Ete, I've just got to comment that (and I don't even live in Canada, I just happen to be browsing the thread), and I'm not trying to be insulting, but as far as I can see your position on the whole matter is "I've been taking it up the butt from these guys for years. Isn't that normal? Why are people complaining about that they might have to take it up the butt from these guys? So silly."
And I have to say "what the hell?". It almost sounds like stockholm or something.
I literally just popped into the thread to post that. George adds an air of legitimacy to this thing that the website alone wouldn't for a lot of Canadians.
Ete, I've just got to comment that (and I don't even live in Canada, I just happen to be browsing the thread), and I'm not trying to be insulting, but as far as I can see your position on the whole matter is "I've been taking it up the butt from these guys for years. Isn't that normal? Why are people complaining about that they might have to take it up the butt from these guys? So silly."
And I have to say "what the hell?". It almost sounds like stockholm or something.
To be honest, I just feel like he's being realistic. Sure we can be angry about the pricing schemes, but what does that do for us other than stress ourselves out?
Nobody likes paying more and getting less... but the CRTC is siding with cable companies. Unless we get a change in government that truly understands how the internet functions or people begin protesting UBB to their MPPs en masse, nothing is going to change.
Ete, I've just got to comment that (and I don't even live in Canada, I just happen to be browsing the thread), and I'm not trying to be insulting, but as far as I can see your position on the whole matter is "I've been taking it up the butt from these guys for years. Isn't that normal? Why are people complaining about that they might have to take it up the butt from these guys? So silly."
And I have to say "what the hell?". It almost sounds like stockholm or something.
Nah man, I have a job for a reason, to buy stuff. I also wouldn't have a job if everyone was super cheap and didn't want to pay for anything.
I'd rather figure out what a fair deal is before casting judgement, fair being good for all parties.
If cable and telco's are being subsidized or receiving bailouts does that entitle everyone to unlimited internet or does it show that there's a gap between affordable internet and the actual costs of serving all the customers these companies serve?
Ete, I've just got to comment that (and I don't even live in Canada, I just happen to be browsing the thread), and I'm not trying to be insulting, but as far as I can see your position on the whole matter is "I've been taking it up the butt from these guys for years. Isn't that normal? Why are people complaining about that they might have to take it up the butt from these guys? So silly."
And I have to say "what the hell?". It almost sounds like stockholm or something.
Nah man, I have a job for a reason, to buy stuff. I also wouldn't have a job if everyone was super cheap and didn't want to pay for anything.
I'd rather figure out what a fair deal is before casting judgement, fair being good for all parties.
If cable and telco's are being subsidized or receiving bailouts does that entitle everyone to unlimited internet or does it show that there's a gap between affordable internet and the actual costs of serving all the customers these companies serve?
Well, the subsidies are there to help companies with the massive fixed costs associated with creating the broadband infrastructure across a spread-out country like Canada, so they'll be available to almost everyone. If they don't subsidize the infrastructure, it doesn't get built. The bulk of the expense of internet is infrastructure, so their day-to-day costs will not be very high, and will no longer require subsidization. Hence the 1 cent per gigabyte estimates (this is probably a large under-estimate, but it certain won't be 1/100th of actual costs).
What they're doing is taking advantage of their position by choking out all of the smaller telecom companies that rent use of the lines from the big companies. The small companies used to be able to offer more attractive deals to consumers by pursuing thinner margins than the big companies, but now through regulation they will not be able to compete.
Once competition is reduced or eliminated, there is no reason for the big telecoms to offer us anything approaching a decent deal. Nobody is saying internet should be free. They're saying that the loss of competition from an ugly looking deal like this is sending Canada several steps backwards as far as providing internet access goes. The major telecoms can act in a monopolistic manner because they can control their competition through regulation.
This is my understanding of it anyway. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
This is why net neutrality is such a big deal now. I swear who ever cooked up this proposition gets whats coming to them ( in karma) because this looks like a GIGANTIC LOAD OF COMPLETE GARBAGE.
I don't think you guys are going to see any legislative movement on this until hundreds of thousands of families suddenly get $500 internet bills because of their kids downloading things
Ete, I've just got to comment that (and I don't even live in Canada, I just happen to be browsing the thread), and I'm not trying to be insulting, but as far as I can see your position on the whole matter is "I've been taking it up the butt from these guys for years. Isn't that normal? Why are people complaining about that they might have to take it up the butt from these guys? So silly."
