| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Riedle
Minmatar
MARSOC Galactic
   |
Posted - 2010.11.03 12:05:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Riedle on 03/11/2010 12:06:50
 Quote:
you do realize they are forcing people to use whats being done to you right? They are forcing resellers that provide unlimited bandwith plans like teksavvy and viacom to charge like northwestel. Most importantly this effects the bell lines not northwestintel infastructure. In simple terms they are turning the few good companies that provide internet to users in the rest of canada into the one your dealing with right now. You mention northwest intel monopoly well the rest of canada is going to have the exact same system soon if this gets passed. In the future read the article.
1) This is a CRTC ruling - if you want to get angry at anyone, get angry at them (government)
2) This does not force third party resellers to sell usage based internet to their customers. This is an agreement between the companies. Just because Bell will charge them for usage does not mean that they will turn around and make it usage based to their customers. There are smart people and they will likely use formulas to estimate usage on a wholesale level and then be able to guestimate the unlimited price to be.
3) People who use more bandwidth should pay more than those that use less.
4) Bell is far from a monopoly when it comes to Internet providers.
|
Marko Riva
Adamant Inc.
Adamant Inc
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 12:13:00 -
[32]
If you want to make use of a large company's infrastructure that took eons (and tons of cash) to make happen, service and have good quality. Then you pay whatever that company asks for it.
If you feel that, as a company, you can ride someone's coattails boasting about your product when in fact it's not your product at all, you just act as an intermediary, and you don't want to pay the larger company's price (because they have to recoup their investment, running costs and make a profit as well) then you have it wrong. Smaller companies who don't like a bigger company's pricing can start their own network from scratch, just like the big one did long time ago.
If you're just an ignorant consumer who likes everything free and will use weird and idiot reasoning to somehow make it "logical" then good luck to you. Stuff costs cash, more stuff costs more cash. Deal with it.
------
ADMI is recruiting.
My EVE tutorials |
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 14:25:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 03/11/2010 14:33:08
Originally by: Riedle
People who use more bandwidth should pay more than those that use less.
Seems to be the same rationale phone companies used to make people pay through the nose for long distance calls. If the infrastructure is already there, aren't things like this just excuses for charging more money?
I'm not against some kind of bandwidth limit to make sure people don't outright abuse it and cause serious network problems, like a terrabyte a month or something, but you're naive if you think the driving motivation behind all this isn't just about making more money, and not so much a case of poor widdle ISPs trying to make ends meet with nasty intenet users taking advantage of them.
Originally by: Marko Riva
If you want to make use of a large company's infrastructure that took eons (and tons of cash) to make happen, service and have good quality.
The problem here is that they're now trying to limit competition and force a situation where they can gouge customers for as much as they want, under the false pretense a gigabyte has weight and costs money to move, and the more gigabytes moved the more it costs. Like freight or something.
My Warmest Regards.
Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Marko Riva
Adamant Inc.
Adamant Inc
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 14:35:00 -
[34]
So if everyone in the world suddenly increased their bandwidth use from, say, 1GB/day to 40GB/day there would be no increased cost to that? Fantastic, sign me up!
------
ADMI is recruiting.
My EVE tutorials |
Riedle
Minmatar
MARSOC Galactic
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 14:39:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Riedle on 03/11/2010 14:43:17
Edited by: Riedle on 03/11/2010 14:41:50
Quote:
Seems to be the same rationale phone companies used to make people pay through the nose for long distance calls. If the infrastructure is already there, aren't things like this just excuses for charging more money?
No, competition changed that. They introduced competition to the Long distance market about 20 years ago now. Now LD is basically free. coincidence? I think not.
Quote:
I'm not against some kind of bandwidth limit to make sure people don't outright abuse it and cause serious network problems, like a terrabyte a month or something, but you're naive if you think the driving motivation behind all this isn't just about making more money, and not so much a case of poor widdle ISPs trying to make ends meet with nasty intenet users taking advantage of them.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company wanting to make more money.
In the end, the consumer decides.
Quote:
The problem here is that they're now trying to limit competition and force a situation where they can gouge customers for as much as they want, under the false pretense a gigabyte has weight and costs money to move, and the more gigabytes moved the more it costs. Like freight or something.
It is ridiculous to think that Bell can charge consumers a fee to download data by how much traffic they use - but not a competitor who uses their infrastructure as a wholesale customer.
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 14:43:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Riedle
Now LD is basically free. coincidence? I think not.
LD is basically free now because the internet allows people to do the same thing for literally free.
Quote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company wanting to make more money.
In the end, the consumer decides.
Ok, i'll just go to their competitor who offers better prices. Oh, wait.
My Warmest Regards.
Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Riedle
Minmatar
MARSOC Galactic
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 14:52:00 -
[37]
Quote:
LD is basically free now because the internet allows people to do the same thing for literally free.
