do business, we have to ensure a level playing field by regulating differential pricing.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Simply: ensure all data has the same price rating. It should not matter if the data is email or video, whether through one music service or another. All data must have the same bandwidth, price and priority.

LanikM 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:12:07 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

My question is how did you sit by on your hands while Rogers and bell were offering 25 down with a 70 gig cap for 60 bucks and third party companies like teksavvy (USING ROGERS INFRASTRUCTURE) were offering the same speed with a 300 Gb cap for half the price?

How many millions did our government give them of tax payer dollars to build more infrastructure only to have them rent it out to third party companies and continue to price gouge their own customers?

Then they turn around and say the third party companies can't work on their infrastructure so it needs to be one of their techs but you're third party so you're not as important.

Oh a Rogers/bell supervisor came along and noticed a line connected to this house but not registered with us. UNPLUGGED. Oops. The tech that installed it forgot to put a third party tag on your line. Yeah the soonest we can get a tech out here is 2 weeks. **** me for going for the reasonably priced internet who's renting from the scumbags price gouging whose lines I helped pay for.

But seriously. When cable first came out, there was no cap. Why did you let caps become a thing?

Gingercus502 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:18:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Amazing that you folks are doing this. Your internet should be untouched by anyone but yourself and the content provider - let me handle what packets are priority on my internal network, and you (ISP's) handle the infrastructure working properly and evenly.

RainbowNowOpen British Columbia 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:23:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I feel very strongly that metering bits (like metering analog phone lines or metering water or natural gas consumption or metering any resource) should be agnostic with respect to what those bits represent.

Canada needs ISPs to be neutral pipes and nothing more. It nobody's business to know what those bits represent. To discount or surcharge or any way incentivize what those bits are used for would be as unprincipled as selling reams of blank printer paper but charging different rates depending on whether you were going to print photographs or text or B&W or colour or business or personal documents. There is no rational principle at work there.

I would like to see the CRTC check ISP claims of speed and reliability and coverage for accuracy. That is all.

MrChombo Ontario 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:24:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Allowing ISPs to zero-rate specific services is the very antithesis of Net Neutrality. All data should be counted the same, or ideally, not counted at all and data caps abolished.

Vertically integrated content producers and distributors are scary and are the only ones in favour of zero rating.

hawkwings 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:24:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Content providers should not be allowed to pay for better access to customers.

Suppose that Netflix pays Comcast for better access to customers. Netflix is a giant corporation and they can afford to do that. They can pass the costs onto their customers, so customers will end up paying for that access. The problem is with small companies. They can't afford to pay for this access which causes problems for them. Customers may abandon them, because their websites appear to be slow. Websites that don't charge people cannot pass costs onto consumers.

Would small companies be charged the same as large corporations? Secrecy should be outlawed to insure pricing fairness. Even if the prices are the same, a denial of service attack could run up their charges.

wayoverpaid 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:25:37 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Hi there. I'm a Canadian citizen, though I currently live in Silicon Valley and work in the high tech industry. Thanks for taking the time to solicit our input!

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The obvious benefit is that differential pricing can be used to fight piracy. It is trivially easy to download media, especially movies, without paying the content creators. Doing so is often more convenient and more reliable than dealing with the myriad of paid providers. Differential pricing can ensure that companies which are streaming data in such a way as to benefit content creators (such as Netflix) will become cheaper than illegal downloading, and push people towards this kind of model.

Differential pricing could also be used to encourage co-location of especially data-intensive uses. For example https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ allows Netflix to install a local cache which reduces the load on the ISP.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I have many, many concerns.

Differential pricing by it's nature will only be applied to partners who are large and have enough money to enter such an arrangement. This produces a market barrier to entry. Like all markets, the internet thrives when barriers to entry are low. The cost of delivering data should scale linearly with the actual amount of data sent.

Differential pricing moves the cost of services away from the people who actually consume the data. A person who needs to only check their email and uses very little data will see the "sponsorship" cost reflected in their base package, and a person who watches hundreds of hours a month of video will be subsidized. When cost and usage are related, there are stronger incentives to make services which use less data.

Differential pricing gives great power to the telcos to bargain for things besides money. While the current proposal might have Netflix pay Bell to have its data appear as "free" more than money can exchange hands. One could easily imagine a situation where Bell instead demands for data on consumer TV habits for marketing purposes, or email metadata, which has troubling privacy implications. There is no reason to believe that the telcos or the partners would disclose this data.

Differential pricing also allows for a telco to slow down competitors. In the United States, T-mobile has a wireless plan with "unlimited" data, but only the first few gigabytes are at 4G speeds. Partner data does not count towards the limit. This means that non-partners quickly appear "slow". Given that many telcos in Canada have ownership over TV services, the incentive to make those services perform poorly is high, which is the very definition of unfair competition.

Differential pricing by its nature will not be applied to private and encrypted data. Even if we trust the Canadian government, data is commonly stored on servers all over the world and many foreign governments feel the need to snoop on the data of Canadian citizens. Canada should not introduce economic incentives away from encrypted data!

Finally, differential pricing simply makes it hard for consumers to be informed. It makes it extremely difficult for a consumer to fairly evaluate one ISP versus another. Reliability, speed, and bandwidth should be the metrics by which a consumer evaluates their ISP, not if the ISP has special deals with YouTube or Netflix or Google Play Music or Amazon or Hulu or iTunes or Skype, etc. When consumers can make informed choices about competition is stronger, prices are lower, and innovation is faster.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Wireline and wireless service is no longer a luxury. It is an essential utility in the modern economy, and required to engage in the modern workforce. The wireline ISPs use public land to run their lines and have a natural monopoly with enormous barriers to entry and should not expect to be treated any differently than a utility. The requirement to keep communication fair and accessible greatly outweighs any reservations I have towards government regulation, provided said regulation is done transparently and even-handedly.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The rule should be broad and clear. Any metering an ISP does regarding data usage must not account for the source of that data, except for diagnostic or system-level communication between the ISP and the customer. An ISP who offers a service which violates this rule should be fined per day until they cease the practice.

This law need not affect data caps. Data caps are not inherently evil. It is the combination of data caps with zero-rating that allows an ISP to truly be evil. Bits sent over the ISP should be treated like letters sent by domestic post: priced by weight or volume, but not priced by content or type of destination.

the_dokkter 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:32:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The internet is and has always been a "free and open market" in the way that we understand the internet. Going to places like etsy or redbubble or shirtpunch to find new and interesting things are part of what makes the internet, and capitalism, great. With this incentive, a big company (E.G. Amazon) kills those smaller, independent businesses. Buying a albuim from CDBaby or bandcamp could be destroyed by places like itunes.

DoxBox 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:34:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There is no conceivable benefit to consumers, only to corporate entities making deals for access to the consumers.

There is a lot of conceivable drawback to consumers - having your choices in media consumption dictated by what companies your ISP has deals with, for one.

There's only one solution that is okay with me: Actual net neutrality, and a government arse-whooping to the current crop of ISPs, who gouge their customers to the extreme. There is absolutely no technical reason for there to be a bandwidth cap on end users; once the hardware is in place to give them access, whether they use it once a month or every moment of every day, there's no additional cost to the provider.

YAY_ITS_THE_PARTY 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:35:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. There is no long term benefit for consumers. Having data caps is only for Rogers/Bell/Telus/Shaw to recoup the money from us for leaving the cable side of those businesses and going to Netflix.

I'm with Sasktel and how is it fair to me if I have to pay to stream the hockey game because my provider wasn't rich enough to buy the rights?

Also the internet is essential in daily life for most Canadians. It's how we bank, get a taxi to get to work, get groceries, watch TV, buy and sell goods. This is inhibited by data caps.

  1. Without having unlimited internet both wired and wireless at a reasonable price is just going to hurt Canadians. Even asking about input on policies on Reddit shows this. Many Canadians can't see this and answer these questions because they can't freely use the internet because they may go over their data limit. Worrying about data usage is a stress that we don't need.

  2. Of course the concerns out weigh the benefits because there are no benefits. Of course the CRTC should regulate the practice. It has been known for years that Canadian internet is one of the slowest and most expensive in the world. When third world countries can have fast, reliable, and cheap internet while Rogers provides Regina with dead zones, it's a shame.

  3. As others have said on here the amount of data we use should be unlimited and having pricing based on speed. And with those speeds have a realistic minimum speed set. And having a minimum network uptime.

binaryblade British Columbia 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:35:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

One of the biggest issues with differential pricing is that the companies that provide connectivity to the greater internet tend to also provide some other service that they don't want to compete with. It is in the telecom industry's best interest to minimize this competition and it most certainly is not in the interest of the consumers. One of the biggest reasons for this is private ownership of the last mile. There is a massive barrier to entry into a market where you need to connect a physical cable to someones house or deploy cell towers everywhere. Nobody is going to laydown new coaxial cable if there is some already in the ground. This is made ever worse because in many provinces that cable installation was paid for by tax payers either via a grant or because the telecom company at the time was state owned. What we need is for that cable to be universally accessible to competitors either in access to the cable that is physically in the ground (have it own exclusively by municipalities) or universal access to the bits on it. Moreover, data transfer caps serve no purpose other than as an anti-competitive measure. Bandwidth limits sure, those are just a fact of life for communication links but transfer caps? Those are simply a way to force people back to conventional cable.

Spaser Alberta 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:41:55 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am strongly in favor of net neutrality. The alternative lets ISPs dictate what content users are able to access, and will very obviously lead to large corporations paying for the privilege of being favored by ISPs. This is highly undesirable, as it stifles competition, and reduces user's freedom of choice.

rainfal 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:44:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Canada seems to lag behind other countries when it comes to online businesses/apps. Our plans are far higher too.

Beareh 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:46:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Thank you for being here.

genericgreg 1 point Thu Sep 29 01:56:46 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm a web developer that builds lots of sites for smaller companies. If differential pricing was bought in, my clients are the one's who would suffer the most and would be the one's that ISP's would charge users the most to access. I would expect demand for the services my company provides to drop drastically.

Differential pricing favours the largest companies and stifles competition. It will cause a lot of damage to Canada's tech companies.

adamantium533 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:00:19 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Hello. I have a question for the CRTC. In regards to the third question, what benefits are you referring too? I can see no benefit for the consumer from this practice. The very consumer that you have been instated to protect. Thank you for any responses.

A Canadian

-crtc- Canada [S] 0 points Thu Sep 29 02:30:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm here to field questions, if you need it, about the process but nothing else. We will not express views or provide comments on the matters being considered by the CRTC – so expect responses to be structured that way.

montrr 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:02:20 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What upsets me is that I got sick of Shaw price gouging me. Telus and I don't see eye to eye so I looked I to tecksavvy and made the switch! I'm on a 30 down and 10 up. I'm lucky if I get 10% of that on an evening download. Shaw seems to throttle the guys using their infrastructure. In 13 years I never had less then advertised speed with Shaw.

daltonusprime 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:03:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1.) The benefits go to the corporations charging for unlimited usage of data with little benefit to the consumer. 2.) Yes, I have lots of concerns. 3.) The CRTC should step in and regulate this practice. The principle of Net Neutrality should be followed. 4.) I believe the CRTC should ban differential pricing entirely.

carpenbert Ontario 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:03:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Suppliers: Many; They will be able to push content on the consumer while charging premiums for data of content that consumers want but may be in competition with suppliers. They will make more money while putting a strangle hold on competition. Consumer: None; the consumer will end up paying more (if they can afford it) for less or be forced into specific content.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Many; access to content will be limited to what your provider wants you to have or based on how much you can afford. It discriminates against the consumer by setting up a tiered system of supplier controlled content limiting access to the consumer. It violates the consumers right to internet by creating a pricing scheme that limits who can have open access. More money = More access. It will further inflate already enormous cell phone bills. It will hurt Canada as a country by limiting the sharing of information between Canadian Citizens hurting collective learning and advancement.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

Concerns heavily outweigh the benefits. The CRTC should regulate the service providers into providing open, equal access to the internet and data.

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Is this a joke? No, absolutely not, their primary concern is how much more money they can make. They have no concerns for the consumer as the consumer has no other options. Suppliers already have a tight control over the market, letting them decide will give them complete control over content and market. Letting them decide will ruin Canada.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Protect consumers, make Canada competitive Ensure equal, open access with NO differential pricing Set minimum data speeds Set maximum prices Set minimum data packages 10gb/wirless 50$Max 500gb/wired Enforce rulings on throttling No overage costs, throttling is reasonable Be progressive and forward thinking, data transfer will only increase with technology. Canada needs to plan for a future constructed on the transfer of data.

Edit: Formatting

Jchimericist 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:05:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing and the practical monopoly in Canadian Telecom is censorship. The benefits of differential pricing are almost ALL on the side of business. They get to charge big bucks to companies with deep pockets, while small sites, indies, and anyone they don't like get throttled.

The future is free and open internet for all. The net has to remain neutral. Allowing telecom to meter traffic means they are monitoring citizens. Why wouldn't they throttle traffic from organizations they disagree with? How long until they start turning the screws on sites with high traffic? How much does differential pricing cost Al Jazeera compared to the National Post?

Compare differential pricing with wireline internet that has no data caps. There are absolutely no benefits differential pricing if there is unlimited data. Please note, most of the world has very affordable and unlimited data on wirelines.

If the CRTC is not going to squash differential pricing, they are effectively allowing Canada to turn its back on progress in favour of corporate money.

techyvrguy 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:15:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

we need better options in Rural Canada. The only option we currently have is either dial up (not an option) or xplornet. I'm basically being held hostage.

igotzquestionz Canada 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:21:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

No I do not believe so, this would just cause the big corporations opportunites to charge more money for no benefit to the consumer.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, I don't think it is a good idea, net neutrality should be maintained.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes the practices should become highly regulated, home and mobile internet in Canada is extremely expensive compared to other countries that offer higher internet speeds without data caps for way less than what we pay.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I believe that the CRTC should create a national home internet provider that gives people access to internet with reasonable speed and unlimited data. In this day and age having an internet connection is a basic necessity for any Canadian. I believe this service should be non profit such that the prices of internet would be reasonable and connections sold to people at cost with no outlandish markups. This would also have another benefit that it would cause competition again in the market. If such a provider is created it is my hope that it would never be sold to any private corporations and would always remain a crown corporation.

Tsrdrum 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:23:55 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Most people opposed to this suggest that there are no benefits to differential pricing. I would suggest that there are two benefits: 1. By allowing content providers to bear some of the costs of infrastructure building, customers might(!) pay lower prices; and 2. Content providers who use the most internet will bear the costs of that Internet use.

However, the reasons to oppose differential pricing are far more fundamental and systemic than these positive effects. For example, I am interested in launching a data-heavy site to compete with Spotify, tidal, etc. Under a differential pricing scheme, my chances of competing with them would be way lower, as the services I can offer with my limited speed are greatly reduced. The result is entrenched industries that are difficult to disrupt, which results in negative consequences for both the consumers and for the providers, except whichever company is dominant. It puts tiers into an otherwise open and tierless system. The productivity explosion and industry redefinition that the Internet ushered in would grind to a halt. And all because the ISPs see another revenue opportunity.

I'm usually not a fan of excessive regulation. But if you're in an industry that is already very involved with government regulation, it's essential to legally protect consumers from profit-focused entities that have legal protections from competition.

TyCooper8 Ontario 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:27:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data caps are simply a cash grab, and need to go.

LiquidInsight 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:28:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I like to compare the current state of mobile data access to allowing corporations to toll every road in this country. Did we live in such a constricted world, I imagine differential pricing at first might seem like a salve. My employer might pay for my route to work, traffic flow could be optimized by charging more for the use of more direct (and readily congested) roads. Being freed from paying some advertising data would be liberating. I wouldn't enjoy a parasite taking control of my car to drive a few extra miles (and charge me for the privilege) before arriving at work. However, I doubt that these benefits would outweigh the eventual and inevitable profit seeking drive of these corporations.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. I believe differential pricing would strangle new Canadian business. Differential pricing could be exploited by existing companies to drive other potential services out of business. Consider the current oil depression driven by the Saudis attempting to drive alternative oil sources out of business. A similar phenomenon might occur when the next Netflix tries to challenge the existing order. I think that internet access is a societal good and provides an essential equalizing force. It enables all citizens to have a voice and, should they so choose, a platform where others' prejudice might be foiled by anonymity. For poor families, including my own, it enables youth access to humanity's shared heritage much in the way libraries have done. The principle of a free and open internet is violated by differential pricing. Differential pricing requires that customers give up their traffic metadata to reap the benefits. One might imagine a future where secured data, free from the prying eyes of your ISP, might be charged at a premium to discourage this service. Data ought to be treated with as little discrimination as water in our plumbing.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

While shaping traffic to ease congestion is often useful for gridlocked cities, governance of a public resource providing a public good ought not to be left in the hands of profit oriented corporations. Simply put, their motivations do not square with those of the citizens. Were internet anything but an essential in today's information driven economy, perhaps a laissez faire approach could be justified. That not being the case however, leads one to think the only reasonable option is regulation.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Data should be treated fairly – there ought not to be private groups acting as arbiters to determine what content we can access. It would be ideal for internet access to behave like a road, where users are not charged on use, but are simply taxed for being part of a society that benefits from that infrastructure. Barring that, data should be priced like a utility. Perhaps an argument could be made for price elasticity at peak hours. Data above or below a cap should not be treated differently. Cryptographically secured data should not be treated differently. Data, be it your 500th gB, or your 0th ought not to trickle in at different rates. Service ought not to be degraded because you use the internet for purposes your provider doesn't like (i.e. torrenting linux distros).

Quazijoe Canada 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:38:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I really like that this was asked.

I may be two days late, but I would like to post my opinions on the matter as a citizen of BC and someone who has been looking into Differential pricing(Net Neutrality concepts for the last few years).

The argument presented by the businesses that offer Telecommunication services, is that through:

  • innovative pricing schemes
  • subsidized marketing strategies
  • targeted delivery of services

...A end user could be delivered content at a variable rate as determined by the carrier. Additional arguments made include:

  • This is a Pro Choice option for the consumer.
  • It creates competition in the market place.
  • It subsidizes growing costs for network infrastructure and management of network resources.

Example:

If Differential pricing were to exist, I a BC resident might have the choice, via Telecommunications "Company A": 
To purchase a internet service where I pay 100/month for as a standard rate; 
Or pay 65/month for the same internet if I accept
  - targeted ads
  - preferable data speeds for sponsored content
  - or allow Company A the Chance to throttle internet speeds for competitors or people that do not pay preferential rates.

I believe there are hazards that must be addressed if this were to ever become legal. Even if legal, I do not think it is within Canada's best interests to pursue such an option which I would like to explain below.

Reason 1:

Internet and data services are growing into a Necessity for today's' world. If someone is without a suitable connection to the online environment, they will suffer in regards to Employment, Education, Social/cultural/world events, and in so many more ways. Currently CRTC has exclusive Jurisdiction over Telecommunications services for Canada. The reason I presume is to maintain this vital service for all Canadians and make sure all citizens have access to quality content, and services as needed. An Essential service that must be protected.

I believe as a natural extension of this, the Internet and its ever growing list of services are starting to replace prior communications channels, and as a result similar or more stringent protections must be put in place to protect the Citizens access to this delivery network.

Example

I will be going home tonight and communicating with friends all over the world through a series of internet based communication services. 
* IRC(Internet Relay Chat) Text
* Discord(Voip/Text) Text/Audio
* Beam/Twitch (Live Video streams/text Chats) 
* Google Hangouts (text Chats)
I will also be consuming media for the purpose of Entertainment, and learning.
* I will be visiting YouTube to learn Japanese for a future trip I will have arranged
* I will also be watching online content for entertainment via YouTube and online service providers. 
Finally for employment purposes, I will be able to continue to communicate with my employer, and my students via email and online Learning management systems that facilitate my communications as their Instructor.

To do all the prior listed options without the internet as I know it today, would be near impossible without significant time and expense.

Consequence:

Should an improper policy be created that would allow differential pricing, I fear for the following specific examples:

  • A End user would be denied access to content not currently covered under their package, similar to how cable channels were allowed to create bundles and deny access to channels without a premium subscription, or a la carte options.
  • A service Provider could charge premiums for access to popular services like video streaming vs IRC services.
  • Monitoring and capping access to services based on contractual targets solely decided upon by the Service provider. (Not allowed to watch anymore Netflix, but would be allowed to continue perusing text based email services)
  • Limitation or restriction to access certain services. Denial of access to Tor servers as it is encrypted, but preferential treatment for services which are easier to access or monitor under the guise of protection or security.
  • Moral delegation of what a good internet user should be doing online, and punishing those who do not align with that criteria. *Limitation or preferential treatment for any user based on not having access to necessary funds to pay for premium access to the internet. If I am starting a restaurant competing with a major corporation, could the major corporation through partnership with the ISP get dedicated unfettered bandwidth that is separate from the route users who visit my services might experience. *Could the delivery network create a preferential path to guide users away from or toward services, rather than the users own choice.
  • So many more.

Reason 2

Services are currently unequally distributed as is. A City user in British Columbia will experience vastly different internet standards than a rural farmer in Saskatchewan. ISP's currently struggle with delivery of services and people already suffer for it based solely on where in the country they live. This is done for various reasons but mainly because there is little incentive to equalize the network in all regions for low population areas. The Low population Areas do not generate enough Revenue to warrant expansion of such a network.

This is a current and targeted approach towards management of the network and is it already costing people access to this resource. I fear that should differential pricing be allowed, this will again impact the areas of Canada with less of a voice.

  • Would I a BC resident be targeted with More ads, and preferential treatment than my Rural Counterpart?
  • Would my Rural counterpart be given premium access to the "good" internet even if they were willing to pay for it?

I am a home owner in one of the more populated areas in Canada. I know for fact that within my area, there are fiber optic services being offered, but I am unable to get access to this network residentialy, solely because as a homeowner, I do not warrant the infrastructure cost for the ISP to expand to me. However if I was part of a condominium or Strata, I would be able to get said service despite it being at the same physical address.

This affects my experience but also economically. I will not be allowed to participate in preferntial billing strategies available to my condominum counterparts. I am quite literally paying more, for worse services, because I am not worth it to be considered.

And I am still priviledged to have decent access and relatively affordable costs. This Differential treatment has left me without access to a new internet experience because of marketing and business decisions I will not have say over. I at least have choice in the multiple ISP's available in my area as a person living in a large city. Some Rural users have 1 provider if any, and as a result will experience monopoly services.

If ISP's cannot currently demonstrate fair and equitable delivery of services when there are no differential services, how can we trust them to maintain equitable treatment when they now have the power to discriminate legally.

Reason 3:

The Internet is not solely Canada's. We do have access to this network, and while some of it is admittedly housed and run through Canada, it is a Global resource. We also will set precedent as a nation on the forefront of social services restricting access to communication to its own Citizens. I believe as a Global citizen it is imperative that Canada set a good example about responsible stewardship over this network.

If we cannot demonstrate responsible behavior, nations with less than stellar records with regard to citizens rights have a very low bar to surpass.

I believe it is our responsibility to Add value to this growing medium in every way possible, and remove barriers where possible. Not for Financial gain, but simply as an investment in humanities ability to express ourselves.

We should not try to segregate our own piece of the internet, removing ourselves from the rest of the world, building a wall, but create an open network, that allows everyone to participate without treaty or visa. Where the only thing separating me from another user is what I have in my mind, and my ability to adequately express that with the technology available.

Conclusion:

I believe that by creating differential treatment via the use of pricing, throttling, segregation of services, or any form of targeted manipulation of end user/content creator access to the network, we are in fact irrevocably damaging the internet and everyone's ability to express themselves.

  • I believe it is in the best interests of this Nation and the world that the CRTC Enhance restrictions of Network manipulation and segregation.
  • I believe it is imperative that new laws be legislated with regards to ensuring all users foreign or domestic have unfettered access to this delivery network.
  • I believe that no one should be denied access based on wealth or lack there of.
  • I believe that having someone decide what I should prefer to experience is a subversion of my right to freedom of thought, and that all access should be granted free of condition or contract.
  • I believe that despite criminal conviction, social status, commercial or public investment, every entity should be able to have the same ability to express themselves to pursue the lives they wish to have.
  • I believe to allow differential pricing is equivalent to allowing someone else to muzzle my friends, family, and myself unless I am willing to pay for my right to freely express myself.

Thank you for allowing me this forum to share my opinions on the matter.

Quazi

mitchb 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:39:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The idea that caps are in place to lessen "load" on the network but allowing unlimited use for certain sites/apps/services shows that there is no "load" or "strain" on the network. Net neutrality and competiton is the way capitalism should work. If there was a national carrier (canada post?) that offered below the "big 3" prices you think the price would stay the same?

heavenjain 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:47:29 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The public's access to the open internet will decrease, but access to sponsored / zero-rated content will increase.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The unintended consequence of differential pricing is inevitably censorship of the internet. The current model assumes all content is equal, but with differential pricing, money will control what content users get to see. The cost of the 'free' data will still be borne by the user paying for the zero-rated/sponsored service. At the same time, non-sponsored content will be charged at a higher rate since it will not be the bulk rate sponsored services will enjoy.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns far outweigh the benefits. When zero rating or sponsored data concepts are applied to news for example, access to the press would be controlled by the cost of reaching readers rather than reader choice. Further, breaking into the markets with online services will require the same level of capital as a small ISP in order to be competitive, a death knell for innovation and startups around the country.

The CRTC should take a strong stand on this issue since wireline/wireless providers are also content providers to many of the services which stand to benefit from differential pricing.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Given the network and economic intricacy and societal risks involved, I believe differential pricing should be explicitly prohibited in all forms. I don't think there is currently a safe way to implement/regulate differential pricing without unintended societal consequences. The practice is de-facto illegal in most democracies including the United States and India for the same reasons.

drive2fast 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:52:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Net neutrality is CRITICAL to the future of an unbiased and free internet. Giving big telecoms the ability to tinker with data is a very slippery slope.

The only way to bring fairness into the cellular market is by opening up competition. This can follow the model similar to wired internet where independent companies could lease network space to compete, or simply ban big companies from snatching up all the licensed frequencies and allow smaller telecoms the freedom to use the airwaves to set up competing systems. Any and every place in north america that currently has more competition has more affordable services. This is proof that a free market and competition works.

Meowjin 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:53:15 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

Please Ban Data Caps.

I am going to give you a specific example. I recently had to leave Wind Mobile because I started with a new company where I would need to be contacted at all hours of the day (there is a period before I can be provided for a companies phone) and I was not having any reception in my home or in many customers home because sadly wind had no choice but to use AWS lines which have difficult penetrating homes. I loved that I would have 5 gigs of data a month for 40 dollars a month, and my phone bill would be the same.

Now I am with Virgin who is just a subsidiary of Bell. I got an inferior plan for double the price albeit with more reliable service. Within 15 days I had already neared the data cap on my plan and I have no option of paying more for more data. Instead they charge extortianest rates, for extra data as overages (which I can't turn off) and If I do turn it off on my phone I lose the ability to send and recieve SMS/MMS which sucks because I need it for work, to communicate with my boss.

All I was doing in the last 15 days was using GPS, browsing reddit and I never used any app such as snapchat, spotify, or youtube.

The fact that I do not have easy access to information such as wikipedia, google to fix problems for my mobile job is sad.

The wireless carriers do not have the best interest for Canadians. They only have the best interest for their companies. Please keep the net neutral.

We need to stop treating the internet as a utility, for every 1 user that may abuse "data overages" there are 100 that may just use their computers for emails. How many times do I go into the homes of parents, grandparents, and people with no tech skills that only use a few gigs a month?

The CRTC needs to start working for Canadians. It is already difficult to live in Canada, with the high USD impacting our purchasing power, the price of groceries constantly going up, its becoming impossible to save up money for my own business one day, home and everytime I have to fork over 100 dollars a month for imaginary data caps, is criminal.

Please CRTC save us.

bdira Québec 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:53:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

If i were to play Devil's advocate i would be saying it creates some sort of competition in the marketplace. But in reality, it does not. For a company to be even remotely competitive, it would have to own its network. Outside of the big 3 Small and medium companies have little to no chance to ever come close to the status those 3 have.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Quite a few, Bell, Telus and Rogers can easily keep track of each other and making the actual price never dips below a certain point. and the small companies? well, considering they borrow one of those 3's network (outside Quebec, they could borrow Videotron's) all those 3 4* companies have to do is increase their renting price to keep the market to their desired profit margin.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

going to answer the last sentence first (justifying us stepping in and regulating the practices?)

definitely step in and heavily regulate it.

Maybe set up an investigation and check their true operation costs(For internet only), then leave them a margin for profit they could then later use to actually upgrade their infrastructure(Making sure they do upgrade it) like they should be doing.

That would make sure them losing money on people un-subscribing to their Cable TV wouldn't drip over and increase the cost of internet services, if they're losing money on one of their branches, it shouldn't bleed over to other users just so they keep a healthy profit.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I'm also going to answer the first part of the third question here. (Do these concerns outweigh the benefits)

If i remember correctly, I think the United Nations recently declared that free access to internet is a human right

Making it as important as your right to electricity.

I get that "competition in the marketplace is a good for a healthy economy" But What drives market competition is greed.

Greed is great for the economy, as long as the people running those greedy companies actually pay their taxes...

But i'm getting off topic. Greed is good, to an extent. Basic human rights are not something to be "greedy" with.

this might sound like something radical. But if its considered a basic human right.

It should be nationalized.

Basic human rights are not something you can just allow a third party that's focused on profits to manage. See Flint, Michigan for example.

Boise1024 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:58:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

I was well and truly shocked when Videotron annonced their "music unlimited" service plan. I was on videotron mobile network before and still use their home broadband. I am a proponent of net neutrality and think that the internet is more of a dumb "pipe" than something that should limit or encourage any kind of traffic or data on it's pipe. Right now we are talking about music, but how soon will it be before a network announces free "voip" calls on its data network, oh but only if you take the all-inclusive 100$/month plan, and then raises price for ordinary telephone minutes ? Or stifles innovation by not counting data from well-established websites, all the while neglecting the small players ? Media convergence is already so well established that I could easily see some content-heavy television going for free on some mobile networks.

Now I don't think this all boils down to net neutrality on mobile networks. We all know there are some technical challenges there, especially considering the number of users and the limited airwaves. I do think that all corporations have a lot to gain from differential pricing, especially since all of the big ones also own a terrestrial "wired" network. By applying data caps on broadband connections, which in my informed opinion are pure marketing ******** and a way to get more money for nothing and limiting canada's place in the new world economy (don't tell me of congestion, canada is so well-wired any congestion is purely artificial), the telcos and cable companies are in effect promoting their mobile high-bandwidth service. If the CRTC let them circumvent the current net-neutrality rules on broadband by allowing these rules to be broken on mobile networks, which apart from limited capacity (at this time) are well and truly able to deliver very high speed data, I can easily see a world where you would need a (let's say) Bell mobile connection to watch (unlimited) netflix, because it's cheaper than paying for a higher bandwidth cap on your wired connection.

I don't think customers have anything to gain from differential pricing on mobile, nor data caps on wired internet. These, in my own opinion, go hand-in-hand to force us to choose what we should consume. In fact, the data caps seem so artificial to me because I negociate every year with videotron to get unlimited data, and can always do so without extra cost. Why can't the average customer that doesn't want to negociate get this deal ? Because money.

1zzie 1 point Thu Sep 29 02:58:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

My question to the CRTC is wh differential pricing is allowed if anti-trust rules exist in Canada. Fair and competitive market practices would require providers to be neutral about what services customers choose, and zero-rating tips the scales. What is each provider's basis for favoring one app over another? If this practice is going to continue, they must be forced to disclose why they are vested in favoring certain apps AND justifying why competing apps don't make the cut.

DabbingTRex Outside Canada 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:04:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is 2016 we do not need data caps! Please get rid of them, this is one of the many reasons we are far from the top on Internet rating. Also if possible I would like enforcement on data speeds advertised. If I am lucky I get 1/4 of My advertised Internet speed. This is ridiculous that companies can sell a service and only provide 1/4 of it. As others have said I am for net neutrality. Fast lanes or anything similar will only help out large companies and make the Internet landscape less competitive. Any action against net neutrality will harm the consumer in the long run. Keep the Internet free and competitive. One of the great things about the Internet is any great idea can make it.

rockodss Québec 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:04:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Data Limit is only pushing back the future. Please stop the greed.

merton1111 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:10:44 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It is time to treat ISP as data distributor the same way we treat electricity. The more you consume, the more you pay.

We have the most expensive and crappiest internet in the world. It is time to open your eyes and do something about it.

Ahkuilon 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:19:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits are largely dependent on whoever uses the services that are zero-rated. But that 'benefit' is largely a fabrication created through arbitrary data caps.

  1. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely. All traffic should be treated equally, and this is the complete opposite of net-neutrality. It's completely anti-competitive to allow some company's traffic preference over another.

The ISP's data caps are a fabricated "problem". There's no cap to data that can be moved over a 30 day period, except by the logical limit imposed by maximum bitrate. This "solution" is basically admittance by ISPs that total data volume passing through networks is not really an issue for them to begin with.

  1. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns completely outweigh the "benefits". Providers should not be left to regulate themselves on net-neutrality, as their decisions will be based on their corporate directive to make money, not what is best for the consumer and the internet as a whole.

The CRTC should step in.

  1. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Net neutrality should be preserved; all traffic treated equally. These imaginary limits on data should be removed. And ISPs should plan their networks according to the bitrates they intend to provide (what they already do anyway) if they're concerned about congestion.

That said, I understand that data caps will never be removed from wireless plans. With every smart phone having a tethering feature these days, unlimited wireless access effectively makes home internet redundant.

reddit-eats-**** 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:27:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

  • It's really only beneficial in the current market because of the highly restrictive data caps imposed on internet data plans, whether for home or mobile internet.

  • My concerns about differential pricing are preferential treatment for some services. Internet should be free use, and data used for entertainment or media should have no more or less impact than data used for business or communications. A gigabyte is a gigabyte and all the carriers need to do is bring it from one place to another without any preferential treatment. Home plans can also be restrictive depending on where you live, and prices are high across the board for speeds that are unimpressive when compared at a global level. At a time when we should be pushing for gigabit speeds some people are lagging behind paying exorbitant prices for 5 megabit connections. Mobile prices are also just price gouging, plain and simple, with limits that are deplorable when compared to more forward-thinking nations. Differential pricing is trying to put a band-aid on a gangrenous limb - it's not fixing anything and just needs to be cut entirely. Data caps are the problem, and differential pricing is the solution no consumer asked for.

  • You absolutely need to step in; under no circumstances should these decisions be left to carriers, regardless of their arguments. Internet is essentially a required utility, and once again, I'll repeat - differential pricing is a "solution" preferable to service providers and large companies by opening the door for paid preferential treatment. Differential pricing should not be a consideration at all.

  • It's not a matter if whether you should or not, it's a matter of how quickly can you begin to regulate? Competition breeds innovation, and there are stories in the United States of competition arriving in some cities which suddenly makes the local monopoly find some incredible speeds as if by magic (I'll type it out: it's Google Fiber competing with the local monopolies of Time Warner, Comcast, etc.) The mobile market is even worse than the already cancerous home market due to laughable caps and ludicrous prices. Allowing Rogers, Bell, and Telus to dominate the scene works completely against the Canadian consumer. Whether new companies are started by foreign investment or homegrown providers arise, you guys cannot continue catering to the likes of the companies - it's not up to them to dictate the terms to the consumers who fuel their near-monopolized existence. Differential pricing needs to be thrown out completely and the marketplace for internet services needs to be overhauled completely with fresh competition, modern services, and reasonable static monthly prices.

Mister_Kurtz 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:35:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

We pay for our internet access. The provider of this access should have any influence on how we use that access.

dbre 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:36:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? There are only superficial benefits. What may seem to be a benefit superficially will be used by the oligopolist market forces confuse consumers and further limit competition.

  2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Absolutely I do. The internet is a utility and should be a right in a developed country such as Canada. To intertwine it with entertainment options and/or other special interests will only increase the lack of competition and transparency in this industry. Would we allow an electric utility to lower your rates if you install Whirlpool appliances and increase that rates for all other power usage? This would hamper innovation in the appliance industry just as packaging data exceptions for a particular streaming service or website would hamper new online entertainment startups. In Canada, we are particularly sensitive to this as our local content creators are already competing with large American influence.

  3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? You must step in. The service providers WILL NOT look out for our best interests. They would use this to further close their grip on our access to information. The CRTC MUST focus on increasing data accessibility that is free of discrimination and which is not polluted by outside interests.

  4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Data and its transmission should be a completely regulated service. The CRTC's mandate should be to lower costs and increase access and keep the service as a simple pipeline just like residential natural gas or power. The telco's can develop their entertainment offerings if they wish but don't let them use their oligopoly to force it on us and strangle our data in the process. Please, please stand up for, and be a strong, forceful voice for Canadians who don't have the ability to lobby for themselves.

Thanks for opening up this forum for dialogue and communication.

EIGHTangrynuns 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:40:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Differential pricing is tricky, to the consumer, initially it sounds like a great idea! It couldn't be further from the truth though, I don't think differential pricing benefits anyone other than the ISP in question. It stifles competition and routes traffic through their own media outlets. This goes against the most basic principals of net neutrality! We wouldn't even be having this discussion if we didn't have ridiculous (and completely exploitative) data caps.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I'm concerned that, by allowing ISP's to exempt certain services from caps, we will be opening the doors to even more price gouging. Service Providers will be able to hold companies hostage, charging them fees to be exempt from data caps, and companies will be forced to pay since their customers can't afford to use their services with these limited data caps.

This is a step backwards in technological advancement. We need to just remove data caps once and for all, and join the rest of the world.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

We, the citizens of Canada, need you to step in and regulate these business practices because internet access is no longer a luxury, and is required in every day life. You need internet to find and apply for a job, to gain access to employee services, to do online banking and pay bills, to access learning resources, and to do ANY job in the technology industry.

We can't vote with our wallet, since they have a monopoly on the market, and are working together to keep out competition, therefore we need you to step in.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban the practice, ban data caps, and regulate the pricing.

Bring Canada up to speed with the rest of the world.

pepperedmaplebacon 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:44:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The posts seem to be overwhelmingly against zero rating and differential pricing and while others have made much more adept arguments against why they are bad for the average Canadian consumer (and I agree with what is said about costs to Canadians and the regulatory capture by the telecom industry) I would like to add that this is actually bad for the economy as a whole.

Globalization is increasing at an alarming rate and without an affordable and usable internet service we as small business, innovators, and independent content creators will not be able to compete on the world economic platforms as more jobs are moved to other countries due to globalization. If we have continuous barriers to entry (such as high prices, low upload speeds, data caps, and the ability of companies to have search engines discriminate against Canadian business {referring to zero rating here}) this will affect Canadian competitiveness in a negative way, people will not be able to adapt to the increasingly shifting industries due to those barriers and this will lead to more unemployment or "brain drain" as they move to other countries where these opportunities are more achievable due to lower barriers of entry.

How the CRTC handles this issue will have an impact on all Canadians and I think it's current structure should be an election issue as important as jobs and education as the internet is increasingly influencing both as well as economic opportunities (The internet it just that important now and should be treated as such)

undearius Ontario 1 point Thu Sep 29 03:56:03 2016 UTC  (0 children)

http://jointhefastlane.com/

This site is basically a differential pricing simulator. This is the main concern with allowing our service providers with zero-rating certain services.

DMann420 Alberta 1 point Thu Sep 29 04:02:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Actual Canadian here.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The obvious benefits of differential pricing are really putting more affordable data plans in the hands of the consumer. As per your own study regarding cellphone rates, Canadians face some of the most expensive cellphone rates on the planet, and having some "sponsored data" that does not count towards our data caps allows us to opt for a more reasonably priced plan with a smaller data cap.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, the most obvious part of the reason that we have some of the most expensive cellphone rates on the planet is that the CRTC and other regulatory firms have stood idle as a triopoly forms over the telecoms market in Canada. There is little competition, little recourse for shady tactics, and nothing that we as consumers can do about it.

Allowing differential pricing puts "The Big 3" in a position to "justifiably" charge more for data plans. By getting into a partnership with YouTube, the cellular provider takes all of the data hit on the chin, and will undoubtedly turn around and start charging more for data with the justification that the "free" data still congests their streams so they have to compensate for that by charging extra.

In addition to the potential for inflated rates, there is also the potential for data throttling, where the provider streamlines the data provided by a partner (ex. YouTube) and puts any "premium" data on a few limited lines, bringing it to a bottleneck. Deals made with outside parties will most likely include some sort of requirement on returns for the outsiders, meaning that if YouTube doesn't hit a certain level of ad revenue from those free streams, then they're losing money and won't take the deal. Our shady cellular providers won't let this happen.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, the concerns absolutely outweigh the benefits. We are a long way from true net neutrality in Canada, and it is far more important for the CRTC to regulate and limit these monopolies on the industry, so that services can better be provided to the consumer at a reasonable cost. Perhaps once there is real and true regulation shown by the CRTC that levels the playing field and allows for real competition, the idea of differential pricing can be revisited. Until then, there is no logical reason for Canada's telecoms industries to be given even more powerover the consumer than they already have.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

If, for some reason you've already taken that paycheck under the table and we're all screwed, then you MUST take any step necessary to prevent data throttling and "premium" (non-sponsored) data cost inflation while developing very strict privacy regulations as to prevent data mining, PII collection, or social engineering. After all, free only means that the consumer is the product.

CaptainBlazeHeartnes 1 point Thu Sep 29 04:03:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

While it could be argued they save the consumer money and in some cases would it actually benefits specific companies. So say a new streaming services starts up in Pickering. They've got no hope of paying one of the big 3 for zero-rating so some people will pass them up for other options thus harming competition. And without competition prices skyrocket (see: Canadian cell phone market).

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. My fear is that the big 3 will use it as an excuse to keep touting artificial data-scarcity and to keep such low data caps. With the entire world moving to an online presence it's a social and economically limiting factor to our country. We need an edge in the international stage, not more money in the hands of a few corporations.

With the impending sale of MTS to Bell sometime next year we're likely to see a nation-wide price-hike on cell services, and a further reduction of data caps could also follow. No corporation takes on a $5 billion expense without expecting to make at least that much back. MTS is also the only reason Manitoba sees fair prices.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns do very much outweigh the benefits. To say nothing of what it would do to net neutrality, zero rating hurts competition, consumers, innovation, and the economy.

Left to their own devices the big 3 would probably charge us $5 a megabyte if they'd get away with it. They'd triple it for cellular as well. With fiber and LTE networks there's no excuse for data caps and we the people absolutely need someone to stand up for us and stop this crazy idea that having limited access to the internet, and special treatment for corporations who can pay off ISPs is okay.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Data caps need to be removed. Without data caps there's no need for zero-rating.

Hemmer83 1 point Thu Sep 29 04:06:21 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

The Canadian telecom industry is anti competitive enough (thanks in part to the crtc), allowing zero ratings would strengthen the big threes control over media. And while you're at it, get rid of data caps. The fact that zero ratings are possible is an admission data caps are unreasonable.

pterodactyl_hunter 1 point Thu Sep 29 04:13:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I say no to differential pricing.

In regards to the price gouging Canadians have put up with for so long, it's time to stop .

Fiduciary_One 1 point Thu Sep 29 04:19:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think the benefits are the potential for lower pricing on some things, but I have no faith that this would actually materialize. The Telcos have proven that they are purely profit driven, and so they'll use the opportunity to turn the knife and wring all the profit that they can from the arrangement at the cost of the greater good of the citizens of Canada.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, many. I think that it will result in a degradation of service and completely threatens the concepts of Net Neutrality, which are fundamental to an open and successful internet. I don't see any benefits to the average citizen.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, the concerns far outweigh the benefits. Yes, they are significant enough to justify the CRTC stepping in. The CRTC should act for the benefit of all citizens, not the profits of its largest corporations.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Block all differential pricing, force telcos to share the infrastructure which has resulted out of public subsidies, and punish the oligarchal pricing which has existed in this country for too long.

runOP 1 point Thu Sep 29 04:19:45 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

The Reality Part 1:

The CRTC has allowed and given the green light to the incumbents to put it frankly “rape” the Canadian public in all cost associated with affordable internet, data, and cell phone plans. The cost of data keeps going down, yet the prices in Canada, keep going up. We have TPIA providers joining the game to try to give the public affordable internet with more competition, yet the CRTC allows the incumbents to charge unfair and costly tariffs that TPIA providers cannot compete. TPIA indies do not have the capabilities to offer bundle pricing or retention prices like Bell/Rogers/Shaw/Cogeco because of the nature of the business and the regulatory framework that has been put in place in Canada.

The Incumbents (Bell, Rogers, etc) have been offering prices for 64$ for basic speeds with extreme low caps, in hopes individuals go over.

The CRTC tried to represent the Canadian public, by reducing contracts, but again this gave the green light to the Big 3 to charge x5 for cell phone plans. Not only that. 100MB of data overage now cost you $5.00, yet these same companies can offer tablet plans 3gb for 15$ (currently on fido as of sept 29/2016). YET our regulatory body the CRTC can't see this? They allow these companies to screw around with the Canadian population, and have allowed for all this to happen. When I was working for customer support for one of these companies, majority of the calls I received were about data overage. For every 10 calls, I would have 7 calls, asking if I could help them out with the overage charges. Data overage has been a major win for the Incumbents on the cell phone level. When one Incumbent changes prices, guess what happens in the next 5 minutes? The rest of the incumbents change prices matching offering for offering.

COMPETITTION in Canada doesn't exist. PERIOD.

Reality Part 2: The CRTC, and any other bodies that represent the consumer, don't actually represent the best interest of the customer/consumer. If these were the case we would not be here. You would wouldn't be here asking for opinions. I have followed CRTC proceedings from the UBB days, and it seems anyone with a suit working for the Incumbents smiles, and the CRTC smiles back. You might as well pass the KY jelly to the Canadian public, because with all respect, the CRTC has allowed the incumbents to charge Canadians premium prices for services which should cost less.

This Crap Needs to change, and It starts with the CRTC. Start doing what you are supposed to be doing, and protect the interest of the CONSUMER.

TehBenju Lest We Forget 1 point Thu Sep 29 04:44:06 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Questions: We need your opinion about differential pricing:

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no benefits on the consumer side. This will not trend towards overall lower prices or overall better service, as the providers would be incentivized to INCREASE overall prices to PUSH you to use their media service for the reduced pricing. Potentially this creates some more tax revenue?

