*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011 2:19pm PST - promote requested by original submitter zomgunicorns.

I very much dislike Kevin O'Leary. He's the voice for american style right wing BS about how the government is terrible.

I'm not sure what his qualifications to be talking about economics are besides getting lucky in the life-lottery and being a successful businessman.

I don't know what is going on here. Is this a move by the line owners against the independent ISPs that are leasing the bandwidth? Is this their way of getting around the regulation that forces the owners to let others share their lines?

And both sides are arguing that it's in the best interests of the end user, when they are actually concerned much more about their bottom line? That's what it seems like with my limited information.

40 gigabit for 5$ that's shit.
that's like 8 movies on netflix. or 63 cents a movie.

lucky i'm in america don't see these costs.

>> ^marinara:
40 gigabit for 5$ that's shit.
that's like 8 movies on netflix. or 63 cents a movie.
lucky i'm in america don't see these costs.


That would change the dynamic of services like Netflix online. I wonder if the television networks have anything to do with this decision.

I'm not sure if your comment was facetious or not, but you were pretty close to the mark. It's not the television networks (per se), but the television providers. The television providers are also the major ISPs and they know that if they can throttle the internet enough, or make it prohibitively expensive to use services like Netflix, then people will buy television service instead.

As I have said before, this is a pure money grab by the telecoms who have supported it. Luckily there are those few, like Telus, who have refused to change to UBB and have decried it as the money grab it is.
>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^marinara:
40 gigabit for 5$ that's shit.
that's like 8 movies on netflix. or 63 cents a movie.
lucky i'm in america don't see these costs.

That would change the dynamic of services like Netflix online. I wonder if the television networks have anything to do with this decision.

*politics
*money

Adding video to channels (Money, Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

O'Leary almost seems like he's playing devils advocate on this issue.


My thoughts here.

I liked Kevin O'leary as an entertainer on Dragons Den, but I will never again in my life watch that show.

Smartass fucking cocksucker, so smart, so wealthy, a business mogul, I'm going to teach him about fostering brand loyalty.

Fucking pig piece of shit cunt.

...

Fucking traitorous, parasitic, scum sucking, hopeful monopolist tyrant.

For him to claim a duopoly is good for the people, I hope he survives a plane crash only to slowly die hours later of 4th degree burns.

Two-thousand percent. That's their markup from cost. We won't stand for this.

your complaining (theoretically) about 63 cents per movie? fuck off you whiny bitch. wtf ? as apposed to what ? five dollars ? I must seriously be missing something here. (if your being sarcastic.. its pretty hard to tell at my end right now) Go with god bro. jesus loves you.

ah.. what.. whatever. I quoted... it doesnt show. not in the mood. broken shit. hello grandma

*eta- my grandma would tell ya to fuck off on the subject as well. complaining about 63 cents ... *rabble* *rabble* *rabble*

Bone nobody complains about the fact the movies cost money (they do, Netflix charges you/month).

This is a small overlap of American lawmakers not going after Net Neutrality. While Netflix creates a lot of usage there are prices for everything on the net. WoW (or any MMO and ultimately every game) costs money, Videosift costs money, Amazon, Comcast, "x", "z", etc... We're already paying through the nose.

Your Grandma might disagree with the "fabricated" .63 cents if she knew how little ISPs pay in regards to bandwidth. It's a joke. What ISP doesn't already have a hard cap? Comcast (and before that, XMission) has always had a fairly high cap. Congestion on the large scale are from inept engineers and planners. If your area block should only have 35 users at 240 GB/month and it gets congested because they let 40 people into the block, that isn't "our" problem. It's poor management with bad design and engineering; no one wants to build infrastructure.

If it was solely P2P stuff I might agree, but your talking about paid, "doubly so", Internet usage fees. Guess where all the "extra" (money for Blizzard, Microsoft - for Gold & Zune, Netflix, and many, many, more) money goes. To the ISPs. Bandwidth IS dirt cheap for them and will continue to be the same as long as the tech goes up at "x^2".

The fault is entirely at the ISPs feet. If they don't innovate they find themselves not offering "the best product". Legislating away your problems is like the U.S. Congress and Senate.

