Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
Kreeblah
May 17, 2004

INSERT QUACK TO CONTINUE

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?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kreeblah
May 17, 2004

INSERT QUACK TO CONTINUE

less than three posted:

That's what I was though.

I was all like 'bwaah college student sharing, we each use like 150 gigs" but I'm not sure how much made it in there. Haven't seen it yet.

edit: The segment was only 2 and a half minutes long?

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.

Kreeblah
May 17, 2004

INSERT QUACK TO CONTINUE

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.

Someone on TVO used this metaphor to explain why this isn't UBB in the way that they are trying to position it as. Imagine if gas stations operated like this (instead of the actual legitimate UBB way they operate now). You pay the same flat rate of 10 gallons. Did you fill up 7 gallons this time? $50. 3 gallons? $50. A litre? $50. Did you fill up 12 gallons? Well that's $60 because anything over 10 has a significant overage fee. It's obvious that everyone's getting ripped off here and yet for some reason this is argued as acceptable for telcos.

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.

Kreeblah
May 17, 2004

INSERT QUACK TO CONTINUE

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.

Kreeblah
May 17, 2004

INSERT QUACK TO CONTINUE

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 National Television....

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kreeblah
May 17, 2004

INSERT QUACK TO CONTINUE

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.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply