|
Martytoof posted:in addition to the "cents per gigabyte" UBB thing. If you hit the "Well Americans have this and this, why are we so behind?", maybe it'll be sensationalist enough to give birth to a soundbite or something. If nothing else, it might just hit some nationalistic pride nerve. It seems as this is the best approach in any case. Compare Canada negatively to the USA and people get in a tiff about it very easily.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
Godinster posted:It seems as this is the best approach in any case. Compare Canada negatively to the USA and people get in a tiff about it very easily. And in this case it happens to be true 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:Anyway that's the background, I would just use a broadstrokes "They want you to pay for expensive cable packages and stop you from watching youtube/netflix!" approach. Especially the latter. Someone representing the pro-UBB side is going to spew about "only tiny amount of heavy users will be affected", "independent ISP's and bandwidth hogs got a free ride for so long" and "We spent billions on the infrastructure" so I would hammer down on the "I believe everyone should pay for their fair share of internet they use, but this is a ripoff/ridiculous/much more expensive than other countries/etc." More detail will probably get cut so it's best to just get across that this is a cash grab by monopolies and/or means no real competition is allowed, which certainly would appeal to the average person who doesn't get it, especially since half the country has a hatred for Bell already. kuddles fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
Kreeblah posted:Seriously, make a comparison to charging tolls on roads ostensibly to clear congestion at rush hour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 19:46
|
|
, I know, but it's not going to do a drat thing there either and it's something people will understand is bullshit.
|
LitigiousChimp posted:That's not a good analogy. Road tolls could help reduce congestion because they would encourage commuters to use public transit. There is no "public transit" option for internet access, so all UBB is going to do is force us to act like its 1999 again when it comes to how we use the internet. No it is a good analogy. If you institute road tolls during rush hour in a place where there is no public transit, the only effect is a few people would carpool. The internet is the highway with no public transit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
It doesn't matter to be honest. The other side is using bad analogies, outright dishonesty and whatever it takes to get their goal accomplished. Say whatever sounds good in a sound bite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 20:03
|
|
|
Kreeblah posted:People should suggest expensive road tolls to prevent rush hour congestion every time somebody tries that line. It's the same flawed concept, but it'd probably make more sense to people who don't really get this whole "internet" thing. So, yes, he's a right-wing nut that lucked into a bully pulpit thanks to a marginal ability to write and an enviable ability to make Useful Friends in High Places. (Just like most of these fucks.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
Possible talking points? Australia was in the same situation that we are in now, perhaps even worse. Now they have a national broadband plan underway as we speak, and with plans to have speeds 50 times faster than what's available in Canada. If they can do it, why can't we? They are also a huge country with densely populated urban centres. Countries like Sweden, South Korea, and Japan have much cheaper, unlimited usage at ten times the speeds that we have and they are all much more densely populated than Canada. Why are they doing just fine in terms of Internet access? Bandwidth isn't something you have to dig out of a hole and stockpile so there's no comparison to resources like electricity or gas where they have to be generated somewhere. Bandwidth shouldn't be treated in the same way at all, which is what some companies are doing. YouTube is barely 6 years old. No one knows what we're going to have 5 years from now. If UBB were allowed, we would be behind every other nation that is ready to take hold of the next big thing. The US is leaps and bounds ahead of us and they themselves are leaps and bounds behind many other nations. Where does that leave us? Highways are congested because people drive to and from work in similar windows of time, it doesn't matter what they're max speed is, and it doesn't matter how much they use the highway at any other time because it won't affect anyone else. If Bell were in charge of our highways, you would have to pay them extra if you drove too much, even if you never drove during rush hours. (The highway is there and it can be used freely, just like the broadband infrastructure should be.) Dudebro fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 20:33
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
Oh, and Moist, you might want to bring up that question that nobody's answering: how is that a monthly cap will do anything for periodic congestion? People will still go bananas with streaming during the evening, contributing heavily to congestion, while being totally unaffected by the cap because they're off the computer at other times. And if this is so necessary, why don't they have per-minute or per-byte charges for cable, too? It's the same pipe. For Cable and Bell's new IPTV thing, it uses up bandwidth just as much as the Internet does. Yet they're charging per-byte on the Internet and not on their content. Even if the lines were actually congested—which they aren't—its their television content that's taking up a lot of that bandwidth. Edit: And, yes, bring up international comparisons. Make the point that Australia and New Zealand are the only other countries that have had this, and they have to transmit their data under the ocean. Canada doesn't have that sort of excuse. We just have exploitative monopolies. Nomenklatura fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
Oh, and for God's sake, if you get the opportunity BRING UP THE SOLDIER'S WIFE THAT CAN'T VIDEO-CHAT WITH HER HUSBAND. You'll need to be general since nobody knows who this guy is, do a "stories going around" or "people on the Internet are talking about" or stuff like that, but bring it up if you can. Guaranteed that nobody's going to expect "YOU HATE THE TROOPS" from you hippy anti-Bell nerds, and it'll blow their heads off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
kuddles posted:
These are some good points. The argument about only a few heavy users being affected is changing so quickly. With so many sites streaming video, Canadians being voracious users of Youtube, and content moving towards HD, the bandwidth of a normal user is gaining exponentially. So for your Moms and Dads user who rarely use the web for anything but downloading some family photos and videos or viewing them, video skyping, going to CBC, etc, their little 25 gig accounts are going to go over their caps easily very soon. If pro-UBB people are so infatuated with fairness, as Kuddles mentions, it is the unfair gouging for that price/GB has to be also addressed. This policy, what ever gets worked out, needs to be more forward thinking and not just reactive to current perceived problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
Ultimately, what needs to happen is 1) the CRTC mandate actual competitive behaviour, most importantly maintaining the requirement for Bell et al. to lease their lines at wholesale prices and the prevention of any price-fixing or -dictating by the incumbents; and 2) any incremental costs be regulated nationwide such that if a cost-per-gigabyte is actually implemented, it can never be more than 200% of the incremental cost to the incumbent. More simply, Bell can't be allowed to cut off access, dictate prices or impose caps on their wholesale customers, and if caps are introduced at the consumer level they must reflect the reality of the cost and not some made-up number. Ultimately, that will lead to better quality of service to everyone, because that's what competition DOES. Bell won't go out of business; they'll just be forced to actually improve service and innovate to stay with the rest of the pack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Meeting No. 54 INDU - Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. This is the Canadian parliament meeting where they are discussing the UBB decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
What about mentioning something like if you downloaded for 18-20* hours at the download rate they offer, that you would reach the cap. So essentially you can use your monthly plan for less than 24 hours before you would be charged extra. *I don't know the calculation off-hand, but I think it's something like that? Someone who knows what they're doing should probably give an accurate figure if you go with this vvv There you go, so you can use your internet for 30 minutes per day before you will go over the cap. Hirez fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Hirez posted:What about mentioning something like if you downloaded for 18-20* hours at the download rate they offer, that you would hit reach the cap. So essentially you can use your monthly plan for less than 24 hours before you would be charged extra. If you have a 25 GB plan, for example, it only take 11 hours 22 minutes 40 seconds to exceed it if you download at 5 megabits per second.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
Well, seems like the CRTC has no plans to actually put an end to UBB, just see that it will be "implemented differently."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Hirez posted:*I don't know the calculation off-hand, but I think it's something like that? Someone who knows what they're doing should probably give an accurate figure if you go with this Every megabit you have means 450 megabytes an hour. univbee fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Has the UBB issue already been discussed? I'm watching CPAC, and they are talking about the Canada-Panama free trade act.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:Has the UBB issue already been discussed? I'm watching CPAC, and they are talking about the Canada-Panama free trade act. http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/timebandit/powerbrowserlive.aspx?ContentEntityId=7245&EssenceFormatID=463 Streaming Live.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
less than three posted:http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/timebandit/powerbrowserlive.aspx?ContentEntityId=7245&EssenceFormatID=463 Conrad von Finckenstein is telling everyone now that IPTV doesn't go over the internet. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
Does Konrad von Whatever not speak english or what is happening here? Why is this translated?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Does Konrad von Whatever not speak english or what is happening here? Why is this translated? He speaks french in response to francophones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
Oh. Why did I forget that? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
This hearing has made one thing clear: The CRTC hasn't got a loving clue about what they allowed in their decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
So basically he's saying in 60 days they'll make the same decision again? edit: oh my god it's clear that no one there has any loving idea what they're talking about
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Although she's on our side, this lady has no idea how bandwidth works either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
Bullshit it won't concern her. Anyway, that was the worst back and forth. I wish they'd bring in some qualified technical experts to question him. Whoah, I can barely understand him, can we bring back the translator?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
Finally someone bringing up the fact that congestion may not be a legit issue. Finkenstein saying people who stream movies aren't heavy users. What. This Peter Braid seems pretty well-informed, at least, I just hope he can see through the bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
I'm at work and can't see the stream, did they say they're going to rescind it or is the government going to have to repeal it for them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Holy poo poo this guy hasn't got a leg to stand on. He seriously has no idea what he's talking about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
"If you can tell me how to do it I'll gladly do it" So basically they have no idea how to future proof these decisions, thanks CRTC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:I'm at work and can't see the stream, did they say they're going to rescind it or is the government going to have to repeal it for them? They're going to look at it for 60 days. Which is terrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
gently caress you, it's not paying for what we use. It's paying 5000% for what we use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
"Why don't business users follow the same example?" BAM! Left hook from the democrats
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
Finkenstein: obviously if you pay Bell and Rogers MORE they'll increase capacity more
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
I'm not sure where he's going with this large business thing. edit: Oh drat nevermind there we go
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
"Per gigahertz cap" - dude from the CRTC
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Parachute Underwear posted:"Per gigahertz cap" I will go on the record to say that I will happily cap my GigaHertz to 5 in exchange for unlimited Gigabytes. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
Nice point there on global competition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
"Why do we have caps and lovely internet and other countries don't?" Bam, right hook from the Liberals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:22
|
|