Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada The Almighty Buck The Internet

Internet Downloading Costs To Rise In Canada 433

Posted by Soulskill
from the all-that-hockey-streaming-gets-expensive dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to CBC News, 'Surfing and downloading from the internet is about to get more expensive for many Canadians as internet companies Shaw and Primus have announced plans to impose new fees and caps on internet usage. Over the past year, the CRTC, Canada's communication regulator, let Bell and Rogers start charging extra for customers who download a lot of data. ... Primus and Shaw have said they will begin passing on higher fees to their customers beginning Feb. 1. Primus, for example, rents bandwidth on Bell's networks and said Bell is inflating the costs for everyone, including them. 'It's an economic disincentive for internet use,' said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus. 'It's not meant to recover costs. In fact these charges that Bell has levied are many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Downloading Costs To Rise In Canada

Comments Filter:
  • Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Haedrian (1676506) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @09:03PM (#34809972)

    You can always switch to other providers. That's what Capitalism says. Corporations will never get large, agree together for certain things and therefore control the market directly.

    No sir-ee.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 08, 2011 @09:12PM (#34810052)

      But that's only part of the picture. Don't forget that as these companies prosper, the wealth will surely trickle down and benefit everyone. We can attribute the current strong economies and low unemployment rates, especially in the US, directly to the benefits of trickle-down economics.

      • by Haedrian (1676506) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @09:13PM (#34810064)

        It took me a while to realise that you're being satirical. I was going to write a point by point rebuttal.

        • by Grishnakh (216268)

          The parts about "strong economies" and "low unemployment rates, especially in the US" should have been a very quick tip-off...

          Don't forget how America's strong, robust housing market can also be attributed to not hamstringing finance companies with oppressive regulation.

        • by SeaFox (739806) on Sunday January 09, 2011 @03:35AM (#34812594)

          It just took a little while for the humor to trickle down to you.

    • by Pharmboy (216950)

      True, as Communism is working great for North Korea. Just look at how cheap and plentiful their bandwidth is.

      • by Kitkoan (1719118)
        Communism is working great for China. They are becoming a major world power and if I remember right, they have great internet service (might be censored, but still a good speed at a decent for them price).
        • Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RoFLKOPTr (1294290) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @09:40PM (#34810274)

          Communism is working great for China. They are becoming a major world power and if I remember right, they have great internet service (might be censored, but still a good speed at a decent for them price).

          Their Communism is working great because our Capitalism is over there injecting billions of dollars into their dead economy. Would you like to live in China (as an average Joe Schmo citizen that's not in a position of particular wealth or power)? I sure as fuck wouldn't. And that there is proof enough that their system doesn't work.

          • by Kitkoan (1719118)
            Actually it's China that has injected billions of dollars into the US. [washingtonpost.com] There Communism is what has been keeping the US's Capitalism alive. China is also a very fast growing economy, not a 'dead economy'. [go.com]
            • Actually it's China that has injected billions of dollars into the US. [washingtonpost.com] There Communism is what has been keeping the US's Capitalism alive. China is also a very fast growing economy, not a 'dead economy'. [go.com]

              You don't seem to realize that all this has only happened in the last 3 decades. Yes, China's government has given our government a bunch of loan money, but their government got all the money with which to give us loans from our private sector. Not their private sector. Their private sector has no fucking money. It's their government that has money. Their economy doesn't have any money, our economy is giving them money. And their government (and the government-controlled and government-controlling coporatio

              • Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Simon80 (874052) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:36PM (#34810698)
                The US may have started China's economic growth, but if they lost the US's business now, they would still have you by the balls. They've used the last couple of decades to reverse-engineer everything worth reverse engineering, and I'd be surprised if they couldn't sustain themselves and their economy going forward.
              • by Kitkoan (1719118)

                You don't seem to realize that all this has only happened in the last 3 decades. Yes, China's government has given our government a bunch of loan money, but their government got all the money with which to give us loans from our private sector.

                Citation needed.

                Not their private sector. Their private sector has no fucking money.

                Thats why the next investment wave from China is coming from it's private sector. Because they are broke... [findarticles.com]

                It's their government that has money. Their economy doesn't have any money, our economy is giving them money. And their government (and the government-controlled and government-controlling coporations) keep it all (and loan it back to us).

