|
Nomenklatura posted:Okay, here's one I just saw on DSL reports that could make a KILLER ad. If I didn't have a thesis to write I would make this ad right loving now. If no one has done it four months from now, and the situation hasn't improved itself, I swear I will. 
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
Well this is the sort of stuff OpenMedia should be looking at and taking donations for. The newspaper ads were a good start but let's take it further.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
Spam the CRTC with complaints while we wait. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/RapidsCCM/Register.asp?lang=E
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 15:22
|
|
|
TekSavvy posted this on FaceBook last night. Teksavvy posted:TekSavvy is disappointed with the recent CRTC decision on Usage Based Billing. They have imposed a pricing mechanism which maximizes Telco and cable profits, and have forced us to pass similar pricing on to you, with no benefit to us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 15:31
|
|
|
Already mailed MP about the the provincial government here is willing to give money to Bell Aliant to expand the fiber service across Nova Scotia. If were capped at ~25-65Gb/month on UBB whats the point of deploying a 170Mbps network? For all the big words from federal NDP we currently have a provincial NDP government supporting Bell: http://bellaliant.ca/english/news/view_art.asp?id=2046 posted:The Government of Nova Scotia contributed $2 million to the project to help ensure economic development opportunities for Nova Scotia with leading edge technology infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
What does this mean for me when I'm on Acanac's unlimited DSL? I should have switched to TekSavvy's cable a while ago since they do offer it in my area while Acanac doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 16:50
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
Dudebro posted:What does this mean for me when I'm on Acanac's unlimited DSL?. Same thing as everyone else using Bells wholesale DSL service. Caps caps caps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
Yeah, but what about pricing? What will the prices be? Right now, I believe it's $40/month unlimited even though the speeds suck. Now it's going to be...? And cable will face the same problem. 2011, unbelievable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Yeah, but what about pricing? What will the prices be? Right now thats a big unknown. There is speculation but really its up to each ISP as to how they price these caps into their plans. We're all just waiting to see how bad its going to be. So I want to get cable internet but I've run into a funny problem. I've lived at my current house for a year now and just about a month ago realized I don't actually have cable running to it. Like no box outside, no cable period. I get all my TV online so I never really had a need for a cable line. Does anyone here know how I would get a cable line installed and what it would cost? 8ender fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 17:26
|
|
|
Sounds like a new house. Assuming your neighbours all have cable lines, it should be no problem for you. I believe it might cost ~$50 to install a new cable line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:Two things jump out here. First, the CRTC is, apparently, NOT allowed to regulate retail UBB rates. So even if they think that the rates are too high for their intended purpose as a traffic management tool, they believe that they are prevented from acting upon that decision by Government policy. Well, that's simple enough to fix. Change the Government, change the policy. Tell the CRTC that they're free and clear to regulate UBB rates in cases where competition isn't doing the job, and you may see them bring down UBB rates to sane levels. You are correct - in the eyes of the CRTC - the UBB is a ITMP (internet traffic management policy), so whatever price that Bell sets has no correlation to actual costs, it's literally there to make it more painful for the "worst" offenders and allow Granny Smith to surf her knitting sites without an issue. All secondary effects (death of Netflix, extra income, etc) are moot in the CRTC's eyes - but obviously not in the real world. The only recourse at this time is to get the government to overturn the ruling - and for that you need to contact the Minister of Industry, Tony Clements, whose portfolio includes the internet. He obviously cares if the internet based industry goes tits up in 2011 because of the ruling, and that's where the fight has to focus on. His contact info: http://www.tonyclement.ca/EN/contact_tony/ or http://ic.gc.ca/ Also remember that the CRTC must take the view that all Canadians have to be treated equally - so if people want internet with 500gig base internet caps, the network would have to have been built for that (which is wasn't), and base pricing would have been much higher. On average, people (include Granny Smith and her legion of knitters here) don't want more than 25gig caps, and therefore don't want the extra cost. One of the problems right now (in a very simplified format) is that there are two classes of users - ones that uses nothing, and another that uses a lot. But there's only one infrastructure - (controlled by Bell/CRTC), so it needs to work for both classes, and lowest common denominator wins out. Eventually we'll see the creation of a second infrastructure network, but that takes a huge amount of time and money upfront that not many companies can handle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
Just sent this to the CRTC (best I could do before having to go to work): Allowing for metered internet has given Canada the award of having the worst internet service in the developed world, behind countries like New Zealand that are doing better than we are despite being isolated from the rest of the world and having underwater cable monopolies to contend with. Why are they able to pay 1/3 of what we pay for internet access while many Canadians will end up with overage bills of hundreds or even thousands of dollars when we share the world's longest land border with the country that invented the internet? This decision of yours is setting Canadian technology back at least ten years and serves no one except the big telcos, shafting tax-paying Canadian citizens. Please repeal this decision for the good of our country's citizens. Will probably re-word it and send to my MP and whoever else I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 17:42
|
|
|
What's bizarre and enraging about that is that low-traffic users pay a fuckton more per gigabyte. Not only do they pay higher overages, but their flat-rate cost per gig is far higher if you work it out. If Bell was charging a flat rate per gig, it'd be different. (Though not that much more so.) But instead they're clearly exploiting this to gouge the living hell out of the very group that this poo poo is supposed to benefit. Edit: That said, how the hell do we know that the network can't handle 500 gigs a month at current costs/capacity? We have no reason whatsoever to take what the telcos say seriously. Certainly it isn't last mile problems; as far as I've read, DOCSIS 3 and the various fibre-to-the-home solutions can handle that without breaking a metaphorical sweat, and I doubt it'd be necessarily terribly onerous for a lot of DSL setups. Sure, it might be backbone, but then it just raises the question of what the gently caress they DID with all the government money they were handed to improve their networks, and why Shaw appeared to function without noticeable congestion before they put down their own bit caps. Re-Edit: Don't necessarily buy that "using nothing" line, either. It's not 2004 anymore, regular users can easily suck down a SHITTON of bandwidth using streaming services. That includes Gramma looking at funny cat videos. Nomenklatura fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
I've gotten used to sucky speeds; I can tolerate 5 megabit internet just fine. I'd be happy with the state of Canadian internet if I could pay 40 bucks a month for a 5-megabit uncapped line. Do MPs care about letters that aren't from their constituents? I want to send an email to the relevant person where they're deploying the 170 megabit fiber link to point out that at those speeds you will go through your entire monthly cap of 80 gigs in 65 minutes, and from then on it will cost you two dollars every 45 seconds. There is NO loving way anyone can believe those are anywhere near the actual costs of internet access. I could probably hire a guy to courier a hard drive wherever my data was going for less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/CRTC-Finalizes-ISP-UsageBased-Billing-112406 http://forums.redflagdeals.com/crtc-decision-ubb-996533/ http://forums.redflagdeals.com/take-action-crtc-decision-dsl-bills-doubling-tripling-beginning-march-996839/ 1. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Language=E 2. Type in your postal code, find your MP's name and email address. 3. Compose a email. You don't have to write an essay. If you wish keep it brief, or if you are well informed, feel free to air your frustration. For those that don't know, for all Bell and Bell reseller providers, starting March 2011: - Bandwith cap will be 25GB(confirmed by Teksavvy CEO). That's upload and download, together. - $1 per GB you go over, up to $22.50. $0.75 per GB after that. - ALL DSL RESELLER PRICES WILL GO UP TO MATCH BELL PLAN PRICES, AND RISE WHEN BELL PLAN PRICES RISE. For those on Rogers, or Rogers reseller providers: - Same deal, coming down the pipe a few months later (early summer). More information: http://www.antiubb.com/ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/canbroadband http://www.openmedia.ca/meter http://www.stopthecap.com/ I sent my MP a short e-mail asking her how this is beneficial for us and basically how important the Internet is for our country's future. I don't even know if MPs read and respond to their e-mails. Dudebro fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
One thing I'm doing right the gently caress now and recommend others follow suit: TAKE YOUR INTERNET OFF ANY AUTO-PAYMENT. If they come up with a $1200 bill for me, I want them to have to fight me to pay it, not me fight them to pay me back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:I sent my MP a short e-mail asking her how this is beneficial for us and basically how important the Internet is for our country's future. I don't even know if MPs read and respond to their e-mails. In my experience, MPs NEVER reply to emails. Anytime I've done so I get a reply from their assistant. The 1st reply is a basic canned response they send everyone. AFter that it's just endlessly arguing with someone who could care less about your issue and they will lead you on all kinds of wild goose chases to get you to shut up. If you request to speak directly to the MP they will tell you to write some written request which I'm sure is then ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
