Blessed by the Potato

I’m working on another UBB update post, but it got kind of rambly, so here’s the TL,DR version:

Important points:

1. The CRTC does not regulate retail internet because it is, supposedly, a competitive market. That condition only holds because wholesale internet is regulated, which allows for independent ISPs to offer service without having to lay that last mile of cable to every household.
2. The outrageous UBB fees being charged have no bearing at all in the actual costs of data transfer. They are purely for profit and punitive reasons.
3. I strongly disagree with the UBB of the incumbents, and reserve every right to rant about it here anyway, but ultimately, their retail pricing decision is theirs, and I can move to a competitor if I don’t like it.
4. But, the latest CRTC decision also forces the independent ISPs to mirror the incumbent UBB plan. This is a massive regulatory failure. Though the CRTC supposedly does not regulate retail internet, by forcing the independents to pay what is a punitive fee with no basis in wholesale cost just like Bell’s retail customers, the CRTC is creating a de facto retail regulation, and a bad one at that. It’s killing the competitive marketplace. This is the big reason why I’m stepping up to sign petitions, mailing my MP, and even mailing my MPP*. I encourage you to do the same.

So, send your MP a letter. A paper letter supposedly carries more weight than an email, but please do contact them in some way. Remember that there’s no postage required to send a letter to your MP. If you don’t know who your MP is, you can look up their address here. My letter was put up in the last update, you’re free to copy as much of it as you like, or better yet write your own in your own words. Some bullet points to mention:

• UBB is bad for everyone except the incumbents (bad for end users, bad for content creators, bad for innovators, bad for telecommuters, and bad for independent ISPs).
• The CRTC ruling is anti-competitive, in effect forcing a regulation of retail internet service, and removing the ability of independents to set prices, differentiate their products, and in a word, compete. [This, I think, is the main point]
• The UBB fees are not related in any way to the costs of delivering data or maintaining infrastructure, and should not be forced on independent service providers.
• By having the independent ISPs hand over UBB fees to the incumbents, that’s pure profit for them, while at the same time removing the ability of the independents to compete. If the incumbents argue that UBB is needed for behavioural reasons, there’s no reason the independents shouldn’t keep those fees.
• Even on the incumbents’ own networks, the purpose of UBB was anti-competitive: to make competing internet services for their traditional media and telephony arms less viable.
• The implementation does not jive with any of the stated reasons for UBB: heavy users are not targetted (medium users pay more per GB than heavy ones), congestion is not alleviated by financial incentives (there’s no time-of-use component, so the network will be just as congested in prime time), and the costs of data delivery are not in line with the UBB charges.
• The implementation is unfair, as the independents are forced to pay, while the incumbents have the option of waiving UBB on promotional bases.

* – the quick note I sent my MPP: “The recent CRTC decision forces independent ISPs to adopt the retail pricing structure of the incumbent duopoly (Bell & Rogers). This was an anti-competitive move by the federal regulator that is strongly not in favour of Canadian consumers, content providers, independent ISPs, or innovators — only the interests of Bell and Rogers are served. The federal government has abdicated its responsibilities to regulate the telecommunications industry and protect Canadians. Will the Ontario government step up to fill the void and introduce a bill to protect Ontario internet users from usurious usage fees that have no basis in the costs of operating the networks?

I realize that Ontario, unlike Quebec, has often not wanted to step on the toes of the federal regulators, so action on protecting consumers from usurious UBB is unlikely, but nonetheless I ask that you consider it. “

An individual has submitted a fairly informative petition regarding the UBB issue. And here’s an updated CBC report.

Here’s my letter to my MP. Feel free to adapt to your own uses, and please contact your MP! I don’t know how true it is, but they say a printed, signed letter has more bearing than an email, and you don’t need a stamp to send a letter to your MP.

Canadians, like people all over the world, are using the internet more and more every day. Widespread access to high-speed connections has allowed innovators and content providers to provide ever-more video content, and cloud computing is fast becoming the new way that people access and process their data. However, these tools and multimedia uses consume a lot of data, and the incumbent Internet Service Providers have recently begun charging extremely high fees for data usage (usage-based billing, or UBB).

The recent CRTC decision forces independent ISPs to adopt the retail pricing structure of the incumbent duopoly (Bell & Rogers). This was an anti-competitive move by the federal regulator that is strongly not in favour of Canadian consumers, content providers, independent ISPs, or innovators — only the interests of the incumbents (Bell, Rogers) are served. The federal government has failed in its responsibilities to regulate the telecommunications industry and protect Canadians.

To be clear, I am not against the idea of usage-based-billing in theory. However, the proposed charges by Bell and Rogers are usurious: the best research I can find indicates that the incremental cost of 1 GB of data is in the range of 1-3 cents, yet Bell is charging up to $2.50/GB, and the CRTC decision allows them to force independent ISPs to charge no less than 85% of that, removing choice and competition from the market.

The incumbent telcos have also been very duplicitous in their messaging to Canadians in regards to UBB. In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Mirko Bibic, a Bell VP said: “A bit is a bit is a bit. If you’re a heavy user, regardless of what’s causing the heavy use, you will pay more. That’s the concept.” However, a bit is not a bit when it comes from another arm of Bell or Rogers: UBB fees are not being charged on Bell’s IPTV (“Fibe”) service, nor is Rogers levying them on their own digital home phone or on demand TV service, even though the underlying technology that runs those services operates on the same supposedly congested networks. Yet competitive options, such as using Netflix over a reseller’s internet connection, would be, which puts those alternatives at a severe competitive disadvantage. Also, in other cases the implication is made that UBB is to help improve the quality of internet access, to relieve congestion. However, that is not the case: if it were, UBB would also be time-of-use billing, to correspond with the congestion that can occur at peak times. Indeed, the ISPs already have implemented tools such as throttling (“QoS”) and deep packet inspection (DPI) to manage issues of network congestion.

At the very least, the independent internet service providers should be free to set their own pricing based on the actual wholesale cost of data transfer, and not be forced to adopt the retail pricing structure of the incumbent telecoms.

Though I do consider myself a techie and computer geek in many respects, I have to admit that as soon as I’m done buying a computer, I immediately stop following the latest developments in processors and graphics chipsets, etc. So I’m not really going to review my new laptop on the specs, because they’ve stopped meaning much to me, except to say that it does have a discrete video card on it so I can game if I want to. Though it was a xmas present from my dad, I picked out the model I wanted myself: a Dell XPS 15″ L501X. For reference, I’m moving up from a ~7 year old Toshiba A70.

Look and feel: the keyboard and trackpad both have a nice feel to them: the keys articulate with just a little bit of resistance, with a smooth, polished surface. I really do have to emphasize how pleasing the tactile elements are, even the non-functional parts where the heels of my hands rest while typing. The backlit keyboard option is nice, especially when typing in the dark. I like the feel of the trackpad, too, and it’s positioned nicely between my hands when I type, even though it’s slightly left-of-centre. Most importantly, the keys are where they’re supposed to be: no concessions to the French! The trackpad supports two(+)-finger touch, allowing for gestures like putting two fingers down and pinching them together/apart to zoom out/in on the screen.

The screen I’m a little mixed on: it looks nice, it’s bright with good contrast, and the coating is not so glossy as to make using it in the light impossible. However, it’s a TV resolution (720p: 1366 x 768) and aspect ratio, which is a little weirdly wide for me: I preferred the 1200×800 of my old laptop (a little taller), or better yet, 1680×1050 of my desktop (yes, I’m a 16:10-preferring troglodyte). The screen viewing angles are also backwards: there’s a large horizontal viewing angle where you can still see the screen really well (not great for privacy on a laptop), and very little vertical viewing angle: the screen noticeably darkens just from lowering my head due to slouching, and Wayfare, who’s about 6″ shorter than me (and the difference isn’t that much when sitting) can barely see the screen when sitting beside me. The screen doesn’t tilt back much beyond vertical, which could pose a problem if sitting high above the laptop, such as when sitting too close to a desk (or an airplane tray table). The fonts don’t quite look right, but I’m not sure if that’s a function of Windows 7, or the screen itself (they’re largely “too serify”, which looks a little like when you set an LCD monitor to a non-native resolution, but I am at the native resolution here!). Images/videos look fine though.

It came with a TV tuner, which I thought was a neat option, though a dongle is needed to plug in a regular antenna/cable coax. There’s no special software included, so one must resort to windows media centre, which has a very poor implementation for scanning for over-the-air channels (though it’s pretty straightforward to use your computer as a PVR once you do get the channels added). If anyone has any suggestions for TV tuner software, I’m all ears (esp. if free!).

