EVE Search - Fellow Canadian Eve Players

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Fellow Canadian Eve Players

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
amarian arch	Posted - 2010.11.02 21:51:00 - [1] First read this. Whats going to happen to your internets If you want to stop it In simple terms no more unlimited internet packages and more small as **** bandwith caps. How does this relate to you? You use the god damn puter everyday to play eve and watch youtube crap. It if this continues to be allowed to happen you'll be doing much less of that.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.11.02 21:57:00 - [2] Welcome to the UK chap.
EdwardNardella Capital Construction Research	Posted - 2010.11.02 22:30:00 - [3] Originally by: amarian arch no more unlimited internet packages I have never heard of any unlimited bandwidth internet service in Canada. It is quite rare for unlimited anything as far as communications services in Canada goes. Please share with me the name of a provider and their plan that offers unlimited internet. CCRES is recruiting pilots who want to live in WSpace/Wormholes. Fill out an application here!
Alun Hughes Project Nemesis	Posted - 2010.11.02 22:34:00 - [4] Was thinking this myself. I have had A 25GB Limit for as long as i can remember. I think this speaks more to the sale of 3rd party access to data lines
Zeke Mobius	Posted - 2010.11.02 22:37:00 - [5] Originally by: EdwardNardella Originally by: amarian arch no more unlimited internet packages I have never heard of any unlimited bandwidth internet service in Canada. It is quite rare for unlimited anything as far as communications services in Canada goes. Please share with me the name of a provider and their plan that offers unlimited internet. A "SIMPLE" google search lead me to acanac.ca and they offer unlimited plans for internet. Teksavvy also has something along those lines... I did that search quicker than you typed up your msg about you being lazy and not knowing how to google stuff.... and you belittle him bcuz??
Benglada Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.11.02 22:37:00 - [6] It's talking about local ISPs tapping into bells data streams and paying per gigabyte, isntead of on an unlimited plan like they are now. This cost will obviously be passed onto us. It has nothing to do with personal internet, except cost. --------------------------- Originally by: Arkanor 0.0 is the Final Frontier. Bring money and friends. Impersonating another forum user, moderator, volunteer, administrator or CCP employee is strictly prohibited.Applebabe
helmeo Caldari Redwaffe	Posted - 2010.11.02 22:51:00 - [7] going with bell is one of the worst decision i've ever made. and this just proves to me bell is an evil company.
Cors It's A Trap	Posted - 2010.11.02 23:49:00 - [8] This is basically going to hit the "small" ISP's who use Bells's DSL lines. As for "unlimited" internet, it DOES exist, it's just not billed at that. I'm with Rogers cable. 10meg Cable internet costs me $68(or so) per month, with a cap of 90-95 gig or something silly. If I go over that cap, they charge be a ridonculous amount per MB. BUT.... They have a cap to the ammount they can charge you. The cap is $25. So I pay, $69+$25/month and use 400-800 gig per month. Hell, just streaming music while infront of the computer runs 40 gig per month. Add in a few nights of youtube fun on EVE, and your 90Gigs is gone. I use more then 98% of Rogers customers(They claim) so I pay more. Does it REALLY cost them that much for my bandwidth? Yeah.. Right.. I bet they make at LEAST 25% profit on me, even with my high data usage.
Kinta Huron ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.11.03 00:08:00 - [9] I haven't heard about this.
amarian arch	Posted - 2010.11.03 00:20:00 - [10] Edited by: amarian arch on 03/11/2010 00:24:54 http://teksavvy.com/en/default.asp is the unlimited provider i use Edit- They also dont out source and they speak english.
Cecilia Syal Minmatar Blood Inquisition	Posted - 2010.11.03 00:32:00 - [11] Edited by: Cecilia Syal on 03/11/2010 00:36:42 I am in montreal and use securenet dsl, 5mb/1mb connection ever since i got a 900$ bill (i didnt pay) from videotron after they removed my unlimited connection without telling me 5 yrs ago. i pay 30$ a month and can download as much as i want. without throttling, its true most company's are metering/throttling now. but its a world wide issue, brought on by bitorrent and greed etc. edit: Unlimited is important cause i download games via steam, and use netflix on my tv etc. and stream alot of tv / media & music , and can go through 100gb easily in a month.