And I have to say "what the hell?". It almost sounds like stockholm or something.
To be honest, I just feel like he's being realistic. Sure we can be angry about the pricing schemes, but what does that do for us other than stress ourselves out?
Nobody likes paying more and getting less... but the CRTC is siding with cable companies. Unless we get a change in government that truly understands how the internet functions or people begin protesting UBB to their MPPs en masse, nothing is going to change.
The orange parts are related.
You seem to be saying "When you are getting fucked, there is no point in being angry and stressing yourself out .... unless there is already a critical mass of angry people."
But the first part of your advice makes the second impossible if everyone follows it. This is a self-defeating attitude.
Guitar Hero Of Time on
0
Options
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
Ete, I've just got to comment that (and I don't even live in Canada, I just happen to be browsing the thread), and I'm not trying to be insulting, but as far as I can see your position on the whole matter is "I've been taking it up the butt from these guys for years. Isn't that normal? Why are people complaining about that they might have to take it up the butt from these guys? So silly."
And I have to say "what the hell?". It almost sounds like stockholm or something.
Nah man, I have a job for a reason, to buy stuff. I also wouldn't have a job if everyone was super cheap and didn't want to pay for anything.
I'd rather figure out what a fair deal is before casting judgement, fair being good for all parties.
If cable and telco's are being subsidized or receiving bailouts does that entitle everyone to unlimited internet or does it show that there's a gap between affordable internet and the actual costs of serving all the customers these companies serve?
Well, the subsidies are there to help companies with the massive fixed costs associated with creating the broadband infrastructure across a spread-out country like Canada, so they'll be available to almost everyone. If they don't subsidize the infrastructure, it doesn't get built. The bulk of the expense of internet is infrastructure, so their day-to-day costs will not be very high, and will no longer require subsidization. Hence the 1 cent per gigabyte estimates (this is probably a large under-estimate, but it certain won't be 1/100th of actual costs).
What they're doing is taking advantage of their position by choking out all of the smaller telecom companies that rent use of the lines from the big companies. The small companies used to be able to offer more attractive deals to consumers by pursuing thinner margins than the big companies, but now through regulation they will not be able to compete.
Once competition is reduced or eliminated, there is no reason for the big telecoms to offer us anything approaching a decent deal. Nobody is saying internet should be free. They're saying that the loss of competition from an ugly looking deal like this is sending Canada several steps backwards as far as providing internet access goes. The major telecoms can act in a monopolistic manner because they can control their competition through regulation.
This is my understanding of it anyway. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Going by what you've said, subsidies are available to all ISPs? Aside from that, Larger ISPs are legally bound to offer their broadband at a wholesale price to smaller ISPs at 15% below retail cost? So an indy isp that offers the same service as a large ISP at the same price would still make a profit of 15% per user on that plan?
The 1-4 dollars per gb is definitely meant more to make their higher cap packages more attractive than it is meant to be a good or realistic price that should be paid for that amount of service.
Ete, I've just got to comment that (and I don't even live in Canada, I just happen to be browsing the thread), and I'm not trying to be insulting, but as far as I can see your position on the whole matter is "I've been taking it up the butt from these guys for years. Isn't that normal? Why are people complaining about that they might have to take it up the butt from these guys? So silly."
And I have to say "what the hell?". It almost sounds like stockholm or something.
Nah man, I have a job for a reason, to buy stuff. I also wouldn't have a job if everyone was super cheap and didn't want to pay for anything.
I'd rather figure out what a fair deal is before casting judgement, fair being good for all parties.
If cable and telco's are being subsidized or receiving bailouts does that entitle everyone to unlimited internet or does it show that there's a gap between affordable internet and the actual costs of serving all the customers these companies serve?
Well, the subsidies are there to help companies with the massive fixed costs associated with creating the broadband infrastructure across a spread-out country like Canada, so they'll be available to almost everyone. If they don't subsidize the infrastructure, it doesn't get built. The bulk of the expense of internet is infrastructure, so their day-to-day costs will not be very high, and will no longer require subsidization. Hence the 1 cent per gigabyte estimates (this is probably a large under-estimate, but it certain won't be 1/100th of actual costs).
What they're doing is taking advantage of their position by choking out all of the smaller telecom companies that rent use of the lines from the big companies. The small companies used to be able to offer more attractive deals to consumers by pursuing thinner margins than the big companies, but now through regulation they will not be able to compete.
