|
marketingman posted:This is what happens when idiots decide to privatise a core piece of infrastructure that is a natural monopoly. Oh but you see competition is possible according to the CRTC, you just need 5 billion in capital asset investments to get started. The reality is that the government has created sponsored duopolies that are not competing with each other on services and prices, just advertising. It's especially amusing because prices continue increasing but usage decreases with regularity, if there was any true competition going on then they would be looking there as both telco/cablecos don't have much else to throw at each other these days. Smaller competitors are basically forbidden from entering the market due to the ridiculous costs involved in even laying fiber and backhaul equipment. The hilarious part is that we were so far ahead of other countries a decade ago. It's a pretty sad day when I am moving in a few weeks and I am choosing ISPs based on who has the lowest overage fees. quote:We as Canadians are far too apathetic about how our country is run I mean, on some level this is true but not with regards to Internet. The truth is that this issue won't affect the overwhelming majority of Canadians who just use Facebook and maybe download some lovely telesyncs through some limewire clone. People aren't apathetic, they are just ignorant. It's hard to get people to march on parliament when they are seemingly unaffected by the issue in question. It will definitely affect them in the future but they won't really find out until it's too late. People are simply too ignorant to understand how this can harm innovation going forward. I try to dumb it down for my family when we get together once in awhile but their eyes just kind of glaze over unless I use very broad talking points and stick to things like "internet/cell phone bills are too much!". I don't know what the solution is other than the resellers banding together and basically making another medium to large sized competitor but that's just a bandaid for the larger problem. Politically it's a dead issue that doesn't incite people so Bell/Rogers/Cogeco/etc can get away with whatever they want. Honestly if I was single I would just up and move, it's gotten to the point where internet has stagnated here and I use it enough(TV/etc) that I actually care. No one seems to give a poo poo that legitimate usage is now affected, forget about piracy. You can easily run through the average usage caps now just by playing videogames and streaming poo poo. Anyways it's extremely frustrating to feel so helpless to affect the situation. I've tried talking to my local MP, writing the CRTC and even attending that rally last year. The more people do the harder the CRTC seems to come down on the side of the telcos, it's like backwards world up here. I don't think a single positive thing has come out of the resellers vs Bell CRTC summit type stuff. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Nov 1, 2010 |
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Oh and the best part is that Bell still doesn't have to match speeds. They filed an appeal and the CRTC said ok no problem fellas and it's tabled until whenever the gently caress they want. I mean at this point it's just become absurd. The CRTC seating needs to be reformed or the organization itself dissolved entirely. It's biased to the point of almost ludicrous transparency.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 15:01
|
|
|
kuddles posted:To me that is the most baffling thing that I don't understand why it has ever been allowed by the CRTC in the first place. It's not the CRTCs job to regulate that kind of thing individually. If Rogers wants to offer the shittiest packages known to man with 10GB usage caps then it should be free to do so. The CRTC should however monitor and ensure that Canadians in general are not getting screwed by everyone doing it which IS happening. The usage caps for most companies continually decrease while prices increase. People are literally paying more money for the same service they've always had or even receive less in specific features. Rogers owns zip.ca last time I checked too so they shouldn't get away with the whole "but but our video rentals are dying!" crap when they are obviously positioned well for service replacements. edit: just saw your edit, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 15:16
|
|
|
Calabi-Yau posted:Teksavvy is awesome stuff That's all true and it's what has kept me with them for the past two years despite the service seemingly going nowhere. The trouble is that their Cogeco reseller status is taking forever and I'm still stuck with 5mbps DSL in the year 2010, now with the cost potentially doubling for the same service I had before. I really like Teksavvy, they are one of the few principled companies I've seen who honestly gives a poo poo about the customer. Every time I have an issue, they deal with it quickly and effectively then follow up about a week later to make sure things are still ok. Who the gently caress gets follow up calls for residential services these days? That counts for a lot in my books. But I can't be stuck on 5mbit forever with the costs going up and speed matching is dead in the water due to the CRTC being Bell shills. I don't know how they think they are going to survive without their own COs, Bell can basically get away with whatever they want and the cable companies will follow suit since the precedent has been set. Resale markets(based on national infrastructure) only