The battery has to be the biggest disappointment, though not in the way you may think: I do 90% of my “mobile” computing plugged into the wall, and I could do with only ~2 hours of battery life for the rest. Yet since I opted for the package with the higher numbered video card (435M) and processor (i7), Dell would only let me configure the laptop with the larger 9-cell battery… and that battery is a bit of a travesty, adding weight to an already chunky computer (though still much lighter than my old one), but also sticking straight out from the bottom. That appendage is going to make it hard to carry the computer around in my backpack, though it does nicely elevate the rear of the computer when placed on a desk (conversely, it makes it hard to use on your lap, it seems to create pointy corners that dig at my knees). Though I do get ~5 hours of battery life with mild web-browsing and OTA TV watching. I can’t find a battery on their site to order (having it as a 2nd may be the best of both worlds – smaller form factor for travelling when I expect to be able to plug in, larger capacity option when I need to roam for a few hours), but it’s $150 for the previous generation. I thought that a second 6-cell battery was an option when I was checking out, at more like $40… I might just pay it to make putting it in my backpack easier, but not if it ends up being $150 (if anyone is ordering an XPS based off this review… want to shoot me a line before you finalize the sale and see if I can add a 6-cell battery to your order? :)

On a related note, the power adaptor has a three-prong plug, which is a disappointment: so many travel adapters (and extension cords) on the market are only for two-prong cables, and there’s no need for a laptop to have a grounding pin (Toshibas and Sonys don’t!). The cord is also fairly short, at about 6′ long (I believe my Toshiba is ~9′), and of course the 3-prong issue means it’s harder to find an extension cord! There’s a little blue light-up ring on the power cable, which on the one hand will let you know that the AC adapter has juice, but on the other will be annoying when trying to sleep in the same room the laptop is charging in (i.e.: hotel rooms). I don’t see any way of turning that light off. I really wish they hadn’t included that. Speaking of weird lights, there’s an LED to indicate hard drive activity, as with most laptops… but it’s behind the screen. That was a weird design decision.

I have yet to try to stress it out with a game, but for just web browsing, it runs cool and quiet, which is a huge improvement over my last computer. The main heat exhaust is out the left side, and it looks like there are several intakes on the bottom (which I know from experience with the Toshiba, can be easily blocked and lead to an overheat shutdown).

The speakers are “JBL certified” which means nothing to me per se, but I do have to say the sound quality is excellent for a laptop. There’s even a “subwoofer” on the bottom of the computer — and heck, even without the “for a laptop” qualification, the sound is very decent. There are two headphone jacks, which allows you to plug in two sets of headphones (to share sound with a friend) — I haven’t tested it with 5.1 sound yet, but a popup did ask if I plugged in headphones to the jacks, with the option to instead pick front/rear/centre/subwoofer, so I’m pretty sure that’s a possibility, and one port says S/P DIF, though all I know about those letters is that it’s something for audiophiles. 3 USB ports are spread around the computer, one on each side and the back, making it easy to avoid physical size conflicts with large USB keys, and allowing you to always plug into your preferred side of the computer. One of the ports doubles as an eSATA port in a clever bit of workmanship. I was a little disappointed to see that there was no VGA port for video (all of our conference room projectors connect via VGA), just HDMI and mini display port. Another dongle to get and keep somewhere… Oh, and it can output full 1080p over the HDMI, and even use that as a second monitor while you’re using the main screen on 720p mode (sound will go out over the HDMI connection by default, but that can be toggled).

Though I’ve only used it for a day, I actually haven’t been too annoyed by Windows 7 — some of the new features I’ve turned off (gone is that annoying “dock” at the top of the screen!), and some settings I’ve put into “classic” mode. Keep in mind that’s high praise from me: I thought XP was the very pinnacle of Microsoft OS design, and took Vista as a personal insult. One thing I haven’t yet figured out how to do is to make the control panel list contents “normally”: that is, down by column first, then across by row, but otherwise everything is just simply working, which is the point.

So, all in all I’m quite pleased with the Dell XPS. I’m particularly impressed with the build quality, just the tactile feel of it and some of the little features. The power packed in here is good according to the specs, but like I said, I haven’t really stress tested it yet, so I can’t comment first hand. The only real downsides are the screen (I’d prefer a 1680 resolution, and the vertical viewing angle is poor) and the lack of choice in batteries — if I want a smaller form factor Dell, why not let me downgrade the battery and just deal with the reduced life?

Here are some pictures of how the 9-cell battery sticks out of the bottom:

And here’s a pair showing how the screen darkens when you’re off on the vertical viewing angle. The camera settings are the same for both shots, just the second has the camera lowered by about 4″, and you can see that the screen is noticeably darker. So you’d have to adjust the position of the screen every time you go for a good slouch…

One downside to working late I hadn’t considered is the possibility of a large-scale power outage. I don’t know what’s going on, but I can see out my window here that there are no lights stretching for several blocks between the hospital and the river (but there are some lights on on the other side of the river). I’m freaking exhausted here now, and more than ready to head home… but I don’t want to leave the hospital (where there’s power and internet) and walk home in the pitch black. It’s been dark for about 25 minutes now, and it’s starting to freak me out (the sleep deprivation and general anxiety is not helping matters there). On the other hand, I really don’t want to be in the hospital if they decide to conserve the generators and cut off power to this wing… The streets are dark and slippery, but the hospital is creepy.

I had a fair bit to write about UBB, there are updates to this post:
UBB Update 5, including my submission to the CRTC
UBB Update 4, including a new metaphor. (I didn’t say it was a good one though!)
UBB Update 3, a reminder of the basic economics behind the CRTC being involved in regulating wholesale internet in the first place.
UBB Update 2(b), a very long post on the issue. Also, 2(a) came just before that, as a short summary.
And the first update, including my first letter on UBB to my MP.

***

Cloud computing – you may have heard of it, it’s becoming quite the buzz word lately. The idea is that rather than everyone having all this computer hardware on their desks or in their laps or (now with smartphones) in their pocket, you put the big giant gobs of data on a central server that you reach over the internet. If you have a complex task but don’t have the computing power on your smart-phone, for example natural language speech-to-text for something more complex than an address book lookup, you just send the audio to the cloud, and let it compute the conversion. It’s supposedly going to be the wave of the future, and some cloud computing start-up companies have already been bought out at ridiculous prices. You can even keep your data there, backed up, safe from a local calamity, and available wherever you want it.

Streaming video is already becoming popular, with internet connections now able to process streaming hi-def movies and TV shows from Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc.

But you may not ever see these in Canada thanks to the outrageous usage based billing model the ISPs have started.

It’s also hippocritical. “A bit is a bit is a bit. If you’re a heavy user, regardless of what’s causing the heavy use, you will pay more. That’s the concept,” said Mirko Bibic, Bell Canada’s senior vice-president for regulatory affairs. Somehow a bit isn’t a bit when it’s coming from Bell or Rogers for another service: Rogers’ digital phones, Bell’s IPTV (“Fibe”) and Rogers on demand use the same bits travelling over their networks, but they wouldn’t dream of charging $2.50/GB for that data. In fact, it was the rollout of Rogers’ digital home phone service that first lead to throttling and data transfer caps being implemented on their network.

Not to muddy the waters, but there are two issues with that one: network congestion has been in the past (and may again become) an issue affecting the quality of service, especially at peak usage times. Throttling (as much as I also disagree with how heavy-handed it is/was), is one method to solve that issue. Caps, and usage based billing, on the other hand, are completely unrelated to any notion of congestion: it’s possible to blow through your cap in just a few hours of downloading with the speeds available these days, which you could easily do in the off-hours without affecting the rest of the network. The only good explanation I’ve heard for bit caps is to snuff out on-line competition for Bell and Rogers’ video/TV services.

“The rates are absolutely atrocious. How the hell are we doing above one dollar for extra usage?” said Rocky Gaudrault, president of Chatham, Ont.-based Teksavvy. “It’s in the thousands of multiples beyond what the costs are.”

Indeed, Teksavvy currently charges just 25 cents per GB, or 10 cents per GB in pre-purchased blocks, and that’s their retail price. These charges from Bell and Rogers (which they are now trying to force on their resellers like Teksavvy) are outrageous. From most reports, the actual cost of a GB of data is around a penny, maybe as much as three cents. However, today’s CRTC ruling is forcing Teksavvy to match Bell’s pricing (with as much as a whopping 15% discount). That is extremely uncompetitive. It undermines the whole idea of bringing in competition with resellers of monopoly infrastructure, and moreover, it’s bad for Canadians.

Now, I’m not against charging based on usage. In many ways, that makes sense. However, these charges are ridiculous, usurious even. And just as there are usury laws against charging excessive interest on loans, the ISPs, if they want to charge for usage, shouldn’t be able to apply a 250X mark-up, fees that put whole industries out of business as infrastructure becomes too expensive to use. They especially shouldn’t be allowed to engage in the anti-competitive act of forcing their resellers to adopt their own pricing model (what’s the point in having resellers then?). The ruling doesn’t even make clear if the resellers are getting charged on a per GB basis, or if they can also create buy-in-advance usage plans like Bell can.

The next step is to do something about it.

Open Media has a petition going, which I’ve already signed. I’m going to write letters to my MP, Tony Clement, and the CRTC as well. I’ll update this post when I’m done, but don’t wait for me: write your own! Though you may get stuck with the same fee package, switch to a reseller like Teksavvy if you can, and tell Bell or Rogers why you’re leaving when you cancel your service with them.

The Globe and Mail opinion piece: A metered internet is a regulatory failure.

Edit to add: Ellen Roseman’s blog post. “Since Ottawa has abdicated, Quebec passed a consumer protection law that restricts penalties charged on cellular contracts. Manitoba also plans to impose new rules, although perhaps moving too far into an area of federal responsibility.” Hey, maybe a note to the MPP wouldn’t be out of place, either…

The CRTC ruling itself.