Anyway... I said my two cents before, but these kind of moves are horrifically laughable when you know how fast you'd go "uncapped" and the bandwidth available (in our area, Salt Lake City, heavy fiber optic lines; which again I payed for as a taxpayer).

>> ^MaxWilder:

I don't know what is going on here. Is this a move by the line owners against the independent ISPs that are leasing the bandwidth? Is this their way of getting around the regulation that forces the owners to let others share their lines?
And both sides are arguing that it's in the best interests of the end user, when they are actually concerned much more about their bottom line? That's what it seems like with my limited information.


That is EXACTLY what it is all about. Here in Canada, ISP's have been allowed to charge customers on a metered billing basis. I even preferred using the local metered billing ISP because they also consistently provided you the full speed they advertised, not the "up to speed x", but a dedicated, you can always hit speed x no matter how many users are on at the same time. You just had to be aware that if you ran that line at full speed all month you'd go over your cap. It was a tradeoff, but I much preferred a line that was going to really be high speed all the time, instead of discovering that between 4 and 11pm you can't even get half the speed advertised because the ISP had so badly oversold their capacity.

The new regulation passed here in Canada is, as you observed, extending that policy to include the lines that major providers like BELL/ATT are required to provide at cost access to for other smaller ISP's. This requirement is based on the government having spent a lot of it's money in partnership with BELL/ATT to put the cross country fibre lines in place. Before this legislation passed, smaller ISPs would be renting a line from BELL/ATT for say 100x more than a normal customer, but with no usage caps. That in turn let the smaller ISP resell to customers who would, on average, never run the line full and make a profit. With the new change, BELL/ATT are immediately using this as an opportunity to crush out the pesky competition. They are now applying a cap on the lines they are obligated to lend out to the smaller isps.

To try and summarize it, BELL/ATT are required to lease/rent/share their network access with smaller ISP's at a price fixed by the government. This new ruling doesn't let BELL/ATT change that price, but it does let them apply a usage cap on those fixed price lines. So instead of paying $10 a month to use a line for 720hrs a month, BELL/ATT can just say it still only costs $10 a month, but you can only use it for 100hrs a month now without paying a premium. BELL/ATT can and will use this to destroy the competing ISP's that depend on access to the infrastructure that the government helped BELL/ATT to build.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/03/crtc-internet-clement.html

Move along everyone, nothing left to see here.

Time to bust out the 56k modem. Lemme see....AT&F1&D2

George did a great job; TekSavvy is lucky to have him as a spokesman.

We're not talking $5 for 40GB here... TekSavvy's 200GB plan has been replaced with a 25GB plan that costs $32/month. You can add 40GB for $5 (and beyond), however. Still, 65GB for $37 is shit... fuck that. I really hope the CRTC/Bell/Rogers get their asses handed to them here.

I don't see why they should force extra costs onto the ISP's that are leasing the bandwidth. It's their bandwidth and that amount should always be available to them. The amount of data coming across to a user over a month shouldn't matter to the line owner. If the ISP is maxing out the bandwidth on the leased line, then they can make the decision to either lease more bandwidth or attempt lame "curtailing" measures on their own.

While service providers, especially cable, satellite, cell..whether it be voice/data/text/whatever, are posting profits in the billion or more range they do not need to increase their rates. This "it will only affect a small portion of the customers, the heaviest users" argument is great until it doesn't or their definition of "heavy user" changes....or more people become "heavy users" because their definition of "heavy" is 5 years old and everything increases in quality/size/consumption. Everything except their networks seems to increase in size and capability, which is an odd thing.

As long as they post those profits and don't build out their networks to offer faster, cheaper, better services, they should be regulated even more heavily. Because there is some sort of collusion going on where all the big guys seem to agree that it's in their best interests to not expand but meter their existing services and raise their rates consistently.....to presumably pay for "network improvements" you never see.

And this is ignoring past facts of these guys taking millions and billions of dollars from the tax payers to improve their infrastructure and never doing so, pocketing the money. And now they "can't keep up with the demand" and need more money on top of those previously huge profits to deal with the increased load. But they never say it'll be used to actually make it possible for them to handle the increased load....it's more of a stepping stone to make it so they can continue to use the same old lines, with a much smaller workforce (cheaper!), and make more money.