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The biggest concern is it becomes a situation of monopolization. Any company that isn't ALSO an internet provider is now at a disadvantage when trying to grab market share. CraveTV or Shomi for instance would be the only viable streaming options if differential pricing was allowed and those prices became punishing. and you would choose based on who your provider was. Netflix, youtube, amazone prime and many other perfectly legal streaming options would be at an instant disadvantage. By default this creates an uneven playing field.

You also take the first step in telling providers they are allowed to watch user traffic and regulate/control it. It allows them to monitor into the private affairs of the populace, and also opens the door on them allowing content from one website to travel artificially faster than others. This eventually creates a further uncompetitive atmosphere. It's like allowing the companies that own the malls inspect our cars and at the same time they control the roads, opening up private toll roads to the people who shop at their malls only, while leaving anyone who went shopping at small businesses stuck in traffic.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns gravely outweigh the benefits.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

As a utility. As someone who has worked with most of the major telecoms (cogeco/rogers) and a smaller (mountain cable) the only limitation on bandwidth on wireline providers is their own shortsightedness with infrastructure. Bandwidth limitations are supposedly there to prevent congestion when too many people are going at once. But the only times this is an issue is when a company is not doing enough to maintain its infrastructure. Mountain Cable (before its acquisition by shaw) was at 80% or less congestion during peak usage in every area except 1 node beside the local tech college. It was fixed 6 months later with a node split and that was the last case of congestion it had before acquisition. If a small provider with only 50,000 customers is capable of providing 100mb/s to a large geographical area while providing exceptional service, there is no reason it can not be scaled up. Allowing providers to use congestion as an excuse to gouge consumers while also snooping on our usage is a dangerous first step in a direction of allowing the providers to control and regulate far out of their purview.

Regulating the internet as a utility puts us in the direction of acknowledging that the internet will be a core component of the future of our culture, and the global community. Private institutions are more than welcome to profit off of providing access to it in exchange for maintaining the pathways to access, but should not be the ones who have control over how we use that access.

TehBenju Lest We Forget 1 point Thu Sep 29 04:49:20 2016 UTC  (0 children)

as an addendum, I would like to express my profound pleasure in seeing the CRTC take to alternative sources of feedback like reddit. Whoever thought of it deserves a pat on the back, and every single manager/supervisor/leader who took that idea and ran with it. Your whole team is taking a step in the right direction :)

jakethebrony British Columbia 1 point Thu Sep 29 05:06:31 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

They entrench existing monopolies. They stifle innovation. The run contrary to concept of an open Internet.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

Yes and yes.

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Never. Corporations will always have their best interest in mind.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Everything that goes through the pipe (connection) should be charged equally.

Further, if you can watch TV shows 24/7 via a cable subscription, then you should be able to download 24/7 via that same subscription at at least the same data rate. If you can talk for unlimited minutes on a cell plan, then you should be able to download at at least the same data rate for unlimited time.

CurrentEventsAway 1 point Thu Sep 29 05:06:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Similar to many other posters in this thread, I am opposed to differential pricing on the basis that it discourages innovation of smaller platforms that could replace the current large ones. People will be very reluctant to switch from a poor quality platform to a better one if they know it will cost them real cash for it. Furthermore, given the "There is no such thing as a free lunch" principle (anything free actually has a hidden cost to it), I don't really expect to save that much. I feel like they'll probably bump up prices overall or something to that effect if allowed to do this in order to cover costs.

WesternRaven 1 point Thu Sep 29 05:11:37 2016 UTC  (0 children)

First of let me complement the CRTC for taking such an innovative step in obtaining public opinion. My concerns with the internet services in Canada are slow speed especially in less populated areas. Despite the claims of the internet providers speeds are considerable slower and unreliable. Due my work environment I have two wireless data plans and yes there is already caps on them!Exceed the plan and ones costs can double very easily. As a business user I find it very disconcerting the costs associated with it! In the manufacturing environment, gone are the days where the office is located by the front door. For today one needs to be able to remote control the machinery and computers. The problem is due to the large amount of bandwidth used when one has a active connection my wire less plan can go over the limit in a matter of hours. So yes! No differential pricing, keep the cost low, improve the service especially in northern communities. Every time I do a feasibility study for manufacturing the biggest handicap is lack of cost effective infrastructure and long supply lines. And yes if one wishes to keep the costs low the big companies are going to complain but cost effective internet is a necessary infrastructure in today's world. Just think! If a young kid in Nunavut, could develop or participate in the development of a computer game. What economic benefit it would bring to his community!

PBVictoria 1 point Thu Sep 29 05:19:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing (or zero-rating) seriously limits choice and stifles competition on the Internet: the next Reddit or Twitter could never get off the ground in a world with zero-rating. I believe the Internet should be a level playing field for innovative new ideas. Canadians are trapped by data caps: For wired Internet, data caps in most of the world are unheard of. For wireless, caps in other nations are far more reasonable than those in Canada. I don't believe we should have data caps. The world is becoming increasingly connected socially and with business and news. Data caps restrict access for the citizens of Canada. It's bad for online businesses and freedom of information. There is no such thing as “too much Internet,” given how essential online access has become to our everyday lives. If we don't tackle this now, Canada will fall even further behind. We could be world innovators if not restricted by data caps and excessively high rates. Users, not telecom companies, should decide which services we use online: Telecom giants should not be permitted to zero-rate data, and make websites they don't like more expensive to access. I am not at all happy about letting ISPs artificially pick winners and losers online? We need transparency and strong enforcement to ensure Telcos stick by the rules, and face penalties when those rules are broken. Internet has really become an essential service. It should not be restricted and tampered with by the few large companies. We wouldn't tolerate it with water, why should we tolerate it with internet or phone service.

bluntkilla420 1 point Thu Sep 29 05:23:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

  1. None
  2. Yes
  3. Yes. It incentivizes service providers to seek alternate revenue streams from their existing infrastructure. ISPs should be in the business of providing bandwidth at a reasonable cost to Canadians. The ISPs are bad enough today, and if they are allowed to discriminate against certain traffic based on source or destination things will get even worse. Don't think we can't see where this goes in 10 years. Connections to most locations on the internet will be capped at 2016 speeds, while only those who pay their ransom to bell and rogers will be fully connectable at modern speeds. It's a clear attack on the decentralized nature of the internet.
  4. Do not allow it. Why doesn't the CRTC do something about actual issues with internet access in Canada today rather than giving an ear to more of our ISPs *********?

[removed]

ParkerPWNT 1 point Thu Sep 29 05:28:15 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I do not see any benefits for the consumer.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes it goes against Net Neutrality. The real discussion should be why do we even have data caps in the first place?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I see no benefits to the consumer.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Make data caps illegal and stop letting the incumbents gouge TPIAs

Gargantuor 1 point Thu Sep 29 05:44:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing is a ridiculous way to complicate something that requires simplicity to preserve what it is. All it is is bytes, it doesn't make a difference to their servers what it is they are doing whether it is a song or a video or skype.

I am concerned that this is all just for greed and has no other reason for being implemented. The government needs to step in to protect our freedoms because the telecoms only care about their bottom lines and shareholders profits.

The Internet and its infrastructure work the way it is and complicating it just causes problems and changes how we use and access it. I should be able to utilize my whole download and upload speeds at all times. That is what I pay for, the internet not just some arbitrary limit that has no impact on the cost of providing me the service.

cheeseburgz Lest We Forget 1 point Thu Sep 29 05:47:30 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

I tend to agree with opponents of differential pricing. It's similar to the discussions going on in the United States about net neutrality. That is, businesses are arguing they would install faster internet for their customers or those who pay for "premium" services, but opponents argue they'd simply throttle those who don't buy in for the premium content. In our case, certain apps that ally themselves with our big companies (Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Telus, etc.) could simply brute-force their way to supremacy instead of giving the people what they actually want. Given that our telecom companies already have bad reputations for price-gouging and colluding, differential pricing could only exacerbate our problems here.

It is at this point that I'd like to remind the CRTC that our broadband network has been described as "third-world" levels of bad, as quoted from Netflix's CEO. Source: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/33035/netflix-s-ceo-slams-canada-s-broadband-caps/index.html

I know that the above source isn't directly connected to the proposition at hand, but my general point is that our big companies are already stiffing the Canadian public for outrageous amounts of money. I think these ideas are good in theory (I mean hey, free data, right?) but Bell, Shaw, Telus, and Rogers tend not to act with the best intentions for Canadians.

Another solution? End data caps. That moves us on the way to a more competitive -and therefore pro-consumer- market.

8Milesofshade 1 point Thu Sep 29 05:56:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  • Get rid of data caps
  • Enforce net neutrality

Knife_-_Wrench 1 point Thu Sep 29 06:05:59 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

  1. 2. 3. No. Just a question that has been proven to have no benefits worded differently.
  2. Ideally regulation would involve ensuring there are no misleading phrases that are abused such as "upto" or at least changing it's meaning in this context to force providers into a reasonable variance of service. Also plans should not require bundles. Lastly providing more subsidies for lines to be laid so people within less of a kilometer from a fibre optic network can finally get access to something other than wireless being that close..

bmwchowder95 1 point Thu Sep 29 06:22:57 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Differential pricing in best practice could make it so those who rarely use the internet can purchase a plan which could be more cost effective for them.
  2. Concerns:- Best practice is rarely used. As of now, if a website you go to has an Advertisement which automatically plays a 2mb video, you have essentially paid, or used up 2mb of your limit to get an advertisement played to you. -Caps are artificially created and rarely benefit the consumer. - Wired lines go through government lands, and as such require government subsidized infrastructure. With wire, this can negatively effect different companies squabbling over who owns which line. -Government has always played a large role in keeping the citizen's access to information relatively easy by supporting libraries and other public projects.

  3. I believe the concerns outweigh the benefits.

  4. Enforce section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act.

uriman 1 point Thu Sep 29 07:23:43 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

No. Definitely no.

Relative Lack of Competition for a Utility

The reason is all due to the relative lack of competition that Canada inherently and will always have. The benefits of a market-based, laissez-faire model only exists in highly competitive environments. We know that certain markets such as airlines, post service, etc, are extremely difficult outside highly dense and large population centers to allow for competition. When you couple the internet being necessary utility for all Canadians like water and electricity to work, study, and essentially survive in today's world, the internet cannot permitted to not be equal for all. Canada will always have much lower population than the US and even in the US specific regions simply have fewer options. Take for example car sharing. There are 5+ car sharing companies all competing in NYC offering many offers and high competition all benefiting the customer. Other cities have 1-2 and the prices are much higher due to fewer offers. We see this now with Canadians going to the States and seeing prices for identical items much cheaper in the US even after accounting for tax and exchange rates. So because the prices will always be higher due to relative lower competition, foreign companies such as Best Buy, Amazon, Walmart, etc, can leverage their size and the economies of scale to dominate specific industries. Not only would they be sending money earned from Canadians overseas, but their foreign influence will dominate Canadian culture and slowly assimilate Canada from the outside. There is a reason why there is a law in regards to % of Canadian media content.

Corporation Prefers Aggregation

As companies grow in the media and distribution landscape, there is an inevitable trend for companies to exercise their relative sizes over one another to integrate and merge both horizontally and vertically. We see this with Rogers and we see this with NBC/Comcast. Eventually the media and distribution system has if not will become more of an oligopoly. We also see this with Netflix where media companies are pulling their libraries in order to start their own digital distribution network. If those distribution/media production companies are permitted differential pricing, the regulatory system and their shareholders would be incentivized to exercise this unfair advantage to squeeze the non-distribution competition out of the marketplace. Walmart has a long history of undercutting their local competition with a new store that is often subsidized by their network only to increase prices and limit choices when their competition dies. Any benefit to the consumer in differential pricing is a temporary illusion and the consumer is unwittingly helping to destroy their longterm media marketplace.


Think about this topic in the shoes of a high ranking executive from Rogers or Bell. Our company is paying for infrastructure growth and maintenance. Why should we offer free data? The only reasons that make financial sense is to either grow our own media brand creating dependence and loyalty or to establish partnerships with other companies through financial agreements. Both would limit competition and assist in limiting the media landscape. More and more nonfree data would be more expensive as free data use would increase, and media companies would be expected to survive paying the distribution oligopolies to be on their free data side. Small organizations promoting a local bike race, cultural event or a charitable cause would be severely disadvantaged. Free speech would be limited.

Kopias 1 point Thu Sep 29 07:23:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Makes an anti competitive internet and hurts small startups who can't pay to have their services free laned. Internet is a dumb pipe, let consumers choose how they use their data.

Sproxar 1 point Thu Sep 29 07:27:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There was a time when large long distance carriers weren't allowed to provide local phone service, and when motion picture studios couldn't own theater chains or TV stations. It used to be considered a monopoly, so governments took action to ensure no single company controlled entire industries. Now, we have telecom carriers using the unfair advantage of being the data carrier to make their own content more attractive, by not including it under their artificial data caps. How is this different from theater chains not showing movies from competing parent studios? Content providers and carriers should always be separated, to avoid this kind of conflict of interest. Rather than pampering them by going along with their caps and differential pricing, they should be broken up, and forced to relinquish all content services, so they can focus on simply providing bandwidth, and consumers can decide for themselves what content they wish to subscribe to. Don't give in to the limitless greed of companies that are already more profitable than most in this country, at the expense of consumers who have few alternative choices.

dgenge 1 point Thu Sep 29 08:21:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

We need a class action lawsuit against the big three. They are colluding to rig prices. PERIOD!

RedactedTitan 1 point Thu Sep 29 09:26:06 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

I think this shouldn't even be a question. I think data caps should be removed, then it won't matter what data is what or where it comes from. (if that response isn't obvious enough differential pricing also shouldn't exist)

I'm happy to see the crtc starting to appear as though they are on our side again. But honestly I lost far too much faith in you guys several years ago when you sided against the consumer interest time and time again, allowing telco's get to this point. There is absolutely zero reason consumers should be abused to the extent we are other then the right palms were greased at the right times.

Canada used to be a world leader in Internet technologies. Now it's an incredibly expensive joke.

Edit: actually to further my point. This entire question to Canadians is proof that even the telco's find data caps to restrictive. But obviously they aren't going to remove them if they can force even more money out of us by limiting our decisions. Differential pricing exists as a symptom of a much larger issue. Remove data caps, and you remove the question about differential pricing

szar_ez_a 1 point Thu Sep 29 12:33:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Please block the bell mts merger. It's clear bell has anti competitive practices which will result in higher fees and reduced choices for Manitobans. Faster internet in Manitoba is useless if it comes with data caps designed to limit which streaming services consumers can use.

szar_ez_a 1 point Thu Sep 29 12:39:18 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The use of data caps to cut out competitors streaming services and promote the sale of company owned cable and streaming services is clearly an anticompetitive practice and should be illegal. It's obvious an oligopoly has formed between the major telecommunication companies. While it may be difficult to prove collusion between the big three telecommunication firms allowing them to continually buy out the competition demonstrates the government's promotion of a Canadian telecommunications oligopoly at the expense of individual consumers and the Canadian economy.

CrzyKiwi 1 point Thu Sep 29 12:53:50 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The media companies are holding us to ransom with the high costs of the data and cell service. They claim Canada is cheap or reasonable compared to other countries. I've lived in other countries, the cell service and data here is very expensive, and often lags behind in terms of technological development.

Differential pricing? Another marketing term for finding ways to charge Canadians even more. The more they can make pricing confusing, the more likely they will use it to quietly increase the prices. They have already increased data charges at least 50% in the last 2 years.

I think it's time the CRTC for serious, and considered regulating data caps to eliminate them altogether (this is the backbone of our economy now).

I'm also calling for the enforced breakup of all the large media companies in Canada, much like was done with Bell in the US. Also, more attention needs to be paid to the possibility of price fixing and collusion amongst the media companies. Frankly, I'm tired of the media companies bullying the Canadian people... Enough already!!

Xsythe 1 point Thu Sep 29 12:55:07 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?
None.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?
Differential pricing entrenches the telecom oligopolies and is as anti-consumer as you can get.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?
The CRTC must regulate against this anti-competitive and anti-progress behavior, or risk Canada being left behind. Ultra fast internet at reasonable prices is essential for the growth and sustainment of our technology sector.

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?
Never. We have almost zero national competition in mobile, and very little in wireline. Allowing companies to further entrench their oligopolies would further increase prices and limit accessibility for the average Canadian.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?
Ban differential pricing and ban data caps. Data caps no longer exist in most countries, and differential pricing is also banned in a few more progressive countries, including in the U.S., due to national outcry.

downeastkid 1 point Thu Sep 29 12:57:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This shouldn't even be a discussion, this is horrible. Keep the internet open for all companies to compete evenly, completely unfair.

But to answer your questions...

The benefit would be for the companies that strike a deal with the big 3 and allows the company a huge advantage over up and coming competitors

The negative would be for any competition to gain traction as the user won't choose them as it doesn't cost them data usage to use the current company

.

RagnarFuzzyPants 1 point Thu Sep 29 13:21:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The data plans that we have available in Canada are prohibitively expensive, and differential pricing could mean that some customers can choose a smaller data plan, or make more use of their existing data plan, if some of the data they are using doesn't count toward their limit. But this is only true if providers don't use differential pricing as an opportunity to raise their data prices or lower their data caps.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. First and foremost, differential pricing undermines the principles of net neutrality.

Differential pricing would make it more difficult for new services to compete with established services from companies that have differential pricing arrangements, which could prevent innovation in digital services.

Differential pricing could encourage providers to lower their data caps, or make the current ones more expensive.

Differential pricing could encourage providers to offer packages similar to cable packages, which are still terrible for consumers. As a worst case scenario, I'm picturing providers offering a small data plan, plus  à la carte bundles (like, if you want zero-rated Netflix and YouTube, you may find them in different bundles, packaged with other services that you don't use).

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

These concerns far outweigh the benefits. You should step in and regulate.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban differential pricing altogether.

liqu 1 point Thu Sep 29 13:36:19 2016 UTC  (0 children)

We need net neutrality. Internet infrastructure is relatively cheap. The government should look into maintaining its own service, like some other cities in the US are doing.

Hyacin75 1 point Thu Sep 29 13:47:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None for anyone but the companies offering it.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes! I'm a Rogers customer - "You can use our streaming app and we won't charge you data, but if you try to use Netflix or any other streaming apps, we'll ream you when you go over"?!? How is this is ANY way fair? Not just to the competing streaming providers, who are not in the last-mile game, so they can't compete with it, but to the consumers themselves?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

There are no benefits. This is abuse of power, period. Companies like Rogers should not be able to leverage the fact that they are a last mile provider to strong arm you into using any of their other services or content.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

No data caps, period. Not at home, and not on mobile. Data usage is becoming a part of our daily life more and more, especially when we're out and about. It's not about being about to watch Netflix while I'm sitting in a coffee shop - it's about having to say "Damn, I would REALLY like to be able to get a route to my destination that factors in traffic data, or use a low bandwidth app like Pokemon Go right now, but I listened to music for a couple hours the other day, so that'll cost me an arm and a leg because that used up my bandwidth for THE ENTIRE MONTH." It's an absolute joke. Beyond that, for the prices we pay for cell service, we shouldn't have to make compromises like listening to poor quality streaming while on the road because data is so insanely expensive. Caps are bad, all around, period.

JackStargazer Canada 1 point Thu Sep 29 13:48:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hello, CRTC. I'm a student-at-law, just finishing up my training component to become a lawyer. My interests are in the technology, IP, and telecommunications areas.

As mentioned by many others, the source of the problem which this program is trying to solve is with data caps themselves.

Data caps are the issue. What you effectively have here is a company which has restricted use of their product to a certain amount per month, and who charges exorbitant fees for going over that limit. (Purely anecdotal, but I remember at one point a miscommunication led to a company charging a family member a bill in the several thousands of dollars for a month's use of data which, at the time, my desktop PC could have and did use in a day)

That company then gives you the option of ignoring the limit, which they themselves created and which creates a financial incentive, in exchange for another fee. Better yet, they also get the companies involved in providing the data or service through their lines with another fee, so they can collect three times on the same data (baseline connection, fee-for-service, contract with media company). This is absolutely amazing for the ISPs, but not great for either consumers or content creators.

It also creates a perverse incentive. Imagine the following (fairly predictable) scenario: Data cap bypasses are sold and packaged together for certain services. Companies want to get this bypass for their services, since doing so offers a competitive advantage. Companies who can afford it purchase these bypass options, and they are provided to all clients at a fee which is reasonable, so everyone pays it. Maybe it's $5. So, the ISP gets money from various companies, and every customer effectively adds $5 to their bill per month. Eventually, more and more of the average person's websurfing is artificially cap-free. So the caps get used less and less. As that's the case, the ISPs start shrinking the caps. This occurs slowly, but each step makes perfect economic sense, and nobody really complains as it does not effect their Facebooking and Youtubing. And of course, nobody really needs all of those sites, so if we can split things up on different tiers, why not offer a one cost Facebook + Youtube price to save money?

Parse this forward. Eventually you have a system which looks exactly like a television model - 'channels' which pay the provider to be shown, sold in bundles which force the consumer to make choices they should not have to make, and destroy the ability of the internet to democratize free expression and freely share thoughts and communication. This is the endgame from a breach of net neutrality.

The other main problem with the service is that it creates a tiered internet - while companies like NetFlix or HBO will be able to pay the fee to join the data-free service, johnsmith@mypage.net will not. This creates an even bigger barrier to entry in a system already dominated by a few huge giants, and stifles innovation. This is a system in which modern companies like Facebook and Youtube could not have ever come into their full potential, as they wouldn't have been able to get over that first hurdle before they were cost-competitive.

These concerns clearly outweigh the benefits. The benefits to consumers are a 'low-cost' solution in the same way that cable packages were a 'low-cost' solution. You had to step in to deal with that issue, and if you allow this tiered system to move into the internet, you're going to have to do the same thing in ten or twenty years in that space.

So now we get to the actual regulation. My suggestion would be to legislate a removal of data caps. Data caps punish innovation - those using the most data are those who are using technology to its fullest potential. If you are on a capped connection (as Eastlink for example provides in Rural Nova Scotia), there is no way for you to upload videos to YouTube, or run a server, or do remote work in any discipline which involves reading through or dealing with large amounts of documents - discovery in law for example runs into the GB. There is a reason most of the business firms are in capless Halifax on Bell Fibre. People are punished for living in these areas with these restrictions.

Ultimately my suggestion, which is completely politically untenable, would be to have a public service which provides internet under the federal or provincial governments, in the same way power and water utilities are regulated. The internet has become just as important to people as electricity - you cannot function in modern society without access to an email address and online government forms. It's passed the point where corporate greed can be allowed morally to interfere with access.

However a slightly more tenable option would be to do more of what you were doing in your recent decision forcing the larger ISPs to allow access to their fibre networks to smaller competitors. Enshrine net neutrality in your rules. Do not allow some packets to be valued over others to the benefit of the ISPs alone. Eliminate or severely restrict Data Caps to something more reasonable and manageable. 20 GB a month is laughable in today's era of 720-1080p video. For reference, high definition streaming consumes about 3GB of data an hour. That means you can go through your monthly cap in six and a half hours of watching.

Can you imagine a TV service which allows you six hours a month? How successful would that be in a non-captive market?