Once competition is reduced or eliminated, there is no reason for the big telecoms to offer us anything approaching a decent deal. Nobody is saying internet should be free. They're saying that the loss of competition from an ugly looking deal like this is sending Canada several steps backwards as far as providing internet access goes. The major telecoms can act in a monopolistic manner because they can control their competition through regulation.
This is my understanding of it anyway. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Going by what you've said, subsidies are available to all ISPs? Aside from that, Larger ISPs are legally bound to offer their broadband at a wholesale price to smaller ISPs at 15% below retail cost? So an indy isp that offers the same service as a large ISP at the same price would still make a profit of 15% per user on that plan?
The 1-4 dollars per gb is definitely meant more to make their higher cap packages more attractive than it is meant to be a good or realistic price that should be paid for that amount of service.
The charge per gigabyte is certainly intended to get you onto a higher plan (just like it is for texting or phone data use), but the absurdity of the mark-up is raising eyebrows. It's not really the big issue.
As for subsidies, they would not be available for new telecoms because the infrastructure is already in place. The only ones privy to the subsidy would be the large companies like Bell, Rogers, Telus, etc.
And as far as the change in regulation goes, this limits what smaller telecoms can offer through their rental of the large telecom's network. They can no longer offer unlimited plans, instead being required to offer bandwidth capped plans very similar to the major telecom plans. Essentially, it will be extremely hard for them to compete when their offering is virtually indistinguishable.
Is the sky falling? No. But it's a significant step backwards, points to problems within the CRTC as far as fair competition in the telecom industry goes, and greatly reduces consumer choice. That's why people are pissed.
The charge per gigabyte is certainly intended to get you onto a higher plan (just like it is for texting or phone data use), but the absurdity of the mark-up is raising eyebrows. It's not really the big issue.
As for subsidies, they would not be available for new telecoms because the infrastructure is already in place. The only ones privy to the subsidy would be the large companies like Bell, Rogers, Telus, etc.
And as far as the change in regulation goes, this limits what smaller telecoms can offer through their rental of the large telecom's network. They can no longer offer unlimited plans, instead being required to offer bandwidth capped plans very similar to the major telecom plans. Essentially, it will be extremely hard for them to compete when their offering is virtually indistinguishable.
Is the sky falling? No. But it's a significant step backwards, points to problems within the CRTC as far as fair competition in the telecom industry goes, and greatly reduces consumer choice. That's why people are pissed.
I think unlimited bandwidth plans are just a casualty of the evolution of the internet. Bandwidth isn't an infinite resource quite like it seemed at one time. With netflix and steam and the way more people are becoming more dependant on their broadband connections something had to give.
If you really think about the business plan of most smaller ISPs, it's been to buy bandwidth from their competitor at a reduced cost and then re-sell it in the same market as that competitor also markets their own products. I don't think that has been necessarily fair for larger ISPs up to this point, but, I guess, in the interest of competition that's exactly what was happening. Smaller ISPs won't go anywhere, people will stick with them through this just because they want to see the little guy succeed if not because they still have comparable or better plans.
This is just the other shoe dropping of more bandwidth intensive applications of the internet becoming more mainstream
I think unlimited bandwidth plans are just a casualty of the evolution of the internet. Bandwidth isn't an infinite resource quite like it seemed at one time. With netflix and steam and the way more people are becoming more dependant on their broadband connections something had to give.
Why do people keep saying this? People are downloading like crazy right now, and these companies are hardly going out of fucking business. It might not be infinite, but it's more than sufficient. Heck, if at some point it's not, here's how you fix it: SPEND some of that dough and improve the damn infrastructure.
I think unlimited bandwidth plans are just a casualty of the evolution of the internet. Bandwidth isn't an infinite resource quite like it seemed at one time. With netflix and steam and the way more people are becoming more dependant on their broadband connections something had to give.
Why do people keep saying this? People are downloading like crazy right now, and these companies are hardly going out of fucking business. It might not be infinite, but it's more than sufficient. Heck, if at some point it's not, here's how you fix it: SPEND some of that dough and improve the damn infrastructure.
I've been hearing it costs companies something like $0.01 per gigabyte when serving the average person. The huge costs to these companies is entirely based around around infrastructure, which is subsidized and creates a huge barrier to entry for smaller companies
ronzo on
0
Options
Dusdais ashamed of this postSLC, UTRegistered Userregular
I couldn't watch much of that before I started grinding my teeth. Cable remains viable because the mom is too stupid to search properly, or ignorant of parental controls. The dad they refer to is so goddamn lazy he won't even operate a queue? Some people really don't give a shit about what they're watching, do they? As long as it's something shiny?
e: I ended up watching the rest of the clip, and yea, they raise some legitimate concerns. I was wrong about the mom; the searching she was doing (Boxee, I think) pulled up aggregated results from YouTube and other sources.
Still, they're so fucking passive about participating in something they do for hours a day...it drives me up the wall.
ete, part of the issue isn't just that they're putting a cap in place; it's that they're setting the cap so damn low. One of the ISPs here that already has a cap has it set at 250GB/month. That's much more reasonable than 25.
This is just the other shoe dropping of more bandwidth intensive applications of the internet becoming more mainstream
Here's the problem though. They already have plenty of money coming in, and are basically doing this because fewer people are subscribing to their cable packages. If they spent some money upgrading the infrastructure to support an inevitable, more internet intensive future, people would gladly pay for faster connections and such, and they'd rake in money. Instead, they're putting limiters on net usage and hoping people don't realize that the infrastructure in place now is already hopelessly outdated. Basically, they're lazy bastards clinging to the past, even though accepting the future could be just as profitable without pissing everyone off.
Yes, Canada is geographically large, but the vast majority of the population live in small, concentrated areas. Providing better infrastructure to the majority of Canadians wouldn't be that difficult.
Been paying for UBB for the last 3 years, lower than the current cap, but connect to a machine set up in town with an unlimited connection since I live far enough out that the ISP doesn't care. They even recently added a new speed that rivals cable speeds, and still boast unlimted bandwidth. Sufficed to say I pay over $50 for 15GB, and something around $2 for every extra GB. So the unlimited machine is oh so needed
On the subject of the CRTC, a local TV station has been removed from a good few Cable and Satellite lineups for refusing to do some innane mandate that was imposed. Basically to shell out their advertising money to the other providers for advertising on their service. The channel still thrives though, so it's not impossible to oppose them.
The unlimited ISP I use?
They can and have butted heads with Rogers and Bell over service disagreements, and became the big boy in town around here after cutting co-ops with them and actually rent their lines to either since they can get money from them and screw them that way.
Their TV service is also DSL based....I don't think they'll like this new UBB decision at all. It would kill their service plans for one, and second, they already screw people over enough as it is, making a hell of a lot of surplus by overcharging customers just enough to not piss them totally off. They already have a rather solid monopoly here, and actually offer rather good service as is. They'd hate to be the same as everyone else and lose that edge.
Trying to find a good solid source about the one cent per gig thing but admit having trouble doing so, it's mentioned in enough places in one form or another but yeah trying to find something a tad more "solid".
However I did find a thing or two from the past that does play into all of this
Once data is out of the DSLAM, speed problems are simple to address. Telecom companies like Bell Canada have laid fiber everywhere for years; whenever you do the expensive work of digging up a street to lay cable, you drop in plenty of cheap dark fiber that can be lit up later. And fiber links can be expanded by pumping more wavelengths through the cable. Upgrades consist of simply replacing the machines on either end of a fiber link or the core routers along the way in your network. While individually these devices cost some serious coin, upgrades aren't particularly expensive in the aggregate.
That's why bandwidth around the world has plummeted so dramatically in cost over the last decade. Our own discussions with experts have shown that the core of the Internet has plenty of capacity and the only real scarcity exists at the edges (and in countries like Japan, it doesn't even exist there). Burstein estimates that most ISPs currently spend about a dollar per month per customer to carry their traffic, and that congestion problems are more about a lack of competition than anything else; useful upgrades could probably be done for about a dime per customer per month.
In the end, though, Bell Canada's politically-risky approach to throttling P2P (it has already spawned a proceeding at Canada's telecoms regulator) may amount to little. Unless throttling is expanded to other forms of totally legal video distribution on the 'Net, massive network upgrades will need to continue. That's because P2P is only one "threat" to an ISP's bottom line
The last part of it really bites at what is happening now three years later:
So P2P is growing, but not as fast as other forms of video; in particular, streaming video from sites like YouTube, Hulu, and Netflix is surging, and as HD streaming grows in popularity, the pressure on last-mile networks will be even greater. Apart from P2P traffic, Cisco estimates that video already accounts for one-quarter of consumer Internet traffic, and it will hit 32 percent by the end of 2008. By 2012, it will be 50 percent. Those are P2P-like bandwidth numbers.
