|
So much for unlimited internet ! (pg. 37)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| UXC |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
As long as the small internet providers have to purchase bandwidth from the big providers and as long as the CRTC doesn't remove foreign investment barriers you will never have an increase in competition.
|
+1 If I understood you correctly.
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Since neither of those two things are going to happen any time soon the only other thing we can do is boycott the providers until they lower their prices. |
I think with enough public awareness this can happen. The public needs to be fully aware of the situation and that includes realizing some of these big companies (the owners/investors anyway) are actually thieving bastards. Frankly it is an uphill battle as most cant see beyond their front lawn. So I share some pessimism in that regard but it is in no way imposable.
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
People want to consider it a necessity to life but how can it be when there are still millions of Canadians that don't even have access to home internet service. If people want to make it a necessity of life then are those with it willing to subsidize the cost so all Canadians can have access? |
That argument was made several times by that media whoring bell representative. The thing that I have to bring to your attention again is the exaggerated cost of the services being offered and frankly the ty quality of the services overall. You are disregarding the effect of the duopoly. If these CRTC decisions are not stopped immediately the whole communications mess will suffer further and the problem will be harder to control. More power to power bloated organizations with the intent to screw the public is never a good thing.
Even though you don't think it is a necessity keep in mind (as I have stated in an earlier post) that in many cases it is in fact the only source of information regarding a certain topic, and now exponentially so, more and more information is "internet exclusive". In fact most human created information is online (from historical times to now) vs offline. Information is the answer to all the world problems, the amount of success stories that emerge from developing nations when essential information was learned regarding pluming or water purification is great to say the least. So as I and many said before, it is not essential for biological life to exist, the forests don't give a for example, but those who care about our evolution thing (advancement of science, technology, public awareness)its a necessity. Internet btw... THE INTERNET is not even a thing really, its an idea. Some are taking their part in spreading internet around the globe and charge a fair price, then there are those that do it seemingly to destroy a country's ability to access net-zero internet. or whatever they call it.
The internet to many is a method of communication with the outside world in a private and anonymous manner, which day by day helps people all around the world learn things or discuss things they wouldn't otherwise. Also things they may not have the guts or willingness to discuss in real life, like lets say if you have a small penis and want to discuss how others may cope with it. This CRTC decision for example wouldn't be discussed if it wasn't for the internet and forums like this. It is up to you to say what is and what isnt essential. Because all I need a room and some leftover catfood and a bucket to in and il be fine, but it would suck.
People cant empower appropriately in an organized fashion with correct information against large companies without the internet. This is a key point I think. This adds to the essentialness for a just society. (sometimes its ok to make up words)
How about this, seeing as how I have not actually directly addressed the boycott: I think that those who can boycott the specific companies in question in the next months should do it(I did on a couple levels). I do not recommend boycotting internet companies as a whole, this will at least give some of us the opportunity to still have access (likely poorer access) but never the less, access.
Even though bell and rogers own the lines and still make money off our asses in this situation I think that even a semi-decent boycott would shoot such crushing blows through the companies that serious adjustments will have to be made. The reason I think this is enough to work is just how radically the duopoly reacted in its pricing when a handful of small companies joined the market recently. |
|
|
| UXC |
| quote: | Originally posted by kamil
Wrong.
Bell has a 25 year agreement with the government based on a bid that if they paid for the infastructure, they would own the lines for that many years. So no, the lines are not theirs. Also, Bell has received funding from the government ANYWAY to build the lines, so they have been paid for by canadians, the tax payer.
You dont need foreign investment to improve competition. What needs to happen is the CRTC puts stricter regulations against Bell's/Rogers' duopoly thus allowing competition. Even if the smaller ISPs use current copper lines, they dont necessarily have to rely on bells system to go through. The smaller ISPs would only need to build DSLAMs and COs, thus using the lines but not bell's system, and being nearly 100% free of Bell. Such workarounds actually do exist from some smaller ISPs like teksavvy in Chatham and Yak in Kitchener, which allows them to still offer unlimited data as it doesnt affect Bell at all. The reality is, even if it did effect Bell, it makes almost no difference to their congestion excuse.