Wait, are you serious, Teksavvy is going to have to impose a 25gb cap on their plans? Is it across the board for all their plans? I am currently on their 15/1 unlimited plan for $55. I routinely download well over 25gb in a month. I have like 200 games on steam, which get installed/uninstalled as my hdd space/game interest changes, and then there's all the streaming I do on Youtube/Giant Bomb/across the net. I always go for the HD option too. I purchased an unlimited plan because I wanted unlimited internet. This really really boils my blood. Already sent an email to the CRTC, going to see if I can send one to my MP as well. There's gotta be a better solution than just straight up consumer rape.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:In my experience, MPs NEVER reply to emails. Anytime I've done so I get a reply from their assistant. The 1st reply is a basic canned response they send everyone. AFter that it's just endlessly arguing with someone who could care less about your issue and they will lead you on all kinds of wild goose chases to get you to shut up. This is what I got back from my MP: Dear less than three, Thanks for your email about the CRTC recent approval of Usage Based Billing for internet services – I agree, it’s an outrageous decision. I have shown my support for reform of internet usage billing policies by signing the openmedia.ca petition last Fall and trying to raise awareness about this issue through my Twitter and Facebook pages. I am also forwarding your email to my NDP colleagues, Charlie Angus (Digital Issues Critic), and Brian Masse (Industry Critic). I am confident they will be following up on this issue when Parliament resumes at the end of January. Thanks for taking the time to write me about this important issue. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with future concerns about federal issues. Sincerely, Libby Compared to the one I sent about Bill C-560 which started with Dear less than three, Thanks for your message! Libby asked me to get back to you. and signed with Carli Staub Member's Assistant to Libby Davies, MP
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:What's bizarre and enraging about that is that low-traffic users pay a fuckton more per gigabyte. Not only do they pay higher overages, but their flat-rate cost per gig is far higher if you work it out. That's always the case - there's a huge upfront cost regardless of the future usage. Nomenklatura posted:If Bell was charging a flat rate per gig, it'd be different. (Though not that much more so.) But instead they're clearly exploiting this to gouge the living hell out of the very group that this poo poo is supposed to benefit. Of course they're exploiting the poo poo out of it - I'm just giving people the argument they used (successfully) with the CRTC. Ranting and raving at the government won't have much effect when people don't know how they got hosed. Nomenklatura posted:Edit: That said, how the hell do we know that the network can't handle 500 gigs a month at current costs/capacity? We have no reason whatsoever to take what the telcos say seriously. Certainly it isn't last mile problems; as far as I've read, DOCSIS 3 and the various fibre-to-the-home solutions can handle that without breaking a metaphorical sweat, and I doubt it'd be necessarily terribly onerous for a lot of DSL setups. It can't with _currently deployed_ gear. Look at what was readily available 3-4 years ago for the technology level at the volume/density they deal with. *IIRC/VERY ROUGH*: You have 1x GigE (actually 2, in 1/1 failover) per remote DSLAM (brown box on the street). That's shared among Internet (low priority) and Bell's own IPtv offering (high priority) supplying 5-25mbps each to 96 (iirc) circuits. Backhaul the 10,000+ remotes (across ont/que) into a central distribution network, you're talking about a huge amount of bandwidth (100s of Gpbs). Works fine at low or bursty usage (web usage), but collapses at high sustained usage (P2P). Nomenklatura posted:Re-Edit: Don't necessarily buy that "using nothing" line, either. It's not 2004 anymore, regular users can easily suck down a SHITTON of bandwidth using streaming services. That includes Gramma looking at funny cat videos. You're incorrect in that - a significant portion of users on average use less than 5 gigs per month combined up+down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
unknown posted:You're incorrect in that - a significant portion of users on average use less than 5 gigs per month combined up+down. Not only is this no longer the case (isn't it closer to like 35 gigs now?), that's per user. What if you're a family with 3 kids? Or college roommates? Or just happened to get a certain digital download PC game for yourself (or even as a gift)? It's also an average, meaning 50% of people use more. Appealing to the status quo/lowest common denominator has resulted in fantastic policies like No Child Left Behind and is in no way something to strive for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:In my experience, MPs NEVER reply to emails. Anytime I've done so I get a reply from their assistant. The 1st reply is a basic canned response they send everyone. AFter that it's just endlessly arguing with someone who could care less about your issue and they will lead you on all kinds of wild goose chases to get you to shut up. univbee posted:Not only is this no longer the case (isn't it closer to like 35 gigs now?), that's per user. What if you're a family with 3 kids? Or college roommates? Or just happened to get a certain digital download PC game for yourself (or even as a gift)? It's also an average, meaning 50% of people use more. Appealing to the status quo/lowest common denominator has resulted in fantastic policies like No Child Left Behind and is in no way something to strive for. Edit: And upfront costs have nothing to do with the higher overage costs for low-bandwidth accounts. If you're on a high-bandwidth account, you pay about a buck per extra gig. If you're on a low-bandwidth account (Rogers lite and the like) you can end up paying between three and five. There is NO justification for that beyond monopolist segmentation. None. Re-Edit: Oh, and I'm not sure what sustained usage vs. non-sustained issues has to do with UBB? P2P gets the poo poo traffic-shaped out of it during periods of high usage, you know that. That's justifiable, though probably irrelevant in the age of streaming content. But people get punished under UBB for usage during high- and low-usage periods alike. The logical thing to do THERE would be to have variable pricing depending on time of day, so that bandwidth during peak is more expensive than bandwidth during low-usage periods. Reward people for waiting on their Steam downloads until the middle of the night. But, then again, the real solution is this VVVVVVV. Upgrade the loving network. Japan did it, we can do it. Maybe not for all of the country at once, but we're highly, highly urbanized and concentrated. Focus on the densest areas and move outward from there. Nomenklatura fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
loving update the infrastructure then. Tax it. Just don't give a company a monopoly because then we end up with poo poo like this. How many taxpayers are there? 20 million? How much is it going to cost over 5 years to upgrade?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
unknown posted:You're incorrect in that - a significant portion of users on average use less than 5 gigs per month combined up+down. Noone cares that grandma doesn't use her computer for anything more than text only email on a creaky Windows ME computer. If there's so many people barely using any bandwidth then that by definition means there's plenty of bandwidth to spare for people who use a lot!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:But, then again, the real solution is this VVVVVVV. Upgrade the loving network. Japan did it, we can do it. Maybe not for all of the country at once, but we're highly, highly urbanized and concentrated. Focus on the densest areas and move outward from there. A lot of areas probably wouldn't need that much. Seriously, I don't think a place like Kuujuuaq could crash itself even if all its residents were on Pirate Bay 24/7, there isn't that high of a population that you need a crazy backbone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:loving update the infrastructure then. Tax it. Just don't give a company a monopoly because then we end up with poo poo like this. How many taxpayers are there? 20 million? How much is it going to cost over 5 years to upgrade? I'd love to see this but as a whole new infrastructure thats government owned/operated that can wholesale out the service. It's needed in this day and age like the TCH was/is needed for the public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
You just need it for Vancouver, Calgary+Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, and their respective metro areas. Tell yourself this will never happen and you won't be disappointed. The problem is that people in charge don't see the Internet in the same way, the majority of them can't even type that quickly. Just straight up ask people, would you be willing to pay X dollars/year over X years to have some of the best internet in the world? If only it were that simple. I still don't understand the power that Bell and Rogers have. Is it logical? Just make sure the government itself doesn't undertake the construction, lol. Privatize that part of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
Well, again, that comes down to the government. The Tories are never going to back that, not when they're closely aligned with the American Republicans (who have legislated that sort of thing out of existence) and are pretty hardcore pro-corporates. (Clement being an exception is the only reason there's even a PRAYER of change.) The Libs MIGHT, if you can convince the fossils running the party that the old days of Bell showing up with big bags of money are gone for good, and if the NDP is pushing hard as part of a coalition. But it'll definitely take a governmental change. As for the people...again, frame it as a nationalistic/economic thing and you might get traction. Canadians won't like being told that they have the shittiest, priciest internet in the world, and won't like it when you say that it's dragging down our economy. People are STILL freaked out about jobs, especially in places like Toronto where the recession never really ended, and saying "this is choking job-creating entrepreneurial innovation" will probably help get people on-side. But, again, the problem is that we've had a number of cozy telecom monopolies and oligopolies for a while now. Canadians are USED to that. It's going to take a hard push for them to change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
I just talked with Sasktel representative (here in Saskatchewan for those who don't know) and she said they have no plans to implement UBB on their Internet services. Considering I just look at my Shaw usage over the past 2 months, I might do the switch over. Even though their speeds aren't great (10mbps down/800kbps up) I won't have to worry about getting gouged. I'm consistently hitting 120GB a month on Shaw extreme. And I don't really download/upload all that much I don't think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
So what happens to business accounts? Let's say I'm a graphic designer and I'm FTPing PSD files back and forth. Your average working from home person is not going to have a full T1 line or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
unknown posted:You're incorrect in that - a significant portion of users on average use less than 5 gigs per month combined up+down. Maybe, but why is the lowest-priced Bell plan a 2 gig affair? When my family first got a computer in late 2000 we signed up with Videotron and had a 2 gig plan for $40. Eleven years ago. Bell is seriously bringing out a plan reminiscent of what we had literally a decade ago. I'm with Bell right now and have the Fibe 7 60GB for $35 plan (comes up to $40 for the extra 40GB of insurance  ).If I want to keep paying the same price for internet as I am currently, I have to accept a 58GB reduction in cap allowance and 5Mbps/~200Kbps reductions in down/up speeds. If I want to keep my current "plan", I learn that not only have they reduced Fibe 7 to 6 permanently, but I have to accept a 35GB reduction in cap allowance and pay $10 more per month. If you want to put these terms in words your grandma or neighbour can understand, it means you can download half as many crazy cat videos per month as before, at slower speeds, and pay Bell more for it. And if you do download as many as usual, you'll end up paying bills double or triple your average.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:03
|
|
|
I don't believe Canada actually needs infrastructure upgrades to not have to have caps. You've all obviously been doing fine going way above caps with no slowdown or anything right? This is just a money grab and a blatant one at that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
I guess this is the death of free wifi anywhere in Canada too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
I might actually save money for a few months and get vastly faster speeds. Going to switch from Teksavvy DSL to Teksavvy Cable, which thankfully exists where I live. I'll pay a slight premium for the 10 MBPS service and then cancel the home phone. I'm tempted to keep my DSL for a while because the cap really is unlimited, but I may as well switch over ASAP in case there's a rush.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
I actually got a response from my MP. --- Thank you so much for taking the time to pass on your concerns on this issue to us. In the interests of levelling the playing field for retail and wholesale Internet Service Providers, the CRTC has ruled that both may charge customers for exceeding the monthly usage of data transfer permitted with their broadband Internet package. This ensures that no company in any part of the country is put at a competitive disadvantage. Usage-based billing is the industry standard in other jurisdictions - including the US. The CRTC will be undertaking a new public consultation to consider whether UBB wholesale rates should be set at levels below retail for both telephone and cable companies. The Government of Canada is committed to encouraging choice and competition in wireless and Internet markets. That's why we have recently held spectrum auctions to allow more companies to provide consumers with more options and are looking at additional auctions in the futur We have forwarded your comments to our policy and research department. Should they need any further information or have any questions, they will follow up with you shortly. Once again, thanks for taking the time to send this to us. Should you have any further questions, comments or suggestions in the future, please don’t hesitate to contact us. --- someone please deconstruct and destroy this argument. I don't know if they're just going to copy and paste this response to everyone that e-mails them. She's in the conservative party if that makes any difference. I thought the government didn't support or oppose the CRTC. Dudebro fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Usage-based billing is the industry standard in other jurisdictions - including the US. That's bullshit. They tried it in the USA and everybody flipped out. And that's with caps of 300GB, not 25.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I might actually save money for a few months and get vastly faster speeds. Going to switch from Teksavvy DSL to Teksavvy Cable, which thankfully exists where I live. I'll pay a slight premium for the 10 MBPS service and then cancel the home phone. I spoke to a Teksavvy sales rep a few moments ago, and she told me that they wouldn't have DSL Unlimited anymore, even for current subscribers (which is what I have). If that comes true, I'll either switch to Teksavvy Cable or a DSL Business account (if they offer unlimited plans).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
My comments belowDudebro posted:I actually got a response from my MP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Scylla posted:I spoke to a Teksavvy sales rep a few moments ago, and she told me that they wouldn't have DSL Unlimited anymore, even for current subscribers (which is what I have). So the Teksavvy DSL business rates stay the same?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
I think something can be said about an oligopoly charging a huge multiple (5,000x mentioned earlier?) of the cost to them per gigabyte. The internet as it is evolving is simply not set up now to be constrained under such tight limits, and imagine what it will be like in 3-5 years time. People have seen the future and it is on-demand video from a multitude of sources and not their bare-basics cable provider.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:25
|
|