This is akin to someone having an old wood cabin from the early 1900s, outhouse and all...never updated just maintained as is. And charging you rent equivalent to a up to code modern house might be. And you might say move if you're not happy!....except when you go to look for another place to live..everyone seems to be offering old wood cabins with lower introductory rates but after the first 6 months it's just as expensive to live there. And the modern places are now for "business clients" and corporate/government entities.

Regulate them, require % of profits to be put into replacing the network with better infrastructure, guarantee outages and problems are addressed within 24 hours, resolved within 48 unless extreme conditions apply, rate hikes are fixed and must be justified (if it's increased inflation, make it actually be the rate of inflation, not just some made up amount to increase profits), unbundle offerings (I don't watch many of the channels they bundle...if I don't watch any of the channels they buy in a bundle then don't make me pay for that bundle. If there's one channel I like in a bundle, then let me choose whether or not I buy that particular bundle or not.)

And if they don't want to be regulated, make it possible for people to actually compete against them. The way it's setup now is just ripe for them to rape their customer base. They won't be forced to change until their network is so bad people get more speed out of alternatives.

> Everything except their networks seems to increase in size and capability, which is an odd thing.

All the ISP's I'm aware of have RADICALLY increased bandwidth and package offerings. It's called survival.

Well my question to this is, is the bandwidth actually as advertised at all hours of the day and do they guarantee it will be available at that rate at all times in the future under the terms of the agreement?

For instance, Time Warner in my area was consistently fast at all hours of the day when I first got it....much better than the DSL I had prior. And it slowly got a little slower...a few more outages a year...more "massive outages"... plus other problems unrelated to speed like them cutting off my net connection because they can't read a street address properly so they killed my net access when they installed my neighbors "business class"...that took me 2 days of calling to straighten out and total of 5 days to fix.

So the conclusion I can draw there is, his business class plus the other subscribers signing up in my loop drastically affected my bandwidth. Yet they claim higher bandwidth offerings with "Roadrunner Boost"...and I've got that...it's almost as fast as my connection was back when I first got it maybe a little better late at night.

So their claim of higher speeds is technically true, only because they've gotten slower. And the minimum speed they offer is pretty appalling although I don't remember it off the top of my head...I think it was like 125 or 250 kbps down.

Killing off non-digital television was supposed to give more bandwidth on the line for better internet speeds and better digital programming, except you have to pay for both...and the internet speeds aren't guaranteed until you step into business class. And for them to guarantee those speeds on a loop they would have to throttle residential users on the same loop.


I am not aware of DSL being improved upon. I know they offer the Fios and what not offerings through some of the phone companies, but they are not offering in this area. And you have to research them to see if they have hidden download caps or other nasty little things in the works to stick on their network to create artificial speed bumps to their own offerings.

Beyond that you'll have to direct to me to the information you speak of.

As for cell phones, I don't use data plans on them, but my parents have a property that has cell towers located on them...and I've been able to catch a couple of the guys and ask them some questions. Even without asking them...there's a screwed up little story related to these towers.

About 10 years back they got hot and heavy about putting in towers, for 3-5 years they were renting lots of land off people and installing these towers. My dad did some work for them paving the roadways, got to know one of the head guys in charge of the project. And while my information is not going to be perfect I know a few things affected their installation and their coverage.

Many of the cities and burbs wouldn't allow them to install towers that would be consider eyesores, in some cases they decorated the towers or put something on them to mask them being a tower...maybe the city name or some kind of design. Many of the "perfect" spots for towers people would not rent the land, so they had to pick imperfect places as close as they could get. So this led to problems with the coverage areas and causes some towers to bear more burden than they should, which Im taking a stab here and saying this really affects big cities network speeds. Within the last 3 years they upgraded the tower on my parents property by installing fiber landlines to the towers, presumably to speed up their network and alleviate some of the congestion.....however....the tower on the property has 2 "boxes" (equipment rooms with racks of network gear and the like) it feeds signals into...and I believe each ring or triangle of receivers transmitters is another cell phone companies signal range...so it services at least 3 networks. Meaning all 3 of those networks shares that one fiber line they installed to the tower unless they have multiple lines in the cable to be split, not very familiar with fiber cable.