work well when the government is prepared to regulate and monitor competition, the CRTC has proven time and time again they will not do so. If I'm going to pay like $75 a month for Internet, it might as well be Cogeco standard + the $30 maximum overage fee since its 14mbps vs 5mbps. Can it go up? Sure but I have some recourse there, cable companies tend to work hard on retentions not to lose your business. quote:Bell stuff from various people Bell Canada is the most despicable companies I've ever dealt with. They were awful when I worked at UUNet and that was dealing with their corporate people. Their residential services are a joke and they still farm out most of their support to India. They engage in numerous fraudulent practices but rarely get punished for them. A friend of mine worked in level 2 tech support there before most of it got shipped off and she said it was a soul crushing job. At one point they put sales quotas on the support staff for upselling account items. This of course resulted in staff making things up out of thin air and attaching them to accounts which management turned a blind eye to unless the customer made a serious stink about it. If people weren't so ignorant about how easy it is to switch your phone/internet access then maybe they would finally die. gently caress Bell. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Nov 2, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
Exactly, I have no problem with usage based billing as I recognize that I do use more bandwidth than the average user. I'm not happy with the anti-competitive measures involved and there being no tit for tat on things like speed matching. The overage fees being charged are ridiculous though and they should be increasing caps, not decreasing them. They are using overage fees to offset a downward trend in cable revenues and maintain profit margins or in the case of companies like Cogeco, increasing profit margins according to their financial statements. It's very frustrating as the options are basically "fast cable with low caps and high price" or "slow DSL with <somecap> and moderate price". quote:Who the hell needs to pay the higher "Fibe 25" price to gain blazing fast speeds of 25MBPS but is fine with a 75GB limit? Amusing example of cable nonsense. Cogeco offers two "Pro" packages, one for Docsis3-availability customers thats 30mbps and costs $59, the other is 14mbps and costs $76. Logic would dictate that at least you could pay the first package's price if you couldn't get the speed at least but oh no, that would make sense. Both also have $50(!) maximum overages with 125GB caps, somewhat respectable compared to the competition I guess but certainly not good. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Nov 2, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 18:24
|
|
|
Usage caps in Canada will soon be advertised as the number of times users can access Facebook, at least it'll be somewhat honest in representation too considering how low they're getting on the basic packages.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:This is incorrect. No, I don't believe it's incorrect and you seem to have missed the point of the post anyways. I don't care what you label the packages, Ultimate 30 is cheaper than Pro which makes zero sense to the consumer. The packages also have identical usage caps.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2010 12:41
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Up until 3 months ago I was employed by Cogeco. I was on the testing program that rolled out DOCSIS 3 cable modems. I was there when "Ultimate" was just the 50mbps service, then split between Ultimate 30 and Ultimate 50. This information is easily readable on their website, so kindly gently caress yourself. Calm down with the pointless hostility. The packages are identical in everything but price and speed(Pro vs Ultimate 30), literally every other feature is the same. I am well aware of them being "regional" packages based on docsis 3 availability as I already pointed out in a previous post. I don't really care what the packages were previously, it has no bearing on the example of a cable company playing at regional pricing without actually calling it that. If Cogeco wants to do truly regional pricing then it should be fair and people in less congested areas shouldn't have to pay overages(or at least pay less) because according to Cogeco reps they manage usage due to congestion. That's without going into pricing discrepancies. quote:Customers in NON-Ultimate areas (Everywhere outside Burloak area) do not receive it as higher service doesn't apply. You already called it a ripoff so you've saved me the trouble there, we agree on that much. I don't hate Cogeco or something, it was an example of the stupid little games most major Canadian ISP and carriers are playing with the public here. I'm sure Rogers has done far worse but I have little experience with Rogers. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Nov 4, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2010 14:27
|
|
|
You sound like you're up on this already but always document everything with Bell. I even write down call times, the name of the rep and their ID # because the one time I didn't, they moved me off my unlimited account plan and I had no recourse.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2010 15:01
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:Cineplex is now saying they are doing to start streaming movies. That's fantastic news, more stuff like that can only be good for getting mass consumers more aware of the usage cap BS going on. quote:I agree that they can't have the new-new stuff for that price, but I would still expect new releases within a few months of them coming out on DVD. At this rate they'll start getting new releases years after they've been out. And it won't be all movies either, as they have very few contracts with the studios for streaming content, so they're not going to have anything at all from many studios catalogues. Honestly, it just comes down to whether back catalogue stuff is important to you or not. Like you, I canceled my Netflix sub during the trial. I just found that I have more than enough new TV and movies to watch, I really don't have time to devote to back catalogue quality stuff even at $8 a month. Chances are that most older movies I want to watch for a second time are sitting in my DVD library anyways. The majority of titles on Netflix Canada aren't the type of movie I want to necessarily see a second time, just generally speaking. Someone with more time on their hands or who doesn't watch a lot of current content might feel differently though and for $8 a month I'm sure its a bargain to them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
technovert posted:At least Teksavvy cable is being rolled out, it's not perfect but at least it will be better than what Rogers/Cogeco/Videotron/Bell can offer. Really needs to be rolled out faster with all the insanity in Canadian internet. Rogers just submitted an amended TPIA tariff for UBB rates for wholesale apparently though. Cogeco is basically ignoring the CRTC and only letting Teksavvy connect where they will drop dark fiber which means the rollouts will be glacial. In the end resellers cannot compete with Bell and Rogers while the CRTC is in their pocket. In a year there will basically be no reason to go with a reseller over Bell and Rogers since they will dictate the rates and often give better bandwidth options to their own customers. For example Bell lets you buy a 40GB block for $5 if you're a Bell customer but Teksavvy customers won't have that option, they will have pay the new rates. The speed matching prices were a joke too. It's a lovely situation, I don't know what anyone can do about it though other than get some lawyers involved because the CRTC is literally just doing whatever the hell Rogers and Bell ask for. At this point I'm not sure why the competition bureau of canada isn't involved or something, it's become ludicrous to the point of total transparency.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
Whimsy posted:I'm upset that Teksavvy hasn't said a peep to their customers about this yet. They're the ones who have to charge, right? At this point, they should be concerned that their customers are going to be rightly pissed at a sudden apparent increase to their bill. They will lose business like crazy if/when this goes through, I would fully expect them not to say anything until the last possible minute. For example I cancelled and went with Cogeco. If you do the math on the Cogeco overages compared to the UBB overages, taxes and base increase then they are about $8 off for comparable plans. I'd rather just pay the $30 overage to Cogeco and get 16mbps at the same time. I was a TS customer for years but the resellers are doomed as long as the CRTC is in the Telco/Cableco pocket. They were relatively ignored when they were just taking high usage users off their hands and before they started seriously chipping into Bell marketshare but now the hammer is dropping and it'll most likely just get worse.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2010 13:15
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:As soon as there's no viable reason to go with TekSavvy for uncapped service I fully expect companies like Cogeco to remove the "max $30 for overages" provision. Given everything I see, there's no reason that the ISPs won't use every opportunity to squeeze every last dollar out of Canadians. I agree, in fact some(Rogers and higher end Cogeco plans) have started upping it to $50 already. Unfortunately the UBB Teksavvy alternative isn't any more endearing financially, especially considering the huge speed disparity. At least with Cogeco I can threaten to cancel, go with Bell and vice versa. They seem to be deathly afraid of losing customers to each other but don't really care about resellers other than them being a gnat to be swatted using the CRTC. Any time I've hit up retentions at either company over the years I get ridiculous concessions and by the time they end I can usually repeat the process. Obviously it's not ideal but there's no loving way I'm paying $76 for 5mbit DSL. Hell in my case its 2.5mbit DSL since Bell randomly relocated me off a remote and Teksavvy can't do anything to fix it. I really hoped Netflix or someone like that would have been more proactive in lobbying but they seem to be taking a "content usage will force them to stop it" approach to this. I've done what I can do as a citizen short of getting myself arrested for some publicity stunt so I finally just said gently caress it and got Cogeco.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
100% agreed and sorry if my earlier post sounded defensive. See what I worry about is a situation I ran into recently with a friend of the family. He asks me to come over and help him out with "the computer" which turns out to be a problem related to his router. I'm looking over his old Sympatico documentation and he has a more recent Bell bill on the top. I point out the overage charge he has on there and I'm about to start explaining how mad he should be at them but he interrupts to say "oh yeah I know about it, Mike was downloading too many Xboxes or something, we told him to smarten up". This guy is about what I consider the norm to be for technical skills in the Niagara region so I have wonder how outraged people would even be, they seem to view it as water or power and don't understand the concept of timed congestion. These people might get angry and call Bell but they are told a line of bullshit by the reps and probably just do whatever they say. Cogeco is a great example of companies exploiting this intelligently too. The cheap plans have $30 overages because they know they have way more customers on those plans, those sorts of customers are upset by large/unexpected bills and generally they will have less churn with smaller overages there. The higher end packages have bigger overages because they know they can get away with it and are risking less. Bell is playing similar games now. You can't make people understand this stuff and I think it will take a literal generation change for that to happen on it's own sadly. I kind of hope the newer generation that doesn't have a tentacle attached to cable TV will have streaming habits that force this to go in another direction, like Netflix is counting on I guess. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Dec 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2010 19:49
|
|
|
quote:I have to say, the speeds offered by the majors has ZERO influence on me. The total transfer allowed is the only thing that matters now. Oh I agree but I actually did a comparison for pre/post UBB Teksavvy versus Cogeco/Bell and unfortunately the difference was something like $8.00 and a big chunk of my bill indirectly funds Bell anyway. Cogeco isn't exactly my favorite company in the world but they are the lesser evil in this situation and the extra speed is just gravy. I gave Teksavvy a long time but nothing has really changed in that period, in fact things have gotten worse. I understand it's not their fault and they're one of the few companies fighting it but I just kind of hit my limit (horrible pun). I figure worst case scenario if they ever get around to rolling out TS cable in all Cogeco regions then I can switch back but in the meantime I've had enough of Bell and DSL to last awhile. I had a similar attitude with the whole 5mbit DSL thing until Bell randomly picked my name out of a hat for raping and Teksavvy is totally powerless to do anything about it. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Dec 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
quote:They are talking about how they like your money. Exactly, they're smart enough to know that the general public isn't well educated on this stuff. As long as they spout some half-hearted bullshit to justify it then they can pretty much get away with whatever they want. They had a chance to make a case for congestion and their own figures didn't really bear them out which should have been hugely embarrassing but instead somehow turned into UBB going forward. I can't even call the CRTC corrupt unfortunately, they are just literally comprised of ex-staffers from big telecom and such so it's no surprise where their views lean toward. It's just a really hosed up example of government regulation gone awry.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
Chris Knight posted:Uncompressed size is irrelevant. The average game in my Steam library is at least 5GB and the largest is 30GB, they were all delivered uncompressed by the way. All Steam does is recreate a cached image from the central game repo and then update system libraries for things like DirectX, PhysX and whatnot. In many cases it doesn't even do that, it just plops the game on your drive. I have no idea what(if any) compression techniques the consoles are using but regardless the point is that legitimate usage is now driving higher usage, not just pirated movies and porn.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
Yeah that really showcased how much the CRTC is in Bell's pocket. Bell dragged their feet for ages on providing congestion figures and then when they finally do it doesn't back up their actions. This somehow gets turned into "oh ok thats reasonable go ahead". I don't know how you get from A to B in this situation without a total breakdown in understanding, conflicted loyalties or actual bribery. We need to install new regulation because without it the resellers are hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
That's so frustrating, I don't know how they can get away with something that's so anti-consumer that it's downright mocking. The CRTC needs to be dismantled, we need an actual regulatory body with some strict rules about how the positions are filled. Between this and the Wind decision, they have become a tool for the telecommunication industry and completely lost sight of it's mandate.quote:edit: Is this saying the new rates take effect March 1st? Why am I having so much trouble comprehending the document? Looks like March 1 2011 at the original rates until an amended tariff is approved. Basically this means the $45/60GB thing that was submitted months ago. Bell has already said its working on an amended tariff and people are assuming it's going to be the 25GB/mo one. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jan 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
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. At $10 per gigabyte on overages without warning it becomes financially neutral to have a lawyer send them a nasty letter if you get that kind of bill. That can be some serious money. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jan 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
priznat posted:That wireless mesh-net type thing is sounding better already. Add in some kind of distributed caching for steam install files and whatnot and hey! The trouble with wireless is always latency and reliability. It's fine for the Facebook types but any kind of wireless mesh thing on a wide spread would need some serious coordination, failover planning and a billion other things I am forgetting. quote:This part right here is what amazes me. $50-$100 in overages isn't going to bankrupt anybody, but with this system a single Steam game can result in $300 in overages. This happened in Montreal several years ago with VideoTron and their 10 gig/month limit on cable, and if I recall people who took them to court cleaned house pretty nicely. I would call them first to attempt to clear it up but there is no way I would accept a $250+ cable bill just on principle. I'd make it financially unfeasible for them to collect on it even if that meant going to my lawyer who would probably charge $300-400 to send them a letter about it. Everyone has tolerance limits and $10 per 1GB is going to hit them very quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
priznat posted:
Netflix copped out already with some lame PR thing about trusting the user consumption to force ISPs to deal with the issue. We will have to browbeat our politicians into changing this or basically wait a few generations for a less TV reliant, tech-aware public to get sick of being ripped off.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Well this is the sort of stuff OpenMedia should be looking at and taking donations for. The newspaper ads were a good start but let's take it further.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
unknown posted:Nope - I've got access to raw usage data, and I'm just letting people know that not everyone uses 50+gigs of data. You'd be surprised how many people don't use anywhere near their cap max. There are lots of people that just get emails and surf a little bit. It's not 50%, but it's not 1% either - and no, I can't release the data. We don't need secret figures, the cable/telcos already had to submit proof of congestion awhile ago in response to a disputed tariff. The "proof" was fairly laughable which is part of what makes this seem all the more unreasonable. quote:I have a theory. Bell knew this would be a bitter pill to swallow. They come out with the announcement of a 25GB cap. People revolt and there is a huge story in the news. Bell then lets up and tries to come across as the good guy and increase the minimum cap to 75MB. Sure that's a common sales/negotiating tactic but that's not really what they're doing here. Any CRTC affirmed rates basically means that they can go hog wild on this for the next ten years. They use the CRTC selectively and ignore them where they feel it appropriate. This is essentially giving them the keys to the kingdom and potentially means that Canada will associate Internet usage with a utility - not a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
The whole thing was filled with stupid analogies, he had the good old "... like what it costs to deliver mail!" whopper right at the beginning. I love when that one gets trotted out. I sent him a polite email he doesn't deserve trying to correct him on a few things while painting the broadstrokes about why its bad for Canada but I doubt he will read it beyond the analogies I tried to throw in.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
I actually ran into my MP in town today(Dean Allison) but he gave me the usual glad handing that politicians do when they aren't informed about something but know that they should pretend to care. I did tell him that it was one of the few things that make me feel ashamed to be a Conservative(I love most of the platform though not always its execution) if we let it stand and that seemed to hit home though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
I think the higher ups are definitely backpedaling a bit on this, I just got an email from the party about the review saying it was being carefully examined and blah blah blah. I just hope it isn't the usual "leave it for a month and hope they forget" approach that so many politicians take.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
By the way Cogeco is hopping on the bandwagon now with "bandwidth blocks", more details coming soon according to a Cogeco rep on the dslreports forums. As if the $30/$50 overage charges weren't enough already on top of your regular plan and etc. I'm betting on $2 per GB from them but hopefully all of the UBB backlash will make them reconsider.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
Septimus posted:Can't wait to hear why Konrad's testimony as to why he supported UBB. The bulge in his back pocket will give him away regardless of what he says.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
Suniikaa posted:This was really refreshing to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYizoh_r6D0&t=304s Yeah Burger handled that extremely well, responded in a very even tone despite facing the whiny nasal accusations of being "parasitic". I like that he hammered home the actual cost of delivery finally, I get so tired of hearing the bandwidth freeloader argument. quote:But yeah, if the Tories had supported the CRTC decision, they'd have lost the entire next generation of voters. What's really frustrating is that this puts things in an awkward spot because the CRTC is needed so that telecoms and cablecos can't run wild but at the same time they need to be held in check because of how thoroughly penetrated they are by corporate interests. I think we simply need a new regulatory body to manage it but that's a really complex issue.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Isn't that guy one of the show's hosts? He must be feeling so butthurt this morning. Yeah it is the host. It could not have played out better. He came off as the whiny corporate dickhead who is only motivated by greed and that's exactly what people needed to see. "MY CAPITAL!!! ". Yep, exactly what this whole exercise has been about. edit: missed this last page "also, The Gunslinger, a fellow niagara-West-Glanbrookian/ gunslinger fan? city/town? Pelham here" - Grimsby 
The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 14:58
|
|
|
Personally I'd mention the fact that these providers are using caps to stifle innovation and competition with their products. The CTV example is a recent hot button issue you can refer to. VOD is another one. In most cases its consumers seeking a superior product and instead of trying to legitimately compete the companies are trying to force you to use their more expensive, less desirable options. This might be fine if the CRTC would fulfill its mandate and protect the public from natural monopolistic practices but instead something like UBB just gives them a legalized method of stamping out competition. Avoid the bandwidth hog thing, it has nothing to do with bandwidth hogs and any time its brought up is a negative because people will often choose the simplest ideas to relate to if they don't understand the topic material. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Sorry can you clarify the CTV part? And you are right about the bandwidth hog thing, it detracts from the issue every time. Bell bought CTV and also provides their own television delivery service. Rogers provides a video on demand service and traditional broadcast cable. Their internet products have a direct conflict of interest with their own core offerings, particularly with regards to streaming video. It is in their own best interest to force caps on the consumer, both their own and the reseller. They are using caps and overages to effectively bounce you from one service to another but keep you within reach. If you don't like large overages which are profitable to them then your only recourse is their alternate product which has similar problems. None of this would be a big deal if you could just switch to a reseller but of course they are using the CRTC to force the resellers to adopt their business model. Consumers seeking an alternative should be able to find one, they shouldn't be forced to deal with a natural monopoly by their own government. It's especially glaring because this is the kind of thing that the CRTC is ironically supposed to prevent. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:For all the crap we've given Finckenstein, he was one of the judges responsible for upholding that uploading music to the internet isn't a violation of Canadian copyright law (according to Wikipedia): He's also correct in pointing out that without the CRTC we would have no independent ISPs. Still I don't think hes very well informed, I was watching the news and he claimed that Netflix is putting a huge strain on the Internet but seemingly ignores all of the IPTV stuff that the incumbents are doing. I thought his comment about 25GB of data being fine for a family was sheer nonsense. My family barely knows anything about downloading except maybe iTunes and they need a 60GB package otherwise they go over. I still want to hear him answer directly why we are paying $1+ per gigabyte for something that costs pennies to deliver and was subsidized by the taxpayers and government in some cases.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
Exactly. They are getting people from every direction in this. As I wrote a few pages back they are essentially trying to lock you in between services so that no matter what you are boosting their profit margins. They never proved adequate congestion for UBB in the first place, that's what is so aggravating about this entire situation. All of their supposed infrastructure investment hasn't resulted in Canada having parity with the US either in terms of residential broadband offerings. If they want UBB, fine. I have no problem as a user paying a reasonable price for my own usage. I don't want Bell being the ones determining what is reasonable though, that's simply absurd. There is no way you examine this situation and determine that the CRTC should get to dictate an independent providers business model. Likewise there is no reasonable way to interpret someone charging $1+ for something that costs less than a nickle to deliver and had it's capital costs largely paid for long ago. The CRTC should not be taking cues from the telecoms, as is evident from Konrad's speech yesterday when he directly referenced Bell's stated caps as being reasonable. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
I submitted some pretty lengthy comments but I forgot to use an analogy involving cars and electricity so the CRTC will probably disregard them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 18:50
|
|