A second suggestion on regulation would be on penetration. The 'excuse' for data caps proffered by ISPs in rural area is that the networks are not properly able to capitalize on this. First, a suggestion would be for an independent third party to categorize all of the network capacity in the country (or perhaps some random areas as test cases if that is cost-prohibitive) and compare it to use to see how much 'shadow capacity' exists. We've all herd the stories of companies complaining and beating their chests about how they don't have the capacity to offer better service, only to up their rates prodigiously within moments of a competitor arriving and offering better service. There also needs to be more scrutiny on network expansion. Instead of providing a large lump sum of government funds for network expansion, it should be parceled out a bit at a time, according to specific development goals. This creates an incentive to actually meet those goals of bringing higher speed internet to rural communities or expanding existing networks with new cable. Better oversight in this area is needed - they cannot be claiming government subsidies for expansion and then not following through, or moving at a glacial pace.

Technological growth is expanding exponentially, as is our desire for data bandwidth. The incoming Internet of Things is predicated on the idea that there will be widespread free bandwidth to use on its implementation.

If the regulations and incentives in Canada do not allow for this, our country will be left behind in the next wave of technological innovation. We cannot afford this in our current economic situation.

walgh 1 point Thu Sep 29 13:58:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential Pricing is against Net Neutrality, that it is even being considered is a joke. How you access the internet should have no affect on price.

Data Caps are ridiculous, if your servers can't handle traffic during prime time then invest in infrastructure. That infrastructure didn't start improving until Google fiber started threatening monopolies is disgusting.

I disagree with the opinions in this thread that Internet should be made a public utility. I say this because of anonymity and, what I would consider healthy, mistrust of the government (NSA snooping, PC/Censorship culture). I'd much rather internet service providers not be a monopoly.

Rodent_Smasher 1 point Thu Sep 29 14:25:55 2016 UTC  (0 children)

How about instead you work on fixing the corruption within the crtc. We shouldn't have to pay $80 for just Internet or $50 a month for 1 gb of data on our cell phones. If rogers didn't have such strong ties to the crtc then maybe some new competitors would be allowed to open in Canada under their own authority and break the oligarchy

Sintek 1 point Thu Sep 29 14:44:17 2016 UTC *  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

As great as it sound to have some data not counted towards the DATA CAP THAT SHOULD NOT BE THERE, this is NOT a good idea. I don't think there are any reasonable benefits.

Would you allow Tim Hortons to buy all the highways and then only allow people to make exits where there is a Tim Hortons, and if you wanted off at a different exit you had to Pay extra? and the businesses that are at exits with a Tim Hortons would have to pay Tim Hortons as well. No... No you wouldn't.

Maybe Hydro will start charging customers more money because of the brand of Fridge or stove they use, or if you have a XYZ Air Conditioner the Electricity it uses if free. That would screw everyone that does not want a XYZ A/C and then encourage XYZ to make crappier and cheaper products because they are guaranteed a certain amount of business.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

YES it will kill free market and dampen competition and screw the small businesses and the consumer.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

There are NO BENEFITS to outweigh, so the CRTC better step in a crush this idea and allow it to never resurface again. Im sick and tired of Big businessed getting there way over the citizen because they have money to persuade weak *** government officials with lobby money over what this Country and the Citizens want. We already have enough ****from Kathleen Wynne and Hydro screwing Ontarians.

jauncho 1 point Thu Sep 29 14:57:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

  • I can't think of many. Maybe slightly lower prices for the provider's offering.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

  • Yes, it creates an uneven playing field for small companies.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

  • CRTC should step in and regulate.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

  • Not sure on specifics. Just rules requiring all traffic to be treated evenly.

Gargantua_Blargg 1 point Thu Sep 29 15:03:51 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

None from the customer's point of view; it only benefits the ISPs and specific content producers.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. It runs contrary to net neutrality. It's yet another shifty way for telecommunication companies to control the marketplace and stifle competition. Calling it "deferential pricing" or "zero rating" is just them trying to polish a turd.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Oh yes, absolutely the CRTC should step in.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban the practice. And in the next year or two, when the Telcos try this type of thing again but give it a new name, ban it again. This is reminiscent of the usage-based billing fiasco of 2011 - Bell, Rogers, Telus, et al. attempting to create an across-the-board policy that is profitable to them at the expense of the consumer and independent ISPs. You know when these guys (who are competitors!) band together to push some policy, no good will come of it.

The internet - and data - ought to remain free (as in freedom). It should be recognized as an essential service, like electricity and water. The CRTC should never allow it to become manipulated by industries that supply it.

Also, imposing really low-end data caps at exorbitant prices is horrible; I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where I can use a good and decent ISP at a reasonable price and includes 400GB of data (what up, Teksavvy!!) which is more than enough for me, but I realize others may not have such options and are forced into a bum deal with the big ISPs. They should not be allowed to gouge customers like this, especially in areas where this is little, if any, competition.

studog-reddit Ontario 1 point Thu Sep 29 15:32:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

My reply is from the viewpoint of the consumer, since I am one.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are none. It would only serve to force me to use certain services over other services because of the price, thus removing my choice in the matter. Or at least severely coercing me. I do not want to be coerced.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It breaks net neutrality.

It will be used by the ISPs/telcos as a tool to force users to use certain services over others. In this way the corporation will be able to artificially drive market demand for their own services. Example: what if Shomi was zero-rated but Netflix wasn't?

The way to see the wrongness of differential pricing is to consider an older more mature networK: Plain Old Telephone System. It would never be okay for Bell to allow zero-cost calls to their own pizza chain, but charge for calls to Pizza Pizza.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Absolutely the concerns outweigh the non-existent benefits. Net neutrality must be mandated by the CRTC. Which means the CRTC must ban differential pricing.

Letting the corporations decide is wrong; they will always decide in their own interests, and not the consumers interests.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban it.

Well, almost. The only situation where zero-rating is okay is when the telco forces a mandatory OS update download to the end device. That should be zero-rated because it is downloading that the telco forces on the consumer, and not the consumer's choice to download. This is the only situation where zero-rating is okay, because it is the only situation where (currently) is it "okay" for the telco to force downloading. In fact, forced downloading should never be okay but that's a different debate.

Again, consider the telephone system: it never charges based on the contents of the phone calls. ISPs/telcos should never charge based on the contents of the data transfer.

Windig0 Canada 1 point Thu Sep 29 15:41:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing is not good IMO. It gives the providers the options/choices, not me. Keep all data equal and let the end users decide.

And I haven't thought much about the following point other than maybe it is worth looking into, is it possible that perhaps the only exemption to differential pricing be Canadian content?

xtqfh Ontario 1 point Thu Sep 29 15:56:29 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Benefits are mainly to the ISP. It allows them to favour a service over others for profit maximization (their own services, the services of a company that pays them a premium, etc)

  2. Concerns: i. It would make it more difficult for new entrants to the market to offer a service that directly competes with the one offered by the ISP. ii. It would give ISPs leverage over online service providers to pressure them into paying iii. Ultimately, it would change ISPs' role from being simple providers of a connection to entities that exert control over the content being transmitting

  3. I believe the concerns outweigh the benefits. In my view, ISPs may bill based on the quantity of data. The content of the data should play no role whatsoever in their billing practices.

  4. As follows: all data packets must be treated equally in terms of cost, speed, and use of allocated data caps. ISPs are welcome to start their own services, but they may not give preferential treatment for data packets from these services over data packets from other services

jcs1 1 point Thu Sep 29 16:00:45 2016 UTC  (0 children)

(since you wanted everything in this thread)

Why do we have tiered services for our data connections? If I'm paying for a faster connection, does my data incur additional costs to the provider to get it to its destination faster? Rather than transmitting their customer's data as fast as possible they deliberately slow it down to create these fictional tiers to increase their profits. In addition to this they use data caps to discourage their customers from using the service they paid to use and increase their profits.

Imagine a post office that deliberately holds your mail arbitrarily for a few days and limits you to a monthly allowance because you pay their "basic" plan. They offer you a shorter hold time and a higher allowance if you pay their "premium" plan. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? This analogy has its limits because physical objects do incur additional costs to get it to its destination faster; a faster service demands more frequent deliveries, trucks, etc. than the average service needs. Where are these additional costs if they send your data over the same network as the basic user? Infrastructure does have fixed costs but our service providers are limiting our use so they can increase subscription rate while keeping these fixed costs low.

Remember: data has no mass.

TheMcG Ontario 1 point Thu Sep 29 16:03:16 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. The benefit to the consumer is the ability to consume a small set of services without worry that they will impact their data cap.
  2. Many. Who decides what services are exempt? Are the ISP's services automatically exempt? The answers to these questions and many more point out the immense flaws in allowing differential pricing. Allowing this type of control will allow the incumbents to stifle innovation by artificially inflating their worth until their competitors are wiped out. Allowing differential pricing seems to purely be a hand out to the major ISP's and their media wings. But beyond all reasons to not allow this the most important is that this break net neutrality rules. For the net to remain innovative, free of discriminatory practices, and a benefit too all canadians (not just the wealthy) we need to now allow discriminatory pricing.
  3. The benefits are significantly outweighed by the concerns. Yes they should be regulated. Regulated to the point of not being allowed.
  4. Do not allow discriminatory pricing in any shape or form. It will only lead us down a path to make the net more like cable.

rekriux 1 point Thu Sep 29 16:24:25 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Je crois qu'un service internet devrait fournir une garantie de bande passante et non un quota en GB. En exemple, 1mbps/h, donc si tu télécharge en continue, tu passe de full LTE 50mbps progressivement vers le 1mbps. En une journée tu aurais 24mbps_heures, donc si tu télécharge juste 2h dans ta journée, tu aurais une moyenne de 12mbps à  l'heure. L'idée derrière cela est de préservé l'indépendance des données et leur juste compétition pour leur place comme trafique sur le réseau, tout en permettant une saine gestion des infrastructures.

Personnellement, je crois que le Canada devrait nationaliser l'infrastructure de l'internet, prendre Canarie et la transformer en backbone. De la fibre pour inter-relier toutes les villes canadiennes. Les provinces/municipalités seraient responsable de développer un plan de connection par fibre,ethernet,wifi,Broadband PLC vers les utilisateurs. On a un grand pays et on devrait s'assurer qu'il est bien branché pour l'avenir! Exemple développer un plan pour 2020 avoir 100mbps dans tous les maisons, pour 2030 la gigabit et 2050 la 10gbps. Aussi le Canada devrait se munir d'une structure de datacenter distribué sur son territoire et profiter de l'électricité et du froid disponible dans le nord !

Je suis contre le quota et encore plus contre la différenciation de prix.

Le CRTC doit mettre les ISP au pas, on doit se démarquer par de meilleurs services, pas paraître comme un pays peu hightech avec des gros prix et peu de service !

jungleismassiv3 1 point Thu Sep 29 17:03:13 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? The true benefit lies with the ISP, as they have more bargaining power with content providers. however the consumer benefit is far outweighed by the problems.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? It will only lead to decreased competition, and greater influence of special interests and corporations. Differential pricing goes directly against net neutrality, which is THE most important issue regarding access to the internet. The abolition of data caps would be much more beneficial to consumers.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? 100% yes. These issues will determine access to information for years to come. The single most important issue is net neutrality, and that needs to be at the forefront. There should be no preferential treatment, and all internet traffic should be viewed as equal.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Abolish data caps, prosecute ISP's for throttling, and treat all internet traffic as equal.

hariyspuk123 1 point Thu Sep 29 17:04:23 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Internet and Mobile access should have only a single price point for unlimited access

Sch1zm 1 point Thu Sep 29 17:05:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits seem to be to the carrier and the deals they can strike with developers to give priority or "non counting" traffic. This encourages the carriers to put high priced and low value plans with low caps together to encourage people to rely on specific application choices, this stifles competition and growth.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Everything I listed above and more, they can use this tactic to keep data caps unreasonably low, leaving us behind most of the world. Keeping low data caps (or data caps at all) only serves to line the carriers pockets in a time where mobile data usage has been growing nearly exponentially, our caps havent. It's time for what the carriers offer to catch up with the reality of data usage.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?

YES! also, the benefits to consumer are absolutely nothing compared to A) actually high data caps (10GB/month) or B) NO data caps.

Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

No, they profit, the country suffers.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Don't allow paying for priority access or no data usage options. This is just another approach to attack net neutrality. Remove data caps or set caps that arent restrictive (the cost of handling 10GB of data per month is a pittance compared to what we get charged for even 1GB/month). It's nearly extortion.

dundreggen 1 point Thu Sep 29 17:07:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I agree with much of what is said, but I feel I should add my voice to contribute to the weight

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

To the customer? None.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes. There is far too much conflict of interest. The internet providers are also media companies. They are going to throttle their competition vs adapting and offering new services to customers. So just make Netflix prohibitively expensive due to internet costs.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

So far I am not really seeing any benefits. The chances of them offering me what I want to see for free or low cost are highly unlikely. So all I see is a way to charge more for me to access the places on the internet that I choose. Yes I think you should step in and moderate to make sure customers aren't forced towards content that they are not really interested in

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I am not sure. Stop collusion, foster competition. This is not my area of experience, so while I know the current system is unwell I am at a loss at how it should be fixed.

crackinfoxy 1 point Thu Sep 29 17:18:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Simply put, treat data like electricity. It doesn't matter if it's my TV or my toaster, the cost is the same. Preserve Net Neutrality!

Basssinger 1 point Thu Sep 29 17:33:20 2016 UTC  (0 children)

It seems to me that Differential Pricing is used to attract customers however I feel strongly about keeping the internet free free and this practice can lead to abuses. It could adversely affect the openness of the internet. I would love to see the CRTC step in however I don't have enough expertise to begin to suggest what you could do. We pay too much for internet and data and mobile services in Canada but that is what happens when monopolies are in charge. Thank you for consulting us!

jwalton78 1 point Thu Sep 29 17:59:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

For consumers, there aren't any. For big media, there's huge ability to push their own content services.

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I'm thinking about moving to a new house. If I move, the new house will have OK cable via my ISP of choice (TekSavvy), but very poor DSL. If cable doesn't work out for some technical reason, I'll have to move to Bell Fibe. Bell Fibe already has extremely low usage caps on their plans - I would have to pay three times as much as I currently pay to get comparable usage rates from Bell as I do from TekSavvy... But, if I switch from Netflix to Shomi, then my streaming content suddenly doesn't count! I don't need to spend all that money on raising my data cap! Hooray! Except this is terrible - I want to use Netflix. Bell is artificially giving their content an unfair advantage over their competition.

Even if Bell were to extend their zero-rating to Netflixx, this still cuts out smaller up-and-coming players in this space.

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes please. Step in. Stop the incumbents from using their position of power to give themselves an unfair advantage.

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Disallow zero-rating. If Bell wants people to use Shomi, it should compete on equal footing with other streaming media providers. Since it would be nearly impossible for Bell to zero rate "all streaming media providers", then Bell should be forced to count their own data toward their cap. If they're unhappy with that, many other ISPs seem to stay profitable with much higher data caps, so Bell should raise their cap. This would be good for consumers.

darkdreamerx 1 point Thu Sep 29 18:07:26 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Canada's data services are already among the most expensive in the world. The data caps we have on mobile plans and home network plans are insane. The rest of the developed world outside of North America gets unlimited service for a fraction of the price (I lived in Korea and China - I paid 250$/yr in China for unlimited download fiber, its roughly 25$/month in Korea for similar).

Rogers and Bell already have an unfair monopoly on our data services - do not allow them to impose special pricing rates on the "types of data".

Net neutrality is important. Let's take a step forward with Canada's networking infrastructure, rather than a step back.

Yareking Québec 1 point Thu Sep 29 18:10:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Merci au CRTC de se préoccuper des développements du réseau le plus important et le plus fragile.

Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix? Le consommateur direct se fait offrir un rabais, facilite son choix, conforte son choix de fournisseur.

Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix? Quand un rabais(le non-calcul de certaines données choisit) est né d'une limitation arbitraire ou qui n'a plus sa place dans l'état des réseaux, il est normal de s'inquiéter. Une entreprise qui conserve une limitation arbitraire pour ensuite offrir un service payant pour passer outre la limitation c'est inquiétant

Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques? Où devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider? À court terme ce genre de pratique me semble favorable au client. Le marcher du taux zéro permet certainement une plateforme concurrentielle. Cepedant au long terme ce genre de pratique ne devrais pas exister, il bloque l'innovation et gère le contenu sur le réseau. Bloque la mobilité des clients et encore une fois nuit a la concurrence et l'innovation. La valeur d'un vidéo au taux zéro est plus avantageuse et en émane un cercle qui se referme a la façon monopolistique sur du contenue. Le CRTC impose des postes de télévision au fournisseur. Il impose aussi des "forfaits" de télévision. Il limite les licences de radio diffusion a des secteurs et des fréquences. Industrie Canada vend des fréquences cellulaires. Le gouvernement et le CRTC sont donc déjà dans l'intervention des canaux de distribution. Le principal but devrait être la protection du consommateur et le maintien à long terme de l'infrastructure(des canaux de distribution) et des emplois liés a cette infrastructure. Les échanges numériques favorisés auront un plus grand auditoire et par le fait même pourront influencer intentionnellement ou non des aspects sociaux de notre identité canadienne. Considérant le commerce qui transige par internet, il faut protéger la neutralité et faire que cette situation ne se reproduise pas. par la bande protégée l'économie qui transige par le web, qui créé des milliers d'emploie et permet l'innovation et des nouveaux emploie dans les secteurs qui utilise internet comme plateforme de développement

Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques? Tout d'abord faire une définition claire sur la neutralité de l'internet élaboré par les organismes de protection des consommateurs, des associations et des groupes privés (ou public) qui ont comme cheval de bataille la neutralité. Sur cette basse crée une législation qui n'encourage pas les réseaux non neutres ( surtaxe, obligation de créer un forfait neutre et abolition des limites de consommations)

Les fournisseurs ont déjà des offres supplémentaires. On offre des abonnements a des services ( spotify avec Fido) on offre du matériel( il ya quelque année des Consoles de jeux était offerte) le taux -Zéro ça me semble un moyen facile et qui ne leur coute rien de trancher dans la compétition qui n'a pas les mêmes moyens. Ses derniers doivent abaisser leur marge, car ils ne peuvent pas jouer sur les mêmes escaliers que les grands fournisseurs canadiens. Il prouve aussi que leur réseau ne comptabilise que pour la facturation le nombre de donné utilisé en ouvrant la porte à tous les services de streaming.

DSJustice British Columbia 1 point Thu Sep 29 18:10:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The great majority of the comments here already reflect my views. But for the sake of adding to the flood:

Benefits: The concept of differential pricing may incent providers to provide specific targeted benefits to individual consumers (ie, unmetered Showmi!), but those benefits will be to the detriment of consumers as a group.

Concerns: As I see it, broadband should be treated as a neutral utility, which does not favour specific service providers. Differential pricing incents providers to become players in the content business, either as a direct provider, or through sweetheart deals. This fundamentally damages the egalitarian basis of the internet, and is detrimental to consumers as a whole.

Regulation: ISPs should be split: they can be transmission utilities, service providers (a la TekSavvy), or content providers. Entrants wishing to play in more than one of the three spaces should be heavily regulated, and perhaps required to wholesale all but one of their services slightly below cost.

Dwsp47 1 point Thu Sep 29 18:18:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I've been horribly disappointed in the crtc in the past I live in the Yukon Territory and the only isp we have is northwestel a company known by the crtc for its dishonest practices I currently pay $79.95 a month for cable internet 110gb +$2.00/gb additional usage running at "up to 16mbps download and up to 768kbps upload" actually running at 5mbps download and 500kbps upload on a good day on a bad day no internet at all This is a HUGE improvement over DSL that doesn't even work half the time and runs at maybe half the speed This is what happens when companies are allowed to use data caps and throttling abuse there's no other way of putting it It's time to end all data caps and internet throttling and implement heavy fines to companies that abuse consumers Unfortunately I have little hope that the crtc will do anything about it

Thalatta 1 point Thu Sep 29 18:24:49 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I don't see any benefits for the end-consumer when it comes to differential pricing.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I have a number of concerns: - Differential pricing encourages "walled gardens" of content where consumers are incentivized to not consume content/perform activities that fall outside of what is preferred or beneficial to the telecom.

  • Differential pricing, by prioritizing certain traffic, is fundamentally in opposition to the "open" internet and the concept of Net Neutrality.

  • As the 'Big 3' aim to increase the amount of exclusives they offer in their packages, differential pricing could increase the amount of horizontal integration in our already limited media landscape. The further concentration of media properties is not healthy for public discourse; Canadian citizens should be free to access whatever commentary or opinions they want without interference from a telecom.

  • Data should be considered a public resource. My local water utility doesn't charge me more for the water for my shower than the water for my toilet, nor does my hydro utility doesn't prioritize electricity for my washing machine over my microwave.

  • The 'big 3' will use the combination of data-caps and differential pricing as a one-two punch. Step one is instituting datacaps, then step two is incentivizing their own services (e..g, "Watch Shaw cable on your phone without impacting your data usage!")

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

In my opinion the concerns outweigh the benefits.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Mandate that all data/traffic should be treated equal. In my opinion, this entire debate is a symptom of two things: Canada's extremely limited telecom market (and the collusion of the 'Big 3'), and our pathetic datacap limits. It's a pipe-dream, but I would like to see the CRTC abolish data caps entirely.

DapperSheep 1 point Thu Sep 29 18:26:11 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) There are no benefits to differential pricing. All data should be treated equally. No preferential treatment of any kind should be allowed.

2) Allowing a vertically integrated monopoly (eg Bell, Rogers et. al.) to favour some content over others will only serve their business interests (profit). Consumers and small businesses will suffer.

3) Net neutrality should be maintained and regulations imposed such that ISPs are prevented from favouring one type of data or content over any other. ISPs should be content blind, so to speak. They should only provide access to data.

4) Data caps should be eliminated and replaced with different tiers of connection speed only. Monopolies should be broken up such that no content provider is also an ISP or vice versa. Wholesale access to fiber networks by smaller independents should be enforced.

Internet has become a de facto utility these days and the flagrant price gouging from the Canadian Telco's should no longer be tolerated.

BeyondAddiction 1 point Thu Sep 29 19:06:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The questions asked have already been answered but I want to mention exceptions for pick and pay. My husband and I only want NHL centre ice. I called telus to see if we could get that without the "skinny" package we have and never ever watch (which by the way after fees is a most $50). They said no because Centre Ice is not subject to pick and pay rules. That is wrong. I should not have to buy cable I don't want, need, or use just to get centre ice which costs me another $250 for the season. Clamp down on all of these bad faith decisions and please do what you were hired to do - stand up for the consumer.

quietbadger 1 point Thu Sep 29 19:29:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

"Differential Pricing" should NOT be allowed.

"Differential Pricing" gives ISPs unprecedented influence over what opinions Canadians are allowed to read and watch. The CRTC is supposed to protect the development of Canadian expression, and therefore should prevent "Differential Pricing" at all costs. Some examples and reasoning are as follows:

THE POOREST IN OUR COUNTRY ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE: Those who cannot afford to go beyond their data caps will be the ones most vulnerable to "differential pricing", so it will be the poorest in the country that will have their views most affected by what opinions their ISP will allow them to view for free. This includes many senior citizens.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION COULD BE AT STAKE: An ISP could decide to allow a particular religious group free access and effectively block access to other religious organizations unless you can affords to pay.

FREEDOM OF POLITICS COULD BE AT STAKE: An ISP could choose to exempt certain political groups from data caps and therefore effectively control the political views of those who cannot afford to pay extra.

