|
Those 25GB plans are hilarious. If you have cbc.ca/news as your homepage watch out! It auto-refreshes every 10 minutes, and the page is about 1.5mb. That's 5GB a month if left to continuously refresh; 20% of your monthly allowance.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2011 23:42 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:20 |
|
How about this statistic, from the very first comment on the CBC page? $2 for one gigabyte of data - or - $2 for 13 text messages (2.03kB if all the characters are used) "tell me they aren't just pulling these numbers out of their rear end." All goes over the same pipes from the same providers. [e] I wonder if it's even possible to calculate how little a single text message (160 bytes) costs to send, when the telcos charge you 15 cents each? One thing at a time though. orange lime fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jan 31, 2011 |
# ? Jan 31, 2011 23:47 |
|
I re-read that Vancouver sun commentary again just to make myself mad. The fact that in some people's minds bandwidth is similar to shipping a package across the country is pretty amazing. All I've learned for certain is that people are terrible at analogies.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2011 23:47 |
|
So looks like the liberals have weighed in, guess emailing my Liberal MP helped out http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/01/31/technology-internet-usage-based-billing-clement-garneau.html posted:"We consider this decision to be anti-competitive, because it does penalize the small internet service providers," said Marc Garneau, Liberal technology critic and MP for Westmount-Ville Marie, Monday.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2011 23:52 |
|
ZShakespeare posted:Rather than spending $5 for an extra GB of internet I could get a Someone needs to spoof the campaign: Five Five dolla Five dollar per giiiiig (that's like one netflix movie)
|
# ? Jan 31, 2011 23:56 |
|
edit: Doublepost
|
# ? Jan 31, 2011 23:57 |
|
So I'm downloading the digital purchase of The Sims 3 (and expansions.) 23.6 GB. (If I was on Bell I'd be screwed.) I opened up WireShark to see where it was coming from? Shaw hosted CDN. Of course they don't differentiate between local and transit traffic, so they're adding 24GB to my meter even though the content is hosted locally.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2011 23:58 |
|
Viktor posted:So looks like the liberals have weighed in, guess emailing my Liberal MP helped out Marc Garneau is so dreamy
|
# ? Jan 31, 2011 23:59 |
|
Viktor posted:So looks like the liberals have weighed in, guess emailing my Liberal MP helped out This may actually do more harm than good. If the conservatives were thinking of beating up on another federal agency in public (and they sure don't like the CRTC) then they might change their mind if it means looking like they're agreeing with the Libs.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 00:00 |
|
I know it's already been mentioned over the last 19 pages, but it's infuriating ridiculous that Bell and Big Business can organize how an entire country accesses the internet. I know that OpenMedia (and yeah, I know it's already been linked) is trying to do its part, but I can't help but feel that having to rely on an internet petition to voice rage at Bell is like pissing into the wind. edit: Additionally, this latest Rage Against The Machine at Bell (seemingly a weekly event in the Sputnik household) taught me that CTV is now owned by Bell! Fantastic impartial news reporting, no doubt!
