TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- TOTA Mobile/Wireless/Celluar/VOIP Thread
Pages (83): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 »

quote:

Originally posted by VERTiG0 RAZR-thin slider from Samsung? I love you, Samsung. http://www.mobileburn.com/gallery.j...&source=SIDEBAR

Ok, I want that phone now.

it's hard to beat this badboy, really:

http://www.mobileburn.com/review.js...&source=BROWSER

quote:

Originally posted by Crazy Serb it's hard to beat this badboy, really: http://www.mobileburn.com/review.js...&source=BROWSER

4GB + Wifi + USB2 + FM + Line in recording =

all its missing is WinMob 5.0 running on it

I think I'm going to Pacific Mall later on to see if anybody has the T809.

I was with bell before.. then my contract finished.. and my phone broke due to water damage.

since then ive been with telus, pay as you talk. I like it alot, probably gonna be with them forever.. you can add your own features and shit online. pretty neat.
30$ for extended clock 6pm-7am evenings and weekends.

i have an alright phone.. i want to get the Nokia 8801

correct me if im wrong, but the new phones now like the Nokia 8801 have universal chips??? so u can go under telus etc?? heard from a friend. that sealed the deal for the Nokia 8801 for me..

So uh, streaming internet radio in your car.

Seems that right now the only way to do it in Canada is with a laptop and a Bell/Kyocera EV-DO data PCMCIA card. WiFi hotspot anywhere inside Bell's EV-DO coverage area. $100/mo "unlimited" data use from Bell Mobility.

Of course they'd probably cut me off after an hour of use (for instance, 2hp's 128k stream for 1 hour pulls down over 57MB). Their next highest data-use plan for the EV-DO card is 20MB per month. 57MB in one hour? "OH MY GOD ABUSE, CUT HIM OFF!"

But if it was practical, I'd do it in the blink of an eye.

How I yearn for 2hp.ca in my car

quote:

Originally posted by VERTiG0 So uh, streaming internet radio in your car. Seems that right now the only way to do it in Canada is with a laptop and a Bell/Kyocera EV-DO data PCMCIA card. WiFi hotspot anywhere inside Bell's EV-DO coverage area. $100/mo "unlimited" data use from Bell Mobility. Of course they'd probably cut me off after an hour of use (for instance, 2hp's 128k stream for 1 hour pulls down over 57MB). Their next highest data-use plan for the EV-DO card is 20MB per month. 57MB in one hour? "OH MY GOD ABUSE, CUT HIM OFF!" But if it was practical, I'd do it in the blink of an eye. How I yearn for 2hp.ca in my car

don't worry, it'll happen sooner than you think.

And the best is it would be probably for free... the next wifi standard will let you cover a whole city, so wherever you go, you'll be fully connected at 70mbps.

quote:

Originally posted by malek don't worry, it'll happen sooner than you think. And the best is it would be probably for free... the next wifi standard will let you cover a whole city, so wherever you go, you'll be fully connected at 70mbps.

I yearn for this day like nothing else. Seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by VERTiG0 I yearn for this day like nothing else. Seriously.

me too, browsing pr0n at work with my wireless connection bypassing the job's webfilter (which i did put in place).... oh yeah good times.

about 4 years after the USA and EU.. and about 7-8 years after Asia..

better late than never .. but again a clear example of the CRTC's slowness at moving forward in such matters..

quote:

CRTC speeds up `portable' numbers Phone decision considered modest win for consumers Coming 6 months sooner than industry proposed Dec. 21, 2005. 06:44 AM TYLER HAMILTON TECHNOLOGY REPORTER Ontario cellphone subscribers itching for the ability to keep their phone number when switching service providers will now only have to wait 15 months, about half a year less than the wireless industry had first proposed. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission issued a decision yesterday requiring the country's major mobile-phone operators to introduce wireless number portability, or WNP, to customers in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta by March 14, 2007. CRTC chairman Charles Dalfen said in a statement that the decision establishes the "earliest feasible date" for introducing number portability in a smooth and reliable fashion. A voluntary plan revealed in September by the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association committed Bell Mobility, Rogers Wireless and Telus Mobility to introducing portability on a national basis sometime in September 2007. "We felt September was going to be a tough date, but March is going to be a little tougher," said Peter Barnes, chief executive officer of the wireless association. Proponents of portability are calling the decision a modest win for consumers, who have been denied the service despite its availability in the United States and Europe. "It's certainly a good compromise in the sense of landing somewhere in the middle," said John Lawford, a research analyst with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa. Lawford said the more important part of the decision is that the regulator is setting a mandate, rather than letting the industry proceed on voluntary promises. "At this stage we're just happy (the wireless operators) are being told to do it," Lawford said. Virgin Mobile Canada, which has been lobbying hard for portability, applauded the regulator for stepping in but criticized it for not being aggressive enough with its mandate. "We firmly believe it can and should happen next year," Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin group of companies, said in a statement. He urged Canadian wireless consumers to be cautious about signing long-term contracts that would limit their freedom to switch service providers by imposing costly termination fees. The regulator issued an even broader warning, pointing out that those who take advantage of portability to switch service providers may find their mobile phone isn't compatible with a different wireless network, long-distance services might not be transferable, and some mobile-phone features may not be supported. Similar to the industry's proposal, the CRTC's directive calls for number portability between wireless and wireline carriers, meaning a customer can switch their landline phone from Bell Canada to a wireless phone from Rogers and still keep the same phone number. Both Bell and Rogers said meeting the regulator's accelerated schedule leaves less time for testing the service. "In cutting off six months, all the testing and pilots were removed, and that's certainly a concern of ours," said Dawn Hunt, vice-president of government relations at Rogers Wireless. Hunt called the CRTC's decision "very fair" for striking a reasonable balance between consumer needs and industry challenges. She said the mandate is welcome because it clarifies the rules and forces the wireline companies to co-operate with the wireless companies. Number portability was required in both the U.S. and the European Union in 2003, and was offered in Hong Kong and Singapore during the late 1990s. Without the service, customers and businesses must go through the inconvenience, disruption and cost of switching numbers when changing service providers. The lack of portability in Canada became a political hot potato in February when unprecedented wording in the federal budget urged the regulator to "move expeditiously" on the issue. Industry Minister David Emerson later urged the industry to implement it in a "timely manner." "The carriers' won with this one," said Eamon Hoey, a telecom consultant in Toronto, arguing that the CRTC should have dealt with this issue years ago. "It points out the weakness of our regulator."

source:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...72154&t=TS_Home

15 months is still an aweful lot of time for such an easy thing... But yeah better late than never...

Better late than never.

Unf'in believable!!!

This will only end up screwing us, the customers, up the ass .. in multiple ways!

quote:

INTERNET DAILY BellSouth wants new Net fees By Frank Barnako, MarketWatch Last Update: 4:40 PM ET Jan. 16, 2006 WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- BellSouth Corp. confirmed Monday that it is pursuing discussions with Internet content companies to levy charges to reliably and speedily deliver their content and services. Bill Smith, chief technology officer at BellSouth justified content charging companies by saying they are using the telco's network without paying for it. "Higher usage for broadband services drives more costs that we have to recover," he said in a telephone interview. He suggested that Apple Computer might be asked to pay a nickel or a dime to insure the complete and rapid transmission of a song via the Internet, which is being used for more and more content-intensive purposes. He cited Yahoo Inc.'s plans to stream reality TV shows as an example. "It's the shipping business of the digital age," Smith said, arguing that consumers should welcome the pay-for-delivery concept. BellSouth has discussed its idea with MovieLink, a film-download service. He called MovieLink an example of the kind of company that wants customers to have a good experience and would view costs incurred in the strengthening of BellSouth's Internet capacity as worthwhile. Smith also said online game companies are likely candidates for charges. Over the weekend, Internet entrepreneur and NBA team owner Mark Cuban wrote on his blog at BlogMaverick.com that such fees are critical to the survival of the Internet. "Our ability to consume bandwidth is growing far, far faster than the speed at which it is being added," he said. "The more bandwidth we consume, the more Internet traffic jams we have." Cuban wants telephone and cable and wireless companies to work out a way to deliver traffic at various levels of service quality. "Yes, that will mean some content will cost more if we want it faster," he conceded. "But that will be our choice." PBS, NPR expand Web efforts The Public Broadcasting System announced it will begin publishing a Web log about new media, while National Public Radio is advertising three jobs, one of which is to oversee the creation of a music site. Media commentator Mark Glaser, recently the author of a weekly column for the USC Annenberg School for Communication's Online Journalism Review, will write the new PBS blog MediaShift (http://www.pbs.org/mediashift). Beginning Wednesday, its coverage will include blogs, RSS, podcasts, citizen journalism, wikis, news aggregators and video libraries and directories. "After writing about blogs and new media as an observer, I'm finally walking my talk," Glaser said, according to a prepared statement. Meanwhile, NPR's online interest is strong. The network has posted ads on PaidContent.org seeking a multimedia Web designer, an online supervising music producer and a programmer to help make NPR's on-demand content -- that is, podcasts -- available on mobile devices. Business Week's online column Blogspotting recently published a conversation with NPR's vice president and general manager for NPR Online, Maria Thomas, about the organization's embrace of podcasting. Download an MP3 interview of the conversation here.

source: Internet Daily

This is not a business plan, It's blackmail! Is the Mafia running BellSouth now? If this thing goes through and is not stopped, it has the potential to throw the whole Internet economy out of wack. Greedy bastards.

friggin bullshit, bandwidth is now cheaper than ever, and tomorow it'll be even cheaper...

After just reading that Videotron will boost its Extreme plan from 6.5mbps to 10 mbps, Bellsouth sounds like a bunch of thieves.

It's only a matter of time until networks provide service level tiers for the data that moves across their fiber. Paid data gets priority over free data.

I'm not certain if this is good or bad - it will very much depend on how it's rolled out (the devil is -always- in the details).

However this type of fee struture is required in the long term if network quality and network investment is going to continue. If data moving across a network is a zero revenue proposition - why should companies invest in building new networks, let alone maintaining current ones?

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker However this type of fee struture is required in the long term if network quality and network investment is going to continue. If data moving across a network is a zero revenue proposition - why should companies invest in building new networks, let alone maintaining current ones?

Because it is already paid for by the consumer?! It's not like it is actually free, you pay for your ISP! Plus, today you can pay extra to get a faster connection, but if they start to use this apperntly you would have to pay extra on that extra to get a fast connection? Makes no sense to me, at all.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Because it is already paid for by the consumer?! It's not like it is actually free, you pay for your ISP! Plus, today you can pay extra to get a faster connection, but if they start to use this apperntly you would have to pay extra on that extra to get a fast connection? Makes no sense to me, at all.

You pay your ISP for access to the network - that's it.

When you send data from point A to point B it traverses many, many networks (most of which are not your ISPs). Yes, the ISP also pays for access to the network - but belive me, data flows across many, many networks with little or no money changing hands.

What I believe they are trying to do with a data-levy to "guarantee quality and speed" is recoup the cost of network investment and ensure they have capital to invest in future networks.

I do not suspect that this levy will have consumers directly charged. However as the internet migrates more and more to a data-intensive network, with commercial entities using most of this data (the original internet was military, educational - non-revenue based) - it is fair to levy these data-dependent commercial entities for use of networks (networks that currently aren't taking part in the transaction from an economic perspective).

Again: I'm not certain if this is good or bad - it will very much depend on how it's rolled out (the devil is -always- in the details).

quote:

St_Andrew

Exactly! These companies don't operate the backbones of the internet in charity mode. They are already getting paid. They just want to double dip by charging the content providers (who are already paying their ISP in return). They basically want-in in the action by slapping a tax on it as if they were a government. If this goes through, it has the potential of chaning how the internet works. Small startup content providers might not be able to afford this extra overhead cost. The customers might not get charged directly but content providers will have to jack up prices to pay for all this mess which will affect us. The ecosystem that has brought us many great companies during the internet age (ie: Google,etc ) might be at risk here.

But ofcourse, a lot of might/maybes here .. we'll see how they present it.

I think this move is primarly aimed at voip providers who are biting into Bell's phone business using Bell's own network.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker You pay your ISP for access to the network - that's it. When you send data from point A to point B it traverses many, many networks (most of which are not your ISPs). Yes, the ISP also pays for access to the network - but belive me, data flows across many, many networks with little or no money changing hands. What I believe they are trying to do with a data-levy to "guarantee quality and speed" is recoup the cost of network investment and ensure they have capital to invest in future networks. I do not suspect that this levy will have consumers directly charged. However as the internet migrates more and more to a data-intensive network, with commercial entities using most of this data (the original internet was military, educational - non-revenue based) - it is fair to levy these data-dependent commercial entities for use of networks (networks that currently aren't taking part in the transaction from an economic perspective). Again: I'm not certain if this is good or bad - it will very much depend on how it's rolled out (the devil is -always- in the details).

As you already said (and as loconet pointed out), our ISPs pay to get connected to the Internet backbones, so there is your innitiative to maintain and expand networks, MONEY... As I understands it, most of the traffic that is in a certain ISP's network is also going to that ISP's network; Almost all inter-ISP traffic nowadays goes through backbones (contrary to the principles of the Internet, which is a big concern to terror attacks and such but anyway...).

Besides, (I think?) a system where every node on the internet got paid for every single byte you download would be close to impossible to implement. And it would be ineffective as shit and it's nothing we should strive for at all imo.

The federal industry agency will award new spectrum wavelengths to the mobile industry... and wants new players because our market looks more and more like an oligarchy with its 3 players.

They might also change the rules to let players, have local networks, instead of forcing them to start national. Also sharing of existing infrastructure is on the table.

quote:

Originally posted by malek The federal industry agency will award new spectrum wavelengths to the mobile industry... and wants new players because our market looks more and more like an oligarchy with its 3 players. They might also change the rules to let players, have local networks, instead of forcing them to start national. Also sharing of existing infrastructure is on the table.

Thats great news! Hopefully they will allow foreign compeition soon too

RJ, ISPs already charge for a limited amount of Bandwidth (mbps) and usage (Gigabytes).

Even if its says unlimited, these guys have some internal numbers and anything above that and they kick you for "abusive usage".

This Bellsouth stuff just sounds like bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Thats great news! Hopefully they will allow foreign compeition soon too

thats on the table... but to encourage foreigner, some changes must be done to the current rules, which locals companies arent too found of.

Hello BellSouth, please charge me $1 for each 1 I send across somebody's network, and then $0 for each 0 I send.

This is a good idea!











I hate you, Bill Smith. Not only is your name generic as all hell, you're also an asshole.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.