Originally posted by Endlesswave
I was comparing those services/resources to net access and chem and moral were saying how the infrastructure was finite with net access. They were saying how it's IRRELEVANT of how finite certain resources are compared to others which is BS imo.
Ya that is what I was referring to as well and I agree it's BS to compare the internet to things like fuel, water...
#1 Those resources are much more finite on a level that cant be compared with telecom infrastructure. Eg. you can always build/upgrade infrastructure when its lifespan is done, how do you do that when you run out of oil?
#2 An even more important point is that all those resources when used are bad for the environment (water, electricity, fuel etc). Therefore it makes sense to charge more as it discourages their use and helps out the environment as a result.
Based on #1 you cant compare them as they arent in the same category. Based on #2 you'd be an absolute idiot to compare them, how would discouraging the internets use be good for the world??
No matter what you UBB defendants say, what it comes down to is Rogers/Bell being extremely greedy. As has been stated they're in the process of losing business in other departments and trying to recoup that in internet sales. The irony is that they can only do this because the CRTC and other establishments protect them from foreign competitors coming into Canada and they have a sustained monopoly. In genereal this is what Canadians want, to protect Canadian run/owned business. But if they keep up with this rampant abuse, greed and overcharging of the same people protecting them, it won't be long before Canadians say "LET THE FOREIGN GUYS IN" and that's truly when Rogers and Bell are fuct. This is exactly what happened with the cellular market where we got fed up with being overcharged and let in Wind among other companies.
Stilez
The Cost of Bandwidth: Canada versus the World
quote:
Usage based billing (UBB) was recently introduced as "an economic Internet traffic management practice (ITMP) whose purpose is to manage Internet traffic on an incumbent carrier's facilities." (CRTC 2011-44)
Despite Canadians ranking 33rd in broadband Internet speeds worldwide (speedtest.net), Canadian carriers cry foul; their networks are congested and unable to cope with the sheer volume of data that Canadians are consuming. The carriers' pleas were answered by a government sanctioned regulatory committee that allowed them to price-fix the entire market forcing independent providers to raise rates as much as 300%.
This document contains compiled pricing data from 3 major internet providers in four separate countries; Japan, England, The United States of America and Canada. Every carrier listed offers their packages with no bandwidth limitations except for those in Canada. These unlimited offerings drive the cost of bandwidth to less than one cent per GB in many cases were a consumer to use the maximum capacity of their connection for the entirety of a given month.
The assumption that someone might fully utilize their connection is somewhat unrealistic and so I have also included a breakdown of 300 GB per month usage patterns which is the maximum discounted amount a customer can purchase from a Canadian provider before having to pay a per-GB overage fee.
The first bar for each provider is the 300 GB per month limited version of the pricing. The second bar shows the price per GB if the connection were used to its theoretical absolute maximum capacity.
There are several key points of interest in this data.
The only country where unlimited bandwidth is actually more expensive than the 300 GB limit is Canada. This can be attributed to the fact that Canadian providers include a per-GB overage charge above 300 GB.
Unlimited bandwidth in Canada is up to 90 times more expensive than other countries.
By limiting the bandwidth to the Canadian provider maximum of 300 GB, Canadian customers are still paying more than twice that of any other country.
The pricing for Rogers in the 300 GB limited dataset is comparable to other Canadian Internet providers while their unlimited pricing is much closer to the rest of the world. This is due to the fact that Rogers currently has a $50 maximum charge for overage fees. Usage based billing (UBB) pricing is expected to come into effect for cable internet providers later this year which is likely to bring their pricing more in line with DSL providers such as Bell.
This data shows that of the countries examined Canada is by far the most expensive country to surf the web. This is due in no small part to monopolistic practices such as UBB brought about by the incumbent telecommunications providers. The inability of Canadian carriers to provide competitive levels of service and pricing compared to other countries is a sad testament to the lack of diversity and competition in the Canadian marketplace.
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
To be frank I don't give a why they charge what they charge; all that matters to me is the cost:benefit analysis I do. Is the benefit worth the cost; if yes then buy if no then cancel. Ultimately, that's what we're all going to do. You can yell and scream all you want but if you're not willing to give up in-home access then all your bellyaching means exactly sweet all. You talk about apathy, whinning on an internet fourm, hell, even protesting in the streets is not really much better then doing nothing at all... you want to make a difference; cancel your service.... calling Rogers and Bell theiving bastards while writing them a cheque doesn't accomplish anything.
Are you seriously saying that there is only one option open to consumers, i.e. cancelling subscriptions? Your entire argument is predicated on deferring to market forces. Well, that's the whole point; since the competitive market structure does not exist, there are not enough individual market forces available - in fact, there is just one market force for the consumer: cancelling your subscription. There are none of the other stages/market forces at work, such as then being able to shop around and choose amongst alternatives, once you have cancelled your subscription.
The market system fails, because it has not been set up properly. Why does the system not fail in countries with better services? A competitive framework either existed at the beginning (with not just a couple of players owning all the infrastructure), or basic rules have been introduced to allow markets to be more competitive. Therefore, there is a better option: improve the underlying market infrastructure/system. Using an example of another framework, when the judicial system is ineffective (e.g. corruption), you do not tell people who are unhappy to stop using the service and so stop reporting crimes (since they have no viable alternatives, just as with anti-competitive internet services); instead, you first implement basic rules that improve the system/framework.
Only when the telecommunications system is organized correctly, will viable alternatives be able to arise. You cannot get the latter, until you complete the first part. There is no point dealing with the symptoms, until the underlying cause is treated.
evil_cookie
Stilez
^^ Maybe Chem & Moral are related to this guy? or Bell shareholders?
Brennen
quote:
Originally posted by evil_cookie
What a dick
Side note: If you want to put pressure on Bell I have suggested that we boycott their advertisers on TV. In case you didnt know Bell ownes CTVGlobemedia
GGM
Deadmau5 just posted a link on FB to Open Media Stop the Meter. Pretty sweet considering he's got 2.3+ million fans and most of them are 16 year olds willing to do whatever he says... Big ups!
Stilez
kamil
quote:
Originally posted by evil_cookie
en scumbag liar. Can't believe its legal for him to spew this kind of fraud for the public to believe.
kamil
quote:
Originally posted by GGM
Deadmau5 just posted a link on FB to Open Media Stop the Meter. Pretty sweet considering he's got 2.3+ million fans and most of them are 16 year olds willing to do whatever he says... Big ups!
He should urge everyone to boycott bell and ask the government to put in new ISPs.
Its the lack of competition against bell and rogers that doesnt rely on their lines thats making our prices for internet so high.
