|
So much for unlimited internet ! (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I for one agree there should be no unlimited internet access....people who use more should pay for it...and pay through the roof. I would suggest at least a 300-400% increase in cost. |
predictable, ignorant response |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by jester
Time for some people at Industry Canada and the CRTC to lose their heads. If I can find some of the head peoples addresses and phone #s I will post them ;) It might take me time to find it, seeing I do not have access to government employees info.
Bell Canada - President
COPE, GEORGE A.
175, TEDDINGTON PARK AVENUE
TORONTO (ONTARIO)
I currently don't have his personal phone # or email. The address is what Bell Canada filled for his address for tax purposes. So this is the most accurate information since October 2010.
This is for educational purposes only. |
this guys looks pretty evil. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
I think that they should only charge more for ppl who use up so much bandwidth for torrents..
Let's face it kids...
You're all bitching cause you won't be able to steal your music and movies for free... |
+1...you kids need to start paying for your .
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
but who is the person to decide what is low and what is high. and what those incremental costs would be.
internet should not be as expensive as it is now. (same thing goes for cell phone service)
cuz who decided that 25 Gigs is normal vs 200 Gigs being normal. |
The government...who else
| quote: | Originally posted by UXC
Obv YOU would
Also internet costs close to nothing to actually transmit around, and that's not the only problem as you have assumed, its the next step when the actual content is going to be fiddled with depending on how much you pay...
Radio
TV
Internet
They all started for the good of the people...they all end bad for the people when they are owned by a couple guys. But you dont care, right... I know. |
I say take it a step further....start charging people per website they visit....$10.00 a website....$5.00 for search engines |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
I still don't know how this effects me seeing as I already have a cap on my service other than if I go over it which I never do...
I'm still waiting for that explanation... |
i think you also have to think about the fact that you don't use the badwidth now, but what about a year from now? what about when your kid starts going to school, or when much more content moves to the internet and you will be stifled by your cap very quickly. 5 years ago, we would have never imagined using 5 gigs a month and now people are up to 40 just with regular internet use.
these caps really are bad for innovation and for the economy.
for example, my parents are polish, they live in the middle of nowhere in northern ontario. they figured out that they can subscribe to polish programming through the internet and they watch streaming video (which they pay for on top of there cable subscription) from polish TV stations. it's all legal use, and they even pay extra to a company that provides this service. once their cap comes in, they will either have to pay 500 bucks a month or give up the one thing that is linking them to their home land and culture.
netflix comes in after such a long delay and people are clammering to give this innovative company money, and now their service becomes useless because people have ridiculous caps on their internet use.
in our house, many devices are linked to the internet. you don't even realize how quickly things add up in terms of bandwidth use and all legal, non-pirated stuff.
who is the person to decide that 25 gigs is regular use and anything above that is exuberant. we are living in the past. |
|
|
| E2EK1EL |
The coast of transmitting 1GB from point A to B is very cheap ...
The only fair pricing IMO is 200GB limit and $0.25/GB afterwards.
Heavy bandwidth usage can be anything now, Netflix eats to most and then comes BTs. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
The government...who else
|
but they are really out of touch with what is required and what the actual capabilities are.
as with many other things the government knows about this stuff.
in the states the friggin senator that said the internet is a series of tubes. lol. |
|
|
| E2EK1EL |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
i think you also have to think about the fact that you don't use the badwidth now, but what about a year from now? what about when your kid starts going to school, or when much more content moves to the internet and you will be stifled by your cap very quickly. 5 years ago, we would have never imagined using 5 gigs a month and now people are up to 40 just with regular internet use.
these caps really are bad for innovation and for the economy.
for example, my parents are polish, they live in the middle of nowhere in northern ontario. they figured out that they can subscribe to polish programming through the internet and they watch streaming video (which they pay for on top of there cable subscription) from polish TV stations. it's all legal use, and they even pay extra to a company that provides this service. once their cap comes in, they will either have to pay 500 bucks a month or give up the one thing that is linking them to their home land and culture.
netflix comes in after such a long delay and people are clammering to give this innovative company money, and now their service becomes useless because people have ridiculous caps on their internet use.
in our house, many devices are linked to the internet. you don't even realize how quickly things add up in terms of bandwidth use and all legal, non-pirated stuff.
who is the person to decide that 25 gigs is regular use and anything above that is exuberant. we are living in the past. |
Right on Margs
Also, if they get away with this think about charging per service since they claim YouTube, Facebook, Skype and others hogs the most bandwith? |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
+1...you kids need to start paying for your .
The government...who else
I say take it a step further....start charging people per website they visit....$10.00 a website....$5.00 for search engines |
So you'd pay $10 to visit TA, another 10 to visit your banks website to do banking etc etc etc?
You can't be serious?
As for everything else, look at Bobby's 2nd or 3rd reason. You have NO complains about these companies charging WAY more than it costs to maintain/create the service or connection online? It's like buying something that's worth $5 for $500. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by E2EK1EL
Also, if they get away with this think about charging per service since they claim YouTube, Facebook, Skype and others hogs the most bandwith? |
yup. skype is another thing that could be so innovative and useful but because of bandwidth caps it will suck for a while. the choppy video could be greatly increased and improved.it's all fun and games for now chatting with your friends but this sort of technology can improve so many things including health care and diplomatic relations. we have to continue to innovate and make things better around this world, not be pulled backwards by these stupid greedy corporations. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Endlesswave
So you'd pay $10 to visit TA, another 10 to visit your banks website to do banking etc etc etc?
You can't be serious?
As for everything else, look at Bobby's 2nd or 3rd reason. You have NO complains about these companies charging WAY more than it costs to maintain/create the service or connection online? It's like buying something that's worth $5 for $500. |
sure why not...I only visit maybe 2 or three websites on a regular basis anyhow. It would probably cost me less then it does now. |
|
|
| Stilez |
| quote: | | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | | Originally posted by VDub |
By NETFLIX:
| quote: | "Wired ISPs have large fixed costs of building and maintaining their last mile network of residential cable and fiber. The ISPs' costs, however, to deliver a marginal gigabyte, which is about an hour of viewing, from one of our regional interchange points over their last mile wired network to the consumer is less than a penny, and falling, so there is no reason that pay-per-gigabyte is economically necessary. Moreover, at $1 per gigabyte over wired networks, it would be grossly overpriced."
The big question now is how these kind of billing changes will impact 'Net consumption patterns. Many subscribers use minimal data, but that's changing as Internet video becomes the norm. If these new plans simply discourage data hogs from backing up their 120GB pirated movie collection over the 'Net every night, there's no sleep to be lost. But if they scare consumers away from legitimate non-ISP affiliated movie and content sharing sites, that should be a firebell concern to consumers, entrepreneurs, and regulators.
|
|
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
sure why not...I only visit maybe 2 or three websites on a regular basis anyhow. It would probably cost me less then it does now. |
Because for people that visit many many more websites than that will be paying through the nose. What about businesses online that rely on visiting websites??
This will stifle innovation and everything up.
If I want to chat with family via Skype I'll be paying an arm and a leg. Technology should be cheap and efficient and available to all.
The CRTC restrictions will not make that happen. |
|
|
|
|