ISPs like Bell Canada face a problem. Much of this new video is entirely legal, negating arguments that it's sort of okay to throttle P2P because, hey, we all know it's mostly used by pirates. If Bell thinks that P2P users complain when their torrents are throttled, wait until the general public can't access their Netflix HD streams or The Colbert Report on Hulu. As TV and movies continue to migrate to the web, throttling video bandwidth simply won't cut it as a business tactic anymore.
Companies like Verizon, that have made long-term infrastructure investments, won't have the same problems, but FiOS is available only in limited areas in the US. In much of Canada and the US, there's little competition, even when a duopoly exists. Sure, cable companies are pledging higher speeds from DOCSIS 3.0, but that rollout won't be complete for years. Most cable operators haven't even started. In most places, low-speed cable and DSL will be the two main choices for some time still, which means that companies will have less incentive to innovate and upgrade than to sit on a stagnant network and reap the fat profits.
When cast in terms of TV shows, that may not seem like the end of civilization, but when you consider the tremendous economic and social benefits that broadband can bring, it's not nearly so trivial.
I mean, if Bell/Rogers/etc. want to look so good to the public by saying they are against seeing customers not spend an extra $5-$10 a month on cable, why can't they be the same for the Internet?
Edit: While I'm here, there was something else I missed that was posted on NeoGAF on the same day as what I CnP'd from there about the Internet capping/UBB. However, that part of discussion is probably best served in D&D where I've also posted it. I'm still mentioning in here to so that more people know about it. It's in the spoiler.
But days before Straitgate, the CRTC quietly published an amendment that would punish the broadcasting, through radio or television, of “any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”
The amendment would replace the current wording, that “a licensee shall not broadcast […] any false or misleading news.”
CRTC sources told the Toronto Star the amendments aims to clarify the regulation, as the current text is open to legal loopholes. The amendment also clarifies “obscene” material as either the “undue exploitation of sex” or a dominant sexual characteristic combined with “crime, horror, cruelty [and/or] violence.”
Tech law expert Michael Geist blogged about the proposal, pointing out one small weasel word: “and.” Once again, the amendment concerns the broadcasting of “any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”
“It would perfectly permissible for a broadcaster to air false or misleading news,” he wrote, “provided that it not endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.” Geist also noted how much closer the amendment puts us to U.S. regulations.
The proposal comes weeks before the expected launch of Sun TV News in March. The channel generated controversy last fall for it’s attempt at Category 1 status, making it a must-offer for digital and satellite providers. Critics dubbed the network “Fox News North,” noting references to the controversial right-wing broadcaster in its application.
The CRTC really does seem determined to prove the case for its own dismantlement. I mean, they've been ineffective and a detriment to progress for quite some time now, but they've really stepped it up a notch lately.
The CRTC really does seem determined to prove the case for its own dismantlement. I mean, they've been ineffective and a detriment to progress for quite some time now, but they've really stepped it up a notch lately.
It's corrupt and beyond broken. But then so much in Canada is messed up but we all stick our heads in the sand and wish things were better while doing nothing to fix anything. It's pretty pathetic.
If it makes you feel better in the US we have Rush Limbaugh... in some parts of the US it's impossible to escape the man, he's like some overweight phantasm that haunts you
ete, part of the issue isn't just that they're putting a cap in place; it's that they're setting the cap so damn low. One of the ISPs here that already has a cap has it set at 250GB/month. That's much more reasonable than 25.
This is just the other shoe dropping of more bandwidth intensive applications of the internet becoming more mainstream
Here's the problem though. They already have plenty of money coming in, and are basically doing this because fewer people are subscribing to their cable packages. If they spent some money upgrading the infrastructure to support an inevitable, more internet intensive future, people would gladly pay for faster connections and such, and they'd rake in money. Instead, they're putting limiters on net usage and hoping people don't realize that the infrastructure in place now is already hopelessly outdated. Basically, they're lazy bastards clinging to the past, even though accepting the future could be just as profitable without pissing everyone off.
Yes, Canada is geographically large, but the vast majority of the population live in small, concentrated areas. Providing better infrastructure to the majority of Canadians wouldn't be that difficult.
What do you expect from the lowest tier plan? It's designed for people who just use the net to browse and use e-mail. People should just feel fortunate for having gotten away with unlimited for 20 bucks for so long, if that deal was in my area I'd be pissed right now too.
One thing I heard suggested that I think would be infinitely better would be taking it one step further towards the cell phone like plan and have unlimited nighttime or something.
I'd also be completely stoked if my net bill was an extra 100$ a month but I could download anything copyrighted and it would be completely legal. I want them to take my money as long as I'm getting a realistic and good product in return.
Wait, so Canadian is ranked 19th in the world for internet and we should feel fortunate for having gotten what we have for so long?
Seriously.
This is why we can't have nice stuff.
Imagine if that applied to other things in life. "Canada ranked 19th in the world for not getting raped by bears. We should feel fortunate for having such a quiet bear rape problem for so long."
Well, I'm not giving up. I'm passing the openmedia.ca petition around to people I know and calling my MPP to urge her to get the Liberals to take a stand against the CRTC decision. It still can be overturned in Parliament if we make enough of a stink, and seriously, "we're helping keep your Internet bill from exploding" is hardly a high-risk political statement to make. So don't bitch and moan here, go bitch and moan to people who can actually do something about this.
SwashbucklerXX on
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
Bell has had this cap for a long, long time. The only reason it's bigger news now is because they're allowed to fuck over the indie ISPs.
With Bell right now, I get 50gb/mo and then I pay another $5 for a 40gb increase, for 90gb/mo. I still routinely go over this because of Netflix. I firmly believe the main reason that this is going through is because Bell/Rogers are going to be ramping up their streaming services sometime soon, and it's going to be a fuck of a lot more than the $8/mo I pay for Netflix.
Right now, I can pay Bell something like $8 to watch a single movie, non-streamed, over my Satellite. Why would anyone want to do that? It's like the services being offered by the bullies are so much worse and so much more expensive, but they've convinced the CRTC to finalize legislation that guarantees no one can succeed against them with something much better. I really don't know how this shit got through.
Not content with my country having one of the slowest and most expensive internet services in the world (And the slowest & most expensive in the OCDE), my local ISP has gone and made this awesome rate!
Hilarious. Any Canadians want to use me as their Internet Liaison? I'm available 24 hours to download anything you need and ship it directly to your door as needed. Contact me via PM
Hilarious. Any Canadians want to use me as their Internet Liaison? I'm available 24 hours to download anything you need and ship it directly to your door as needed. Contact me via PM
Lol yeah for real...any Canadians want to pay me $350/mo and I'll download whatever you want and put it on an SSD for you? :twisted:
Posts
And I have to say "what the hell?". It almost sounds like stockholm or something.
I literally just popped into the thread to post that. George adds an air of legitimacy to this thing that the website alone wouldn't for a lot of Canadians.
To be honest, I just feel like he's being realistic. Sure we can be angry about the pricing schemes, but what does that do for us other than stress ourselves out?
Nobody likes paying more and getting less... but the CRTC is siding with cable companies. Unless we get a change in government that truly understands how the internet functions or people begin protesting UBB to their MPPs en masse, nothing is going to change.
Nah man, I have a job for a reason, to buy stuff. I also wouldn't have a job if everyone was super cheap and didn't want to pay for anything.
I'd rather figure out what a fair deal is before casting judgement, fair being good for all parties.
If cable and telco's are being subsidized or receiving bailouts does that entitle everyone to unlimited internet or does it show that there's a gap between affordable internet and the actual costs of serving all the customers these companies serve?
Well, the subsidies are there to help companies with the massive fixed costs associated with creating the broadband infrastructure across a spread-out country like Canada, so they'll be available to almost everyone. If they don't subsidize the infrastructure, it doesn't get built. The bulk of the expense of internet is infrastructure, so their day-to-day costs will not be very high, and will no longer require subsidization. Hence the 1 cent per gigabyte estimates (this is probably a large under-estimate, but it certain won't be 1/100th of actual costs).
What they're doing is taking advantage of their position by choking out all of the smaller telecom companies that rent use of the lines from the big companies. The small companies used to be able to offer more attractive deals to consumers by pursuing thinner margins than the big companies, but now through regulation they will not be able to compete.
Once competition is reduced or eliminated, there is no reason for the big telecoms to offer us anything approaching a decent deal. Nobody is saying internet should be free. They're saying that the loss of competition from an ugly looking deal like this is sending Canada several steps backwards as far as providing internet access goes. The major telecoms can act in a monopolistic manner because they can control their competition through regulation.
