Why Not a Metered Internet?

The headline of the Globe and Mail article asks the question, Why Not a Metered Internet?

The argument that follows defends the big telecoms in terms of market forces: for example, the cost of infrastructure building.

Here's a different answer to the question: with a metered Internet we would have another case of them that haves and them that don't.

We already have a growing economic inequality gap. With Internet metering, we would have an associated inequality gap in terms of fundamental communications access.

An inequality gap already exists with respect to telephony. The lowest income households haven't room in their budgets to acquire that all-important telephone number. They've not a telephone or cell phone or other mobile device to which such a number could be attached. For those households that have a desktop computer with Skype installed, they cannot make full use of the VOIP provider's services or those offered by similar providers. Such services would provide them with an online number (just like a phone number), thus allowing them to receive incoming telephone calls to their computer.

Why can customers in Canada - unlike those in most of the developed world - not obtain online numbers?

Again, a CRTC decision lies at the heart of the matter.

Access to incoming phone calls. Access to the full services the Internet can provide. In both cases, it's about communication with one's friends, family and community; access to one's regional district, provincial or territorial government and services; access to the federal government and services; access to information regarding elections, parties and candidates; access to news and information.... It's about access to democracy.

[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]

Recommend this post

CRTC, UBB and a Response from my MP

Am glad the CRTC has been ordered to review (read: 'reverse') its decision on usage-based Internet billing. But I won't be happy until the CRTC has gone the way of the dinosaurs, just like the dinosaurs its morphed mandate has been so busy protecting.

That aside, I wanted to share this great letter I received from my MP, NDP Jean Crowder, written in response to my terse email regarding the CRTC's UBB decision:

Thank you for writing to me about the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decision to allow usage based Internet billing. Put simply, this issue has been brewing for a long time. Canadians are paying more and more for less and less service.

The New Democrats have been pushing for the last number of years for a coherent digital innovation policy. The government has preferred to let the "market" make the decisions about access, speed and pricing for internet use. The problem is that we don't have an open, competitive market. We have a small oligarchy of vertically-integrated companies that control virtually every aspect of consumer-media use. The opportunities for price gouging and anti-competitive practices are obvious.

We welcome the Industry Minister's sudden change of heart on usage-based internet billing. As my colleague, Charlie Angus pointed out in the House of Commons, "Canada used to be a world leader in terms of internet access and speed. Under this government, we've fallen behind. If the CRTC's decision on usage-based billing is not overturned, Canada is in danger of becoming a digital backwater."

While the Minister of Industry has said he will review the usage-based billing decision, more action is needed to protect consumers who are already being hit with capped internet service. The large internet service providers and broadcast entities restrict competition by limiting access to their networks - not only to internet users but to their competitors as well.

I appreciate you taking the time let your views be known. It helps me in my work as a Member of Parliament. The New Democratic Party will continue to push for better access and digital rights for Canadians.

Sincerely,
Jean Crowder, MP Nanaimo-Cowichan
101-126 Ingram St., Duncan, BC, V9L 1P1
www.jeancrowder.ca

Recommend this post

How very strange

... for the BC government now to permit public servants to use Facebook, Twitter and other social media, but still not permit them to use email to communicate with members of the public seeking their help.

I have written extensively about the problems for people of low income who must choose between having phone service - landline and cell - and having access to the Internet. For such households, the choice is almost always Internet, given it delivers more bang for the buck. With an Internet-connected computer, headphones and a service like Skype, one can still make outgoing calls to other computers and to phones.

Alas, in Canada - but not in the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Mexico ... and just about every other advanced country in the world - you still cannot obtain an online number. If you had an online number, then people with a phone could call you at your computer. But without benefit of a phone OR an online number, people wanting to call you by phone - and in the case of the BC government, having to call you by phone, since that's the only way public servants are permitted to communicate with you - you cannot be reached.

The only option for someone without a phone but with an Internet-enabled computer is email. And the BC government won't permit public servants to use email to communicate with clients, consumers, or whatever the hell we want to call those seeking service or information from the government.

The BC government has even cut off the ability of public servants to use email in special cases, or so I was told when I was trying to communicate with the people at SAFER. Had the public servant processing my application required clarification, he/she would have had to use snail mail, thus delaying my application's approval by at least two weeks. The ability to send emails, other than in-house, was disabled.

It's so damn frustrating. A simple fix by the CRTC, that it lift its silly 911 restriction, so that VOIP providers could issue online numbers with Canadian area codes, would make the problem go away in an instant. And this fix, in aid of greater access for low income households, wouldn't cost the government a damn thing.

I've SkypeOUT. I'd have SkypeIN if it was permitted in Canada. But with SkypeOUT I have listed in my contacts all the emergency numbers one might need. So what if 911 isn't accessible?!

Lift the damn restriction, CRTC! It's obvious the only reason you have it there is to protect Canada's big telecommunications companies.

[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]

Recommend this post