Now the weird thing here is...Verizon did the majority of the tower installs I'm familiar with..as soon as they finished all of the towers were taken over by a company called "American Tower". They service the towers, you call them when you see a problem... I called them once about their air conditioner unit running all the time (it has 2 and one was running morning noon and night every time I got close enough to hear it). Two or three months later I thought I'd check to see if they fixed it, I could hear it running as I approached it...and when I got to where I could see it..it was frozen solid. This was in the Fall a year or two back, like 50 degrees or so outside with Winter coming. So they obviously don't pay very close attention to their equipment. AC failing in the summer means their shit cooks, and engineer said stuff in there is easily 100 grand worth of equipment.

So what I gather is, Verizon sold the towers, and rents from them....and now the other carriers rent from them. American Tower is in charge of maintaining the property and the building, but probably not the equipment since I see the various company engineers show up from time to time. They also provide power generators, there's a diesel powered unit that sits near these buildings and turns on from time to time.

I was also told the height of a tower limits it's usefulness. The tall towers can host more companies various signals versus the short towers. So For some reason they put in a bunch of short towers but they have limited utility and are just as ugly as the tall ones...so I dunno why in the hell they did that.


But for them to offer less congestion and higher speeds in high population areas they need more towers so they can break the area up in smaller coverage areas to limit the number of devices hitting any one tower. I have not see them put in a new tower since American Tower took over. I have seen them remove tower locations, probably due to cost of operation/replacement being high due to people hitting them with vehicles or breaking in.

In my opinion, cell phone pricing is a little better than it was but I am not happy with how Verizon handles their plans. For instance, if you want just a voice plan..no data no text. Your phone selection is terrible, I mean basic basic phones...most generally being flip phones with poor external screens and OK internal screens. If you want a better phone, you have to buy a text or data plan. Because if you buy specific types of phones, Verizon assumes you will be using that phone for what they specify that phone is. Take the EnV line of phones, I hate texting, but I like having the keyboard for typing in contacts and just general moderate to heavy usage it's easier to use than a flip phone keying in alternative. If I wanted that phone, I need a texting plan. If you get into smart phones you need a data plan...you can't activate one on your account without the plan. I don't know if the phones need the data plan to even function or not, but texting phones don't need texting plans to function...that's Verizon's plan offerings to maximize their earnings.

And texting in general is cheaper to the phone company than any voice call will ever be. Except texting is almost universally in ADDITION to voice packages....yet texting costs them very little in transfer costs compared to transmitting voice.

I hope some company out there is actually trying to implement new technologies and improve transfer speeds and push down prices. But if they are, they are taking their sweet time doing so...because if it was a big push...the other companies would have to react to that. Right now the only thing I see them all doing is trying to push through contract changes, shutting down government implement ISPs, and influencing laws that help keep us in the stone age.


>> ^deathcow:

> Everything except their networks seems to increase in size and capability, which is an odd thing.
All the ISP's I'm aware of have RADICALLY increased bandwidth and package offerings. It's called survival.

>> ^deathcow:

> Everything except their networks seems to increase in size and capability, which is an odd thing.
All the ISP's I'm aware of have RADICALLY increased bandwidth and package offerings. It's called survival.


Sorry, you're way outta line here, deathcow.

What are they surviving from? The deadly competitive world of telecommunications? What a joke. There are TWO networks in Canada, TWO. That's a duopoly. Bell and Rogers. That's it. They don't need to have illegal closed door meetings whereby they can be accused of collusion. No, all Bell needs to do is release a statement saying hey, we're capping our lines at 25g/b a month, Rogers will quickly follow suit.

Furthermore, they've only slightly increased the speed of their lines. And what's the point of increasing the speed of your lines if you put in place a deterrent so strong that no one maxes out their speed. It's a fucking joke,

"Oh good news insects! We've increased the speed of your lines from 750kB/s to 3MB/s! We're so first world, we make Ugandans faint. Oh, but remember, though we've quadrupled your speed, if you actually use your connection at the speed we've sold you, for more than 12 hours in a month, your bill will increase eightfold." That's just spitting in our faces.

Lastly, increasing the number of available packages is a scam. I know firsthand it's a scam, because when they first started rolling out UBB about a year ago, they unsolicitously called my mother to discuss some new plans.

You see, it turns out that even though they were allowed to go forward with UBB, they weren't allowed to impose it upon customers who already had agreements.