So, what would be ideal is if the government started funding the smaller ISPs in Canada instead of having Bell expand its monopoly. There are 800 smaller ISPs in Canada, I'm a merger of some would be pretty awesome to create some serious competition and expand DSLAMs, COs and laying down fibre, but the problem is that only Bell has that kind of money, and single smaller ISPs won't be able to do it.
Anyone defending UBB, Bell, Conservatives or the CRTC is only looking out for shareholders, because thats the only person whos going to benefit from UBB being put in place. |
So its all governmental decisions at this point? I was under the impression that they owned the lines after some sort of adjustment period or they had the choice to keep them indefinitely as long as they were paying the bills (im unclear here).
Btw I want to add to this discussion that bells acquisition of THE SOURCE was a huge part of why they are here now, and not in the gutter like 3 or 4 years ago. Something like 800 new dedicated cellphone/cable/internet stores, there is no remnants of the original radio shack left. |
|
|
| Stilez |
| quote: |
ANTI BELL/UBB ARGUMENT
Internet usage debate, Part 1: The real myths
Special to the Financial Post, National Post
Monday, Feb. 7, 2011
TekSavvy: Don’t stifle exponential growth in Web use
By Rocky Gaudrault
Last week in the Financial Post, Bell’s Mirko Bibic suggested that a number of myths in the usage-based billing (UBB) debate need busting. We agree, but the ones that require busting are those of Mr. Bibic’s making, because the simple fact is that UBB is an anti-competitive and innovation-squashing cash grab.
Here are some of the real myths that need busting.
Light users subsidize heavy users.If this were the case, you would think there would be a similar response around the world, not just in Canada. Yet only Canada seeks to impose a usage-based billing system on the wholesale Internet market to combat this supposed inequity. The CRTC itself acknowledged that all costs associated with the provision of Internet services are recouped by the flat-rate component of the service. This myth is equivalent to arguing that apartment rents should be based on the number of people living in a unit, because the rent of the person living alone subsidizes the cost of an apartment occupied by two people. UBB is a punitive measure because the marginal cost of higher use is miniscule once the network is in place. It has been acknowledged as such. This makes Canada seem like one of the few countries in the world that want to discourage access to the Internet.
Internet service is a utility like gas and electricity. Internet service is indeed an essential service, deserving of regulation to protect consumers, but that is where the analogy stops. Gas and electricity are resources that have an inherent value in and of themselves. A consumer pays not just for the delivery of those resources to the door, but for the substance of what is being delivered. The Bell system, on the other hand, is fundamentally just a pipe that carries bits of other people’s data, which incidentally is an inexhaustible resource. If we must adhere to the gas and electricity analogy, policymakers should seriously consider unbundling the Bell assets, separate the actual pipes from Bell’s other businesses (which otherwise stand to benefit greatly from anti-competitive measures like UBB), and let everyone access them based on the same, fairly determined tariff.
Bell seeks a fair and level playing field. This is not the case. In fact, Bell has much to gain from UBB, as it has a three-fold agenda: (1) it wants to make as much as it can on its existing infrastructure, deferring upgrades for as long as possible. (2) It wants to protect its ever-expanding content businesses, which are threatened by over-the-top services like Netflix. (3) It does not want to lose business to innovative and competitive companies like TekSavvy.
Wholesale operators ride on the Bell network. This is a strange way to treat a valuable customer. TekSavvy has paid tens of millions of dollars to Bell, based on tariffs determined by the CRTC in a regulated framework no different from those applicable to gas or long distance services. TekSavvy “rides” on Bell’s system no more than do independent long distance providers. And that is frankly a comparison worth remembering. When the incumbent telcos controlled long distance, customers paid $1.50 per minute. With the entrance of competitors, customers now pay mere pennies. What Bell is trying to do with UBB is the equivalent to charging $1.50 per minute for long distance. Instead of caps and artificially high fees, the incumbent telcos should establish the real cost for bits, if material, and negotiate a fair “cost plus” tariff for those bits.