ISPs COULD ALLOW ANTI-CRTC WEBSITES FREE ACCESS YET CHARGE TO VIEW THE CRTC WEBSITE: The title says it all.

PROOF THAT ISPs WILL LOWER DATA CAPS TO FORCE US TO THEIR PRODUCTS: My Telus Internet plan had NO DATA CAP when I signed up over 10 years ago, and then suddenly 2 years ago they enforced a 100GB/month cap and then asked me to ask if I wanted to pay $15/month more to remove the data cap that they just put on, or pay more to move to a faster plan that has a higher data cap. Therefore Telus LOWERED MY DATA CAP just to FORCE me to BUY ANOTHER service of theirs.

DATA GETS CHEAPER FOR ISPs EVERY YEAR AND NOT MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THEM: ISPs budget to replace their hardware as it wears out, and since all new hardware is always faster than its previous model but for the same price, then that means ISPs increase the amount of data they can move every year at no extra cost to themselves beyond regular maintenance, and yet they lower my data cap rather than increase it! Computing power has increased 30% per year since 2003, which means ISPs data capacity and speed grow at 30% per year at no extra cost to themselves, but rather then pass this increased speed and volume on to me, Telus instead ADDED A DATA CAP and INCREASED my monthly fees by 100% in 6 years.

PROOF THAT ISPs WILL ABUSE THE "DIFFERENTIAL PRICING" IF the CRC GIVES THEM A CHANCE: It costs $0.35 to send a text message on my cell phone plan, yet data costs only $1/10MB on the same plan, so that means that using data directly costs me $100/GB, but sending a text message costs me the equivalent of $2,300,000/GB! This PROVES that ISPs happily use their monopoly positions to gouge customers, and will do it again if given the chance.

Michlerish 1 point Thu Sep 29 19:40:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? There are NO benefits to the consumer, only to the ISP.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes! It threatens net neutrality and continues this silly Canadian data cap game.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? If we should step in, how should we regulate it? The CRTC should step in to remove data caps altogether, which is the root of the problem. Hopefully one day internet service will be considered an essential utility for all citizens and managed much like roads are.

muttonshirt 1 point Thu Sep 29 20:08:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) The benefits are minimal and short sighted. Any positive effect they would have on cost to people would disappear. Within five years due to price increases.

2) My concerns are the same as most people in this thread. Gate keeping, stifling growth if online start-ups, and potential price increases on existing services due to "extortion" of those companies by wireless providers to have their service put on the list of differential services

3) I believe there are no benefits to weigh the serious down sides against.

4) The practice of differential pricing should be outright banned. Any policy or practice that goes against net neutrality should be outright banned.

cube-drone 1 point Thu Sep 29 20:19:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Many users only use a few internet services - Facebook, Netflix, Reddit, YouTube, Twitter - and visit few other sites. These users might find a "Facebook" package appealing - but this is only a concern if their data cap is very low.

Presumably, a small number of users who are using data heavily are impacting service for others - presumably telecoms are arguing that your mother's Facebook shouldn't be negatively impacted by her neighbor torrenting thousands of gigabytes of japanese tentacle pornography.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

  • I feel like the telecoms are realizing that they are in poor shape to compete with services like Netflix and they are trying to crush their competition by squeezing them off of the internet rather than by producing a competitive product. Nobody wants to have to abandon Netflix in favor of terrible failed services like Shomi.
  • Many small businesses do not have the sway to get preferential treatment from large telecoms. This is a move that would only benefit entrenched players - harming innovative local start-ups and Canada's burgeoning tech sector.
  • The open internet has become my most crucial tool. I use it more often than my television and telephone combined, by a wide margin, for both my entertainment and my livelihood.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

These concerns do not outweigh these benefits, and you should definitely step in and regulate these practices.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Heavy-handedly. The internet is essential to Canadians, and net neutrality is a crucial part of the modern internet. Threats to net neutrality should be dealt with harshly. This doesn't just mean data caps - this also applies to throttling- there have been allegations that telecoms have been artificially restricting how much bandwidth that can be used by connections to services like Netflix. This, too, is a method of restricting net-neutrality in an effort to push their own services, and should be strongly discouraged.

anarcat 1 point Thu Sep 29 20:33:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix?

    Pour l'utilisateur-trice, il peut y avoir une apparence de réduction des coûts. En réalité, ces pratiques cachent souvent des coûts plus élevés que dans d'autres pays où il y a une réelle compétition entre les FAI, et les avantages sont donc illusoires. Donc je crois qu'il n'y a pas de réels avantages pour les utilisateurs-trices. Il y a certainement un avantage au niveau du fournisseur, qui peut mieux "paraître": c'est une forme de valorisation de leurs services sans réellement investir pour l'améliorer.

  2. Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix?

    Ils rendent plus compliqués les calculs d'utilisation de bande passante pour les utilisateurs. Il est déjà très difficile pour l'utilisateur moyen de comprendre la différence entre les "K", les "M" et les "G". Je me fais souvent demander par des amis non-technos comment faire la différence, et c'est difficile: on part de loin.

    D'ajouter de la complexité en disant "le site A coûte rien" n'aide vraiment pas les choses, et j'ai peur que des gens se retrouvent avec des factures excessives suite à un manque de compréhension.

    J'ai également des inquiétudes sur l'impact que ceci peut avoir sur l'innovation sur internet. Youtube, Netflix et autres ont tous prospéré puisqu'ils n'avaient pas à explicitement entrer en négociation avec tous les FAI et les vieux telcos, qui ont un oligopole sur le "dernier mile". Leur traffic est traité plus ou moins également des autres, et tarifé de la même façon qu'un téléchargement normal: selon la bande passante utilisée.

    Si on commence à facturer différemment selon tel ou tel fournisseur, ceci peut donner un avantage compétitif supérieur aux organisations déjà établies et empêcher l'innovation. Pire encore, ceci pourrait favoriser des services connexes des FAI (exemple des chaînes de télé dont BCE est propriétaire pourraient être gratuites sur le réseau de Bell), ce qui consisterait un abus de monopole et de la concurrence déloyale.

  3. Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques? Ou devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider?

    Absolument: ce genre de pratiques devraient être règlementées. Les FAI, particulièrement issus des gros telcos tels que Bell et Rogers ont montré, année après année, qu'ils sont incapables de décider par eux-mêmes en respectant leurs utilisateurs.

  4. Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques?

    Je suis pour la nationalisation des infrastructures de télécommunication, mais je doute que le CRTC s'aventure dans un tel nid de guêpe politique. J'imagine que je devrai attendre l'indépendance du Québec pour que Réseau-Québec voit le jour: https://anarc.at/blog/2012-06-20-pourquoi-un-monopole-sur-linternet-et-une-solution-reseau-quebec/

    Une mesure intermédiaire serait peut-être d'infliger à Bell Canada la même chose que AT&T a vécu il y a plusieurs années. Il s'agit d'un énorme monopole qui doit être contrôlé. Mais je n'ai pas d'illusions non plus à ce niveau: AT&T est en train de re-fusionner de toute façon.

    En attendant l'apocalypse, je crois qu'il serait possible de mieux guider le marché déjà présent. Il faut réglementer les coûts d'accès au réseau, qui sont faramineux. L'accès différencié n'est pas une solution: les gens dépassent souvent leur quota simplement en consultant leurs courriels, tellement ces quotas sont bas.

    Une connexion 10mbit/s devrait être exactement ça: 10mbit/s, illimité, sans quota. Tout autre méthode est de la fausse publicité, tout simplement. S'il y a un quota, il devrait être indiqué en GB/mois, mais aussi en mbit/s. Exemple, 40GB par mois, c'est 132kilobit/s utilisé en continu sur tout le mois. Peu importe que ce soit sur une connexion 10mbit/s. 10mbit/s, utilisé en continu sur 30 jours, c'est 3 téraoctets (des tibiocters, techniquement)!

    (C'est d'ailleurs de cette façon que les fournisseurs se facturent entre eux, et même là: ils facturent souvent au 95è percentile, c'est à dire que sur tous les échantillons de 5 minutes pris dans les 30 derniers jours, on enlève les 5% plus hauts.)

    Cela met les choses en perspective, n'est-ce pas?

    Les FAI font une fortune avec une resource qui ne leur coûte pratiquement rien: la bande passante. Le traitement différentiel est une façon honteuse d'essayer de nous faire croire que certains services deviennent "gratuits" alors que c'est encore une autre méthode d'étendre leur monopole historique sur d'autres espaces de l'internet. Ceci devrait tout simplement être banni, point à la ligne.

Minupla 1 point Thu Sep 29 20:43:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I am totally OK with differential pricing IF we're talking about zero rating by content. Want to offer free emails on your system regardless of what service I'm using? No issue. You want to give me free web-surfing, regardless of where I go? Sounds good. You want to make video free regardless of what company I'm getting it from... well that's maybe a bad move, but go for it.

If however we're talking about Company X allowing me to access ONLY Company Y's service for free, but I'd have to pay if I wanted to access Company Z's service in the same space? Now you're allowing Company X to pick market winners, and I'm not OK with that.

The internet's power is based on the idea that it is equal effort for me to go to any vendor, regardless of distance, and place on the planet. I get to choose as the consumer the market winner. The moment we allow companies to artificially adjust the slope to move me towards one destination we're going to run into issues of effective (if not the legal definition of) monopoly.

jonmcduff 1 point Thu Sep 29 21:01:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1) There are only benefits in differential data pricing for the consumer if we accept data prices as they currently are (far too high, with ridiculous overage fees). When streaming video is so 'bandwidth intensive' by today's standards, this current market is untenable, and won't be able to support 4k in the near future. Differential pricing only helps in a market where prices are already too high for data. This should not be the CRTC's focus.

2) With differential pricing you are conceding net neutrality, and as a regulator (allegedly trying to help citizens), you should know how much of a terrible idea this is.

3) Do not allow for differential pricing. Do not let the ISPs or WSPs decide on pricing, they are already recording record profits, buying up all rights to sports and premium content (HBO), and generally reducing competition within Canada. The CRTC has already failed imho in allowing this to take place. Any regulation you have introduced has absolutely failed in making things more affordable, or in giving more options to canadians. When you 'fought for canadians' to only have 2 year phone contracts, this gave the providers an excuse to recalculate how much data was worth, and let them blame the increase of phone rates on shorter contracts.

4) If we must accept that we require data caps (which should be investigated...Look into if unlimited data would actually be a burden or large expense for these extremely profitable companies)...You need to mandate a maximum $ amount per GB of data for both Home and Mobile internet. At no point should a provider be able to go above this mandated dollar amount.

At the very least you should not allow providers the ability to charge different prices per GB.
EXAMPLE: I pay $60 for 6GB plan (it's an old rogers plan, today this plan costs $110), then ignoring everything else the plan provides (voice, sms, caller id), Let's give the provider the hypothetical benefit of saying that @$60 for 6gb, we have a rate of $10/gb, hypothetically, if I were to go over by 2GB, I should only get charged $20, however by my current plan, in the real world, I get charged $50.
Somehow the overage jump from 6gb to 8gb = $50 (2gb overage = +83% to my bill). Insanity.

You may also want to consider, that if we pay for a certain amount of money, for a certain amount of bandwith, we should be able to bank any unused bandwidth for subsequent months use. This would only be fair.

Data is not a finite resource. They are price gauging. Fix it.

MTL_ProTip 1 point Thu Sep 29 21:03:38 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing is a clear and direct violation of the original intents and purposes of the Internet, and it does so only to benefit a given company.

Internet neutrality shall always be the utmost priority of anyone involved with the Internet.

Barochk 1 point Thu Sep 29 21:05:34 2016 UTC  (0 children)

tl;dr : Any iteration of Differential Pricing opens up a slew of unwanted battles on definition, so it should be outright banned. tl;dr : Toute itération d'une Différenciation des Prix ouvre une plaie légale béante sur des définitions, et je considère donc que ce devrait être simplement banni.

I would like to, first and foremost, thank our MPs for this consultation.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? I've actually spent a few hours reading the different ideas posted on this thread, which were a good complement to my prior research, and while I have seen a few good suggestions in this part of the questionnaire, they seemed heavily optimistic in many fashions. The sole benefit for consumers seems to be access to a Provider-Chosen set of services without them being seen as data consumption on the plan.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

My concerns would fall somewhere in the "Gatekeeper" argument, specifically that the Provider now chooses to give or withdraw economic incentive to the consumption of a particular brand or type of information, be it in entertainment or otherwise. Ergo, finding a data-plan is no longer a price-hunt, but also a question of media-accessibility, and this is a horrible precedent to set. It gives Providers incentive to partner up with specific services to bolster -their- profits, and disadvantages smaller competitors, who cannot strike such deals with any Provider. I have seen a cogent and well written proposition for Advertisement to be exempted from data-caps, but this simply begets the future question "What is advertisement? What can we, as Provider, convince a Judge falls under Advertisement, and from there, what can we get away with?". The "This service is ours, so our promotions for it are Advertisement" logic seems and easy step to attempt to argue.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

My concernes far outweigh any benefit I have read or thought of, even in the most optimistic of scenarios. From that stance, I do believe the CRTC should step in and regulate the practice.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? In this particular case, I believe the CRTC should ban the practice of Differential Pricing outright. While many people in this thread believe (rightly or no) that this would lead to an increase in prices across the board, I believe that such concerns are outside of the scope of this discussion. Should the Providers act in such a manner, it should be adressed in due time. I would however like to point to AgentSmithRadio's answer to this particular section, as it presents a series of very relevant lines of questioning.

Thank you.

J'aimerais, d'abord et avant tout, remercier le CRTC pour cette consultation.

J'aimerais, d'abord et avant tout, remercier le CRTC pour cette consultation.

Quels avantages y a-t-il, selon vous, à avoir une différenciation des prix?

J'ai passé quelques heures à lire les différentes idées publiées sur ce fil de discussion, qui ont été un bon complément a mes recherches. Malgré l'existence de quelques bonnes suggestions comme points positifs pour cette question, les idées me semblaient fortement optimistes. Le seul bénéfice que je puisse voir pour le consommateur est l'accès a certains services choisis par le Fournisseur sans que ceux-cis affectent la consommation des données du plan de l'utilisateur.

Avez-vous des préoccupations au sujet de la différenciation des prix?

Mes préoccupations seraient agglomérables à l'argument dit "Gatekeeper" ( je ne saurais traduire de façon valable ce terme), plus spécifiquement au sens ou le Fournisseur choisis de donner ou reprendre une incentive économique a un type ou une marque d'information, que ce soit au niveau du divertissement ou d'autre chose. En ce sens, trouver un plan de données n'est plus une chasse au plus bas prix, mais inclut des facteurs d'accessibilité de certains médias, et ceci me semble un précédent affreux. Les Fournisseurs gagnent donc des incentives à former des partenariats avec certains services afin d'augment -leurs- profits, ce qui donne un désavantage naturel a de plus petits services, qui ne peuvent prendre un tel arrangement avec aucun Fournisseur. J'ai lu une proposition réfléchie et bien écrite proposent l'exemption de Publicitées de la consommation de données, mais ceci amène un débat intrinsèque de "Que'ce que la publicité? Que pouvons nous, en tant que Fournisseur, convaincre un juge tombe sous l'égide de la Publicité, et a partir de là, comment pouvons nous l'exploiter?". La logique de "Cet autre service nous appartient, et donc nos promotions sont une forme de Publicité" me semble un point facile à arguer en cour.

Ces préoccupations l’emportent-elles sur les avantages et, le cas échéant, sont-elles suffisamment importantes pour justifier notre intervention et la réglementation des pratiques? Ou devrions-nous laisser les fournisseurs de services résidentiels (filaires) et de services mobiles (sans fil) décider?

Mes préoccupations l'emportent sur tout les avantages que j'aie lus ou envisagés, et ce dans les scénarios les plus optimistes. Suivant cette pensée, je crois que le CRTC devrait intervenir et règlementer les pratiques.

Si nous devions intervenir, de quelle manière devrions-nous réglementer les pratiques?

Dans le cas que nous étudions, je crois que le CRTC devrait bannir la pratique de Différencation des Prix. Quoiqu'un partie des participants a ce fil croient (Justement ou a tort) que ceci causerait simplement une hausse des prix, je crois que ces préoccupations sortent de la portée de cette discussion. Si les Fournisseurs agissent de tel manière, ceci devrait être adressé en temps et lieux. Quoique la réponse soit uniquement en anglais, j'aimerais pointer vers la réponse d'AgentSmithRadio a cette question particulière, puisqu'elle présente une ligne de questionnement fort intéressante.

Merci.

Edits : Formatting.

NurseCody 1 point Thu Sep 29 21:06:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? I don't think there are any benefits to differential pricing as a whole, the idea that companies can regulate our internet usage or "force" consumers to use certain apps because they are free, and charge data to use others is outrageous. Data caps need to end, they are outdated and restrict the freedom of Canadians. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes, I am concerned that all new contracts will be outrageously priced and will, by default restrict internet access and usage based on which company paid my service provider more. Yes, I will still have data available to me, but it would be a greatly reduced amount, plus any free data offered with apps and the price would be greatly increased because "free data", but this "free" data would already be paid for by adversiters or app owners, and then in turn, consumers also pay extra for this "free" data. Outrageous and criminal. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? No, there are not enough benefits to support this change, without a governing body to regulate this proposed service, service providers will go wild and there wont be any net benefit to consumers. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

MJTony 1 point Thu Sep 29 21:24:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

NET NEUTRALITY!

mbizzle88 1 point Thu Sep 29 21:50:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Theoretically the benefit to consumers is free access to some content.

  2. I am concerned that differential pricing will give service providers too much power over what content is being created or viewed. Service providers will inevitably make exclusive deals with larger content providers that will disadvantage new and independent content providers.

  3. The disadvantages definitely outweigh the benefits for the consumer. Though consumers may be able to view more of some content, there will be a loss in the overall diversity of content. Smaller content creators will be greatly disadvantaged leading to less competition in that space.

  4. The CRTC should disallow this practice and enforce net neutrality.

gina_lou 1 point Thu Sep 29 21:53:59 2016 UTC  (0 children)

There are no benefits to differential pricing for consumers. All the benefits are to ISPs via the corporations who pay them to zero rate their content.

I believe differential pricing should be banned. It is a form of censorship as well as corruption.

Yes to regulation for reasons outlined above.

I'm not qualified to comment the nuts and bolts of regulation and enforcement. Whichever way you catch cheaters, the financial penalty should be high enough to make cheating not worthwhile. Penalties collected can help pay for the regulation maybe?

Challak 1 point Thu Sep 29 21:58:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

My internet provider should not be able to bill me by the services that I use on the internet. The very idea of this is shockingly appalling for a culture/world so closely tied to internet use. The internet has provided so many incredible things, given access to infinite resources for learning, communication, and many other things. The very idea of subjecting the internet and all it grants access to ISP controlled content access/packages is both aberrant, shocking, and such a step backward that it boggles the mind that it's being considered in such an age of information and technology. Controlling internet speed, while still an unfortunate limitation, is at least acceptable. Controlling the amount of data you can consume is ridiculous (and all of the limits are ridiculously low creating the illusion of choice/savings). Offering private corporations control over the content, be it masked and worded as any mode of delivery they like, is simply unacceptable. I will not easily accept a payment system that tries to sell me a "Youtube" package. I will fight to the end to abolish the notion of a "20 hours of Netflix access" feature on my internet bill or anything of its type. And when they try to get me to upgrade to the "social networking bundle for $20" I will laugh my way to any other provider that doesn't try and sell such preposterous ideas. Net neutrality is the only logical state, and we should be moving toward improving it (removing data caps) not the other way around. As others have said, "Users, not telecom companies, should decide which services we use online".

They are absolutely correct when they say "There is no such thing as too much internet" and educated Canadians will never fall for the childish rhetoric and shady business dealings that these ISPs continue to attempt in every dark alley of corporate dealings. It's unfortunate that they've been enabled thus far, but soon even those who fell for their tricks in the past will reach their limit and realize how terribly bad Canadian internet service truly is. I leave it to the others here to answer your specific questions far more eloquently than I, but I wanted my voice to be heard in that at least.

happilymarried30yrs 1 point Thu Sep 29 22:17:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Internet service should be treated the same way we treat roads, water and electricity. Making companies the gatekeepers of content will create monopolistic situations, resulting in deadweight loss to society. If I live in an area that has only 1 or 2 ISPs (basically EVERYWHERE), they can essentially hold content providers hostage, or throttle Netflix in favor of their own high priced uncompetitive products (the On-Demand movies that cost $4.99 per view instead of Netflix unlimited for $9.99).

There's so much potential for abuse. I understand that capping usage may become a requirement, or that paying for extra downloads is fine (some people use a TON) but making it so that ISPs can select WHAT you download is a VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE. Do we really want to be more like China?

funkme1ster Ontario 1 point Thu Sep 29 22:41:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? The benefits to users is obviously that the major applications and services they use will not impact their bill, and thus they can use them as much as they want.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? The biggest concern is that this is too close to scrip. If service providers can give users large swaths of data without needing to charge them more, then they should just give the raw data access to the users and let them choose how to use it. Most users will likely continue their habits anyways because the most popular applications won't suddenly become less popular. HOWEVER, like with scrip, giving differential pricing to different uses provides an unfavourable advantage to the differential applications and implicitly deters users from seeking out alternatives.

All car makes and models have different pros and cons, and they all have different mileage/efficiency ratings, but the cost of gas is universal. Some dealerships make deals where if you buy a car from them then you'll save ~15c/L on gas for the first year, but that is still a simple discount the buyer factors into the purchase amortization. If, however, all Toyotas inherently cost 10c/L less at the pump, no matter which gas station you used or which model you drove, that would provide an unfair advantage which would hinder competitors and deter consumers from going elsewhere. Similarly, if gas you intended to use for driving on back country dirt roads cost more than gas used for city driving, it would deter people from certain types of activities, and skew growth.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? The concerns are grave and merit intervention. The consumer ALWAYS prospers when free competition is facilitated because it means all competitors may jockey on equal footing to create the best possible product. If the incumbent applications and services that exist now are arbitrarily given preferential treatment, then future innovators who may produce superior iterations would have an uphill battle as the cost of using their service would be contingent on bandwidth as opposed to services which have an unlimited, flat rate pipeline.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? All common infrastructure should always adhere to one core principle: all traffic is fungible. Canada Post doesn't charge different rates if you're mailing a birthday card as opposed to a wedding invitation, so long as it fits in the standard mailing envelope (and is thus interchangeable for the medium). A byte is a byte and it should be charged as such, regardless of what type of information it is part of.

durpaholic 1 point Thu Sep 29 22:48:39 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Net neutrality is a right for every Canadian citizen. Freedom of speech should be extended to the Internet. No exceptions no funny business slippery slopes. . Data caps are already ******** as it is. Don't let Internet providers decide what is "data" and what isn't. What's next???!

throw_away34i39fi39f 1 point Thu Sep 29 23:12:20 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

Reading through these comments I don't see a single person who approved of this idea and does not consider it a violation of net neutrality, so I'm curious to see how you guys spin it when you finally do **** us all over with this "differential pricing" scam you're cooking up.

Given the track record of the CRTC, I guess all we can do is pretend to act surprised when it happens I guess.

cdn4843 1 point Thu Sep 29 23:38:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?
As a consumer, I don't believe the benefits, that the supporters of differential pricing would argue are at all consumer friendly or helpful to consumers such as myself or Canadians in general. Being one that considers both sides of the coin, there might be some very specific use cases where it might be applicable.
One application for differential pricing might be to allow basic internet package designed for a specific use. For example a nominal fee package of $10/month including all fees that ensures a smooth and usable high speed internet connection (in the vicinity of 7-10 megabit download and 1 megabit upload) that the CRTC and subsequently many/most Canadians would agree must be be zero-rated.
All other use cases where specific content websites or traffic is zero-rated at the discretion of internet service providers is likely a conflict of interest with the general public and the likelihood for abuse is too great. If push comes to shove and there's no choice but to allow differential pricing (which I hope is not the case) in the marketplace, it should be regulated and used in a such a manner that it only affects low-dollar services. For example, it can only be applied to a wireless service that's $10/month or internet service that's $10/month. (I understand these values are unrealistic to provide services at however, its unrealistic for a services provider to not act in its own self-interest as well.) At $30 or $60/month, the probability for abuse is too great.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?
My concerns regarding differential pricing pertain to incumbent providers of service that are heavily invested in content, market share, shareholders, stock prices and a Darwinian outlook to survive the next evolution of communications. For example, if I'm an incumbent provider of internet services and I zero-rate all streaming services where I own the content (let's say hockey games), this could steer some consumers to my service because I watch a lot of Hockey and I don't want to pay more to another provider that has data caps that does not zero-rate hockey streaming. This is anti-competitive behavior and a very real possible outcome. I also firmly believe that general net neutrality principles apply and that differential pricing would go against these very principles many including myself have stood up for.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?
I think the concerns far outweigh the potential benefits of any real differential pricing the incumbent providers could offer. Do not let the wireless, wireless or internet service providers decide.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?
I think the easiest way to regulate differential pricing is to not allow it in any shape or form whatsoever. The cons outweigh any real tangible benefits the consumer could ever hope to receive. The easiest way also relieves the CRTC from constantly (every 3-5 years) to review and make amendments and changes to how the differential pricing works or is applied.

drewy911 1 point Thu Sep 29 23:54:21 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I do not think there are any benefits to differential pricing. It is designed for the corporation to make more money, and it needs to be stopped. Ban it.

LeGoodBeef 1 point Fri Sep 30 00:34:35 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hello CRTC! I registered to Reddit simply to voice my opinion.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? At first, it makes customer go "Oh!" but then, if you look under the rug, it's just a very bad way to get customers. It only serves corporations that uses these partnership for money. If they are able to offer this at no extra cost, why is data so expensive when DATA is DATA?! Yep, to make more cash off of us.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? I do. One company will be offering this, the other will offer an other thing. Then, they will also keep caps low so you can't choose your platform of choice. For exemple: Vidéotron offers free streaming of Spotify but not Apple Music (exemple). So, you have to use their preferencial platform to benefit from it but, if it's not, you have to use your data. Same for video streaming platforms or Live TV. Then, at one point, it will only be possible to get to certain platforms on certain incumbants. Internet must stay Neutral and all data is data. It's all the same.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? The concerns do outweight the benefits and you should step in. Many users before me explained this better than I do so you should look out for their comments but once they start doing it, then, there's no stopping. They'll start doing it for mobile then they'll move for wireline. Internet must stay Neutral.

We are also going into an era where Internet is a necessity. More and more, internet content take more and more data off a plan; either mobile or wireline. Be aware of that. If nobody ban differential pricing, we're going to suck it up big time.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Ban differencial pricing and ban data caps on both wireless and wireline. If there's no data caps, there can't be differencial pricing. Beware though: incumbants will potentially do three things once you ban them: * 1. They will jack up the prices. Solution: Make the regulation to make sure they keep the prices affordable and for all wallets. * 2. They will start throttling heavy data users. Alternatively, they could be making "fast lanes" where their prefered platforms would load and download faster then others and will "slow down" the other platforms. Solution: Also ban throttling/"fast laning" of ALL kind. That's a net neutrality rule. * 3. They will obviously try to find gray areas in the new regislation to suck up our cash even more. Solution: Make quadruple certain that their is no such areas. Be stern and stand your ground.

LeGoodBeef 1 point Fri Sep 30 00:44:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Hello CRTC! I registered to Reddit simply to voice my opinion.

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

At first, it makes customer go "Oh!" but then, if you look under the rug, it's just a very bad way to get customers. It only serves corporations that uses these partnership for money. If they are able to offer this at no extra cost, why is data so expensive when DATA is DATA?! Yep, to make more cash off of us.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I do. One company will be offering this, the other will offer an other thing. Then, they will also keep caps low so you can't choose your platform of choice. For exemple: Vidéotron offers free streaming of Spotify but not Apple Music (exemple). So, you have to use their preferencial platform to benefit from it but, if it's not, you have to use your data. Same for video streaming platforms or Live TV. Then, at one point, it will only be possible to get to certain platforms on certain incumbants. Internet must stay Neutral and all data is data. It's all the same.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The concerns do outweight the benefits and you should step in. Many users before me explained this better than I do so you should look out for their comments but once they start doing it, then, there's no stopping. They'll start doing it for mobile then they'll move for wireline. Internet must stay Neutral.

We are also going into an era where Internet is a necessity. More and more, internet content take more and more data off a plan; either mobile or wireline. Be aware of that. If nobody ban differential pricing, we're going to suck it up big time.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban differencial pricing and ban data caps on both wireless and wireline. If there's no data caps, there can't be differencial pricing. Beware though: incumbants will potentially do three things once you ban them:

  • 1. They will jack up the prices. Solution: Make the regulation to make sure they keep the prices affordable and for all wallets.
  • 2. They will start throttling heavy data users. Alternatively, they could be making "fast lanes" where their prefered platforms would load and download faster then others and will "slow down" the other platforms. Solution: Also ban throttling/"fast laning" of ALL kind. That's a net neutrality rule.
  • 3. They will obviously try to find gray areas in the new regislation to suck up our cash even more. Solution: Make quadruple certain that their is no such areas. Be stern and stand your ground.

(Sorry if this show up twice, I didn't see my own comment after hitting "save" the first time)

Z3ppelinDude93 1 point Fri Sep 30 01:36:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. At best, as a consumer you get the benefit of consuming as much content as you want through preferred channels. I know, I know, that's really the whole message, and I phrase it this way because, on front street, it looks pretty good. It's what that means below the surface that is troubling.

  2. What makes the internet so popular is its simple access to data of all kinds. Although there is still some bias in the content you see, that bias is usually created by users, who link, like, up vote, or share relevant pages across their networks. There will always be services that stand out and are the leaders, just as there were networks and stations that lead on tv and radio. The difference is that the barrier to entry for someone new to come in and do it better are vastly decreased and that's important - Now, anyone can go online and share their thoughts, share the news footage they captured, create a program or system that improves on the norm, without major sponsors and advertisers to back them up. The internet is an even playing ground for every person and their ideas where rent is cheap and your status is based on a jury of your peers.

Differential pricing changes the dynamic in a way that is both more traditional and detrimental. Suddenly, a new video hosting service can't compete with YouTube because people can watch Youtube for free. A new social network can't he about mobile users because Bell gives you unlimited Facebook. Not only do we smoulder the voices of young entrepreneurs and fresh faces, but we risk slowing the progress of new ideas and technological development.

And finally, the entire concept just speaks to the corruption we see in the Canadian broadcasting network (through no fault of the CRTC). 3 main providers dominate the Canadian broadcast industry, and basically own the entirety of telecommunications, and we as Canadians experience higher service costs as a result. Implementing unlimited usage for specific services (especially streaming services) screams that these companies don't need to charge us an extra $30 for the upgraded cable package, and that they do solely for the profitability. I wrote a huge post a long time ago about the cost of cellular data that is somewhat related.

  1. I do think this is an issue the CRTC needs to address. This is an international issue that no country has led the charge on, and we are at a crux during which major decisions about the future of the internet need to be made. I and many others on this thread agree that the internet needs to remain a free and safe playground for voices and creators to express themselves and share their ideas with the users deciding what thrives. I ask that the CRTC helps maintain it.

  2. The benefits of differential service are lost to both the telecommunications company and the Web platform when those services can't be marketed. If no one knows you get unlimited Netflix on Rogers, neither Netflix or Rogers can pick up customers because of it. In my mind, regulation should simply state that all Web services must be provided equally, with no preferential service including but not limited to preferred speeds and additional data capacity to be provided for any one service over others. Enforcing comes to keeping an eye on advertisements and allowing consumers a platform to reach out if they see or suspect abuse of that policy.

All of that said, thank you for taking the time to listen to the voices of Canadians on this issue. Knowing that the committees in place to protect the consumer interest are looking to consumers for their opinions on these issues is very validating and comforting. Your efforts are always appreciated.

Paigeboogies 1 point Fri Sep 30 01:54:30 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?- Cant think of any- because I am not participating in the decision of what gets differentially priced. 
Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?- 

Yes- it is handing a censorship power to the data companies (by deciding what I wont get differential pricing on). You have to ask who benefits- just the data companies, because I dont have any agency in the policy.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits- no benefits to me -

so,---yes-- they are significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?- again, they will not have MY benefit in mind, and I will have no agency.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?- just say "No!"

Billaferd 1 point Fri Sep 30 02:12:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing isn't really the concern. The concern is that ISP's want to charge us for something that doesn't cost them anything. Whether you download 5 mega bytes or 500 mega bytes. It costs the ISP's the same amount. The rate at which the data flows is what costs the ISP's anything. Infrastructure only guarantees the bandwidth available to a customer, that bandwidth will regulate how much data a person can use.

Data Caps are literally charging something for nothing. The amount of data someone downloads has no bearing on the stress of the infrastructure only the data rate. An ISP should be able to charge for the bandwidth that they are providing but can't be allowed to charge users extra if they actually use that service.

Charging for data caps opens the door to much more nefarious activities. Once data caps are allowed to be implemented then an ISP can then directly influence traffic and therefore the dissemination of information. Many ISP's will take this opportunity to allow users to stream music and videos from their own products without counting against the data cap, which in turn further boosts their own profits and help shut out competition. This creates a segmented, closed market that can't grow or innovate because the barrier to entry has become way to high. Not only do they have to compete against other competitors but they must now strike deals with ISP's that are already promoting their own products.

Services like Shomi, are welcome to the market but giving them preference over competitors like Netflix or Youtube will simply result in more companies further isolating and ignoring the potential profits from Canadians. Further making Canada a less attractive place to do business, and further making Canada less profitable as a whole. This practice adds to the devaluation of our economy, the loss of jobs and the overall well-being of our country.

The CRTC needs to step in and ban the practice of data caps and uphold net neutrality as a whole.

CaptainFroggius 1 point Fri Sep 30 02:13:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential pricing should not be permitted.

PlinkoKing 1 point Fri Sep 30 02:33:12 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Canada's telcom community has not earned my trust that they won't abuse this feature.

I would expect them to launch competing products to new/popular online games/websites and only offer zero rate features to their branded sites. This is a bad idea.

Respect net neutrality.

Buy our streaming service, it won't hurt your data! Rogers presents Rokemon Go! Now with no data charges!

Bad idea. Stop it.

stevencage 1 point Fri Sep 30 02:33:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I'm going to go against the grain here and offer a scenario in which differential pricing may offer more benefits than shortcomings.

I'm talking about zero-rating Canadian content that exists online. What type of content specifically? I don't know. Maybe content that has CAVCO stamp of approval, or a CBC app. This would explicitly violate the principle of net neutrality, but it would also fulfil a policy objective of the CRTC, the Broadcasting Act, and the Telecommunications Act.

Is this legal? There exists a provision in Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act that essentially allows for telcos to use differential pricing with prior approval by the CRTC, if the purpose of the practice is pursuant to the policy objectives of the Act. If the exhibition of Canadian content helps pursue the goals of the Act, then I can see this falling within the jurisdiction of the CRTC. It also seems like there are enough safeguards in place to stop this from becoming a slippery slope, given that it requires CRTC approval.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is looking for ways to help Canadian content in an online world, so I don't think this policy is totally out of the question. On the face of it, it doesn't seem like a terrible idea. It would definitely require a robust debate, though.

1000_cold_nights 1 point Fri Sep 30 02:46:57 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. I think the benefits of differential pricing are that data can be cheaper for the consumer as some of it would be sponsored by companies.
  2. Some concerns I have are telecom companies limiting access or giving preferential favour to companies that sponsor data and thus making a sort of paywall to the customer. I understand that advertising costs money but if the consumer wants to see something that they are will to pay for there should not be a limiter to that. Also i feel it puts too much power in telecom companies as the middle man for information. 3.I feel the concern outweighs the benefit and I do feel the government should regulate it. If the companies decide amongst themselves then they would most likely choose something that benefits themselves much more than keeping things fair for the consumer and the companies whose media they would be showing. The government should be unbiased and therefore should make a fair decision.
  3. As for how the government should regulate it, I'm not too sure on how the law works but I would think something along the lines of limiting the telecom companies ability to restrict access and force or restrict certain media.
    4.

vicomtedemoulliac 1 point Fri Sep 30 03:59:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

The CRTC should step in and regulate. Differential pricing is not a good idea. Please keep the internet an equal playing field.

shawslave 1 point Fri Sep 30 04:31:00 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? - I see no benefit to the consumer. I see massive benefits to the brokers of net access. By further restricting our freedom of choice they can force us to view their content, use their packages and kill any competition that might threaten their monopoly. I Live in Victoria and we have the illusion of choice between shaw and telus, any start ups that buy data and resell it at lower than shaw prices are quickly bankrupted and driven from the market, all while the crtc turns a blind eye or an investigator gets a new condo somewhere warm....

Massive concerns, anytime the crtc makes a ruling the consumer loses. What should be happening is an end to data caps. all data should be simply priced at a cost+% and yes we Canadians do know what it costs. We pay some of the highest fees in the world for crap service and restricted access while J.R. drives his corus/shaw family around in limos fueled with cash from our pockets.

o these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

what benefits. the money the telecoms will extract from our pockets while they bend us over our tv's and computers doesn't come back, restrictions get tighter, net netrality is thrown out the window and the Funny talking americans in the north (that's how the yanks think of us, no national identity, just that puppet to the north that does what its told) continue to slide US policy into out laws and agreements like the TPP.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Fair pricing, absolute transparancy, no speed and data caps, no overage fees, just a simple cost+% so those who use pay. those who don't use as much pay less. no more bundling, let people pick what they want to watch, what they want to use. don't force the choices down our throats.

oh yah and whom ever thought of coming here for public forum, gets a raise, fire the rest. Crtc is a joke B.

riffraffs 1 point Fri Sep 30 05:51:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

You know as well as we do that you'll do whatever robellus tells you to do. You're owned by them, run by them, and paid by them and you don't care what's good for the consumer, only what makes robellus the most money and keeps competition at bay.

ProGamerGov Canada 1 point Fri Sep 30 06:11:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The shareholders of the 4 major ISPs in Canada will make more money.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, because it undermines net neutrality. It may benefit Canadians for a brief period in the short term, but long term it will only hurt Canadians. It will also create business incentives for ISPs and cell carrier to violate the privacy of Canadians so that they can track "sponsored content/content exemptfrom data caps".

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, the concerns definitely outweigh the benefits. The incredible growth and innovation fuelled by the Internet, is because of net neutrality. If we allow companies to exempt themselves from net neutrality rules with differential pricing, then only the big existing companies will be able to compete. Net neutrality allows for fair competition, and thus needs to be strictly enforced with heavy penalties for violations. Wireless and wired both need net neutrality rules enforced on them, as they are not different.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

By strictly enforcing net neutrality rules, and fining companies who violate those rules. Data caps need to be banned in additional to enforcing strict net neutrality rules. Doing these two things for both wired and wireless, will impact the majority of Canadian lives for the better, and create a more innovative future of the Internet pioneered by Canadians.

Also, the CRTC should work towards making ISPs in Canada create better peering agreements with each other so that Canadian data can flow quicker, and remain inside our borders, if you are connecting to online Canadian resources hosted in other parts of the country.

4ksb 1 point Fri Sep 30 06:18:53 2016 UTC  (0 children)

TLDR: differential pricing benefits providers, not users. CRTC, be courageous and ensure that it doesn't happen.

gman060692 1 point Fri Sep 30 06:23:07 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Some services may request that data in a different way than others and have a bigger impact than others. Video streaming requires a whole lot more data at once than audio streaming and a file download will use as much bandwidth as possible until it's finished. The same amount of data transferred over a longer period of time will have a smaller impact on a bandwidth constrained network (wireless) than if transferred as fast as possible. Network congestion is caused by reaching an instantaneous capacity limit of a network. Thus having some method by which services that use smaller instantaneous bandwidth could be beneficial for both consumer and telecom. This must be implemented properly, however, to ensure competition is not hindered.(see my response to number 4 to see how it could be done properly.)

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Differential pricing or zero rating of specific approved services is only superficially beneficial to the consumer in the short term as they may see a lower bill at first if they already use the exempted services, but prices will rise for these services and the plans which provide this "value add". Ultimately it really only serves as tool for the telecom to steer purchasing decisions and add and extra check box to marketing material.

Implemented improperly it acts as a tool for telecoms to steer consumer to products which benefit them and lock consumers into that pattern(eg consumer might start using a service which is zero rated on one telecom provider and then become disincentivised from switching providers if the same service is not zero rated elsewhere). All services compete for our time and data regardless of if they directly compete in the same market (video services, audio streaming, voip, etc) data is data

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes. It ultimately leads to higher prices in the long run because it reduces competition across the board. Online services will rise in price due to reduced competition and telecom plan pricing will rise due to vendor lock in.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Enforce net neutrality. No service should be given an unfair advantage simply because the telecom said so. Data is data, 1 bit is 1 bit regardless of whether it's part of a video, audio file, or large random number. Naturally some services will use more data than others and thus cost more because of that, but this is still net neutrality.

Ways it could be done properly: One method of zero rating which would remain net neutral is to provide customers with a low bandwidth(lower speed) mode which customers could turn on and off at will; all data transfer while in this mode could be exempted from a data cap. Another method is to provide an api or proxy server, with no approval process for it's use, which any service could build into their application that would voluntarily submit the data received through their application to throttling. With the second method telecoms should also be banned from advertising which services have implemented their api or proxy and let those services advertise their implementation. The information on the api or proxy server should be well documented and publicly available to everyone simultaneously.

Note that data caps in the first place should really only exist on bandwidth constrained wireless networks due to the hard bandwidth limits imposed by the laws of physics (at a certain point you simply can't add more bandwidth). On wired or fixed wireless home connections this should be a moot point, because data caps should not exist or only apply to peak hours usage no more than 6 hours total. A fixed connection can be upgraded to fulfill the speeds sold to the customers without the need for a data caps. If a company is unwilling to invest in the upgrades to make that happen then they shouldn't be overselling their networks with high bandwidth packages they can't reliably provide.

SirDevonn 1 point Fri Sep 30 06:41:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

im living in the yukon where northwestel(bell) has a complete and total monopoly, with phones (land and cell altho telus came up year or 2 ago but only available in one area) tv (other than shaw direct) and internet, we spend a massive amount of money for crap internet access, with ridiculously low data caps, and the overage fees used to be 10 per gig with no cap its come down but still insanely high for the actual cost.

but the yukon isnt ontario or quebec so no one gives a crap while we have been getting ripped off for decades, people say vote with your wallet well thats easy to say when you have somewhere else to go, i work in IT and the reliability and speeds of out internet connections up here is BS

internet needs proper regulation like power or water since int his day and age access to quality internet is a must more so when you are more remote like up here in the north, the fiber lines to the north need to be opened up so smaller independent isps can come up and serve a much needed area, that wont ever happen since bell controls the fiber line, and while some wanted to build a line going thru to alaska bell of course is fighting it since they wouldnt have total control over it.

we might be small but we have every right to have high quality reliable fast and AFFORDABLE internet like the rest of the world, when some remote village in the middle of no where Africa, gets better quality internet and cellphone plans, then a "1st world" country like canada you know something is wrong.

something needs to be done about the big 3 telecoms controling canada and basically stealing from canadians and lying about the reasons for it, the lies that come out of 2 year olds is more believable than anything rogers bell and telus claim about why they charge so much, but yet some how still make billions in profit every year funny how that works maybe its time the CRTC actually grew a set and did the job they are suppose to and look out for canadians not the telecoms, but that is unlikely to happen since most of them end up going to work for said telecoms sooner or later

there is so much more that can be added but its been said for decades and it continues to fall on deaf ears since CRTC members are just killing time till they can join the telecoms and line their pockets, just as corrupt as the politicians who do the very same thing

icebalm 1 point Fri Sep 30 07:52:01 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no benefits. Differential pricing is an affront to net neutrality on it's face, and allows for service providers to engage in anti-competitive behaviour.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The major concerns are:

  1. Service providers can choose what type of data, and from which sources, to exempt, creating an incentive for users to use those services only, as it now effectively costs less. (Conflict of interest and anti-competitive: Bell exempting their own services therefore driving more users to them)

  2. Not exempting certain types of data therefore creates a disincentive for users to use those services, as it now effectively costs more. (Conflict of interest and anti-competitive: Rogers not exempting competitors data drives users away from those services)

  3. The vast majority cost to deliver data, regardless of where it comes from, is in the last mile infrastructure, and therefore should not cost customers more for different types of data. This indicates that service providers only want this practice in place for the anti-competitive nature of it.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Since there are no benefits to customers, but many concerns, then yes, this practice should be regulated.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The practice of charging more or less for different types of data should be illegal as not only does it create incentives for service providers to block out competitors, but it does not cost service providers any more to provide the data, and it breaks fundamental net neutrality tenants that allow for the proper functioning of the internet as a whole.

doop_zoopler 1 point Fri Sep 30 08:06:33 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I want to buy specialty channels to stream online. Why should i need a cable sub for this, especially when the on demand content is souly online? Help me pay so i dont need to search for streams

zeonite1944 1 point Fri Sep 30 11:30:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? Only benefits the provider and not the consumer. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes. It only gives the ISPs more oportunity to charge higher and higher prices. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? Absolutely. The CRTC is already allowing outrageous pricing practices. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? The CRTC must step in and provide full regulation. Canada's Internet services are among the most expensive in the world. The CRTC's goal of 5Mb/s service to all consumers, is a joke. I live in a small town less than an hours drive from the CRTC offices yet the quality of the infrastucture in my community is so poor that the ISPs will not offer services higher that 10Mb/s. This is common my community because the infrastructure has been allowed to detriorate to the point where it is almost non-functional. But it meets the CRTC's objective of 5Mb/s. This is far below the objectives of other countries.

Certal Canada 1 point Fri Sep 30 12:38:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Faster service for the status quo top end sites. More money for the ISPs.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Promoting the status quo of the internet at the cost of innovation. How can smaller websites compete with larger websites if they cannot afford the bandwidth required?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Innovation should never be hampered for short term gains. I do think the government should socialise ISP. Internet infrastructure isn't all that expensive to maintain and encouraging cities to offer internet services could save us some change.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Like we regulate our healthcare, but with less administration inefficiencies.

Jonnny 1 point Fri Sep 30 13:56:20 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Questions: We need your opinion about differential pricing: 1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? Some people will have cheaper access to certain company's services.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Absolutely. The internet is one of the largest experiments in human history, ranking right up there with democracy. It is a hotbed of innovation, technology, and (pardon the hyperbole) human ingenuity. Differential pricing essentially entrenches a few entrenched top players who already have the scale to negotiate cheap access to the public, disadvantaging smaller startups. The great thing about the internet is the free and instantaneous flow of information: geography is essentially eliminated. Differential pricing attempts, essentially, to re-impose a "geography" to data in order to engage in rent-seeking. Economists might say this is delightful, but it's short-term and lacks vision.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, those concerns heavily outweigh the benefits. It tweaks one of the founding principles of one of humanity's greatest experiments. (The invention of the internet is guaranteed to be a critical moment in humanity's history).

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Cement network neutrality. No tiered pricing. Data should become an essential service, a utility. Some argue that it should be a human right, as more and more services move online. I think that's a good goal eventually but currently economically unfeasible, but it's a good distant goal.

heyheyitsbrent 1 point Fri Sep 30 15:31:48 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I know this is slightly off-topic, and somewhat anecdotal, but I feel it is still relevant to the conversation.

I am a Telus customer, and have both my internet and tv provided by them. My connection is over fiber optic, and as such the television service is actual an IP-based connection.

What I find interesting, is that I essentially have two accounts with one company to access the same infrastructure, and one of those accounts has a data cap and the other does not. In my mind, this is the same as differential pricing, but with a different name.

As far as I can tell, the only reason for these services to be treated differently, is because it is what consumers expect. Historically, television has been a subscription-based service, where a customer could 'tune in' to a given channel, and the concept of a 'data cap' wouldn't make any sense. With the transition to IP-TV, and specifically on-demand (the vast majority of content I watch is on-demand) the providers have had to stick with a strictly subscription based service, because there would likely be massive consumer backlash if they tried to limit the number of shows a customer could watch. It would effectively be like making every show pay-per-view.

Contrast that with internet, where the consumers have been led to believe that there is some finite restriction on data, and therefore a data cap is necessary for the network to maintain an adequate level of performance. On the surface, it seems to make sense, so most people just go along with it.

This brings me back to my original point. I have two accounts with one company. Both connect to the same infrastructure. One allows me to watch unlimited, on-demand, high-definition video, 24/7 for a flat rate. The other allows me to watch a specific amount of on-demand, high-definition video, for a set price, then charges more beyond that.

To me, this demonstrates that data caps are not actually necessary to maintain network performance, otherwise companies like Telus would not be advertising their on-demand services.

So, to answer your questions:

1- Differential pricing is a simply a way to appease customers while keeping data caps in play. It has the added benefit for the provider in that it can steer the consumer towards content that they own the rights to. There is no real benefit to the consumer that would not be achieved by simply removing data caps.

2- Yes, it is in clear violation of the concept of net-neutrality. Data is data.

3- Since there is no benefit to the consumer, the concerns have to outweigh them.

4- Ban data caps.

StrokerMcGavin 1 point Fri Sep 30 16:25:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. There are no benefits of differential pricing to the average Canadian consumer. It only benefits the Canadian telecom oligopoly by restricting consumer choice and stifling competition.
  2. I am very concerned about differential pricing because it violates net neutrality, restricts customer choice, stifles competition, and will ultimately result in higher fees and profits for the telecoms.
  3. Since there are no benefits to differential pricing to consumers that I can identify, these concerns are definitely significant enough to justify regulation. Telecom companies absolutely cannot be trusted to adopt practices that are more beneficial to their customers than to their shareholders. Given the importance of telecommunication in the daily life of Canadians, it is of vital importance that the CRTC becomes a strong advocate for average Canadian consumers in this area.
  4. Rates should be set for internet access by the CRTC based on cost to provide, fair profit, and cost to improve infrastructure. No capping, no throttling, no preferential data.

boldkevin 1 point Fri Sep 30 16:35:56 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Internet access should be regulated as a utility and made equally available to all services without preferential treatment. Rather than arbitrary data caps which discourage usage, bandwidth management techniques should be limited to throttling (speed) during peak periods. The carrier can mark up the premium high-speed services during peak time periods and make plenty of profit that way. At least the lack of data caps wouldn't disadvantage the high-consuming but flexible-timing solutions from innovative small competitors. Thanks for seeking our input! (from a Vancouverite)

JohnnyTronic 1 point Fri Sep 30 16:45:35 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

I would like to preface my response by stating that I cannot believe this issues is even being debated in a modern nation like my beloved Canada. I must assume that the CRTC knows full well why differential pricing is a problem but must abide by some policy procedure and consult with the public before acting.

1) What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are obvious benefits for the service providers, in that differential pricing allows them to further leverage their entrenchment and stifle competitors, but I do not see any meaningful benefits to Canadians. The services that the carriers would want to be zero-rated SHOULD have to compete on equal footing with competing services. As others have said, Data is Data is Data and we should be regulating carriers as carriers NOT allowing them to behave as "media empires". If Rogers/Bell/Telus/whomever want to have synergistic media divisions or sports programs, let them, but their cost to participate on the data networks should be the same as any other competitor.

2) Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Besides the stifling of competition and the huge negative impact that will have on the Canadian economy and Canadians' well-being, my primary concern about differential pricing is the influence that it allows incumbent carriers to wield. This is a subtle but extremely powerful problem. With differential pricing, an extreme minority (i.e. a handful of carrier executives) gain inappropriate and disproportionate influence over the media, news, and entertainment that the entire country consumes. This is how you steer a nation's soul without anyone noticing.

Look to the United States and the current election crisis. A common criticism is that neither of the two remaining candidates is truly appealing and yet that is the only decision left to the American populace. If you compare the news media coverage from different broadcasters, it is laughable how transparent and biased their agendas are. And who decided those agendas? Not the individual news correspondents or localized news stations. The network executives. Less than two dozen people (none of them elected) are able to influence and steer the agendas of one of the largest nations on earth.

This line of reasoning may sound alarmist and extreme, but that is the insidious subtlety of it. Right now we're debating bundled hockey programming and our concerns seems innocuous and quaint. If differential pricing is allowed to continue however, over time the incumbent carriers will slowly be able to decide which entertainment shows have a better chance of succeeding. Then which e-commerce businesses have a better chance of success. Then what news we watch more often and what ideas we come to believe in.

There is no smoking gun at which to point. That there is no clearly outrageous wrong (just one that smells mildly fishy) being committed is what allows questions such as "Should the CRTC allow differential pricing?" to even be debated. What we are discussing right now is what Canada should do for its own spiritual good.

What do media executives care about what is good for Canadians? BY DEFINITION their sole responsibility is to maximize corporate profits. It's not even that they are "evil" people. Maximizing profits is their job and, in theory, they would be fired for failing to take every opportunity to do so. We cannot rely on the carriers to make the choices that are best for Canada.

Viewed through an economic lens, I can see how this might appear as a muddled debate what seem like reasonable arguments on both sides. Viewed through a moral lens however, this isn't even a contest. DIFFERENTIAL PRICING CANNOT BE ALLOWED. Data is data is data. Net Neutrality is the right thing to do and, in the long run, the only thing to do for the health of Canada's soul.

3) Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The right for Canadians to freely choose what ideas they engage with absolutely outweighs the mild profit increases enjoyed by a oligarchy of entrenched media corporations. As I've stated above, the CRTC is exactly the organization that should step in and make the healthy decision on behalf of the Canadian people. Our government has absolutely authority to do what we, the people, want it to do in our native land. Despite all the wailing and gnashing the service provides continue to display (again, this is by definition what they must do), Net Neutrality is an idea that immediately becomes the law of the land as soon as the Canadian people (and by extension, their elected representatives and government organizations like the CRTC) decide they want it to be.

"Should the CRTC step in" is like asking whether a fire fighter should step in as an arsonist burns down a forest. The arsonist's goal is to burn down the forest. The service provides' goal is to maximize profit. Yes, they do employ some Canadian workers but, if they had the opportunity (perhaps through some impending advances in artificial intelligence or technology, hmm?) do you think they'd hesitate for a second to lay off staff? Any arguments the service providers make about economic benefits outside their own company is misleading and moot. The CRTC's job is exactly to regulate these sorts of detrimental business practices.

4) If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

To start, enforce Net Neutrality. Data is Data is Data.

Even better, the CRTC should take this a step further to prevent similar abuses of power by carriers in the future. "Data is Data is Data" should apply not just to the start and end points of data delivery (i.e. which services are being transported) but also between transporters at network inter-connects. Ideally, for example, SaskTel would focus it's efforts on physical infrastructure and compete via customer service in it's localized region; handing off data to Manitoba's networks, to Ontario's networks, etc. If a larger player like Bell has (acquired) infrastructure that can transit bytes from Vancouver to St. John's within a single corporate network, then even when SaskTel wants to put it's bytes onto those pipes for transport, Bell should not differentiate between local SaskTel cell towers and local Bell towers.

I'll use the metaphor of toll highways to clarify this point: when a transport truck gets on the highway, it doesn't pay extra depending on what cargo it's hauling. It only pays the toll to use the road. (And rightly so, those roads require maintenance.) Extending this to network inter-connects, just because Bell owns a Trans-Canadian Highway should not allow Bell trucks to use said highway for a different fee than SaskTel trucks. Anyone that uses that highway pays the same toll regards of who operates the trucks OR what those trucks are hauling.

This metaphor is even more appropriate because, in the long term, I personally think it is inevitable that telecommunications infrastructure will be regulated the same way as roads. There is no point in competing to build roads. That would be redundant, chaotic, and a waste of space and resources. The regional governments of Canada collectively maintain the national highway systems, the people support that with their taxes, and everyone is free to use the roads to go wherever they want.

The Internet should be treated similarly. Government policy just hasn't caught of with it yet.

To conclude:

The democratic power of the internet, theoretically, is that the physical reach of one's network infrastructure should not influence the logical/theoretical reach of where you can transit your data/ideas. The original vision of the internet was that everyone has equal opportunity to connect with anyone else and the network infrastructure was only there to facilitate that communication (with appropriate service fees to maintain the physical lines). As time has passed, that original vision has been distorted and, if they are allowed, corporate interests will turn the internet into a patchwork of walled gardens exclusive to upstart competitors.

The Internet is humanity's best idea in centuries. If we want to safeguard the power and collective benefit of what the Internet makes possible for everyone, we must intervene to preserve the spirit of that idea against the short term economic greed of a corporate minority.

Tarandon 1 point Fri Sep 30 17:00:55 2016 UTC  (0 children)

So here's the issue that's not addressed here. Data in general on mobile plans is greatly overpriced. The cost to deliver data is cents on the dollar given what these companies are charging. This creates a distorted sense of value for differential pricing, because it really doesn't cost them anything to give these services for free but they can claim they're providing you with 40-50 dollars a month in free service because the price they charge for data is so inflated. If the price or cost of data was regulated to limit the markup over cost of delivery, the need or benefit that might be gained for differential pricing would disappear completely.

TonyD0001 1 point Fri Sep 30 18:31:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

--Other than benefiting the big services providers even more;None, no benefits at all. All internet data should be provided exactly the same, no matter who provides it or consumes it.

 Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

-- Yes, it will split the internet as we know it to tiers. Obviously, another way to big providers to increase profits.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? -- PLEASE, do not let service providers regulate or decide ANYTHING! Internet should be same for everyone. No high speed lanes, no free service or data for some while others have to pay.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

-- Easy, net neutrality. Keep internet open for everyone. And please, get rid of data caps. The excuse they need to to manage networks makes zero sense, never did and even less so today. Its nothing more than a penalty and extra easy income. Canadians already pay some highest internet rates in the world, one would think that should be enough without having to extra unnecessary fees. This fees always tend to tax the ones who already have hard time affording it. All expensive internet plans now have unlimited, u can download the entire internet and not pay anything extra, the cheaper-slower plans, u download a game for ps3 or few service pack updates for Windows and u already over the cap. makes zero sense to me.

captpoopooface 1 point Fri Sep 30 19:16:40 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Is it still a "benefit" if the solution (created by the ISPs) is to a problem also created by ISPs? As in, not having something count towards our data cap wouldn't be a benefit if we didn't have such restrictive data caps in the first place. No, I do not think there would be any real benefits.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Yes, websites, apps, internet services should be on a level playing field. One shouldn't have advantage over others because they are for instance more popular and therefore have more money to throw around thus stifling any competition.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, I'd say the concerns outweigh the artificial benefits. The CRTC should step in and simply veto any such practice of differential pricing. The ISPs, in the business of making money, shouldn't be left to decide whats fair and good for the population.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Simply don't allow such practices. There shouldn't be any, "x is allowed as long as y is followed." Giving the ISPs any ground in this practice will I think lead to largely negative changes in the future.

Quegyboe 1 point Fri Sep 30 19:30:09 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. No benefits, limits small companies from competing due to lack of fair market environment.
  2. I worry that big corps will abuse it and keep small companies that might offer a better product from being able to compete.
  3. i want the government to step in and make differential pricing illegal. I want an open internet. #netneutrality
  4. Make differential pricing and fast / slow lanes illegal.

thomasstark 1 point Fri Sep 30 19:33:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I support the end of data caps and upholding the law of net neutrality in our country. Internet access is fast becoming yet another divisive element preventing upward mobility of less fortunate members of our society. As with access to education, energy resources, food security and health care it should be available to all citizens of Canada as a right. With data caps; this right is being eroded for the purpose of benefit to the limited companies who offer the services. For this reason, in my opinion, it is the responsibility of the CRTC to impose a strict set of guidelines on the providers to eliminate all data caps (in any form; including differential pricing) from their pricing plans. Moreover, the CRTC should work towards increasing the competition within the playing filed to include either more Canadian companies to offer these servcies and, if that cannot be done in the current economic environment, open up the competition to providers outside of Canada. Although this could impose risk to Canadian jobs within the telco business, I feel the benefit of increasing access of usage rights of the internet to all Canadians much outweighs that risk in this consumer environment.

_Kinoko 1 point Fri Sep 30 19:36:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Net neutrality and affordable access to the internet is paramount to human development in all of its facets. As a developer I only feel held back in Canada by our stupid data limits and pricing arrangements. The result of such measures is simply falling behind other countries who do not have such stupid rules. The Netherlands is the startup capital of the world and so many good open source developers come from there---why, they have sane pricing rules and no that it is a valuable valuable human resource. Ideas are capital.

TanithArmoured Canada 1 point Fri Sep 30 19:38:17 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I think others have done a great job explaining the position Canadians hold on this issue, and I would just like to add my support to their voice.

Canadians shouldn't be being pushed around the block by the ISPs, you need to take action to prevent the ISPs from doing as they please.

Thank you for taking our opinions into consideration.

giftman03 1 point Fri Sep 30 20:22:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

There are no benefits to consumers for differential pricing. This practice would only benefit, and further cement, the current duopoly Bell & Rogers enjoy in Canada. Canadians already suffer each month when we need to pay our phone and internet bills and this practice would only make that suffering worse, by making us pay more for less service.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Implementation of differential pricing would further limit consumer choice and would be a huge barrier to technological innovation and competition in Canada. New tech companies would need to have the financial resources to compete with already established firms, to merely gain access to the so-called ‘fast lane' of internet service that differential pricing would create.

As an entrepreneur, what motivation would you have to start any kind of company focused on providing internet-based services, if the barrier to entry becomes so great, that you are priced out of the market before you even start?

Additionally, differential pricing would open the flood-gates and allow ISPs to not only exempt services from data caps, but also allow those services to be accessed at faster speeds. Consumers are already heavily pre-disposed to not use a website or service if it takes longer than 3 seconds to load. With ISPs giving preferential treatment to services that pay to play, the negative impact to the Canadian economy would be massive – all so large corporations can get even larger and siphon more money away from the Canadian lower and middle class, into the pockets of shareholders.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

The CRTC should absolutely NOT let home and mobile service providers decide how or when to implement differential pricing.

Canadians are at the top of the list in the world for how much we pay for telecommunications services. Introduction of differential pricing will only add another layer of cost to services that are already among the most costly in the world. The CRTC has already had to take action to implement basic cable packages, because when the providers (Bell and Rogers) are left to their own devices, consumers suffer – time and time again.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

The CRTC should ban the use of data caps in Canada for both wireless (mobile) and wireline (home) services. The elimination of data caps would not only solve the issue of differential pricing, it would also address the extremely high prices Canadians pay for mobile and hardline internet services.

It's a closely held secret among ISPs that most Internet costs are fixed and that additional bandwidth is “dirt cheap”. The introduction of data caps was not >done to protect ISPs from soaring costs related to increased bandwidth usage, but rather as a mechanism to charge more for virtually the same service.

Source: (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/should-broadband-data-hogs-pay-more-isp-economics-say-no/)

There is nothing objectively wrong with a company wanting to increase its profitability. However, when that company provides an essential service, such as internet access, artificially restricting that service is not only anti-consumer, but also anti-competitive.

A recent Open Media report noted that:

Canadians have been led to believe that data caps are a necessary part of Internet services. However, comparisons with other countries around the world >prove that this is not the case. Upon closer analysis, it becomes clear that data caps are nothing more than pricing tools disguised as network resource >management. The arguments for data caps as a traffic management practice simply don't stand up to scrutiny.* Source: (https://openmedia.org/sites/default/files/end-data-caps-canada-report.pdf)

The CRTC is the only government body in the position to end the anti-consumer behavior of ISPs. These ISPs have shown time and time again that they need to be policed. Canadian consumers need the CRTC to start to more heavily regulate Canadian ISPs so we can stop paying more for less service.

TheStuffz 1 point Fri Sep 30 20:52:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I believe that ALL data caps should be wiped out and then this topic would be moot!! I USED to have an unlimited plan with Sasktel... Then I got a new phone and they changed the plan on me, few months later I get a nice $150 bill in the mail.. "oh you went over your data for the month" and thats all they will say. Nothing about my plan changing etc.. All they want to do is look physically at my phone for some reason?? Like that has anything to do with the situation?

Kimmberlias Canada 1 point Fri Sep 30 21:08:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I believe all data/speeds should be priced the same, and priced in a way that everyone can afford it. Rural internet also needs to follow this! My parents live in a very small town and their 3GB home internet was supposed to be about $70 a month. It was consistently over $200 because of data overages :/

Areilah 1 point Fri Sep 30 21:22:58 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?
    There is no benefit to us, but it will benefit the service providers who don't need any help... There should be no need to have this kind of pricing scheme because there should be no data caps in the first place. The solution should NOT be to harm net neutrality.

  2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?
    - Most service providers also provide television and phone services. There is a huge conflict of interest when the company that wants me to buy their other packages is allowed to financially bully me if I seek alternate services.
    - I am also very concerned that data caps and differential pricing will limit options the most for those with lower incomes. Information should be equally available to the rich and the poor.

  3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices?
    Yes, and yes!
    Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?
    NO! Please, please help us.
    The service providers know they have a monopoly, and they are walking all over us. We pay more for less each year. They have proven they cannot handle the responsibility without acting on greed.

  4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?
    - Differential pricing must not be allowed.
    - Caps must be reviewed and either removed, or at the very least increased to the point that an overage is a rare and unusual case, not the norm for "cable cutters".
    - No service provider should be capable of blocking access to specific types of data.
    - Pricing should be competitive with the global market, and price fixing must be punished, perhaps by opening the market to foreign players.
    - Our net must be kept neutral and universally accessible.

ninfan200 Alberta 1 point Fri Sep 30 21:37:54 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Not only should you eliminate Data Caps you should make it easier for new service providers to set up shop. Canada needs more competition and lower prices on cell bills. It's utter nonsense that Canadians should pay $100 on average for their cell bills.

I also have a few ideas for Cancon regulations, but that's for another time.

disintegore Québec 1 point Fri Sep 30 21:38:52 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

It's a major benefit to the end users. It allows features and services that would normally be made impossible by restrictive data caps.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Absolutely. This makes the barrier to entry for new streaming services considerably higher. It goes against the concept of net neutrality, and thus, healthy competition in any market that deals in networked software services.

It's also an incentive for our providers to continue in their practice of providing terrible, overpriced services, seeing as non-technical users will no longer be inconvenienced by tight data caps for the services they're more likely to use, and thus less likely to actually care about the sad state of telecoms in Canada.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

These providers have, for long, abused every single liberty granted to them. I can see no benefit to be derived from this.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Outlaw the practice. Pure and simple.

stored_thoughts 1 point Fri Sep 30 22:19:30 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

  1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing? In terms of Canadian consumers, I see no benefit to differential pricing.

  2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing? Yes, I have concerns. I don't agree with systems that would single out Canadians for special treatment that is "second class" to other democratic countries (e.g., the US and UK).

  3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide? I have significant concerns that outweigh any benefits I've read, and I believe the CRTC should have the same concerns.

  4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it? Ban “gatekeepers” who would create barriers to entry, influence consumption, extort money, and limit consumer choice, as well as threaten innovation and freedom of expression. Please defend the Canadian consumer aggressively, and stay ahead of infringements on consumer freedoms. Otherwise the CRTC organization needs to get completely out of the way so tax-payer money can be directed towards organizations who would champion the Canadian consumer.

DTV2011 1 point Fri Sep 30 22:38:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

  1. Using the Paralympic Games as an example, if a Canadian resident is exempt from data charges while watching the games on cbc.ca and/or radio-canada.ca, they could experience a live stream of a Wheelchair Rugby game without worry that watching that game in its entirety, in HD (or perhaps in 4K as of 2020), might put them over their monthly service plan data cap.

  2. Yes.

  3. Yes, concerns related to differential pricing outweigh the benefits. These concerns are significant enough to justify the CRTC "stepping in".

  4. Develop with CBC/Radio-Canada and ISED a public service media strategy fit for the digital age.

robinetmiller 1 point Fri Sep 30 22:40:43 2016 UTC  (0 children)

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Nothing for consumers nor small business. A handful of large companies will gain money and control over the marketplace.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

As a small business owner in the software field, this would stifle tech innovation efforts. It's hard enough to launch and build a customer base for a new product without also having to get clients past the additional hurdle of them paying more just to try it. Let's face it, either the consumers will pay directly, or they'll have to cover the app company's fees to ISP.

It also shifts the decision power away from consumers. Consumers will have a subtle fear of using anything but the gatekeeper-approved apps lest they incur extra charges. App makers may be forced to capitulate to ISP demands to get approval.

ISPs aren't evil, but they are fiscally-powerful entities structured to maximise profit. If the system can be abused to increase profits, expect that it will be, if given enough time.

On top of all that, not every Canadian is tech savvy enough to know when they're using data, and whether it's from a fee-safe source. Asking them to make this sort of choice while browsing is too technical. It's not like TV channels where you don't get to see a channel until you pay for it; with the internet the device will begins downloading immediately.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Being that the only benefits are for the carriers themselves, yes, the costs vastly outweigh any proposed benefit. They have absolutely no market forces (insufficient competition, poorly informed public) to dissuade this action, and therefore CRTC action is called for.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Ban all zero-rating, differential pricing, or any other similar idea permanently.

This will be proposed again and again under different names unless a fundamental definition is applied. Something like:

Internet data traffic (packets) must all be delivered with the same speed and integrity as any other data packet in the system, regardless of origin. Internet providers may not take additional payments to alter the delivery of internet traffic, either by preferring packets from the payee or slowing down packets from other sources.

weasley************ 1 point Fri Sep 30 23:13:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: offensive term(s) have been replaced by asterisks)

[removed]

Elfere 1 point Fri Sep 30 23:34:49 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I agree with most of these comments, who verbalize it better than I'm going to.

  1. Zero pricing bad. Creates unfair playing ground. (i liked the free coke analogy)

  2. Unlimited, or, substantially cheaper data rates are the way to go. Its laughable how Canada, the inventor of electronic communications, pay the most in the world. Dont get me started on the big 3 "competition". If who is going to mug me is competition...

  3. There is no benifit other then to the service being zero credited.

Fireproofjeans 1 point Fri Sep 30 23:47:32 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

Theoretically, it could actually be quite beneficial by offering lower prices to new companies, encouraging new businesses by lowering initial costs. However, i severely doubt a for-profit company would act so benevolently, they have zero incentive to do so and it directly impacts their bottom line. The only way I could see zero-rating working is if crown corporations existed in every province to keep things competitive.

ISP's would likely put high prices to services with large userbases, such as Spotify or Netflix - particularly if said ISP has offerings trying to compete with said products (This has already been problematic in the states). Some outside companies may refuse to pay entirely and simply stop servicing Canada.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

I have concerns about our basic pricing as it is, nevermind what would happen under differential pricing. We're already fairly high - out of 122 countries with metrics in the source above, we're the 32nd most expensive for wireline. Where I live three months ago, $90 would get you 60MB down. Then one telecom company came out with 150MB down for $130, and all of a sudden the other company in the area had the same deal available. The previous excuse was "The lines are overloaded" "we're at capacity". As far as I'm aware, new fibre has not been laid between Vancouver Island and the mainland, so where did all this extra speed come from?

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I strongly believe so. Please regulate. Every few years we seem to slip closer to the travesty that is the USA's telecom companies and I do not fancy our chances of fixing that situation once we're there.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Enforce net neutrality. That's basically it. Maybe, if you're feeling super kind, do a review of their "cost of business" versus what they're charging to ensure we're not getting scammed. I get that we're a large, spread out country, so coverage will be a bit more expensive, but profit margins for some services are ridiculous.

Pixiecrap 1 point Fri Sep 30 23:48:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Differential Pricing completely undermines Net Neutrality, and is beneficial only to ISP profit margins while consumers are only harmed.

  1. There is no benefit to be gained for consumers and citizens in differential pricing.
  2. Price gouging us simply to retain the current service we already have, and restricting our freedom of choice.
  3. The concerns infinitely outweigh the non-existent benefits. Yes, please regulate differential pricing out of existence.
  4. Uphold Net Neutrality and prohibit differential pricing completely.

The absolute ubiquity of the internet in modern society has made a free and open internet absolutely essential to our access of whatever information we want, and if we are restricted from accessing certain information by our ISPs then they will have direct influence over how we perceive the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw

Three and a half minute video by CGP Grey summing up the importance of preserving Net Neutrality, and thus prohibiting differential pricing.

TotesMessenger 1 point Mon Sep 26 16:11:50 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

azaz104 1 point Tue Sep 27 08:01:02 2016 UTC  (0 children)

I travel a lot, and one thing I noticed, is that cellular data penetration and usage in Canada is really not on par with the G7. This impacts Canadian competitiveness on the long run. Now regarding this method used by companies to favour some applications. Well, it kinda depends on the content and what the CRTC can extract from the hidden contract between the provider and the app makers. If the purpose is to provide some apps with unfair disadvantage then it cannot remain. But if the CRTC finds that it's actually being used by the Telco company to attract more customers by appealing to something they "need" like music/news/video access, then there should be no problem as long as the CRTC keeps taps on things. That being said, we really still lag behind in terms of access towards Internet content, and this zero pricing method should be an incentive for TELCOS to get its user base gain better access rather than prevent other TELCOS from doing it for the whole reason of reaping profit from these "metered" connections. I have a couple of ideas that I really wanted to discuss with the CRTC but always saw that they fell short of my expectations. I work as an engineer in kanata and after I graduated from Queen's 4 years ago, I realized how much our youth is need of Internet access, even if it's through this zero pricing.

If you guys would like to hear some of the ideas, my email is balnabulsi@inphi.com or find me on face book at Basel Nabulsi, would love to get in contact with you.

gorchitza Ontario 1 point Tue Sep 27 19:24:24 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The benefits beyond entertainment is that in times of emergency it is possible to use online services like twitter and facebook to communicate and receive latest information without worrying about your data caps.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It will be used to promote mainstream media and their opinions, I want my access to the internet to be uniform without my ISP giving preferential treatment to some outlets.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

Yes, there is a lot of potential conflict of interest here, and the big three have shown a willingness to make the market an oligopoly and fight back competition. I suspect differential pricing will not be to the publics advantage either. CRTC, please regulate more.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Don't allow differential pricing to happen, regulate and promote competition, in times of emergency we could get free bandwidth because the internet is a useful tool to disseminate information. Think of the internet as a necessity and not a luxury, regulate accordingly.

ilius 1 point Tue Sep 27 20:26:37 2016 UTC *  (0 children)

As a preface, I'd like to inform you that my opinion on the questions below are influenced by my background, I am in my late 20s, and I completed an undergraduate degree in elec. eng with a focus in telecom, and am working at one of the big three telcos in their technology depts. I have insight into the difference between settlement-free peering, and transit (paid peering) which I believe the public and the media are largely unaware of, causing some misunderstanding whenever the topic of differential pricing/net neutrality come up. This is not to say I am anti either position, but I do believe the middle ground in the argument is lost when advocates for net neutrality propose what they do.

1. What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

The most obvious benefits of differential pricing include the delivery of higher quality pre-existing products, more reliably to customers. E.g. an HBOgo subscription goes directly towards paying for developing and producing more HBO products, instead of having a portion of your payment subsidize lower quality productions. Differential pricing would allow ISPs to guarantee a level of quality regarding the data being transmitted, so consumers who wish to consume 4K tv can pay for it, while those who don't can't can save money.

However this analogy of HBOgo is disingenuous as I am not paying the ISP for TV show production. I am paying them simply to deliver any content I demand from the internet reliably and quickly. Differential pricing could provide ISPs with a better ability to plan their network capacity as well, knowing which producers of content have the most demand. However there are far more negatives and unknowns that come with this type of framework.

2. Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

The biggest concern is that differential pricing, or price discrimination as it's known in economics is that it cannot exist in practice, despite having benefits in a perfect world on paper. In a perfect world with price discrimination, consumer A pays more than consumer B because their marginal benefit is greater than B's marginal cost and barriers exist to prevent customers from opting for different prices. But in reality, it cannot be achieved as this model hinges on consumers not being able to move to a different price tier, as well as them being agnostic to other pricing options. Implementing it for our ISPs would stifle entrepreneurial growth dependent on internet access, and present the opportunity for large pre-existing corporations to price-out competitors by paying for bandwidth that would likely then be left idle.

Furthermore, it's already been shown that airlines who practice small amounts of price discrimination are subject to consumer backlash for anticompetitive behaviour. In the long run this is likely the same scenario that will occur for ISPs.

3. Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

As I stated in section 2, the concerns definitely outweigh the benefits. Given that the closest existing technology we can model internet usage off of is electricity, its goes without saying that being charged more on a per kWh basis to use your washer/dryer compared to your lights doesn't make much sense. Internet is priced by the analogous MB-consumed basis via data caps. It is already indirectly regulated through the amount of data we consume. An alternative pricing model could price us exclusively on speed, multiplied by time to arrive at Gbps*h consumed instead of absolute GB consumed regardless of speed of delivery. This would be more similar to how we arrive at kWh prices. I expand a bit more on how each actor is motivated by their pricing in my answer to question 4.

4. If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

One of the points I mentioned earlier is the difference between transit and settlement-free peering. This is something I'm not an expert in, but a basic understanding of it helps us understand the motivation for ISPs pushing for “differential pricing” or “price discrimination”. Understanding this might provide the CRTC with a better insight into how to regulate and how to put the impetus on ISPs to not only price the public fairly, but to also fairly price their transit agreements with producers of content who have heavy usage.

An ISP's network often has an agreement with another network provider to exchange information free of charge, producing a route that data can take from two endpoints where the handoff between ISP A and ISP B accrues net zero charge as both A and B benefit from traffic flowing in both directions. However not all agreements negotiated by an ISP are settlement-free, these other transit agreements connect the ISPs network (A) to another network, service, or user C for a price. C will pay the ISP to give its data access to a multitude of routes through the ISP, and eventually to the ISP A's customers. The best example of this is Netflix (end C) who buy's rights to access various ISP's networks to reach their streaming customers. As you can imagine this streaming service uses a ton of bandwidth the rationale is that since the exchange of information between Netflix and ISP is unequal, the ISP will charge them for access.

The ISP feels pressure to expand its capacity to meet the growing demand of streaming services, and can pass on the cost to either the users paying for internet access, or to content producers who demand access to the ISP's networks. IIRC, Comcast customers had terrible Netflix streaming quality for a period of time because Comcast did not have a peering/transit agreement with Netflix (or some other ISP/backbone network), and thus Netflix' traffic had to find alternative (congested) routes through the internet to arrive at viewers' screen. It is thus easy to conclude that part of the ISPs demand for differential pricing arises from their need to pay for growing infrastructure, and streaming services have passed on the cost of their high usage onto ISPs through what I presume might be heavily bargained transit deals between them and the ISP.

Regulation is thus a question of who to assign the cost of infrastructure to, should the public who demands streaming content bear a greater proportion of the cost to deliver? Differential pricing would be a step in this direction but in an imprecise manner contrary to requirements of perfect price discrimination as an economic topic. Alternatively, an argument can be made for greater pressure on content producers to pay for demanding an ever growing portion of the multi-use internet. In such a case, regulators could use resources available to them to pressure ISPs to extract more from content producers like Netflix or Spotify. By pricing content producers differently, these services would inevitably pass some of the charge onto subscribers. Instead of having both ISP and some content producer charge customers a differentiated price for the content, the ISP will remain content-agnostic and operate on a GB or Gbps basis analgous to electricity for everyone that connects to its network (user or content producer), and content producers are held responsible for pricing their services to accurately reflect the costs of improving the common-use internet to meet their service needs.

The capital costs for building a network, let alone a fibre one are immense, and the longer-term discussion should beg the question on whether there are greater efficiencies to be gained by various alternatives such as merging of telcos or of being deemed a utility.

canada_boy 1 point Tue Sep 27 22:01:02 2016 UTC  (1 child)

Hard not to notice that all the post's scores are hidden indefinitely. What are we afraid of here gentlemen?

medym Lest We Forget [M] 2 points Tue Sep 27 23:41:14 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Contest mode is enabled that is all. Posts can still be voted. Contest mode enables the comments to be randomized and not focused on just the highest voted comments which generally snowball from there. It also collapses child comments which makes larger posts like this, and ones that are posted for a while to be a bit more structured. On the final day contest mode will be turned off and the thread will be locked.

This helps put the focus on the comments and not the upvotes/down votes.

LumpenBourgeoise 1 point Wed Sep 28 00:18:42 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Make CRTC employees pay regular rates for their internet, cable and cell phone contracts.

Justmightpost -2 points Mon Sep 26 17:08:24 2016 UTC  (10 children)

We should be separating wireless and wired services when it comes to this discussion.

For home wired services, there should be no zero rating or differential rating for any service that is outside of the core cable package. The delivery of that package if done over data should not be considered zero-rating, its part of their cost of delivering the service - not 'free' to the carrier. If the CRTC tries to regulate this practice, prepare for the cable co's to just split out your monthly charge to include a data charge. Not going to benefit the customer and as many have pointed out, cable co's should not be allowed to pick favorites (e.g. Shomi over Netflix).

On the wireless side, seems like we're all comfortable with the T-Mobile approach (aka the grey area): allow telco's to zero-rate groups of services with an easy onboarding process for any new services in that category. For example, any app/service that can reasonably define itself as a music streaming service could be zero rated under a 'music freedom' type program. Where the CRTC should play a role is in establishing those guidelines on what counts as each type of service.

One thing to note, carrier's do in fact bear a cost of delivering mobile data to customers and it is not negligible. This is why there are still finite buckets of data being sold and is also why this type of zero rating approach will have the opposite effect of what is desired. Carriers are well aware of what share of data usage comes from these services and with their objective to grow ARPU, it is unlikely they would offer many of these types of unlimited services as it will hinder the growth of ARPU. The larger share of data usage represented by streaming a type of service (video, music etc) the less likely it will be zero rated if services are grouped.

So on Wireless what should they do: uphold net neutrality and not allow any form of zero-rating.

Deyln 6 points Mon Sep 26 19:21:23 2016 UTC *  (8 children)

We shouldn't be separating wired and wireless service. As consumers, net neutrality has a basis that simply states that all data is treated the same.

https://www.whistleout.ca/CellPhones/Monthly-Plans-With-Unlimited-Data

There are a number of Canadian wireless providers that give unlimited data at a better price then wired internet service; with the only caveat that the transmission speed is faster then what we get for wired and that they don't have a data cap. Even Shaw's touted 150mbps plan is more expensive then Sasktel's plan. (with the same advertised speeds.) And it's only cheaper if you agree to a data cap that's 1.00TB per month when transmission speeds should allow you to get ~1.47 tB per day. (ie. They offer a data cap whose usage allottment falls in the standard 1.8-2.6% of the transmission availability for Canada per user.)

whatsdata 1 point Tue Sep 27 17:07:29 2016 UTC  (1 child)

...but they require completely different infrastructure...so they different...so they should be seperate

Deyln 1 point Tue Sep 27 21:03:27 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Cooked food is cooked food. Not cooked food is still not cooked food.

What net neutrality doesn't really concern itself with is that in between in regards to technology. The backbones, the middle miles. The thing with Cell towers and "wired" connections is that it is both simply the last mile. Nothing else. In regards to travel distance for data? it's less then 1% of the total distance for transmission. Cell towers and wired connections are simply the equivalent of the individual giving you your food. The exchange of money is a different beast altogether. The ordering process isn't a part of actually getting the food; and still doesn't possess a different process except when you get into self purchased items from amazon and the like.

In regards to how much infrastructure you have to lay to complete it? That's called cost savings when 5G rolls around. For anything that isn't time dependent. 4G is ~80% parity that current Canadian broadband has. 5G specs is 1Gbps compared to 4g's 150mbps. (about 9x faster.) (4g is actually faster then our national average. 17mbps is even faster then the world average of 12.96mbps for 2015.)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/fiber-its-not-all-created-equal/

Getting rid of last mile infrastructure is going to make 5G connections the norm for anything that isn't time sensitive to within ~2seconds. (I actually can't seem to find the ping time estimates for 5G)

badcallday 1 point Mon Sep 26 21:18:26 2016 UTC  (5 children)

But some home internet runs off a different system than data, making them 2 different service types
You would never get those 50-100mbps household speeds on cellular

ie: your home internet can get you faster speed for multiple users and gaming, where as you can't get those type of speeds steadily over a data/cellular network. They require different technologies.

Deyln 0 points Mon Sep 26 22:11:38 2016 UTC  (4 children)

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/can-4g-replace-home-internet,news-21238.html

Again, I specified a very specific type of cellular network known as 4G because that is what was listed on Sasktel's system for unlimited data.

Here are some tests from a reasonable-source that has tested 4G networks for everyday home use.

Essentially with 4G and some other cellular systems you have an issue with ping times. So fast response games, some stock trade technology would be hampered.

badcallday 0 points Mon Sep 26 22:56:44 2016 UTC *  (3 children)

Or you don't get 4G internet and you get Cable/Fiber http://www.sasktel.com/personal/internet/high-speed/

This why why cellular data and wired home services need to be different

Deyln 1 point Mon Sep 26 23:45:30 2016 UTC  (2 children)

http://lifehacker.com/5819955/should-i-ditch-cable-at-home-for-4g-wireless-from-my-cellular-provider

http://readwrite.com/2012/04/17/wireless-now-faster-than-wired/

I very much understand the differences in the technology sir. I wouldn't of brought it up otherwise. Sasktel's wired connections are lower then what 4G speeds offer, for a lower price range. They also offer unlimited speeds.

https://www.wired.com/2010/06/wired-explains-4g/

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/broadband-grudge-match-cable-vs-dsl-vs-4g/

Let's switch back to data caps. Again, you are talking about the difference between using a truck and using an car for delivering 2% of the trucks available payload. Yes, I've actually gone through about 6 different ISP providers. Data capped services in North America tend to offer 1.13-2.86% of the available data if they could use their connection for the normalized 30 day billing cycles which we use as a business model default. (like really that low.)

Currently, the Cell towers in use can run ~23-48.6% of the load that a wired connection can make while providing, higher then the usual 2% range. The huge difference is mostly due to how many generations of each technology we are in. 3G is about generation 1.3 of DSL systems. The current drawback to cell towers is quantity of customers per cell, and the newer DSL systems outpace the number of customers by a significant marging per installation.

4g can easily deliver ~18TB a month of data; whereas the wired connection of similar magnitude is roughly 44.1TB for the same time-frame. Data caps however don't show anywhere near the same ratio of listed data cap to capability. (ie. 1TB data is approx 2% of data that your connection can handle in a 30 day period.)

Now their ratios of ideal transmission rate is alot lower then what it should be.

When you compare data capped services; 4G services at the standardized to their ideal should be about 360GB a month. (standardized 2% ratio.) The current 6GB plan (we got a good plan) instead only represents 0.04% of what should be reflective of the same technology.

Now this is pulling ideal numbers for both wired and wireless data transmission.

https://opensignal.com/reports/2015/09/state-of-lte-q3-2015/

Sasktels numbers for 4G is 17mbps; or ~ equivilant to their 20mbps plan.

This equates to about 183.6GB of data availability. Unlike other providers it doesn't provide a cap. Yet, if we had a good plan, we'd still see a 6GB cap. Roughly 33.6% of what we should be able to access. (as opposed to ~ 2% that wired provides.)

http://www.sasktel.com/wps/wcm/connect/content/home/about-sasktel/legal-and-regulatory/wireless-fair-use/wireless-fair-use

Sasktel even made limits to their unlimited use plans.

badcallday 0 points Tue Sep 27 16:01:56 2016 UTC  (1 child)

That doesn't change that wireless internet (4g) and wired internet (copper/fiber) are 2 different types of service and should be considered as such

Deyln 0 points Tue Sep 27 16:56:08 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Not really. Food industry, for instance. Just because it's fast food doesn't mean it's a different service then eating at a fancier restaurant or even take-out only.

Orion9k0 0 points Tue Sep 27 10:34:06 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is an absolutely awful idea. We should be promoting net neutrality.

187device 0 points Tue Sep 27 20:17:47 2016 UTC  (0 children)
(note: this comment was removed)

[removed]

Rihx Canada 0 points Tue Sep 27 13:29:45 2016 UTC  (2 children)

This is a good idea. Many providers in the states do this with music streaming services such as spotify and apple music. It would be nice to be able to use spotify's running feature when I go for a long run -- without incurring huge data costs.

September272016 1 point Tue Sep 27 17:16:52 2016 UTC  (1 child)

What do you think about eliminating all overage fees and usage limits, so that any streaming services (rather than just specific ones) can be used without worry?

Rihx Canada 1 point Tue Sep 27 17:28:36 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Id be fine with that so long as it didn't result in extremely high monthly fees. I'm sure everyone would prefer unlimited access to data.

Borror0 Québec 1 point Tue Sep 27 04:46:29 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

I think it's a nice way to attract customers by customizing services to their needs, having the price they pay reflect more directly the use they intend to do if their plan.

For businesses, it allows them to increase the value of their application. A plan zero-rating Netflix or Pokemon Go is a major boon for these companies, as data may be the hard limit of these applications' usefulness. If we intend for Canada to participate in the mobile revolution, then having local wireless service be more affordable will certainly domestic innovation to take off.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

It makes access to the Internet less neutral, which has the usual implications that the debate of net neutrality covers. Most notably is the fact that it advantages established players over new entrants. If a company were to develop a direct competitor to Netflix, for example, then they may be disadvantaged by the fact that wireless companies will still give the zero-rating advantage to Netflix only.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

I think there's a happy medium between no regulation and prohibition.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

I would allow zero-rating by category.

Bell could, for example, offer a plan which applies differential pricing to all music applications - Spotify, Google Play Music, Apple Music, 8tracks, etc. - but couldn't offer such a plan that is limited to one single application (e.g., only Spotify). For games, they could lumped by general category if the data usage is too great.

Alternatively, you could require carriers to offer differential pricing for all applications. Once again, service providers could offer create categories based on average data usage (it makes little sense for the price of zero-rating Netflix to be the same as a social network or dating apps, for example). The idea, here, would be to make clear to providers that they can't exclude an application over its competitors.

It's a good way to ensure fair competition, yet allow for a wider variety of plans to customers.

Appleseed12333 -1 points Tue Sep 27 14:40:29 2016 UTC  (0 children)

What do you think are the benefits of differential pricing?

1)If they wish to offer free services, I will gladly accept them regardless of the limitations (only certain video streams apply). But overall little benefit.

Do you have any concerns about differential pricing?

Zero-rating (based on the link you gave) I have no issue with a service provider deciding to give you free access to certain data. If they want to work for free, let them. My only concern is regardes to sponsored data, how will the consumer know if the ad they are watching is "free" data or "paid" data. If they are only watching due to assuming it is free, but in fact is using their data, I can see an issue with that.

Do these concerns outweigh the benefits and, if so, are they significant enough to justify us stepping in and regulating the practices? Or should we let the home (wireline), and mobile (wireless) service providers decide?

No, and let the home/mobile providers decide.

If we should step in, how should we regulate it?

Currently, see no issue with this practice. As with everything, time may change things and this may need to be revisited.

br4k3r -5 points Mon Sep 26 17:05:04 2016 UTC  (0 children)

ZERO RATE EVERYTHING NOW

aWarbrick89 0 points Tue Sep 27 06:54:41 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Well, it seems that no one has noticed that this practice already exists. Prime example is Telus Optik (even though all telecoms do this) For instance, watching live TV, Streaming Crave, or streaming their PPV movies does not count towards your monthly data allowance, but steaming netflix does. No one has been complaining about that have they? No, because it makes sense. If a telecom offers a service, it makes sense that they dont charge you three times for accessing it. Once for your Monthly Service fee Again for the subscription service offered And once again by charging your monthly data allotment.(if you go over, that will cost you money)... Im all for zero rating - as long as it stops there. Not one step further, but you cant open pandoras box without expecting it all to come pouring out. Corporate greed is terrifying sometimes. So if there was a way to have it be that service providers dont charge your data for accessing their preferred services, but DONT reduce the quality or accessibility of the other services, then Im all for it.

shinymusic 0 points Tue Sep 27 21:27:22 2016 UTC  (0 children)

Benefits are another revenue stream for telecom companies and more options for consumers.

It would stop new companies from having equal access to consumers. There is also the argument that "data is data" and is breaching net neutrality.

Benefits do outweigh negatives. This policy is anti-free market. Business should be able to market any packages they want.

Stepping in on this issue is not necessarily as big a problem as price fixing done throughout the industry. Free market goes both ways.

The campaign that ran keeping competition out Verizon from the Canadian cellphone market should have been illegal - IT WAS PREVENTING new business from entering and should be labled an illegal monopoly.

Stevelec 0 points Wed Sep 28 19:21:28 2016 UTC  (0 children)

This is off topic, but I wish more than anything that the big 3 telecom companies were allowed to fail. Their business model is terrible and far too expensive. This is what it would look like if Blockbuster Video was supported with taxpayer dollars.

Date modified:
2016-10-13