|
priznat posted:Yah I wouldn't want to be relying on that for gaming or even video streaming, but for something non-time sensitive like bittorrent or steam downloading it'd be alright. It would be a non-trivial thing to figure out all the gotchas though, for sure. Netflix doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as the CRTC goes. They're competing with the big media companies'  patriotic canadian video on demand services and them even being allowed into canada is just those evil americans invading our culture.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
Powershift posted:Netflix doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as the CRTC goes. They're competing with the big media companies' Yeah I figured, much like Apple etc.. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, a Canadian digital media content provider would be a nice ally but it doesn't seem like we actually have any of those  vvv so true. Probably more than Global or CTV! priznat fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jan 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
Netflix probably carries more Canadian content proportionally than any other media company in Canada besides the CBC. (Because it's what's easiest for them to get rights to.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:Netflix probably carries more Canadian content proportionally than any other media company in Canada besides the CBC. (Because it's what's easiest for them to get rights to.) It is just too bad logic, reason and facts rarely have a part in CRTC decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 19:54
|
|
|
Powershift posted:It is just too bad logic, reason and facts rarely have a part in CRTC decisions. Yeah, they seem quite willing to shirk their responsibilities and essentially provide a shield for corporations that don't want to compete. The competition thing especially drives me nuts, we have something like 3 different levels of oversight for that and none of them are doing a loving thing. I'm really fed up with this poo poo but I'm not sure what more to do, I've written my MP, I donated a bunch of money to OpenMedia and CNOC. I'd love to hear suggestions
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:Yeah, they seem quite willing to shirk their responsibilities and essentially provide a shield for corporations that don't want to compete. The competition thing especially drives me nuts, we have something like 3 different levels of oversight for that and none of them are doing a loving thing. I'm really fed up with this poo poo but I'm not sure what more to do, I've written my MP, I donated a bunch of money to OpenMedia and CNOC. I'd love to hear suggestions Raise billions of dollars to build a competing infrastructure
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
Saw this today: http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2011/01/26/InternetLosers/ Yep
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:Amusingly Cogeco recently added a "We reserve the right to charge you $10 per 1GB" clause at the bottom of their usual fineprint crap on the package pages and whatnot. It's especially confusing given that the maximum overages are listed at $30 for $1.25 per gigabyte right above it. $10 per 1GB, I hope I am reading this bullshit wrong (very bottom). It was also on my paper bill last month. Isn't that the kind of thing they need to send you new T&C for? I don't think we've received a new T&C in the mail yet, and I can't imagine how adding something like "oh by the way now we can charge you $10/gb" is something they could just slip in legally. Right now between four people we are hovering at just under 100gb/mo. We could probably police ourselves down to 70 or 80gb if we HAD to, but we've been kind of spoiled by Cogeco's "max $30 overage" policy. Once that goes away I'm kind of afraid to see what the first "surprise bill" will be like. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jan 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
This must contravene the Competition Act somehow, right? If it's a worthwhile law in the least... maybe some complaints to the Competition Bureau would be useful... although whatever this is saying might make things complicated when it comes to authority there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Isn't that the kind of thing they need to send you new T&C for? I don't think we've received a new T&C in the mail yet, and I can't imagine how adding something like "oh by the way now we can charge you $10/gb" is something they could just slip in legally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:This must contravene the Competition Act somehow, right? If it's a worthwhile law in the least... maybe some complaints to the Competition Bureau would be useful... although whatever this is saying might make things complicated when it comes to authority there. Maybe, but it won't matter because Bell will trot out fifty of their highest priced lawyers to explain how UBB is necessary because peer to peer and congestion and high cost of infrastructure, and then when you try to counter that this is all bullshit they have fifty expensive lawyers that will pick your common sense apart because you can't provide some outlandish information.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
Sashimi posted:In theory they should but chances are they won't. Bell tried this on a friend of mine several years ago. He signed a contract for their internet around 2006 before ISPs had caps, and several years later he basically found a fee on his bill for exceeding this sudden cap. He fought with Bell to remove the fee for months, saying that any changes to the contract requires them to send a new contract. Unsurprisingly, he got nowhere with them and moved to Teksavvy as soon as his contract expired. Well, at that point it might be worth looking into small claims court. I'm not saying that it's the right thing to do, or whether Bell was even legally in the wrong, but if some rudimentary research concluded that yes, they did need a new T&C, then that seems like a pretty open and shut case. Can you even take a large corporation to small claims court?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Viktor posted:Looks like Bell Canada has all the rates up: http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpInt_Access.page How is someone expected to keep up with even software and OS updates with that little bandwidth? Windows 7 SP1 64-bit will probably be in the neighborhood of 850-900 megs just on its own. And if you don't update, you can find yourself compromised by a spam bot, which Bell will blame you for because you should have been updated, but you can't update without going ove 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
univbee posted:How is someone expected to keep up with even software and OS updates with that little bandwidth? Windows 7 SP1 64-bit will probably be in the neighborhood of 850-900 megs just on its own. And if you don't update, you can find yourself compromised by a spam bot, which Bell will blame you for because you should have been updated, but you can't update without going ove $22 a month for internet access that I would be pissed about on my loving phone. I feel bad for Canadians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Well, at that point it might be worth looking into small claims court. I'm not saying that it's the right thing to do, or whether Bell was even legally in the wrong, but if some rudimentary research concluded that yes, they did need a new T&C, then that seems like a pretty open and shut case. Yes you can. Even better, a lot of the time they won't bother showing up at all, which means if you can show that your case has any merit at all (i.e. it's not 100% retarded and it justifies a trial), you win by default.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
Has there been any official statement on whether Telus will be dropping their caps and screwing people over? It seems like now is a good time to jump ship from Shaw, since I'm paying $50/month for 7.5Mbps/512Kbps and 60GB/month, when I could be paying $53/month for 10Mbps/512Kbps + 75GB/month + home phone server + an Xbox 360 with Telus on a 2 year contract, or a bit cheaper without the xbox without a contract.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
It's like a singularity of when end users and the CRTC meet. There's a lot of word out there about ISPs installing their own DSLAMs and therefore having the ability to offer unlimited packages. How does this work exactly? I thought the issue was the Bell owned the "last mile" cable (that we subsidized) and therefore were free to kill the Canadian ISP market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
Whimsy posted:It's like a singularity of when end users and the CRTC meet. Where are they going to put them though? Bell claims all of their facilities are full, of course. Teksavvy(i think) asked the CRTC for dslam colos awhile back and it was a no go. If you're doing it from scratch then you have insane capital cost investments and thats without going into the licensing, permits, community exclusivity contracts and whatnot. Assuming they could do this, they would only serve high density urban areas for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
Septimus posted:A political party whose goal is to reform the CRTC would gain alot of traction right about now. As for the Big Two...Tories will almost certainly go with the big corps on this one*, so it's really down to the Liberals. There, it depends. If things worked the way they USED to, there'd be no shot in hell, since the Liberals got massive campaign donations from the telcos. But since you CAN'T get massive donations from corps anymore, the libs might be willing to relent if the public pushes them hard and the NDP stands firm. They won't fix the CRTC's inherent flaws, but they can change the policy directions it's given. *(Then again, it IS possible the Tories might relent. This is Tony Clement's file, and he's been surprisingly reasonable on these issues. Won't help if the PMO is dictating things, but if he's given some room, there might be some flexibility.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Godinster posted:God I loving hate Bell. Time to start writing my MP and demand they back anything Charlie Angus tables over this. Viktor posted:There's no reason for SSL traffic to be ~400KB/s so they could just apply a flow to it. Shumagorath fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
Oof! Switching back to dial-up is almost worth considering with those caps. (30 days) * 56 Kbps = 17.3034668 gigabytes
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 03:37
|
|
|
HorusTheAvenger posted:Oof! Switching back to dial-up is almost worth considering with those caps. To add to this, 100 gigs a month is equivalent to downloading at 37 kilobytes a second 24/7 in a 31-day month.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
Godinster posted:God I loving hate Bell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
I find it interesting that when Time Warner tried to institute 40 gig caps in the US, the firestorm that erupted made Time Warner back up and we're loving idiots and whores to corporations down here in the states. Even the politicians were speaking out against time warner. Are you guys flooding the streets/TV airwaves over this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
We're Canadians. Far too polite for our own good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I don't know who's rolled into CTVGlobeMedia but I watch a lot of stuff on discovery.ca and sites like that. I always hate knowing that's eating into my cap. This stuff is probably available on Cogeco's on-demand thing but their on demand system is utter poo poo so I can't find anything useful. Bell Canada (BCE) bought CTV apparently. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/bce-to-ask-for-a-break-on-ctv-deal/article1832093/ Funny how they'll have a lot of VOD programs to sell now...