So they called my mother and told her they have greatly improved plans, they told her they could switch her to a plan where her connection would be more reliable, faster and her computer would get infected with fewer viruses. You tell me of an ISP who can eliminate viruses from the internet. Yeah, that's right, they threatened her with viruses. So, she says,

"Why thank you kind sir, I really appreciate the time you've taken to call me with the aim of improving my internet experience. I'd love this new package."

The scum never told her that in doing so she forfeits her "grandfathered" unlimited account and would go from an infinite amount of download, to 60gb/month. I haven't yet succeeded in calculating infinity, but I can say with infrangible certainty that it is A LOT more than 60gb/month.

My mother has lived in Canada her whole life, and thus has been a paying customer of Bell for over 40 years. They spit in their customers' faces as if we should be writing them thank you notes for providing us with phone and internet, when we subsidized the infrastructure they now dangle in front of us.

And you wanna talk about surviving competition? Businesses that are in competition for customers, don't shit in their customers' faces.

Bell's Motto? "You don't like it? Fuck you, we'll cancel your shit. You can write a fucking letter to Rogers.

> would go from an infinite amount of download, to 60gb/month.

Oh man only 2GB a day how will she survive? what a scam! Everyone should get infinite bandwidth at all times.

Reality... most bandwidth is consumed by very few people, and they're fucking it up for the rest of you.

>> ^deathcow:

Reality... most bandwidth is consumed by very few people, and they're fucking it up for the rest of you.

No they're not. Bell/Rogers/CRTC would like everyone to think so, but they're not. Quit drinking the Koolaid.

I've never experienced speed problems when downloading a file, so I don't buy that a select few are causing congestion issues. It costs the carriers a few cents per GB, but they want to charge up to $4/GB for overages. You can say, "Well take your business elsewhere then," but that's just it - there's nowhere else to take it to! If there were, Bell/Rogers would be fucked.

Canadian taxpayers pay/have paid for a large part of our telecom infrastructure, but Bell/Rogers get to make the rules and set the prices. It's a corrupt system.

> No they're not. Bell/Rogers/CRTC would like everyone to think so, but they're not.

I'm telling you, with absolute 100% certainty, that a small percentage of people are using up the largest percentage of your ISP's bandwidth. That's a fact. Probably 80% of your ISP's costs (their costs), are due to 5% or 10% of the users. This stuff is all fact. Not everyone wants to download gigs of warez and movies. Perhaps everyone should get as much Netflix as they want, and the ISP should just be forced by law to continue to haul more bandwidth, and prevented by law from charging for it? Or, cap limits?

The general philosophy (by people who manage ISPs and administrate networks...) is that 5% of subscribers use 80% of bandwidth.

Wow. A news spot in which the people being interviewed don't talk over each other (except for a very brief overlap near the end), no name calling, and barely even a raised voice.

I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

You can trust DC on this - he's in a position to know.>> ^deathcow:

> No they're not. Bell/Rogers/CRTC would like everyone to think so, but they're not.
I'm telling you, with absolute 100% certainty, that a small percentage of people are using up the largest percentage of your ISP's bandwidth. That's a fact. Probably 80% of your ISP's costs (their costs), are due to 5% or 10% of the users. This stuff is all fact. Not everyone wants to download gigs of warez and movies. Perhaps everyone should get as much Netflix as they want, and the ISP should just be forced by law to continue to haul more bandwidth, and prevented by law from charging for it? Or, cap limits?
The general philosophy (by people who manage ISPs and administrate networks...) is that 5% of subscribers use 80% of bandwidth.

>> ^Xax:

>> You can say, "Well take your business elsewhere then," but that's just it - there's nowhere else to take it to! If there were, Bell/Rogers would be fucked.
Canadian taxpayers pay/have paid for a large part of our telecom infrastructure, but Bell/Rogers get to make the rules and set the prices. It's a corrupt system.


I've placed my order - next week I'm switching to Youmano. Unlimited DSL! I look forward to seeing how it plays out.

$28.95, no contract. Yay?

>> ^deathcow:

> No they're not. Bell/Rogers/CRTC would like everyone to think so, but they're not.
I'm telling you, with absolute 100% certainty, that a small percentage of people are using up the largest percentage of your ISP's bandwidth. That's a fact. Probably 80% of your ISP's costs (their costs), are due to 5% or 10% of the users. This stuff is all fact. Not everyone wants to download gigs of warez and movies. Perhaps everyone should get as much Netflix as they want, and the ISP should just be forced by law to continue to haul more bandwidth, and prevented by law from charging for it? Or, cap limits?
The general philosophy (by people who manage ISPs and administrate networks...) is that 5% of subscribers use 80% of bandwidth.


The telecomm people repeat that 5 year old stat like a mantra. It's fucking old. It's not 5% of users using 80% of the network. Bullshit.

2gb a day is two hours of hd on demand streaming video. What's at risk here? The average internet user updating facebook, or bell/rogers duopoly on T.V.

Do you work for Bell or somethin'? You're awfully sympathetic...

> 2gb a day is two hours of hd on demand streaming video. What's at risk here?

Your infinite plan is at risk here. If everyone thinks they can consume 2 GB a day and not decimate the ISP, they're high.

No, I have no horse in this race. I know lots of telecom analysts though.

Anyways, I don't mean to be heated, I just worry about corporations controlling the internet like they control T.V. deciding what we look at when we look at it.

I'm not 100% against UBB, I'm not a network analyst, I don't know the implications. "Unlimited" seems dumb at face value, bandwidth is simply not unlimited. They should never have offered it in the first place.

However, I've heard multiple times how little it costs for them to deliver a GB, the MOST I've heard is 5 cents. So to markup 5 cents to 2-5$ is just greedy, and it flies due to lack of competition.

Also. Bell lied to my mommy. Case in point.

@deathcow

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm totally with you there. I think metered Internet might be the inevitable future - but current "overage" type pricing once you pass your quota is complete gouging. It should be more along a utility model- like your electricity. Also like the idea of cities creating municipal broadband utilities.

>> ^Matthu:

Anyways, I don't mean to be heated, I just worry about corporations controlling the internet like they control T.V. deciding what we look at when we look at it.
I'm not 100% against UBB, I'm not a network analyst, I don't know the implications. "Unlimited" seems dumb at face value, bandwidth is simply not unlimited. They should never have offered it in the first place.
However, I've heard multiple times how little it costs for them to deliver a GB, the MOST I've heard is 5 cents. So to markup 5 cents to 2-5$ is just greedy, and it flies due to lack of competition.
Also. Bell lied to my mommy. Case in point.
@deathcow

I really don't care what ISPs suffer from when they post huge profits and don't invest back into their infrastructure to handle the demand. When you have the same technology in place for 10 years and there's no news about them rolling out new hardware tech in trial runs to test it's limits and cost effectiveness....there's a problem. I see them testing packet shaping and whatever else allows them to continue to use the same old lines they put in 15-20 or more years ago...but never talk about running improved lines or higher capacity trunk lines to homes.

And I also don't care for the practice of having one maintainer/"provider" in an area with no opportunity for competition because the laws support the existing companies hold on areas.

I mean the uptime for my net connection was pretty abysmal for over 3 years because they couldn't find the issue causing my problems. They kept blaming it on my house wiring when I'd call them. Except they ran the wiring, they hooked it up, and they gave me the hardware to use. I showed them where the neighbor had dug up lines, I explained to them that he had a fence company out years back who dug into both the phone lines and the cable trunk line. I let them tour the house multiple times. I had so many problems they assigned an advocate to my case to make sure the problem was fixed. Which I thought was great until this woman never called me back once, or called again after initially calling to tell me she was assigned to helping me resolve the issue.

I mean if they can't offer good uptimes or better than average speeds or less costly packages.....how are they competitive? The answer is, they aren't...they don't have to. There's no one else around to give them competition unless you switch into an entirely different medium.....where they have the same horrible repair/troubleshooting, pricing and speeds. And then you look into using your cell provider, and you'll get....worse speeds, worse pricing and as far as my experience goes with my cell provider.....piss poor service and rude as hell reps unless you are buying something.

OH MY GOD!! His ear! Once you see it, you can't stop staring... O.O

Tags for this video have been changed from 'kevin o leary, lang, george burger, Teksavvy, usage based billing' to 'kevin o leary, lang, george burger, Teksavvy, usage based billing, UBB, CRTC' - edited by notarobot