Not many people are heavy users of bandwidth. And with UBB as proposed, not many will be. That would be a shame because Canada will lag the world in that regard, and become a communications backwater. In any event, Mr. Bibic presents questionable, backward-looking data as the basis on which to form forward-looking public policy. Virtually every study from Sandvine to Berkman to the OECD predicts exponential growth in Internet-based video consumption, whether by movie lovers, students, businesses or grandmothers enjoying their grandchildren from afar. The answer to future growth is not to stifle it by imposing punitive pricing but to encourage it, accommodate it, and make more money on greater volume consumed at lower prices with more efficient infrastructure. That is how it is done elsewhere in the world and how it ought to be done here. And if it takes regulation of Canada’s telecommunications regional duopolies to achieve it, the CRTC and the government should do so, with an emphasis on the interests of Canadian consumers, not the duopoly.
Financial Post
Rocky Gaudrault is president and chief executive of TekSavvy Solutions Inc
|
|
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
and as I'm sure you know...there is a difference between need and want. You don't need home internet to get any of the information you want. |
Actually, I do need the internet to get any of the information I want. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
Personally I think it has nothing to do with torrent downloaders.
15 years ago we used dialup. We used so much data.
10 years ago we got high speed at 256kb/s, we got youtube and we used more.
5 years ago to today, we got 9gps and we starter watching movies online and used even more.
Future... Using 1000x more than now because TV and internet are intertwined (new ones have wifi built-in), and 25gb now is a tiny drop in the bucket. EVERYONE will average 100GB of usage per month or more 5 years or so from now.
Bell and Rogers know this, and are seeing the $$$. Bill us now... thinking we are naive about the future. Torrent downloaders are just scapegoats. |
|
|
| Prometheus Xex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
...EVERYONE will average 100GB of usage per month or more 5 years or so from now. |
I easily see that in less time, perhaps two to three at most. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
Actually, I do need the internet to get any of the information I want. |
but you don't need home internet to get it. |
|
|
| kamil |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
but you don't need home internet to get it. |
You will eventually, hence the need to push for more open internet. Bell has you by your balls, and rogers follows suit. |
|
|
| GGM |
| Looks like CRTC's/Conservative's strategy is now to kill some time and hope the population's attention span can't last 2 months. I bet the CRTC won't call this off and at best we'll get a dimmed down "smaller" F U implemented on us. $1/gb instead of $2/gb for example... |
|
|
| kamil |
| quote: | Originally posted by GGM
Looks like CRTC's/Conservative's strategy is now to kill some time and hope the population's attention span can't last 2 months. I bet the CRTC won't call this off and at best we'll get a dimmed down "smaller" F U implemented on us. $1/gb instead of $2/gb for example... |
Actually, the conservatives are ting bricks. The CRTC called for a 60 day delay which is why tony clement and stephen harper WANTED a reversal.
Why?
Because the Conservatives are to blame (big surprise, what havent the conservatives ed up before?). And since elections are coming up, possibly spring, they dont want this to overlap.
I know im NOT voting for. But this could potentially be prosperous cuz I dont want another ing harper or conservative government in power. They dont give a about the public, just corporations. |
|
|
| Shaya007 |
Chem Camels are on sale in Egypt right now..2 for 1 deal, you should buy them now and use them as means of travel..they're OH so fast!!!!
v.s
:toothless |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
As long as the small internet providers have to purchase bandwidth from the big providers ... |
See, you have no idea what you are talking about. Smaller ISP's don't have to pay Bell or Rogers for bandwidth, if they have peering agreements with other companies. Most of the smaller guys DO:
http://www.torix.net/peers.php
The chain goes: your house -> bell network -> small ISP -> internet
That is why this is a cash grab, bell doesn't even pay for the bandwidth used by smaller ISP's customers. Yes, the traffic runs over their network, but only to a point, and the small guys already pay a leasing fee for that usage.
Get it?
------------------
You know what is also ed up? Bell does not charge for bandwidth on its corporate DSL service. It is completely unlimited, and resold by the same guys. There are very few differences between corporate DSL connections, and residential ones.
I have had and setup both from scratch. The corporate connections are not throttled, or limited in any way. They are expensive yes, but that is because the line comes with an SLA. |
|
|
|
|