Oh, I see. So you are saying that the introduction of competition to Long distance had nothing to do with it?
lols
Quote:
Ok, i'll just go to their competitor who offers better prices.
Exactly.
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 14:56:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Riedle
Oh, I see. So you are saying that the introduction of competition to Long distance had nothing to do with it?
lols
Uh, there's been many long distance companies for around 60 years. They only started dropping prices drastically when VOIP hit the scene.
Originally by: Riedle
Quote:
Ok, i'll just go to their competitor who offers better prices.
Exactly.
Read the article. 
My Warmest Regards.
Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Riedle
Minmatar
MARSOC Galactic
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 15:00:00 -
[39]
Quote:
Uh, there's been many long distance companies for around 60 years. They only started dropping prices drastically when VOIP hit the scene. More out of panic than anything else.
In Canada you could not choose a company to be your LD carrier until about 20 years ago. There was a monopoly on phone services. When they introduced competition to the long distance market, prices dropped dramatically. VOIP is only the latest facet of dropping LD rates that has been going on for 20 years. Perhaps you are too young to remember.
Quote:
Read the article.
I did read the article.
Is Rogers not in Ontario?
|
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 15:09:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Aloe Cloveris on 03/11/2010 15:12:45
Edited by: Aloe Cloveris on 03/11/2010 15:11:55
Originally by: Marko Riva
If you want to make use of a large company's infrastructure that took eons (and tons of cash) to make happen, service and have good quality. Then you pay whatever that company asks for it.
If you feel that, as a company, you can ride someone's coattails boasting about your product when in fact it's not your product at all, you just act as an intermediary, and you don't want to pay the larger company's price (because they have to recoup their investment, running costs and make a profit as well) then you have it wrong. Smaller companies who don't like a bigger company's pricing can start their own network from scratch, just like the big one did long time ago.
If you're just an ignorant consumer who likes everything free and will use weird and idiot reasoning to somehow make it "logical" then good luck to you. Stuff costs cash, more stuff costs more cash. Deal with it.
As a Canadian, I ('I' being Canadians past and present) paid for their monopoly. Now we've handed our entire national network infrastructure to one private company. This is not your libertarian utopia 'bootstraps and free-market will sort it out!' nonsense. Like I said earlier, I'm sure there's the infinitesimally tiny possibility of some deep-pocketed competitor materializing out of the ether to lay down a second nationwide network cable-by-cable, but they're not going to have it substantially bankrolled by the Canadian gov't, nor will they get precious property and rights-of-way to lay down this network. Not to mention that Bell would undeniably stymie anything resembling competition with prejudice, as they've been historically wont to do.
As rife with troubles as some of them (*cough*CanadaPost*cough*) has always been, I'd still almost rather see our nation's telecommunications network be a Crown corporation (if I didn't think there'd be one strike after another every other week effectively shutting down the internet nationwide). The horse is long since out of the barn there.
|
|
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 15:11:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Riedle
I did read the article.
Is Rogers not in Ontario?
I'm trying to find out if they offer any kind of bandwidth cap. But you're correct, there is an alternative.
At any rate, this doesn't set a good precedent.
My Warmest Regards.
Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 15:15:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Professor Tarantula
Originally by: Riedle
I did read the article.
Is Rogers not in Ontario?
I'm trying to find out if they offer any kind of bandwidth cap. But you're correct, there is an alternative.
At any rate, this doesn't set a good precedent.
Yep, Rogers is here and they certainly do have their bandwidth caps and overage penalties.
|
Riedle
Minmatar
MARSOC Galactic
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 15:16:00 -
[43]
Quote:
As a Canadian, I ('I' being Canadians past and present) paid for their monopoly. Now we've handed our entire national network infrastructure to one private company.
This is not correct. Bell is the incumbent Telco in ON, QC. Manitoba has another company and Sasktel is controlled by the Sask government. The incumbent Telco in Alberta and BC is Telus. In the Maritimes it's Bell Aliant.
Other companies also have their own Telco infrastructure. These include Allstream and many others. Cable companies also are capable and do, carry phone signals. Now we have the internet as well.
There are multiple, redundant, competitive telco infrastructures right across the country.
Some companies choose not to build their own infrastructure and instead lease it from other companies who did. The CRTC ruled here quite rightly, that these renters should have to pay for their fair share of the network that they use.
Quote:
This is not your libertarian utopia 'bootstraps and free-market will sort it out!' nonsense. Like I said earlier, I'm sure there's the infinitesimally tiny possibility of some deep-pocketed competitor materializing out of the ether to lay down a second nationwide network cable-by-cable,
It's already been done and was done a long time ago. CP laid a cross Canada network of telephone lines right along their railways. That was snapped up a long time ago by AT&T Canada who then, through a series of buyouts became MTS allstream.
