|
So much for unlimited internet ! (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ChemEnhanced |
| 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? |
maybe people would think twice about what crap they throw/watch on youtube and facebook if they were charged unreasonable fees for this.
I say let the internet become more like cable television. You want the premium websites then you got to pay more for them. |
|
|
| VDub |
Man that's a lot of replying to do later...
But right now I will say this. Let it be clear that I am NOT for this new ruling...
I signed the petition against it... |
|
|
| jester |
| quote: | Originally posted by Endlesswave
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. |
Its practically available to all in Africa for dirt cheap, yet here its different :rolleyes: While were at it, we should bring back public executions. |
|
|
| Orko |
| 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... |
Let's face it oldies, new more efficient mediums to transit data are available. We are bitching because new legal services are being discouraged to protect old and expensive ways of consuming media.
Home phone service, cable/satellite. Telecoms got help building the infrastructure, and now that they realise that their milking days are over, they are choking any attempt get around it.
If you think that piracy is the only issue, think again. We had unlimited internet plans for years and years, and the ISPs never cared, even when buying rates fell, because it did not hurt their bottom line. "What more people want high speed internet to download music? sweeeet".
When they actually started to care, was after starting bloated, and expensive services, but things like itunes and netflix were already popular. Now, all of a sudden, there is a problem with too much downloading.
For those of you saying, point blank, 'good pay what you download'. Learn how the internet works before you associate costs. I understand usage based billing, but it only makes sense to a point.
Most of the cost of Internet is getting it to your door. Once that is done, they are printing money. Just just want to print more and more of it.
the triple dipping. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| 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. |
i hope everyone know chem is just being a devil's advocate. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by jester
Its practically available to all in Africa for dirt cheap, yet here its different :rolleyes: While were at it, we should bring back public executions. |
I'm all for public executions...nothing better then a good stoning first thing in the morning. |
|
|
| Orko |
| 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. |
You are either trolling, or don't know how works.
Say hydro toronto came to you and said, well sir it is going to cost you $10/lamp, and $15/TV...etc. That is not fair. A kilowatt is a kilowatt. A gigabyte, is a gigabyte. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
i hope everyone know chem is just being a devil's advocate. |
sure I'm playing devil's advocate but there are a lot of people out there who only visit a few websites and are paying too much.
Nobody seems to complain about having to pay extra for HD television stations or for more television stations...why not have the internet work the same way. Websites are graded and you pay for which grade of website you want. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
You are either trolling, or don't know how works.
Say hydro toronto came to you and said, well sir it is going to cost you $10/lamp, and $15/TV...etc. That is not fair. A kilowatt is a kilowatt. A gigabyte, is a gigabyte. |
I definitely would wonder why Toronto Hydro was knocking on my door. |
|
|
| GGM |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
Thanks for the reply but it still doesn't explain how or why MY service will cost me more.
|
I already answered a guy currently on Rogers with a bandwidth cap in place who asked the exact same thing earlier in the thread. I'd scroll up and read that.
To give you a short re-answer, it doesn't affect you a ton right now. But it is almost certain to affect you in the near future in substantial and negative ways. |
|
|
| GGM |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
sure I'm playing devil's advocate but there are a lot of people out there who only visit a few websites and are paying too much.
Nobody seems to complain about having to pay extra for HD television stations or for more television stations...why not have the internet work the same way. Websites are graded and you pay for which grade of website you want. |
If you think that massive bandwidth users paying more will lower your bill you need to get out from under that rock and realize the economy and world we live in. The current market isn't based on marking up a product's base cost (less than a penny per GB, FYI) and claiming a profit on that. It's based on "HOW MUCH MONEY CAN WE SQUEEZE FROM THEIR POCKETS WITHOUT THEM LEAVING???". This will in fact make your internet costs go up. Previously the big guys like Bell and Rogers had to take it easy on charges or else they had the very real threat of customers leaving to a smaller independent ISP. Now that the smaller ISPs will be more or less killed with this act, the competition is reduced and so is the threat that an overcharged customer might leave. Thus the big ISPs can now up their costs to you without having to worry about you switching to the cheaper guy.
And thats aside from the implications this leads for the future... |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
sure I'm playing devil's advocate but there are a lot of people out there who only visit a few websites and are paying too much.
Nobody seems to complain about having to pay extra for HD television stations or for more television stations...why not have the internet work the same way. Websites are graded and you pay for which grade of website you want. |
That's not a direct and fair comparison.
If you compare buying 50Gb with a speed of 5Mbps or 50GB with a speed of 10Mbps, then the comparison is true. Because the quality of service has increased, the speed at which the data is sent to you has increased.
But merely paying for more usage at the same speed, is like paying for watching 10hrs vs 20hrs with standard definition.
You know what? I do complain about HD prices, and don't pay them. HD signals look like in this country, because companies like bell and rogers compress the out of them. I use an antenna and get the pure signal from the broadcaster, which looks much much better and all it cost me was a one time fee of $45 for then antenna.
Why not have the internet work the same way? Becuase it is not the same. Somebody get this guy a cane. |
|
|
|
|