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 06:07
|
|
|
I want to laugh, thinking that if I were a Bell customer I might be paying overage fees to watch something owned by Bell in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 06:38
|
|
|
drcru posted:Bell Canada (BCE) bought CTV apparently. The best part is when you want CTV programs through VOD, you'll have to use bell. If you want canwest global programs through VOD, you'll have to use shaw. If you want to have access to both, you'll have to do it over the internet which means you'll need to buy a bigger bandwidth package. edit: If i just made any of you as angry as i just made myself, i'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
We need some kind of sound bite that will get a lot of air play and that will actually make Canadians get ANGRY at the situation. Something like the aforementioned "Rogers, Bell and Telus charge you FIVE THOUSAND TIMES what it costs them for internet access" would be good but it's still a little too academic -- most people don't really understand how you put a value on something like bandwidth and connectivity anyway. Something that appeals to the Canadian sense of national pride. An implication that the USA is taking over is always good, though in this case it's unfortunately the case that the USA is BETTER than we are. Maybe that's enough? All this information is out there -- peering arrangements, comparisons to the rest of the world, anticompetitive actions, misuse of government funds. Where can this get publicized, where people will actually see it? It needs to get on the CBC for a good long time and keep coming up. And how can we start planting the idea of a nationalized fiber network into the MPs' heads? There's got to be some comparison to the Northwest Passage or the Trans-Canada highway or the Rideau Canal or the St. Lawrence seaway or something, some way of suggesting that the next step in tying the country together is a canadian communications network owned 100% by the people of Canada. And ripped straight from the telco's fat greasy fingers, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
Why is it when i read about Bell's download insurance, the first thing that popped into my head was some mobster roughing up a shopkeeper for accident insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
Viktor posted:Looks like Bell Canada has all the rates up: http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpInt_Access.page You missed the extra mandatory fees and included 'new client only' discounts. To get the actual price you have to choose a package, click 'pricing details' and then click 'See full offer details.' loving three hyperlinks deep to see what you'll actually be paying. Essential Plus 2Mbps down 800 Kbps up 2GB transfer $35.90 Performance/Fibe 6 6Mbps down 1 Mbps up 25GB transfer $45.90 Fibe 12 12Mbps down 1 Mbps up 50GB transfer $55.90 Fibe 16 16Mbps down 1 Mbps up 75GB transfer $65.90 Fibe 25 25Mbps down 7 Mbps up 75GB transfer $74.90
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
less than three posted:You missed the extra mandatory fees and included 'new client only' discounts. Don't forget this wonderful thing: Want it tomorrow? Order before 3 p.m. and get hooked up as early as tomorrow. A single $74.95 fee applies no matter how many services we install. Talk to us now to schedule an appointment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 07:26
|
|
|
orange lime posted:nationalized fiber network Nationalized fibre network.  Maybe if we got 10% of Canada's population to send a giant "OH GOD HELP US PLEASE!" Google would take up the challenge. less than three fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
We need to start writing to the newspapers and complain to the CRTC about their decision. This power play is getting pretty close to monopoly capitalism. Flood Metro and 24 Hours as well as your local papers with letters to the editors/complaints about how they're discouraging people from using the internet. This is a big step backwards, we're supposed to be promoting technology but we're making regular internet usage something only the rich can afford. It wouldn't be inappropriate to ask for a freedom of information request on how much companies like Bell have donated to the PMO and the political parties who backed this bill. We should probably find out who their lobbyists are and which politicians they've been donating to. This all seems a bit too convenient and somebody's probably getting rich out of this. I think that one Goon got onto CBC Marketplace about this awhile ago, maybe we can make a bigger fuss now that they've actually gone through with it. We need to ask more politicians to help us because honestly the NDP doesn't have too much sway in the Tory government, but it is election time and I'm sure they'd want the neckbeard/Netflx/YouTube/Facebook user vote. They are all trying to act young and hip so I'm sure they'd back us if we explained it to them in a way they'd understand. e: Can someone make one of those info graphics of how many TV shows, videos, or movies you can get on Netflix, iTunes, YouTube or whatever for the bandwidth Bell provides? Make sure you account for HD content since that's what most of you guys get, I assume. People love that stuff and it'll make it simpler for people to understand how much more they'll have to pay for what they used to get. Acer Pilot fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 07:29
|
|
|
drcru posted:I think that one Goon got onto CBC Marketplace about this awhile ago, maybe we can make a bigger fuss now that they've actually gone through with it. We need to ask more politicians to help us because honestly the NDP doesn't have too much sway in the Tory government, but it is election time and I'm sure they'd want the neckbeard/Netflx/YouTube/Facebook user vote. They are all trying to act young and hip so I'm sure they'd back us if we explained it to them in a way they'd understand. That was me, and it was CBC National.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 07:30
|
|
|
less than three posted:That was me, and it was CBC National. Ah, I was close! Marketplace (http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/) has a "Canada's worst cellphone bill" special on every once in awhile, maybe we can convince them to have a "Canada's worst internet bill" segment too? That and maybe start some "Save Canada's Internet" campaign where you East Coast Goons can boycott Bell?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 07:36
|
|
|
orange lime posted:We need some kind of sound bite that will get a lot of air play and that will actually make Canadians get ANGRY at the situation. Something like the aforementioned "Rogers, Bell and Telus charge you FIVE THOUSAND TIMES what it costs them for internet access" would be good but it's still a little too academic -- most people don't really understand how you put a value on something like bandwidth and connectivity anyway. And bringing up services might work because Canadians hate feeling backwards compared to Americans. Talking about how the Americans have all these great services that we won't get "because Bell and Rogers can't handle the competition" may well tick people off too. I'm not sure about the "digital Northwest passage" stuff, though. The problem with advocating a nationalized network is that you'll have much of the (Telecom-owned) Canadian media screaming about FREE MARKETS!! to all and sundry. It's guaranteed that Macleans, CTV, and the Sun chain will absolutely lose their poo poo, and the privately owned television networks will follow suit. They'll do that no matter WHAT you do, of course, but a nationalization policy makes it more likely that the public will go along with it. A better strategy might well be regulation. Set some ground rules about exactly how much telecoms can charge. A fixed number won't work, but some multiplier of their cost-per-gigabyte might. At the very least, the CRTC should be mandated to look into whether the lack of competition is driving up bit prices. If you look at the decision: quote:9. The Commission notes that carriers’ retail UBB rates are market-based and are not subject to prior Commission approval – that is, they are forborne from regulation. The Commission also notes that the flat-rate component of the carriers’ retail Internet service rates recovers most, if not all, of the associated retail UBB costs. In the Commission’s view, this situation provides carriers with the flexibility to adjust or waive retail UBB rates on a promotional basis. quote:The Commission notes that carriers’ retail UBB rates are market-based and are not subject to prior Commission approval – that is, they are forborne from regulation. The Commission also notes that the flat-rate component of the carriers’ retail Internet service rates recovers most, if not all, of the associated retail UBB costs. That other bit about how "flat rate components recover the costs" may be really important too, though. Right now, the telecoms' biggest argument is that most people are within their bitcaps. Now a LOT of that is because they've been engaging in aggressive market segmentation to try to ensure that you get bumped up to a pricier plan if you're downloading more than your current plan allows. Rogers bumped me up for about a year for free, for example, when UBB first showed up here, because I was exceeding the plan I was currently on. As long as they keep doing that, this CRTC note might prevail. But that isn't what's happening, is it? Regional monopolists like Bell are aggressively cutting transfer caps. If people start getting routinely billed for extra transfer, then it might be possible to go back to the CRTC and tell them that flat rates are NOT recovering the costs, and that they should reconsider their decision in light of these new facts. If it's under a new Government that's setting new policies, they may well change their minds. Right now, though, the most important thing is to keep that "stop the meter" stuff front and center in the minds of the public and the media. The telecoms KNOW that this stuff could be a real headache for them, and they might relent in cutting caps, or even increase them, if it looks like they've got a brewing PR nightmare on the way. And if Netflix sacks up and starts making noises about anti-competitive behavior on the part of the big television providers, that could REALLY put the fear of God in 'em, since the public will react VERY nastily to the idea that Bell and Rogers aren't playing fair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
drcru posted:e: Can someone make one of those info graphics of how many TV shows, videos, or movies you can get on Netflix, iTunes, YouTube or whatever for the bandwidth Bell provides? Make sure you account for HD content since that's what most of you guys get, I assume. People love that stuff and it'll make it simpler for people to understand how much more they'll have to pay for what they used to get. 75 gigs is Bell's highest cap. 1 hour of Netflix HD is 1885 megabytes, which means you get just under 40 hours of Netflix HD (less than 2 hours a day). iTunes is in the same realm on a per-hour level, the bitrates are about the same on rented/purchased content. So if you bought 2 TV seasons of an hour-long show with a full season, including any CSI, House, 24 or Grey's Anatomy, your month's quota would probably be hosed. YouTube I have no idea, but it's probably similar. For Steam games, it can be as few as three or four games, broken up as follows: Star Wars: The Force Unleashed = 25400 megs Age of Conan (no expansions) = 27200 megs Dragon Age Origins + Expansion = 19200 megs FEAR 1 Collection = 17000 megs World of Warcraft with all expansions is 23.6 GB. There are a lot of games on Steam that are over 10 gigs (Borderlands, Alpha Protocol, DIRT 2, Left 4 Dead 2, and Mass Effect 1 and 2 are the ones I currently have installed) univbee fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
Okay, here's one I just saw on DSL reports that could make a KILLER ad. quote:Show a Bell Canada tech walk in (uninvited!) to your home, and proceed to attach an oversized public pay-telephone to your laptop computer. User scratches their head, bewildered, but then shrugs it off and continues to use the Internet...
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 08:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
univbee posted:75 gigs is Bell's highest cap. So for Bell's cheapest internet plan ($35.90) after the changes, you can't even buy 1 game on Steam but you can maybe watch 1 hour's worth of TV on Netflix. If you're looking at 5 megapixel pictures on Flickr, I'd guess that you can look at maybe 2000 pictures at best for the month and nothing else. For $36 a month you can check your e-mail, wow. edit: If you buy a game on Steam during a sale, you'll pay maybe $5-10 for the game and then about $24 in overage fees on the "essential plus" plan. edit2: I just checked my parent's router logs and for them just using YouTube, reading news, and e-mailing this was their usage: 2011-01-26 1.32 GB 0.38 GB 1.70 GB That's download, upload, total. Acer Pilot fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 09:04
|
|