Internet usage billing in Canada: who watches the watchers?

I, along with many others, are deeply troubled by the CRTC's decision on Internet usage billing. Here are some of my thoughts collected over the past two or three weeks on this subject. Some of these were intended for a letter I plan on sending to Shaw, my home Internet Service Provider (ISP).

First and foremost is the problem of the CRTC itself. The Victoria Times-Colonist in a February 4, 2011 article called the regulatory agency a "watchdog". This is a watchdog that appears to have the run of the yard with no restraints. Who watches the watchdog? What is the court of appeal for CRTC decisions? Is the appeal process something that is affordable for the ordinary Canadian? Is the CRTC public input process simple enough that the ordinary Canadian can understand the issue? If I understand the Internet usage billing decision sequence of events, it came about due to a submission by Bell Canada in October 2010 which wanted to charge its smaller customers who provided "unlimited" bandwidth Internet service plans more money based on actual bandwidth usage. Could anyone have predicted this outcome, a public backlash by individuals, organizations, corporate Canada and the government?

Second, while CRTC Chairman Konrad von Finckenstein rationalized that "Internet services are no different than other public utilities," I don't think the CRTC has ever reviewed bandwidth capacity and the caps set by the large providers such Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Telus. If the CRTC is equating itself to the provincial regulatory bodies that oversee, for example, the amount of money charged to consumers for electrical consumption, then should the CRTC also not ensure that bandwidth usage caps for various Internet subscription plans are also reviewed and regulated. The fact that various large ISPs have different bandwidth caps partly demonstrates to me that the caps should be much higher than they currently are given that the large providers are also selling excess capacity to smaller providers in much the same way Canadian electrical utilities export excess power.

Third, the idea that there's some super-class of Internet consumers identified by von Finckenstein who use it "heavily" and are engaged in "excess use" (the words quoted by the Times-Colonist in its February 4 article) and are being subsidized by "the vast majority of Internet users" (Times-Colonist, February 4) sounds fair on the surface, except for the fact that all the ISPs already and have always billed "heavy users".

Fourth, who are these heavy users? If you are not one now, you likely will be in the future.

I, along with others, believe the CRTC's decision will have unintended negative consequences for the Canadian economy. The most immediate consequence will be, given that the "unlimited" bandwidth option provided by the smaller providers that lease bandwidth from the large ISPs appears to be doomed, more Canadians, myself included, who run their own Web servers will be looking for unlimited bandwidth services outside of Canada, thereby taking dollars out of Canada that really should be spent here.

As people worry about their bandwidth consumption, they will likely spend less time, money and thought online. It's the last that's particularly frightening because unlike any other telecommunications medium, the Internet allows for real-time collaboration in a synthetic environment that the stuff of science fiction a couple of decades ago.