                They have been deregulating a lot of that in that past few years. No, their government doesn't control everything, their economy has money.

                without us it would return to its sorry state, because they don't know how to survive without us.

                Considering their global investments, I doubt it. [heritage.org]

                • Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by RoFLKOPTr (1294290) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:52PM (#34810836)

                  You don't seem to realize that all this has only happened in the last 3 decades. Yes, China's government has given our government a bunch of loan money, but their government got all the money with which to give us loans from our private sector.

                  Citation needed.

                  Find the nearest object to your person. Locate "Made in China" imprint.

                  Not their private sector. Their private sector has no fucking money.

                  Thats why the next investment wave from China is coming from it's private sector. Because they are broke... [findarticles.com]

                  The wealthy businessmen in the private sector aren't broke, you're right. The teenagers working for technology manufacturing aren't broke, you're right. Everybody else is broke, though. There is a major income inequality between the rich and the poor in China, and you thought it was bad in the US.

                  It's their government that has money. Their economy doesn't have any money, our economy is giving them money. And their government (and the government-controlled and government-controlling coporations) keep it all (and loan it back to us).

                  They have been deregulating a lot of that in that past few years. No, their government doesn't control everything, their economy has money.

                  Deregulating a lot of what? What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that the Chinese government is voluntarily dropping their stranglehold on the Chinese economy and selling the huge numbers of shares they have in nearly every powerful Chinese corporation? Are you simple?

                  without us it would return to its sorry state, because they don't know how to survive without us.

                  Considering their global investments, I doubt it. [heritage.org]

                  I do submit that at this point, yes, China could survive on their own without us. They couldn't have ten years ago, and the only reason they can now is because we keep pumping more and more of our GDP into China's economy.

                • by achbed (97139)

                  Citation needed.

                  What do you think this is, Wikipedia? Welcome to slashdot.

          • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:22PM (#34810580)

            There are really two Chinas. The China you hear about is the urban China. It is a few cities across their eastern seaboard mostly. They are quite developed over all, and have a good deal of modern conveniences, though their pollution and other health issues are rather severe. This is actually the minority of China though. The rest of China is rural China where people are still, in a very real way, peasants. They have no medical care, no education, and live very much a subsistence living. This is the reason people will put up with the poor health/environmental conditions in the city, because that is far preferable to rural life.

            China has a massive divide, and as you accurately point out is hardly communist at all. It is a major capitalist system, and in some ways a fascist system in that the government has major stakes in many companies.

            China is, if anything, an example of a failure of communism and a success of capitalism, though to what extent you consider it a success may vary depending on your perspective and priorities.

        • by jamesh (87723)

          Communism is working great for China.

          As long as you don't count the happiness of the people living in the country...

      • Communism isn't the only alternative to capitalism. In fact, capitalism isn't a single beast but a slough of different ideologies and practices. Personally i think the major problem is the size of modern corporations. Our corporate and political environment favors large corporations, so the market tends towards ever larger and larger mega multi national corps. Unfortunately those corps are really the worst offenders, and the most resilient to market forces, meaning they don't give a shit about you or what y

      • As IgnoramusMaximus said above, that's called a false dichotomy. First, there are other political lines besides Communism. Second, even "Communism" itself can't be defined - there are multiple schools of thought on it. NK follows a Stalinist line, which isn't at all the only possible.

        The core principle of council communism is that the state and the economy should be managed by workers' councils, composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any moment. As such, council communists oppose state-run "bureaucratic socialism". They also oppose the idea of a "revolutionary party", since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a workers' democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of workers' councils.

    • to make it near impossible for other competitors to get into many markets, before mocking the system you need to realize how many times it is the government which makes it not viable for competitors to enter an existing market. A great example is personal health insurance in the US, where the Federal Government has prevented people from buying insurance across state lines. Related to this article, in my locality, the larger city here is exclusively one provider because they cut a deal for the government s

    • by armer (533337)
      Once again, I am reminded of the scariest words in the English language: Hi, I'm from the government. I am here to help...
    • Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)

      by farrellj (563) * on Saturday January 08, 2011 @11:42PM (#34811174) Homepage Journal

      Sorry, that doesn't work. Bell, Telus and Rogers wholesale bandwidth to most of the other ISPs, who are forced to up their prices as well. There is a virtual monopoly here in Canada, owned by only 3 companies.