Then there are the cable companies who do not have to use telephone lines at all.
Quote:
but they're not going to have it substantially bankrolled by the Canadian gov't, nor will they get precious property and rights-of-way to lay down this network. Not to mention that Bell would undeniably stymie anything resembling competition with prejudice, as they've been historically wont to do.
See above. There are already competitive networks available and have been for years.
Quote:
As rife with troubles as some of them (*cough*CanadaPost*cough*) has always been, I'd still almost rather see our nation's telecommunications network be a Crown corporation (if I didn't think there'd be one strike after another every other week effectively shutting down the internet nationwide). The horse is long since out of the barn there.
I for one remember when the Teclo's were a monopoly and the horrendous LD rates that we had to pay. No thanks.
|
Riedle
Minmatar
MARSOC Galactic
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 15:19:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Aloe Cloveris
Originally by: Professor Tarantula
Originally by: Riedle
I did read the article.
Is Rogers not in Ontario?
I'm trying to find out if they offer any kind of bandwidth cap. But you're correct, there is an alternative.
At any rate, this doesn't set a good precedent.
Yep, Rogers is here and they certainly do have their bandwidth caps and overage penalties.
So there is compeition. That was my point.
If enough people want an ulimited package then someone will offer it.
People and companies should not expect a free ride.
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 16:18:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 03/11/2010 16:21:31
Originally by: Riedle
Originally by: Aloe Cloveris
Originally by: Professor Tarantula
Originally by: Riedle
I did read the article.
Is Rogers not in Ontario?
I'm trying to find out if they offer any kind of bandwidth cap. But you're correct, there is an alternative.
At any rate, this doesn't set a good precedent.
Yep, Rogers is here and they certainly do have their bandwidth caps and overage penalties.
So there is compeition. That was my point.
If enough people want an ulimited package then someone will offer it.
People and companies should not expect a free ride.
Free ride? Who the hell is talking about that? It's the same as your cable provider charging you more because you watch more TV.
Wait, are you just an American who doesn't like the idea Canadians have better internet plans?
My Warmest Regards.
Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Riedle
Minmatar
MARSOC Galactic
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 16:31:00 -
[46]
Quote:
Free ride? Who the hell is talking about that? It's the same as your cable provider charging you more because you watch more TV.
Close - You pay more for HD right? HD signals carry 7x the amount of bandwidth of standard definition.
Quote:
Wait, are you just an American who doesn't like the idea Canadians have better internet plans?
Wha? I'm a Canuck. I have no idea what the American internet plans are or if ours are better or worse.
I'm here to educate you on this issue it would seem.
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 16:36:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 03/11/2010 16:41:10
Originally by: Riedle
Quote:
Free ride? Who the hell is talking about that? It's the same as your cable provider charging you more because you watch more TV.
Close - You pay more for HD right? HD signals carry 7x the amount of bandwidth of standard definition.
Well, it would be similar to a high bandwidth net connection, then. Why aren't we charged more for using it more? Makes as much sense.
Originally by: Riedle
Quote:
Wait, are you just an American who doesn't like the idea Canadians have better internet plans?
Wha? I'm a Canuck. I have no idea what the American internet plans are or if ours are better or worse.
I'm here to educate you on this issue it would seem.
In the states, like the UK, there are zero unlimited packages as far as i know, and this is the beginning of the same thing here. When it happens you can remember how much you fought to pay more.
My Warmest Regards.
Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Riedle
Minmatar
MARSOC Galactic
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 16:41:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Riedle on 03/11/2010 16:43:10
Quote:
Well, it would be similar to a high bandwidth net connection, then. Why aren't we charged more for using it more? Makes as much sense.
No. TV signals are sent to your TV whether you are using it or not. So your 'usage' makes no difference to bandwidth even if you keep your TV off for a month.
Quote:
In the states, like the UK, there are zero unlimited packages as far as i know, and this is beginning of the same thing here. When it happens you can remember how much you fought to pay more.
Ok, sure.
I want to pay for what I use. I don't want to subsidize other's usage.
If you don't want to pay it, you won't - right?
choice!
;)
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 16:45:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 03/11/2010 16:47:43
I'm starting to suspect you have alot of stock in Bell.
My Warmest Regards.
Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Riedle
Minmatar
MARSOC Galactic
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 16:48:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Riedle on 03/11/2010 16:49:51
Quote:
But why are you fine with getting a 'free ride' from satellite and cable companies, but feel you should pay extra for using your net more? You're not making sense.
I see you are having a hard time with the subject material.
I have already explained why they are fundamentally different.
If the leasees don't want to pay for use for using Bell's infrastructure then they are free to lease from someone else or create their own infrastructure.
Quote:
I'm starting to suspect you have alot of stock in Bell.
