|
Everything I've ever heard about the CRTC when it comes to telecommunications basically boils down to, "Well, they're loving us again, but it's run by ex-Bell/Rogers/Telus execs, so we can't do anything." So, I've always wondered: has there ever been any movement up there to reform how people are selected to be on it or how it's run or something?
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
less than three posted:That's what I was though. Yeah, it looks like they treated it more like an extended PSA than an actual story. I think you ended up getting about two or three lines. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
kuddles posted:The thing that drives me up the wall with those making this type of argument is that it pretends that everyone against this move obviously wants everything for free, and doesn't understand that while the concept of usage based billing sounds fair, that isn't what's being implemented. That's what really bothers me about this whole argument. I don't live in Canada, but when Time Warner was trying to pull that poo poo down in Texas, they used a similar term (consumption-based billing), which is entirely divorced from actual usage if you're one of the claimed majority who stays under their arbitrary cap. They're essentially admitting that they're ripping people off who use less than their cap since unused data transfer doesn't roll over to the next month. You guys really need to hammer on the terminology there and emphasize that it's really not usage-based. That plan for New Zealand that was mentioned further up sounds fantastic, though, especially since they're forcibly separating the people maintaining the lines from the people delivering service, which is really the problem here. If a phone company or a cable company can force people back to their own services by artificially limiting their Internet usage, there's really no incentive not to do that. The only reason they can pull that off is because the barrier to entry for setting up an ISP that owns its own lines and hardware is so astronomically high that there's not much chance of any real competition, so it's not like consumers are going to have any real choice other than who they're going to let ream them in the rear end. Either that poo poo needs to stop or telecommunications need to start being heavily regulated as a utility because they're becoming (or they probably already have become by now) as important as roads and there's no good reason to let profiteering ruin things for everybody.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:I eagerly scoured his twitter feed to discover how monthly bills prevent evening-hour congestion, since not a soul has explained that to this day. No joy. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 09:20
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Ughhhh, I'm getting interviewed for a CBC piece on the UBB issue. Anyone have any soundbites that wouldn't make me sound like an idiot on Seriously, make a comparison to charging tolls on roads ostensibly to clear congestion at rush hour.  , I know, but it's not going to do a drat thing there either and it's something people will understand is bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 18:36
|
|
National Television
|
Martytoof posted:Thank god the CRTC is fighting for me, the average consumer. Well, they need to protect you from services that are too cheap so you don't start to think that things need to be fairly priced. That would be damaging to the telecoms, after all, and cost them money they need for infrastructure improvements such as bandwidth monitoring systems.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
slush posted:Yeah, but are the ex-VPs of the companies appointed to their CRTC equivalent? No, we appoint the people who run their lobbying groups instead.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 18:12
|
|