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2010.11.03 01:53:00 - [12] Been using the net in Canada pretty much since it began and it's always been unlimited with a flat rate, more recently bundled with satellite TV services. Even switched providers a couple times because they all offer the same thing. Thank you for informing me of this crooked plot, eh. My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Aiwha Caldari 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2010.11.03 02:18:00 - [13] Move to Wisconsin. We have all the beer, not as much hockey. And we has internets. I like me.
Ron Bacardi SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.11.03 02:35:00 - [14] Signed, even though I'm currently with Shaw. This is bull****.
Vladimir Kimrov	Posted - 2010.11.03 02:52:00 - [15] Signed, I did also sent a letter to my deputy.
amarian arch	Posted - 2010.11.03 03:09:00 - [16] Keep it up brothers inform all you know about this!
Boogie Bobby	Posted - 2010.11.03 03:17:00 - [17] I live in somewhat rural Ontario (10 000 people along the 401) and the internet here is by far the worst, most expensive, heavily restricted garbage I've seen anywhere in Canada and I have lived in and used internet in every one of the provinces except PEI, NL and NB in the past decade. I can honestly say I had faster, cheaper - even adjusted for inflation- and unrestricted service 10+ years ago than I do today in Ontario. My internet is capped at 20GB/month, bittorrent is throttled by my ISP when they choose, even without the throttle I'm lucky to exceed 40kbps and all this wonder costs me $47/mo. Teksavvy rides bell's lines and would be the same quality, albeit without the cap. We have only 2 other choices, satellite internet which is substantially more expensive, useless in anything more than light rain and similar speeds/caps or cable, which we're switching too, should be slightly faster and a 60GB cap but is only a few bucks cheaper. Capped internet is bull** and is really standing in the way we should be moving. How can I use online storage, netflix, steam and competitors, itunes etc etc etc when a single game is 50% of my cap and a single film is 5-10% and they take days to download. In it's current state I can't stream even the lowest quality videos. To those of you who live in Western Canada, hold on to what you got. When I left Shaw and Telus were in a continual fight and customers really got a great product out of it. Bell, Cogeco, Rogers are all garbage and I'm sure all of them are chomping at the bit to destroy net neutrality. Bell and Rogers both own the largest TV networks up here and between the two of them have distribution rights to pretty much every primetime hit show on the air. I think we're too late though. Too many people are computer idiots and the power is in the hands of greedy corporate ***s. You can easily check email and play farmville on 20GB/mo so what's the problem, right? /rant off TL:DR ** Bell.
Keta Fraal Nul and Booleans	Posted - 2010.11.03 03:30:00 - [18] I signed the petition and mailed the letter. Bell is a very large corporation with a charter to provide an infrastructure over their monopolized region. It is easy to say that they have ZERO cost in providing us access to an already constructed infrastructure, but they need to price their product to allow for future maintenance and growth in the infrastructure. If as most people are saying, customers are veering toward streaming content broadcast over the net Bell by charter has to guarantee service as it's demanded without interruption. One way or another prices will rise. Let's hope wages will rise too. --------------------------------------- I never asked for dancing babies, but OK
Brandoe Chung Gallente Phoenix Industries Black Star Alliance	Posted - 2010.11.03 03:49:00 - [19] I'm with Roger's myself. Last month about half way through the month I got the "You have used 75%" message. Then 2 days later after with just regular internet use I got the "You have used 100%" I called the customer service and at the end of the month my bill said I had used 0GB. It was a nice change. And the 98% bull is what they tell everyone. And they moved the max penalty to 50 bucks now I think. Never quote me the odds
amarian arch	Posted - 2010.11.03 04:13:00 - [20] Originally by: Keta Fraal I signed the petition and mailed the letter. Bell is a very large corporation with a charter to provide an infrastructure over their monopolized region. It is easy to say that they have ZERO cost in providing us access to an already constructed infrastructure, but they need to price their product to allow for future maintenance and growth in the infrastructure. If as most people are saying, customers are veering toward streaming content broadcast over the net Bell by charter has to guarantee service as it's demanded without interruption. One way or another prices will rise. Let's hope wages will rise too. dont forget the billions of dollars of government subsidies they recieved that must of been hard for them too
Amanda Mor Gallente	Posted - 2010.11.03 05:30:00 - [21] Originally by: Brandoe Chung I'm with Roger's myself. Last month about half way through the month I got the "You have used 75%" message. Then 2 days later after with just regular internet use I got the "You have used 100%" I called the customer service and at the end of the month my bill said I had used 0GB. It was a nice change. And the 98% bull is what they tell everyone. And they moved the max penalty to 50 bucks now I think. Nah, it's still $25/mth. I've got that message on my browser a few times in the last few months, but I've never been charged for it - just call them up and say "HUH!!! What is this!!" and they'll waive the charges. Originally by: Boogie Bobby I live in somewhat rural Ontario (10 000 people along the 401) and the internet here is by far the worst, most expensive, heavily restricted garbage I've seen anywhere in Canada and I have lived in and used internet in every one of the provinces except PEI, NL and NB in the past decade. I can honestly say I had faster, cheaper - even adjusted for inflation- and unrestricted service 10+ years ago than I do today in Ontario. My internet is capped at 20GB/month, bittorrent is throttled by my ISP when they choose, even without the throttle I'm lucky to exceed 40kbps and all this wonder costs me $47/mo. Teksavvy rides bell's lines and would be the same quality, albeit without the cap. We have only 2 other choices, satellite internet which is substantially more expensive, useless in anything more than light rain and similar speeds/caps or cable, which we're switching too, should be slightly faster and a 60GB cap but is only a few bucks cheaper. Capped internet is bull** and is really standing in the way we should be moving. How can I use online storage, netflix, steam and competitors, itunes etc etc etc when a single game is 50% of my cap and a single film is 5-10% and they take days to download. In it's current state I can't stream even the lowest quality videos. To those of you who live in Western Canada, hold on to what you got. When I left Shaw and Telus were in a continual fight and customers really got a great product out of it. Bell, Cogeco, Rogers are all garbage and I'm sure all of them are chomping at the bit to destroy net neutrality. Bell and Rogers both own the largest TV networks up here and between the two of them have distribution rights to pretty much every primetime hit show on the air. I think we're too late though. Too many people are computer idiots and the power is in the hands of greedy corporate ***s. You can easily check email and play farmville on 20GB/mo so what's the problem, right? /rant off TL:DR ** Bell. 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). ---------------------------------------------- I don't have an alt, but there's a main that would be upset if he heard me say that...
Per Bastet Amarr B.O.O.M Obsidian Mining Coalition	Posted - 2010.11.03 06:34:00 - [22] Wait We have More than Just me and a Couple of Guys at Stream In the Belleville area playing Eve? Quick, We must have a Meet up somewhere. Contact me Via Evemail and we can get arrangements going. Oh and Yes I signed the Petition and sent the leter, But I also have an Old Grandfathered Sympatico Unlimited DSL, and they will Pry that out of my Cold Dead Hands in about 60 Years LOL -- Bastet's Organization Of Mining
Aloe Cloveris The Greater Goon	Posted - 2010.11.03 07:49:00 - [23] Who cares if we subsidized Bell's infrastructure? Or that rather than using their astronomical profits to upgrade said gov't subsidized infrastructure (perhaps keeping up with quality of of service in, say, Lithuania ... I dunno about you, but we're paying approx $80 USD a month for 10MB up with a 60Gb limit) they set anemic caps (didn't want that Netflix anyway ;_; ), draconian throttling policies and blame it on that supposed 2% who clog the backbone tubes with them there newfangled torrent thingerwhatsits. If you don't like what Bell's doing, you can always just take your business to the competi-- oh wait Your independent ISPs no longer have unlimited access to the tubes you paid for. Bell literally owns your tubes now and can charge what they like. No competition allowed (well, maybe someone theoretically COULD come along and pay out of pocket to wire Canada coast-to-coast with cable/fiberoptic, but they're certainly not gonna get it heavily subsidized by taxpayers like Bell did). gg CRTC
amarian arch	Posted - 2010.11.03 07:56:00 - [24] Originally by: Aloe Cloveris Who cares if we subsidized Bell's infrastructure? Or that rather than using their astronomical profits to upgrade said gov't subsidized infrastructure (perhaps keeping up with quality of of service in, say, Lithuania ... I dunno about you, but we're paying approx $80 USD a month for 10MB up with a 60Gb limit) they set anemic caps (didn't want that Netflix anyway ;_; ), draconian throttling policies and blame it on that supposed 2% who clog the backbone tubes with them there newfangled torrent thingerwhatsits. If you don't like what Bell's doing, you can always just take your business to the competi-- oh wait Your independent ISPs no longer have unlimited access to the tubes you paid for. Bell literally owns your tubes now and can charge what they like. No competition allowed (well, maybe someone theoretically COULD come along and pay out of pocket to wire Canada coast-to-coast with cable/fiberoptic, but they're certainly not gonna get it heavily subsidized by taxpayers like Bell did). gg CRTC if you were making a reference to my comment i was implying what you just wrote. About bell getting public handouts but not the little guys
Aloe Cloveris The Greater Goon	Posted - 2010.11.03 08:06:00 - [25] Originally by: amarian arch if you were making a reference to my comment i was implying what you just wrote. About bell getting public handouts but not the little guys Oh. Crap. I actually read your post about 30 seconds after I went on my rant without fully reading the thread. So yeah, I guess I unwittingly rehashed everything you'd just said. At least we're in agreement that this is a brazenly ** move by the CRTC. How the hell do you or I even go about appealing a bull decision of this scale and significance? I'm genuinely curious if there's any way that this decision can be reversed or if we've just been **ed forever.
amarian arch	Posted - 2010.11.03 08:08:00 - [26] Edited by: amarian arch on 03/11/2010 08:10:09 Originally by: Aloe Cloveris Originally by: amarian arch if you were making a reference to my comment i was implying what you just wrote. About bell getting public handouts but not the little guys Oh. Crap. I actually read your post about 30 seconds after I went on my rant without fully reading the thread. So yeah, I guess I unwittingly rehashed everything you'd just said. At least we're in agreement that this is a brazenly ** move by the CRTC. How the hell do you or I even go about appealing a bull decision of this scale and significance? I'm genuinely curious if there's any way that this decision can be reversed or if we've just been **ed forever. petition and rant to the crtc and your local mp and everyone else. Its what im doing lol. Edit: I admire your initiative

CCP Spitfire	Posted - 2010.11.03 08:50:00 - [27] Moved from 'EVE General Discussion'. Spitfire Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online

Jonny Miami Amarr	Posted - 2010.11.03 10:34:00 - [28] Quote: Do you do/want to do any of the following activities? - Download new games through STEAM? - Download movies or TV shows from iTunes? - Watch streaming movies or TV shows on your TV through Netflix? - Download the latest software updates? Guess what? You'll be paying more when Bell institutes UBB on your high speed connection. It could end up costing you $30 in addition to your existing bill! Sign me UP! I would gladly pay and extra 30 bucks for that. I currently pay around $130/mo for dsl and phone with a 30gb cap through NorthwesTel. Everything after 30gb is $10/gig. No cap on the surcharge. So 40 gigs is $230 and 50 gigs is $330 and so on. Thousand plus dollar phone bills are not unheard of for those people who have unsecure wireless networks or hotels with wireless for guests. Yes I would like to use another provider but NorthwesTel has a government approved monopoly and there are no other providers. One nwt rep has been quoted as saying 'we don't have a monopoly, you can choose to go without'. But that is a rant of mine for another day... Point is, this post is pointless.
amarian arch	Posted - 2010.11.03 11:03:00 - [29] Edited by: amarian arch on 03/11/2010 11:06:43 Originally by: Jonny Miami Quote: Do you do/want to do any of the following activities? - Download new games through STEAM? - Download movies or TV shows from iTunes? - Watch streaming movies or TV shows on your TV through Netflix? - Download the latest software updates? Guess what? You'll be paying more when Bell institutes UBB on your high speed connection. It could end up costing you $30 in addition to your existing bill! Sign me UP! I would gladly pay and extra 30 bucks for that. I currently pay around $130/mo for dsl and phone with a 30gb cap through NorthwesTel. Everything after 30gb is $10/gig. No cap on the surcharge. So 40 gigs is $230 and 50 gigs is $330 and so on. Thousand plus dollar phone bills are not unheard of for those people who have unsecure wireless networks or hotels with wireless for guests. Yes I would like to use another provider but NorthwesTel has a government approved monopoly and there are no other providers. One nwt rep has been quoted as saying 'we don't have a monopoly, you can choose to go without'. But that is a rant of mine for another day... 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.
amarian arch	Posted - 2010.11.03 11:15:00 - [30] Edited by: amarian arch on 03/11/2010 11:18:00
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 (coughCanadaPostcough) 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 (coughCanadaPostcough) 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]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.