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 00:01 |
|
less than three posted:Shaw hosted CDN. This is what ticks me off about this whole metering is that blame for huge bandwidth consumption such as Netflix is all CDN based that has to be fanned out to most ISP's. If a major ISP in this day and age isn't hosting a bunch of CDN's on their local network for say Microsoft updates(Akamai) they are absolutely insane.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 00:02 |
|
less than three posted:Of course they don't differentiate between local and transit traffic, so they're adding 24GB to my meter even though the content is hosted locally. It's a shame about the UBB because without the burden of having to pay ridiculous fees for overages I would say that this is exactly how it should work in a neutral internet -- same price no matter where you get your content. Er -- I'm not trying to make any point other than without the context of the UBB that would actually be a good thing (then again without UBB you wouldn't have brought it up so -- )
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 00:02 |
|
Martytoof posted:It's a shame about the UBB because without the burden of having to pay ridiculous fees for overages I would say that this is exactly how it should work in a neutral internet -- same price no matter where you get your content. I agree with you. Delivery should be location neutral. However if they want to start charging based on usage, it's bullshit to count data they're not actually having to pull from the Internet. Or in Bell's case, putting the meter before the DPI hardware, so that any retransmitted packets due to Bell's throttling count double towards your usage.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 00:07 |
|
less than three posted:I agree with you. Delivery should be location neutral. However if they want to start charging based on usage, it's bullshit to count data they're not actually having to pull from the Internet. Yeah I almost felt bad replying because it's obvious what the intent of your post was and I didn't want to muddy the water with philosophy.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 00:08 |
|
The logical conclusion of adjusting fees based on whether it's the company's server or not is a sliding scale of prices based on how far the data has to travel. Which makes even less loving sense than UBB. Not to mention network neutrality's worst nightmare. Christ.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 00:12 |
|
orange lime posted:How about this statistic, from the very first comment on the CBC page? $0.20 each text message if you're on Rogers/Fido edit: Reverse internet billing decision, Liberals say!! Acer Pilot fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Feb 1, 2011 |
# ? Feb 1, 2011 00:35 |
|
Tony Clement is my MP, I just sent him a short email from my business (one he knows personally) address. Probably only a 1% chance someone actually reads it, but whatever.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 01:45 |
|
Bonzo posted:I've had the residential Dry DSL for about two years. I would assume you just use the their form to change services or call them up and pay the switching fee. Let me know how that goes!
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 01:52 |
|
drcru posted:Reverse internet billing decision, Liberals say!! Something for Rogers customers: 1) Go here: http://www.rogers.com/web/content/contactus 2) Click "Make a complaint" and select "Office of the President" 3) Fill in whatever for the manager's name (I used the name of certain PR scum from Bell) 4) Tell them about all the services you will pull if they announce UBB. I told them that our family would pull four phones and two cable installations, which is about 10× what they would make off UBB during my average month. 8ender posted:This may actually do more harm than good. If the conservatives were thinking of beating up on another federal agency in public (and they sure don't like the CRTC) then they might change their mind if it means looking like they're agreeing with the Libs. Shumagorath fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Feb 1, 2011 |
# ? Feb 1, 2011 02:56 |
|
I think the CRTC's website is either getting slammed right now or it's getting a proper DDOS or something, 'cause I can't get through to get some information I need for the letters I'm writing. Yay internet? http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ for details I guess?
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 03:15 |
|
AEI just updated their prices. For Quebec, starting in March, their standard $30/5Mbps service will have a 60GB cap, with each extra gig costing $2.50, to a maximum of $60 extra. That is, unless you blow past 300GB, when they'll start charging $2.00 per gig, with no limit. They also now have $40, $50 and $60 plans that have 100, 140 and 180 gig caps that have the same overage fees as the base rate.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 03:19 |
|
ToxicFrog posted:Welp. Just got an email from TekSavvy; starting in March my internet access goes from unmetered to 25GB/mo (with additional bandwidth available at $5/mo per 40GB). And I'm out in the K-W area, so I'm outside TekSavvy cable coverage. I have been similarly waiting for TekSavvy cable. However, a friend sent me this link: http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/fc1so/yak_communications_is_rolling_out_10mbps_dsl_in/ Apparently Yak owns their own lines in K-W. Dirt cheap for a 10meg unlimited DSL too. I need to get on the phone with these people. Why didn't I know of them sooner?
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 04:13 |
|
I wish I could get Yak. Right now, their broadband is available in some parts of Toronto and other places in Ontario that you don't really want to live in.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 04:22 |
|
Is there any chance Yak's line to my house would be able to do 10/.8 if Teksavvy could only manage 4/.5? Just hedging my bets here.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 04:32 |
|
Shumagorath posted:Is there any chance Yak's line to my house would be able to do 10/.8 if Teksavvy could only manage 4/.5? Just hedging my bets here. Probably not. I was just reading up on it. Yak's just co-locating their own DSLAMs in Bell's COs. Which is acronym goo for they plug their DSL equipment on to your Bell line. Bell still charges you (well, Yak who then charges you) to fix the phone line. It's all Yak DSL equipment though and thus Bell can't and doesn't need to charge UBB fees. Edit: s/fix things/fix the phone line/
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 04:39 |
|
Funny how this is destroying apathy in the tech-savvy groups. Most of my friends from work who couldn't possibly have cared less about politics are now eyeing a vote for the Liberals or NDP solely based on this, including one who is a staunch Conservative voter and is not changing his position based on this issue alone. It'll be interesting to see what happens, and the conflicts of interest in this mess are too many to count. The CRTC being run by ex Bell corporations, usage based billing edging Netflix out from companies who provide both ISPs and the very service that Netflix competes with, and now news organizations not reporting on the issue because they're owned either by Shaw or by Bell Media. I typically hate the CBC for the CRTC circle jerk they continually put on in their editorials but I guess you can't ignore independent news sites for too long when they're getting 160 thousand signatures.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 06:04 |
|
Godinster posted:Funny how this is destroying apathy in the tech-savvy groups. Most of my friends from work who couldn't possibly have cared less about politics are now eyeing a vote for the Liberals or NDP solely based on this, including one who is a staunch Conservative voter and is not changing his position based on this issue alone. The thing that bothers me is that even if the CRTC ruling is overturned it really can't stop there or this will just keep coming back to haunt us. Really important basic infrastructure used by everyone in the country is locked up by a handful of megacorps right now, and they don't want to compete. Unless the ruling governmental party grows some balls and takes that infrastructure back, rolling it into a regulated non-profit wholesaler or something like that, then the current infrastructure owners will just continue to try out new and exciting ways of crippling their wholesale clients. They're so vertically integrated now that you really can't fault them for it; It makes the most business sense for them to do everything they can to ensure that customers are using all of the pieces from their stack rather than substituting in any of their competitors services.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 07:21 |
|
Ok serious question here - how much of the Canadian broadband subscriber base is taken by the top carrier? Just for reference, Comcast is the top provider with 15.9 million subscriber households out of 80 million us household with broadband - 19.88%
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 07:44 |
|
fishmech posted:Ok serious question here - how much of the Canadian broadband subscriber base is taken by the top carrier? Just for reference, Comcast is the top provider with 15.9 million subscriber households out of 80 million us household with broadband - 19.88%
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 07:51 |
|
Viktor posted:So looks like the liberals have weighed in, guess emailing my Liberal MP helped out If this doesn't get reversed, it'll be proof that Bell doesn't just have friends in the PMO, it has incriminating photos of people in the PMO. Shumagorath posted:Something for Rogers customers: (Maybe if you're a big TV watcher? Tell them you're cancelling playboy and all the other ripoff adult stations or something, that'd get their attention.) Edit: Okay, that Yak thing is confusing. People are saying that they have their own DSLAMs and whatnot, but the actual Yak *site* says they're moving to UBB in March. Doesn't say anything about exceptions at all. Nomenklatura fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Feb 1, 2011 |
# ? Feb 1, 2011 07:57 |
|
8ender posted:The thing that bothers me is that even if the CRTC ruling is overturned it really can't stop there or this will just keep coming back to haunt us. Really important basic infrastructure used by everyone in the country is locked up by a handful of megacorps right now, and they don't want to compete. The best thing might be if they focus on results, rather than method. Set a minimum standard for congestion and require the ISP itself to sort out how they go about solving it. Since UBB has NOTHING to do with congestion—that's why it's a scam—the small ISPs would have a lot of latitude to use traffic shaping or differentiated pricing or poo poo like that to ensure that congestion is minimal. (Or, they WOULD, if congestion were actually an issue at all. Since it ISN'T—that's the other scam—TekSavvy et al could basically do whatever the gently caress they please.) Edit: That nationalization thing would be good too, but there's not a chance in hell that the Tories would do it. A Lib/NDP coalition might. If that's what you want, then figure out which party is mostly likely to beat a Tory near where you are, and start helping out. Generally that's NDP west of Manitoba barring Vancouver, Liberal in Ontario and much of the East, and who the hell knows in Quebec since they've got like seven parties there now or something. Nomenklatura fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Feb 1, 2011 |
# ? Feb 1, 2011 08:10 |
|
From that CBC thing: quote:I am a Canadian living in the Philippines, I can make a call to Canada for less than 5 cents a minute, my internet with unlimited download is $20.00 a month. This is a 3rd world country, like most countries here in Asia, and they have the best and fastest internet compared to Canada and its cheap. Yes, the wages here are very low, so how do we compare??? The hardware costs almost the same here as it does in Canada. If they charged the same rates as in Canada the whole system would collapse in a matter of days as no body could afford it.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 08:28 |
|
Nomenklatura posted:Edit: Okay, that Yak thing is confusing. People are saying that they have their own DSLAMs and whatnot, but the actual Yak *site* says they're moving to UBB in March. Doesn't say anything about exceptions at all. If it's anything like what I heard from a friend of mine that works at the ISP I'm on, they have their own DSLAM equipment set up but can only provide access to it for people that live within a certain radius of the CO. For example, there's about a 4 or 5 kilometer radius in my city where my ISP's DSL comes in via their own DSLAM setup, but areas outside of that are still on Bell's equipment because they won't let them run their equipment in remote-ish locations like that. According to them, I have "nothing to worry about" regarding the UBB change coming in March. My ISP has a page outlining the changes coming with UBB (without any clear explanations of areas that aren't affected, probably to not piss everybody off that IS affected), but when I plug my account information into their bandwidth tracker it says it's not a valid DSL account and UBB doesn't apply, so vv
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 10:05 |
|
orange lime posted:[e] I wonder if it's even possible to calculate how little a single text message (160 bytes) costs to send, when the telcos charge you 15 cents each? One thing at a time though. The 160 byte SMS messages are free for the carrier. They are sent to your phone during it's normal update against the cell towers in an area of dataspace that was previously assigned for expansion. You are literally paying them for the right to do almost nothing.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 13:49 |
|
I saw a blip on CTV last night. Even a nerdy looking Cyber Cafe owner was quoted as saying this will only affect bandwidth hogs. It's odd seeing it so blatantly skewed.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 14:12 |
|
For anyone interested in seeing how Canadian internet stacks up to the rest of the world, this is a highly informative site. It doesn't look good when its only us and Australia that are the only countries that don't offer any sort of unlimited internet.... in 2009.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 14:53 |
|
Martytoof posted:It's a shame about the UBB because without the burden of having to pay ridiculous fees for overages I would say that this is exactly how it should work in a neutral internet -- same price no matter where you get your content. The fact that the telcos have been able to frame this discussion as "UBB" is the worst thing about this situation since that it not what is being implemented. People who don't understand the issue just hear "usage based billing instead of unlimited internet" and it does sound like a bunch of greedy torrenters expecting a free ride. Hell, that's probably what I would feel about it myself if I didn't know the details. The fact that a lot of the vocal commentators in these stories are these "information should be free" fucknuts who are just supporting this strawman position isn't helping either, though.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 15:32 |
|
Sneakernet is back: http://blog.indiecred.net/post/3048520519/the-price-of-data-in-canada
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 15:42 |
|
8ender posted:Sneakernet is back: That SSD comparison is a pretty good indication of how overpriced $2 a gig is.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 15:53 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:20 |
|
^^ I'm seriously tempted to start offering this as a service (with traditional drives instead, of course).
|
# ? Feb 1, 2011 18:32 |