A lot of Canadians with any amount of mutual funds have stock in Bell.
|
|
|
Antspire
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 17:00:00 -
[51]
Signed and posted on my FB account 
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 17:00:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Riedle
Edited by: Riedle on 03/11/2010 16:49:51
Quote:
But why are you fine with getting a 'free ride' from satellite and cable companies, but feel you should pay extra for using your net more? You're not making sense.
I see you are having a hard time with the subject material.
I have already explained why they are fundamentally different.
Yeah, you edited that in while i was writing that.
Quote:
A lot of Canadians with any amount of mutual funds have stock in Bell.
Ahh, so you're one of those people who'll make up all kinds of other reasons when it's really just a case of greed and self interest. I see now.
My Warmest Regards.
Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Riedle
Minmatar
MARSOC Galactic
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 17:07:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Riedle on 03/11/2010 17:10:08
Quote:
Yeah, you edited that in while i was writing that.
Sorry? I quoted what you posted at the time.
So you understand now? good.
Quote:
Ahh, so you're one of those people who'll make up all kinds of other reasons when it's really just a case of greed and self interest. I see now.
Yes. I am a greedy pig and that's really the only reason I agree with this.
All the other logical arguments that I provided and the history and background of Canada's telecommunications industry which you are woefully ignorant about has nothing to do with it. lol
oh.. err...Sorry you are a poor shmuck with no savings?
neat!
You on the other hand just want to pay less for your internets to download pirated movies for FREE! lol no greed or self interest there. Nope!
lol at self delusion. At least you are consistent with it.
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 19:58:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 03/11/2010 20:07:18
Yeah, like i`m going to let you drag me down to such a base level by arguing that arrogant garbage.
If mutual funds are your only hope i wish you well.
My Warmest Regards.
Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Boogie Bobby
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 22:12:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Amanda Mor
There's a big ol' Internet deadzone between Toronto and Ottawa, so none of this is surprising. I assume you're talking about the Belleville area - nobody cares about that region, so I'd suggest moving. This is what happens when you have a big country. My parents live further east along the 401 in an even smaller area, and they had to erect a giant tower on their house to get a signal for their "wireless" internet (which they aren't supposed to have in their area).
Belleville area indeed. The problem is I'm tied to area through the large military base nearby or I would gladly move.
|
amarian arch
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 22:36:00 -
[56]
Edited by: amarian arch on 03/11/2010 22:39:03
Wasnt capitalism supposed to allow a free market environment where all companies could fairly compete?
Bell = If parliament doesn't subsidize us Canadians will come across as non internet savvy cavemen
Resellers = We can make money to pay for our own private infrastructure by renting bells infrastructure which will lead to better competition and cheaper internet prices
Bell = We don't like this we should be the only ones with infrastructure even though we were bilching people for years by renting our infrastructure which was paid for mostly by the government.
Resellers = There is no longer anyway for us to stay competitive without raising our prices which bell will either match or go lower on.
Resellers = If bell had subsidized infrastructure why cant we?
Government = Because you didn't give us a handouts. (EDIT Freebies and bribes is a better term)
|
Riedle
Minmatar
MARSOC Galactic
|
Posted - 2010.11.04 13:15:00 -
[57]
Originally by: amarian arch
Edited by: amarian arch on 03/11/2010 22:39:03
Wasnt capitalism supposed to allow a free market environment where all companies could fairly compete?
Bell = If parliament doesn't subsidize us Canadians will come across as non internet savvy cavemen
Resellers = We can make money to pay for our own private infrastructure by renting bells infrastructure which will lead to better competition and cheaper internet prices
Bell = We don't like this we should be the only ones with infrastructure even though we were bilching people for years by renting our infrastructure which was paid for mostly by the government.
Resellers = There is no longer anyway for us to stay competitive without raising our prices which bell will either match or go lower on.
Resellers = If bell had subsidized infrastructure why cant we?
Government = Because you didn't give us a handouts. (EDIT Freebies and bribes is a better term)
Bell had subsidized infrastructure over 20 years ago when it was a monopoly.
It is no longer subsidized and it is no longer a monopoly.
Just because Bell can now charge for the traffic usage doesn't mean that the resellers have to do the same to their end customers.
Bell doesn't want to lose the resellers either - they are wholesale customers and they are important. If they feel they are getting a raw deal they can resell from the Rogers network.
Also, Ontario =/= Canada.
|
Selinate
Amarr
Wardens of the Void
|
Posted - 2010.11.04 15:08:00 -
[58]
god damn mounties and your... snow and polar bears...
|
Baneken
Gallente
School of the Unseen
|
Posted - 2010.11.04 20:52:00 -
[59]
Reading this I'm glad I live in Northern europe and pay 50Ç/month for 20gigs of unlimited bandwith and get the modem for free because of "just in case".  
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |