|
What does this mean for me when I'm on Acanac's unlimited DSL? I should have switched to TekSavvy's cable a while ago since they do offer it in my area while Acanac doesn't.
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 16:50
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS 
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
Yeah, but what about pricing? What will the prices be? Right now, I believe it's $40/month unlimited even though the speeds suck. Now it's going to be...? And cable will face the same problem. 2011, unbelievable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Sounds like a new house. Assuming your neighbours all have cable lines, it should be no problem for you. I believe it might cost ~$50 to install a new cable line.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/CRTC-Finalizes-ISP-UsageBased-Billing-112406 http://forums.redflagdeals.com/crtc-decision-ubb-996533/ http://forums.redflagdeals.com/take-action-crtc-decision-dsl-bills-doubling-tripling-beginning-march-996839/ 1. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Language=E 2. Type in your postal code, find your MP's name and email address. 3. Compose a email. You don't have to write an essay. If you wish keep it brief, or if you are well informed, feel free to air your frustration. For those that don't know, for all Bell and Bell reseller providers, starting March 2011: - Bandwith cap will be 25GB(confirmed by Teksavvy CEO). That's upload and download, together. - $1 per GB you go over, up to $22.50. $0.75 per GB after that. - ALL DSL RESELLER PRICES WILL GO UP TO MATCH BELL PLAN PRICES, AND RISE WHEN BELL PLAN PRICES RISE. For those on Rogers, or Rogers reseller providers: - Same deal, coming down the pipe a few months later (early summer). More information: http://www.antiubb.com/ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/canbroadband http://www.openmedia.ca/meter http://www.stopthecap.com/ I sent my MP a short e-mail asking her how this is beneficial for us and basically how important the Internet is for our country's future. I don't even know if MPs read and respond to their e-mails. Dudebro fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
loving update the infrastructure then. Tax it. Just don't give a company a monopoly because then we end up with poo poo like this. How many taxpayers are there? 20 million? How much is it going to cost over 5 years to upgrade?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
You just need it for Vancouver, Calgary+Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, and their respective metro areas. Tell yourself this will never happen and you won't be disappointed. The problem is that people in charge don't see the Internet in the same way, the majority of them can't even type that quickly. Just straight up ask people, would you be willing to pay X dollars/year over X years to have some of the best internet in the world? If only it were that simple. I still don't understand the power that Bell and Rogers have. Is it logical? Just make sure the government itself doesn't undertake the construction, lol. Privatize that part of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
I actually got a response from my MP. --- Thank you so much for taking the time to pass on your concerns on this issue to us. In the interests of levelling the playing field for retail and wholesale Internet Service Providers, the CRTC has ruled that both may charge customers for exceeding the monthly usage of data transfer permitted with their broadband Internet package. This ensures that no company in any part of the country is put at a competitive disadvantage. Usage-based billing is the industry standard in other jurisdictions - including the US. The CRTC will be undertaking a new public consultation to consider whether UBB wholesale rates should be set at levels below retail for both telephone and cable companies. The Government of Canada is committed to encouraging choice and competition in wireless and Internet markets. That's why we have recently held spectrum auctions to allow more companies to provide consumers with more options and are looking at additional auctions in the futur We have forwarded your comments to our policy and research department. Should they need any further information or have any questions, they will follow up with you shortly. Once again, thanks for taking the time to send this to us. Should you have any further questions, comments or suggestions in the future, please don’t hesitate to contact us. --- someone please deconstruct and destroy this argument. I don't know if they're just going to copy and paste this response to everyone that e-mails them. She's in the conservative party if that makes any difference. I thought the government didn't support or oppose the CRTC. Dudebro fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
I still don't understand what the government gains from Bell and large telcos retaining their power, short of taking direct bribes. Or is this a CRTC issue and not a government issue? But the MP I e-mailed pretty much defended the CRTC.
Dudebro fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
quote:“A bit is a bit is a bit. If you’re a heavy user, regardless of what’s causing the heavy use, you will pay more. That’s the concept,” said Mirko Bibic, Bell Canada’s senior vice-president for regulatory affairs. “The caps we’ve established are well above our average users. If you’re a super-super heavy user, you should pay more.” loving fuckhead mouthpiece.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
I love that guy's car analogy. You need gas to run a car, dumbass. He forgot that highway is like the line transferring the bits, not the loving car. We don't pay more for the highway if we drive 100 times more in a month than someone else. Of course you would pay more for gas, it's inherent to the operation of a car. Does it actually cost more, besides in electricity cost, to send bits up and down a dumb pipe?  In fact, every highway except the 407 (maybe a few more?) is funded by everyone, just like the infrastructure for our internet was, wow. Except there's no one company imposing their will on drivers for usage fees. And people arguing for this crap secretly hopes that no one knows about the rest of the world's Internet access options? Dudebro fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 06:17
|
|
|
skidooer posted:I know someone who is on the board of directors for one of those independents. He says that the company does not want to go to usage-based billing, but they'll be out of business if they don't. Netflix and the like are killing them. They're in the midst of upgrading their equipment to support usage-based billing. I'm confused by this post. Netflix is killing who and how?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
Normally, I'm opposed to protests (probably because I don't care enough about most things), but damnit, now I know how the hippies feel when they protest for poo poo they care about. Mid post edit: Hahaha, I was going to post a link to facebook protest against UBB page, but it has since been cancelled. Maybe a new page is up somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2011 07:19
|
|
|
skidooer posted:The ISP. It is a small rural ISP where I suspect 50 year old farmers were not doing a lot of torrenting before, but there is a good chance they are using Netflix now. Their internet business was already a loss leader offset by the profit from telephone subscriptions; the recent increase in data use is just making it that much more difficult for them. Oh, I thought you were talking about a company like Teksavvy. What you described doesn't sound like the typical independent, or is it? What Bell is doing is truly stupid. Market forces can't dictate the direction the Internet will go in this environment so nothing makes sense to anyone unless you're a suit at one of those telcoms.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2011 18:46
|
|
|
New facebook page for this rally, just a placeholder for now. Also, this amazingly awesome gigantic argument against UBB. http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1621527~7113613720f25003c7128aa38c32efe5/CRTC-2010-802-Vaxination-Petition.pdf One guy wrote that? Seems at least equivalent to what a parliamentary committee would come up with. I'd like to think that some MPs will read that and do the right thing, but unfortunately politicians don't give off that vibe anymore. Dudebro fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Jan 31, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2011 05:53
|
|
|
This will affect cable in the summer (June 1st?) once Rogers get its helpings of UBB and assuming nothing happens to UBB between now and then. Here's the facebook link I forgot to post earlier. Monday, February 21st. http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=183264541713465
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
I wish I could get Yak. Right now, their broadband is available in some parts of Toronto and other places in Ontario that you don't really want to live in.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
There's a slightly more active thread about this issue in GB. I don't like that there are two threads about this, but whatever. Cross-posting from there. http://www.liberal.ca/ubb/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
I just heard about Distrubtel ISP today. Called customer service (called, someone answered directly) and they said they're absorbing the cost of this UBB business for now. Cable 15Mbps/800kbps for $50/month. 10mbps for $43. DSL price in line with Acanac and TekSavvy. They say they're absorbing costs for now, but it's only been a week since the decision.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 03:19
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:That Spark interview was crap, too. Hey, mister economics professor? You can't talk about how the market will solve all ills when there is no free market here. Bell et al have natural monopolies. Telecoms are the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of natural monopolies. Competition is something you have to impose, or you won't get any. oh, you heard that interview too? There's actually a full version of that interview on the podcast feed. Boy was I let down as I eagerly booted up the Spark podcast to listen to a well-informed discussion on UBB.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
Isn't that guy one of the show's hosts? He must be feeling so butthurt this morning.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 14:25
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I agree that most tech savvy people would likely be anti UBB, but that's not to say they couldn't be reasonable. Like I'm not against UBB per se, I'm against UBB at a 5000% markup. I'm not against bandwidth caps per se, I'm against bandwidth caps that would have been shameful in 2006. Unlimited internet has been shown to work in other countries with way more population density than Canada. It is not some kind of fantasy world.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
Yeah but if you have a higher density then there's more chance for congestion. Are they constantly overcongested in those high-density broadband-minded countries?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 00:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:True usage based billing would also mean that the dude who actually only uses 1 gigabyte a month would pay like $8 a month to cover the other expenses besides bandwidth and the ISPs won't be having that. hahaha, that's a good point. Bell: Usage-based billing is the only fair way for us to move forward in this industry. TV Host: So it really is a good idea to charge for what someone uses. I see. Bell: Yes, it is. TV Host: So if the vast majority of your end-users use 15GB a month, why not charge them $0.10/gigabyte? That's already a 1000% mark-up by the way. Sounds like huge profits for you. Bell: Ummm...*crickets* I don't even think there are other fees. You could pay a set up fee. Then the connections are made. You may not even need to get a paper bill. There would be someone looking after hundreds of user accounts, but most of it is automated anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
I can't believe he's getting poo poo for tweeting decisions. How much more efficient can government get? New generations will not even bat an eye at this, but it's clear who's outdated when they act all offended by tweets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 07:54
|
|
|
hahaha, are you loving kidding me? VP from Bell is putting up editorials on the Post. How the gently caress does that guy sleep at night telling lies all day? Probably very comfortably in his king-sized bed and silk sheets, but still, what a loving slimeball. Sadly, readers will take his comments at face value.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
this is from the GB thread, tangentially related. THIS is disgusting. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/court-quashes-tory-cabinets-globalive-decision/article1895099/ Globe & Mail posted:A judge has struck down the Harper cabinet’s 2009 decision to overrule the CRTC and let a cell carrier with Egyptian ties operate in Canada. I have no words to express my disappointment. Dudebro fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
Why are Canadian companies being treated like royalty? Why are you special? I dunno, just because. As long as those foreign companies give jobs to Canadians here then whatever. Who the gently caress cares if they're "Canadian blood" or not. We don't want a situation like the US where all the big companies are outsourcing their jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Don't forget there's another committee hearing at 3:30 today. I believe the author of the petition is going to be there among with other relevant people unlike last time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
Don't really need video. It's just a nice extra. Audio is perfectly fine for this and it's streaming live now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
who are the witnesses now?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
Enjoying the verbal diarrhea so far  They have no good arguments. They've all been destroyed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
why do they keep picking on the heavy users? I can't help the way I look 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
Why would you design something to never have peak hours? Isn't that impossible? It's just an excuse to charge more. Should the highway be ten lanes each way? That would be nice, yes, but at what cost?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
That's the whole crux of this specific UBB issue. Congestion is time-dependent, not usage dependent. It has nothing to do with heavier users when torrents are already traffic-shaped anyway. I guess that's the elevator speech. Bell's reason for UBB, they claim, is reduce congestion, but it can't do that by its very nature and the nature of congestion and bytes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2011 03:16
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:Teksavvy partnered with Cogeco as well (and Videotron in Quebec). Their postal code checker isn't perfect, but give them a call and they can check out your location and tell you for sure. When was this? I called them earlier this week and Teksavvy couldn't hook me up because I'm in a Cogeco area even though I could walk outside for five minutes and hit a Rogers-connected house.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
On TWIT's Triangulation this week, the CEO of sonic.net came on to talk about broadband. Boy did I become jealous of the gigabit talk. Fair warning: This is quite technical. I didn't understand a lot of it, but there are some things to be taken away that can be applied to our situation. http://twit.tv/tri5
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
bl4d3 posted:The service call response time's are definitely Asian in nature. Whilst in Japan (not Korea I know), an ATM ate my card. At 1am. On a Sunday. A tech was there within 30 minutes to resolve the problem. Ridiculously good. Whatever, they're still charging us for volume instead of speed, or both to be specific, which is pretty insulting. They're only doing it because of the ignorance of the average consumer. It's the easiest implementation of creating artificial scarcity of a resource that I know of since it's not even a resource in the traditional sense. Go ahead and charge for bandwidth, but don't tell me there's a scarcity of the number of bits you can access in a time period.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 04:27
|
|
|
It is most definitely Mbps otherwise everyone would be clamouring for that 40Mbps+ DSL.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
VERTiG0 posted:Great, just got an email from Acanac telling me that after further investigation I can't actually get their cable service at my place. This after 20 minutes on the phone with them making entirely sure that I could and them reassuring me many times about it. actually I just checked my area and it said yes, but months ago it said no. Are you under Cogeco? I called to check as well, but the idiot might was probably using the same checker as I was and just said "Yeah, it's available." Without knowing why I was doublechecking.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 23:08
|
|