      The real reason behind the rate increases is to preserve their monopoly. You see, Bell and Rogers are the largest Sat TV and Cable vendors in Canada, respectively. By capping everyone at 60 Gig, it means that you *cannot* replace their Sat TV or Cable services, since it is ridiculously easy to use that up...for example, the average 720p TV show runs about 700 Megs without commercials. A DVD or better resolution movie, that is, 720p or 1080p can run you easily a couple of Gig in size. The average family watches something like 4 hours of TV a night. So if you watch two TV shows, that is 1.4 Gig, watch three, that's 2.1 Gig. Now imagine you also watch a movie once a week...so that would run you anywhere from 2-5 Gig.

      Working with those numbers, we take the 60 Gig cap, and divide it over 30 days, which gives you around 2 Gig a day, enough to watch 3 shows a night...but if you watch a movie approx. once a week, that adds, assuming at least 4 weeks (4weeks*3.5 Gig=14 Gig a month). You can easily go over your cap, and if any software you use needs patches, or you download a new version of Linux, or World of Warcraft unleashes a huge patch...suddenly your bill could be massive! Imagine if you are coming up on the end of the month, and watch that 4 hours a night of TV via the internet....and on the 23rd of the month, your favourate MMORPG releases a huge patch...you may have to wait until *next month* before you can patch up to run the game, if it's a mandatory patch.

      Bandwidth is cheap. But when you have a monopoly, money is everything. :-(

    • Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Informative)

      by Yo Grark (465041) on Sunday January 09, 2011 @01:30AM (#34811916)

      Switch providers? You're kidding right?

      The CRTC just handed the only 3 companies with the infrastrure cart-blanche to strangle anyone, even if you're with a competitor who happens to be leasing their lines.

      No my friend, we're foobared.

      Yo Grark

  • Not until the very last line of the article do we read, "Currently, only a small percentage of users download enough data to hit these new caps. But many fear these fees will soon apply to everyone as the internet becomes more video based."

    This writeup isn't too useful without stating the caps, nor the percentage who currently exceed them.

    As for the percentage who may exceed them in, say, 3 years... well, it's the future, a lot could change including the caps themselves.

    • by seifried (12921)

      I doubt that. I have been a Shaw customer for over a decade (they are slightly less evil than Telus). In the time from when I first got Shaw high speed cable Internet my desktop went from a 486DX2/66 with 8 megs of ram and a 100 meg HD to a quad core AMD with 8 gigs of ram with a 120 gig SSD and a terabyte HD. In other words almost exactly 1000 times faster/more ram/storage/etc.

      On the other hand my high speed cable Internet connection (roughly the same cost plan) has gone from 10 megabits download and 1 me

      • by hedwards (940851)
        Wait, you had a 486DX and you had broad band? I assume that wasn't a computer that you were using for the purposes of being anachronistic. We didn't get the option of high speed until about a decade or so ago, and the speed has changed little if at all in that time.
  • Root Cause (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jucius Maximus (229128) <zyrbmf5j4x@snRED ... com minus distro> on Saturday January 08, 2011 @09:18PM (#34810114) Homepage Journal

    The root problem here is the monopoly on infrastructure owned by a company that also provides services. For years now, other competitors offered uncapped DSL using Bell's infrastructure, while Bell offered a fraction of the bandwidth for much greater prices (and hassles.) I guess enough people woke up and started switching away from Bell's native service and jumped to other providers. And naturally, Bell uses their governmental friends to kill the competition, instead of, you know, competing and improving their services. BELL CANADA IS THE WORST COMPANY IN ALL OF CANADA. BELIEVE IT.

    For much of the most densely populated area of Canada, Bell and Rogers own both the infrastructure and provide services to end users. I don't think that should be permitted. Companies should not be able to perform both functions. This is already what happened in our electricity industry in Ontario, when Ontario Hydro was broken up into separate generation and transmission entities.) Bell continues to use the CRTC, which is an impotent and ineffectual organization that seems to be on the leash of the same politicians that decided their friends at Bell would get a monopoly, to prevent other organizations from laying down wires underground in new residential developments.

    This problem would not exist if a real competitive market was in place.

    I am continually surprised by the amount of energy that Bell puts in to creative marketing, customer disservice, finding ways of adding hidden fees, and downright screwing people. If they just put a fraction of their efforts into actually improving their services, they would actually be a competitive company. But wait, they aren't interested in fair competition. Bell just wants passive income through forced usage of their monopolistic network.

    By the way, it bears repeating again, Bell Canada is THE WORST COMPANY IN ALL OF CANADA. I am seriously not joking. Imagine the incompetence, bureaucracy and arrogance of government incorporated into a business. Add the fact that it's their intent to screw you at every turn and "accidentally" add 48 month contracts onto every deal that to which you've never agreed, and for which they somehow lost the audio recording of that CSR's call. That's Bell. They're like government for much of the Canadian population because you pretty much HAVE TO USE THEM because they own the wires.

    *Note for other Canadians: I am fully aware of the other Telus / MTS / and other monopolies outside of Ontario/Quebec.

    • by c6gunner (950153)

      Bell Canada is THE WORST COMPANY IN ALL OF CANADA

      I dunno, Rogers is giving them a run for their money. It's hard to decide which one is more incompetent / corrupt / douchebag-y.

    • Amen!
    • by roman_mir (125474)

      Well, that's just a symptom.

      The root problem is that Bell and Rogers are heavily invested into by the governments of Canada/Ontario/Toronto. They are government monopolies, just like Ontario Hydro, just like the entire Health Care fiasco in Canada, just like energy sector, just like education system, just like food industry, etc.etc.

      Canada is not exactly a bastion of Free Market Capitalism, so BLAMING Free Market Capitalism for these problems in CANADA of all places? Give a fucking break, this is political

  • I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kitkoan (1719118) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @09:19PM (#34810122)
    How much does this have to do with things like Netflix now being in Canada? [arstechnica.com] Not to mention other things like slowly more and more games being sold digitally for the XBox360, PS3, PC/Mac (Steam, Mac App Store), iTunes movies, ect.. These are all using more and more data and I think they are wanting to capitalise on the digital download bandwagon. They watched Rogers do this and hey, it didn't hurt Rogers so the others are just following suit thinking "If they can do it and make more money for nothing, why not us?" And what is the caps? Anyone can say that only a small percent of users hit these caps, but that could also be based on just a rough estimate of "users typically do basic web surfing and check email, meaning they should only need 5-10 gigs max a month". Helps make gov look the other way by making baseless claims like that.
    • by Coraon (1080675)
      Actually Bell setup usage caps first, rogers followed suit 3 months later, bell are assholes for trying it, rogers is an asshole for following.
    • by c6gunner (950153)

      How much does this have to do with things like Netflix now being in Canada?

      Probably a lot. My father recently decided that he was tired of paying $100 a month for his Bell Satellite TV, and would rather pay $8 a month for Netflix. I crunched some numbers for him and showed him that he'd have to spend at least an extra $20 per month on his internet connection, and that's assuming that his household goes through only an average of 2 hours of SD TV per day. I'm guessing that was their intent - charge ridiculous amounts for bandwidth in order to keep their customers from abandoning

  • Bell Canada (Score:4, Informative)

    by TheRecklessWanderer (929556) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @09:20PM (#34810128) Journal
    Bell is just a terrible company. Unfortunately, at some point, pretty much every ISP has to buy product from Bell. They had it so easy for so long, and now their competition is taking them down and they are having major suck fits. They also got fined 1.3 Million dollars for calling people on the do not call registry. Looks good on them. I would rather not have a phone or internet than buy anything from Bell.
    • by hedwards (940851)
      I've got a similar problem here in Seattle. My options come down to Comcast or Qwest. Technically, I could go with Hughes or Clear, but the latency on those suck.

      I've heard that Sonic is really good, but they aren't available in this region because of the company controlling the infrastructure. All the other options suck or suck and are expensive. I think Speakeasy is probably the best alternative at the moment, but the speeds aren't really any higher and the cost is at least double what I'm paying now.
  • Bell is evil (Score:4, Informative)

    by Baron_Yam (643147) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @09:24PM (#34810160)

    Bell already owns the majority of pipe in Ontario, and they deliberately restrict pipe for end users of the ISPs that lease bandwidth from them. It's done entirely to make Bell's half-assed service look better.

  • by semicolin (1973084) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @09:40PM (#34810268)

    The cap is pretty much universally 40GB with overage fees around CAD$3.00/GB. Some providers cap the overage fees and cut off service (possibly illegal for VoIP providers) whilst others don't and just rack up the charges. The actual tariff has not yet been finalized but that's the standard figure being pushed by providers who have started billing already. I'm with Acanac who hasn't started billing, has no caps, has declared that they have no intention to add them and is fighting Bell both at the commission and in the media.

    This is a direct result of Netflix hitting the Canadian market a few months ago as it competes directly with Rogers and Bell, the two largest ISPs who happen to also be the two largest cable and satellite providers. Netflix HD movies take around 4GB each and a couple hours of TV programs is about the same. If you are in the habit of watching two hours of TV a night then you'll easily go over 100GB in a month. Bell wants to blame this on piracy but the fact of the matter is that this is perfectly legal and normal usage.

    Internet connections used to be faster and cheaper and the providers were rolling in cash. We've seen price hikes, throttling, and severe curtailing of progress. The current government is clueless on the portfolio but wants the market to sort it out- the only problem is that we don't have one and the regulatory commission is stacked with former Bell/Rogers execs with active financial interests in the company. It's a blatant conflict of interest but the conservative government claims they're powerless.

    • by Nemyst (1383049)

      Ironically, here in Quebec Bell is having competition it doesn't have elsewhere in Canada: Videotron. The result? Thanks to better (not saying great, but definitely better by a long shot) customer service, more incentives and better offerings, they're simply dominating the home Internet market. Once more, while I still do have a cap (and I pay a lot for the net I have), I still get 120gb/month and 30mbit down, ~8mbit up. The cap sucks, but it's better by far than even the top service Bell offers and it's fa

  • by headkase (533448) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:38PM (#34810708)
    Regulatory Capture [wikipedia.org] is the name for what is going on here. The USA suffers from it in many industries and Canada is not far behind. Lobbying is how it started and now you have organizations like the RIAA basically writing their own laws. The government is supposed to step in and put their foot down when a provider (especially since the providers are virtual monopolies in most places) begins to charge the "many, many, many" times more rate than their cost. We're being fleeced and our government is complicit in it.
  • I remember when we had unlimited internet a while ago. Yet companies had throttling.
    Then people complained about throttling. Today we have all these bandwidth caps.

    Yes I work in networking... I know about peering costs and the limits of bandwidth.
    Yes, you cannot have everyone maxing out their data all the time.

    However, having dealt with ISPs many times at the vendor level, I had a very bad feeling when throttling fell out of favor for bandwidth caps.

    I would rather have had them keep throttling. It keeps

  • rural Canada (Score:5, Interesting)

    by agwis (690872) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @11:19PM (#34811026)

    I am sick to death of how horrible the industry is in Canada, and the CRTC is not our friends either. I pay $150 per month for satellite internet as I live in rural Canada and don't have any other options...well dial-up, but I don't consider that an option. When I first heard of Netflix coming to Canada I was excited, but not anymore. I won't be able to use it. That's with a $150 per MONTH plan! This plan I'm on is xplornet's [xplornet.com] second best offering (Kabang). I recently received information from them about how they control are bandwidth usage, through what they call Fair Access Policy (FAP). Here is an excerpt:

    On your service the Fair Access Policy is based on an hourly bandwidth allowance. If you exceed your hourly download or upload allowance, your service will go into “Recovery Mode”. While in Recovery Mode, your speed will be restricted to a maximum of 25% (download) or 50% (upload) of your normal maximum speed.

    Recovery Mode will continue for sixty minutes. At the end of sixty minutes, the system will reevaluate your usage over the prior 60 minutes. If that usage is below the hourly allowance, Recovery Mode will end and your speed will no longer be restricted.

    I apologize for not formatting this table below in a better fashion. It appears I can't use tables in Slashdot's HTML.

    Telesat Service Package Maximum Speeds and Hourly Bandwidth Allowances

    Package | Maximum Download Speed | Maximum Upload Speed | Hourly Download Bandwidth Allowance | Hourly Upload Bandwidth Allowance
    Kazam | 512 | 128 kbps | 24 MB | 2.4 MB
    Basic | 1.0 Mbps | 128 kbps | 55 MB | 5.5 MB
    Kazoom | 1.0 Mbps | 256 kbps | 55 MB | 5.5 MB
    Kabang | 1.5 Mbps | 300 kbps | 88 MB | 8.8 MB
    Kaboom | 2.0 Mbps | 500 kbps | 110 MB | 11 MB

    It gets better....

    As well, there is an additional policy that affects all customers on your platform. This policy operates only during peak hours (between 8am and 1am local time). During this time, we subject traffic related to applications that are considered non time-sensitive (such as peer-to-peer file sharing, including BitTorrent-type applications, news groups, and online data storage (e.g. Rapidshare) to a peak transfer speed of 3% of the unrestricted maximum speed on your package.

    In addition, on March 1st 2011 we will be introducing a dynamic congestion management policy . This dynamic policy will respond to congestion in a part of the network by identifying those users in that part of the network who are consuming the most bandwidth and reducing their speeds to approximately half their maximum speed for a period of 15 minutes. At the end of 15 minutes, if congestion in that part of the network continues to be an issue, the system will once again calculate which users have been consuming the most bandwidth in the prior 15 minutes, and implement the speed restriction on that newly-calculated set of users.

    I'm completely disgusted by this whole industry and their price gouging. What's worse, there is no competition really. I can't even tell xplornet to shove it and go elsewhere.

    I may respond to future replies of my post here, but you'll have to excuse me for at least an hour or so until I wait out 'Recovery Mode'! ;)

    • Re:rural Canada (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cpghost (719344) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @11:54PM (#34811250) Homepage

      I'm completely disgusted by this whole industry and their price gouging.

      Judging by their pricing and traffic shaping policy, I'd venture that they have some heavy congestion in their backbone, i.e. that they need to invest more in their infrastructure. This emergency throttling is very typical for this. However, since you're on a satellite link, remember that both the RF spectrum AND the number of transponders on the satellite is a scarce and very limited resource. You're essentially competing with many other customers for limited physical resources that are (in the case of the RF spectrum) absolutely not, or (in the case of the number of transponders and satellites) not easily and cheaply extended. This fundamental limitation applies to EVERY wireless plan, worldwide, and there's not much you can do about it.

  • That's nice, but what I'd like to know is: when did Primus get back together? Why wasn't I informed? Are they bringing back Tim Alexander on guitar?

    And why do they need a vice-president of network services? Or is that just a euphemism for the roadie who goes out to score weed?

  • by greywire (78262) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @11:55PM (#34811254) Homepage

    You keep hearing about how they want to raise prices for all those lousy bandwidth hogs. I guess thats fair, on some level? So what about all the people who use much less than the average amount of bandwidth?

    If they want to charge the hogs more, then they should also proportionally charge the non-hogs (mice? sippers?) less!

    Yet I have never heard anybody seriously suggest anything of the sort.

    I wonder why...

  • by LibRT (1966204) on Sunday January 09, 2011 @04:29AM (#34812814)
    Here's what I received yesterday from Bell (I have their 25 mb/s "Fibe" fibre optic service) - I love the "extreme usage" bit: "Effective March 2011, an extreme usage fee of $1.00 per GB for usage exceeding 300GB per month will apply. This change will not likely affect you given your current usage level. For more information, visit bell.ca/usagepolicy. If you wish to modify or cancel your service as a result of this change, please call 310-SURF (7873). Sincerely, Jim Myers Senior Vice-President Customer Service" I'm going to downgrade one tier on general principal (it'll still be more than fast enough for my purposes, but will reduce my payment to Bell). That's strike two against Bell - strike one was the STBs they gave me, which don't include a FireWire socket (unlike the US, a FireWire socket is not mandated in Canada).

Some people carve careers, others chisel them.

Working...