This is my understanding of it anyway. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
all my friends in canada, I'm sorry.
The orange parts are related.
You seem to be saying "When you are getting fucked, there is no point in being angry and stressing yourself out .... unless there is already a critical mass of angry people."
But the first part of your advice makes the second impossible if everyone follows it. This is a self-defeating attitude.
Going by what you've said, subsidies are available to all ISPs? Aside from that, Larger ISPs are legally bound to offer their broadband at a wholesale price to smaller ISPs at 15% below retail cost? So an indy isp that offers the same service as a large ISP at the same price would still make a profit of 15% per user on that plan?
The 1-4 dollars per gb is definitely meant more to make their higher cap packages more attractive than it is meant to be a good or realistic price that should be paid for that amount of service.
http://kotaku.com/5746091/yikes-maybe-the-xbox-360-cant-replace-the-cable-box
god, this makes me hate humanity sometimes.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
The charge per gigabyte is certainly intended to get you onto a higher plan (just like it is for texting or phone data use), but the absurdity of the mark-up is raising eyebrows. It's not really the big issue.
As for subsidies, they would not be available for new telecoms because the infrastructure is already in place. The only ones privy to the subsidy would be the large companies like Bell, Rogers, Telus, etc.
And as far as the change in regulation goes, this limits what smaller telecoms can offer through their rental of the large telecom's network. They can no longer offer unlimited plans, instead being required to offer bandwidth capped plans very similar to the major telecom plans. Essentially, it will be extremely hard for them to compete when their offering is virtually indistinguishable.
Is the sky falling? No. But it's a significant step backwards, points to problems within the CRTC as far as fair competition in the telecom industry goes, and greatly reduces consumer choice. That's why people are pissed.
I think unlimited bandwidth plans are just a casualty of the evolution of the internet. Bandwidth isn't an infinite resource quite like it seemed at one time. With netflix and steam and the way more people are becoming more dependant on their broadband connections something had to give.
If you really think about the business plan of most smaller ISPs, it's been to buy bandwidth from their competitor at a reduced cost and then re-sell it in the same market as that competitor also markets their own products. I don't think that has been necessarily fair for larger ISPs up to this point, but, I guess, in the interest of competition that's exactly what was happening. Smaller ISPs won't go anywhere, people will stick with them through this just because they want to see the little guy succeed if not because they still have comparable or better plans.
This is just the other shoe dropping of more bandwidth intensive applications of the internet becoming more mainstream
Why do people keep saying this? People are downloading like crazy right now, and these companies are hardly going out of fucking business. It might not be infinite, but it's more than sufficient. Heck, if at some point it's not, here's how you fix it: SPEND some of that dough and improve the damn infrastructure.
then you look overseas and you're all
why the fuck can't we have that
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
I've been hearing it costs companies something like $0.01 per gigabyte when serving the average person. The huge costs to these companies is entirely based around around infrastructure, which is subsidized and creates a huge barrier to entry for smaller companies
e: I ended up watching the rest of the clip, and yea, they raise some legitimate concerns. I was wrong about the mom; the searching she was doing (Boxee, I think) pulled up aggregated results from YouTube and other sources.
Still, they're so fucking passive about participating in something they do for hours a day...it drives me up the wall.
Here's the problem though. They already have plenty of money coming in, and are basically doing this because fewer people are subscribing to their cable packages. If they spent some money upgrading the infrastructure to support an inevitable, more internet intensive future, people would gladly pay for faster connections and such, and they'd rake in money. Instead, they're putting limiters on net usage and hoping people don't realize that the infrastructure in place now is already hopelessly outdated. Basically, they're lazy bastards clinging to the past, even though accepting the future could be just as profitable without pissing everyone off.
Yes, Canada is geographically large, but the vast majority of the population live in small, concentrated areas. Providing better infrastructure to the majority of Canadians wouldn't be that difficult.
On the subject of the CRTC, a local TV station has been removed from a good few Cable and Satellite lineups for refusing to do some innane mandate that was imposed. Basically to shell out their advertising money to the other providers for advertising on their service. The channel still thrives though, so it's not impossible to oppose them.
The unlimited ISP I use?
They can and have butted heads with Rogers and Bell over service disagreements, and became the big boy in town around here after cutting co-ops with them and actually rent their lines to either since they can get money from them and screw them that way.
