CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein recently stated, as reported by the Vancouver Sun (http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Clement+says+government+accept+CRTC+current+Internet+billing+stance/4219909/story.html) that "We are convinced that Internet services are no different than other public utilities, and the vast majority of Internet users should not be asked to subsidize a small minority of heavy users."
This is indeed a false conclusion, and these are the reasons why. Unlike electricity or water, there is no production or supply involved. Electrical service is metered because there is a direct cost associated with the amount of electricity consumed. With water, there is a limited supply that must be protected. However, data does not have a cost to produce; unlike cable networks that have to buy content, the ISPs do not pay for the content they transmit -- it is given to them free. The only cost to the incumbents is the cost of producing infrastructure, and that is the same no mater how much bandwidth is used, and most of this infrastructure has been in existence for the last decade. I have worked for both Alcatel Networks and Telus, and have experienced the actual changes. Most of the cost experienced has been in developing ways to get more money for 'added-value services' from consumers.
And there's already a precedent for the current model. Cable Television has for its entire existence billed you the same whether you watch 15 minutes a day, or 15 hours, and they have to pay the same for a block of channels, when they only want one or two of them. When I contacted my Cable provider, I was told that the CRTC would not allow them to sell per-channel, or organize blocks of channels by similar interest.
Finally, the nail in the coffin for this argument, is unlike other services, the end consumer is not in control of how much data is received. Anyone could send you a multi-megabyte file in an email, and you have no ability to know that until you actually receive it, and you can't "send it back". Similarly, when you update your computer software, you have no idea how much data is being downloaded. Finally, to add insult to injury, if you did suffer from a virus that turns your computer into a zombie in a bot-net (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet), not only would your computer be infected, but your internet bill could be in the $1000s of dollars.
Further, this decision would hurt commerce as no one will want to pay for the bandwidth ads take up, finding new ways to block them, thus rendering the billions spent on online ads useless and collapsing that part of the economy. And what about libraries, coffee shops, schools, and dorms: with per-byte charges, these facilities will be forced to stop providing free internet access, thus denying a large percent of our population the only access they have to the internet.
The only reason for this ruling is the increase of services such as Skype/Voip phones and Netflix, which directly compete with the incumbent ISP provider's primary services -- this move is purely a measure against open market competitiveness.
In conclusion, the internet is not like any service ever experienced before in human existence. It does not cost to produce, and it does not have a limited supply: It would be a mistake to treat is as such.
You've made some excellent points. I especially liked what you said about Cable Television billing: that we pay the same whether we watch 15 minutes or 15 hours and that we are required to pay to access a block of stations to be able to see the few we actually want.