This hearing wasn't really about Usage Based Billing as a concept.
As is pretty common in these sorts of things, the terms of debate g0t all twisted around by the participants as they try to put forward their various agendas.
The real question being addressed was: in what ways can the big telco companies force their wholesale customers (the independent ISPs) to adopt certain billing practices on their retail customers?
The fact that the question, this time, was about UBB was incidental to the basic point.
Basically, the big telcos HATE having to make their last mile infrastructure available at wholesale rates to independent ISPs. But the regulator (the CRTC) forces them to do it and won't budge on that basic point.
So, instead, the big telcos are trying to make it unprofitable to run an independent ISP and drive them all out of business (while still, technically, offering wholesale access to their networks).
The latest tactic is to try to force the independent ISPs to offer the same terms of service to their retail customers as the big telcos offer to their retail customers. The thinking being that if the prices, bandwidth, data caps, etc, etc, are all exactly the same between the big telcos and the independent ISPs, then most users won't bother seeking out the independent ISPs and will just stick with the big telcos for internet access (as the customers already have a relationship with the big telcos for telephone or television access).
But, the big telcos have to go through the regulator (CRTC) in order to execute this plan to destroy service differentiation because the terms of the wholesale market are heavily regulated. (If they weren't, then the big telcos would just drop wholesale alltogether.)
So, this whole thing isn't really about Usage Based Billing as a general concept. It's about the big telcos trying to force their particular UBB plans on the retail customers of independent ISPs; as opposed to allowing the independent ISPs to adopt their own UBB plans with details different from the big telcos.