Their TV service is also DSL based....I don't think they'll like this new UBB decision at all. It would kill their service plans for one, and second, they already screw people over enough as it is, making a hell of a lot of surplus by overcharging customers just enough to not piss them totally off. They already have a rather solid monopoly here, and actually offer rather good service as is. They'd hate to be the same as everyone else and lose that edge.
However I did find a thing or two from the past that does play into all of this
Bell's P2P traffic issues "easily and inexpensively solved"
The last part of it really bites at what is happening now three years later:
Purely for kicks:
Three years.
Point is Bell has been Bsing things for years now.
Anyone want to figure out how to spin that into this current situation? I want to think there are parallels, even if they aren't so obvious.
Here's a commercial from each side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rte_L3qJui0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSiLsT4T3TQ&feature=related
I mean, if Bell/Rogers/etc. want to look so good to the public by saying they are against seeing customers not spend an extra $5-$10 a month on cable, why can't they be the same for the Internet?
Edit: While I'm here, there was something else I missed that was posted on NeoGAF on the same day as what I CnP'd from there about the Internet capping/UBB. However, that part of discussion is probably best served in D&D where I've also posted it. I'm still mentioning in here to so that more people know about it. It's in the spoiler.
What a combination this is! Death to the Internet and Truth in Advertising! What the fuck?!
I WILL NOT BE DOING 3DS FOR NWC THREAD. SOMEONE ELSE WILL HAVE TO TAKE OVER.
Spoiler contains Friend Codes. Won't you be my friend?
More Friend Codes!
Mario Kart Wii: 3136-6982-0286 Tetris Party: 2364 1569 4310
Guitar Hero: Metallica: 1032 7229 7191
TATSUNOKO VS CAPCOM: 1935-2070-9123
Nintendo DS:
Worms: Open Warfare 2: 1418-7870-1606 Space Bust-a-Move: 017398 403043
Scribblenauts: 1290-7509-5558
It's corrupt and beyond broken. But then so much in Canada is messed up but we all stick our heads in the sand and wish things were better while doing nothing to fix anything. It's pretty pathetic.
You might get a laugh out of this:
Sadly I could see most of what's being made fun of there coming true.
What do you expect from the lowest tier plan? It's designed for people who just use the net to browse and use e-mail. People should just feel fortunate for having gotten away with unlimited for 20 bucks for so long, if that deal was in my area I'd be pissed right now too.
One thing I heard suggested that I think would be infinitely better would be taking it one step further towards the cell phone like plan and have unlimited nighttime or something.
I'd also be completely stoked if my net bill was an extra 100$ a month but I could download anything copyrighted and it would be completely legal. I want them to take my money as long as I'm getting a realistic and good product in return.
Seriously.
This is why we can't have nice stuff.
Imagine if that applied to other things in life. "Canada ranked 19th in the world for not getting raped by bears. We should feel fortunate for having such a quiet bear rape problem for so long."
If you're going to compare speed, go nuts. I'm talking about people who got unlimited bandwidth for so long.
With Bell right now, I get 50gb/mo and then I pay another $5 for a 40gb increase, for 90gb/mo. I still routinely go over this because of Netflix. I firmly believe the main reason that this is going through is because Bell/Rogers are going to be ramping up their streaming services sometime soon, and it's going to be a fuck of a lot more than the $8/mo I pay for Netflix.
Right now, I can pay Bell something like $8 to watch a single movie, non-streamed, over my Satellite. Why would anyone want to do that? It's like the services being offered by the bullies are so much worse and so much more expensive, but they've convinced the CRTC to finalize legislation that guarantees no one can succeed against them with something much better. I really don't know how this shit got through.
Not content with my country having one of the slowest and most expensive internet services in the world (And the slowest & most expensive in the OCDE), my local ISP has gone and made this awesome rate!
Downstream 20 Mbps
Upstream 762 Kbps
Monthly cap 10GB
Monthly rate $ 28
Additional GB $ $5.20
And I thought we were trying to compete with you guys!
Edit: I was reading the terms of service, brace yourself:
"...client will be charged for every additional Gigabit exceeded..."
128 megabytes, nice! Also, you must sign a contract in which you agree to use their service for at least 24 consecutive months.
Lol yeah for real...any Canadians want to pay me $350/mo and I'll download whatever you want and put it on an SSD for you? :twisted: