|
Parachute Underwear posted:Finkenstein: obviously if you pay Bell and Rogers MORE they'll increase capacity more He says this in the same breath where he complains that the minister is making assumptions.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
She needs to hammer on why our caps suck compared to other countries. Bell wants to impose those caps on their resellers' customers which is 100% stifling competition. Other countries don't have this barrier to competition, why do we?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Fickenstein just said Gigahertz. Makes two so far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
Hahaha basically if you just use skype you won't use too much bandwidth, only if you watch lots of video and play three-dimensional games. This guy is loving senile
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
"Skype won't affect the cap because Skype doesn't do streaming video" Wow, ok, seriously, what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
Migishu posted:"Skype won't affect the cap because Skype doesn't do streaming video" The CRTC's next plan is to let Bell restrict video calls on Skype!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
That's not going to affect anyone with a 20gb cap. Unless of course they decide to do ANYTHING ELSE during the month, like updating their Windows security patches, or watching a few hours of Youtube, or streaming some music. My iPhone polling gmail every five minutes is 75mb a month, I'm just going to throw that out there. Not a lot compared to a 20gb cap but the smallest poo poo adds up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Ok, so listening in on that, Baron von Cappenstein obviously has no idea what he's talking about. This ought to create some awesome feedback before the next session.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
This whole thing just made me so angry. This old guy who barely knows what the gently caress is going on around him is spouting all sorts of bullshit to people who may or may not have advanced knowledge on the subject. What's a list of dumb poo poo he said? - Skype doesn't use too much bandwidth - Playing video games online uses tons - Frequently mistaking gigabytes for gigahertz - Figuring Bell/Rogers would do the responsible thing and overhaul their networks rather than filling their pockets (maybe if they got a mandate, but otherwise? gently caress no) On the flipside, I did like the point brought up that basically a university student taking courses online is penalized for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Jesus, with the logic they used it almost makes more sense to get a wireless internet stick and pay $60 for 5 gigs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
The anti UBB groups need to tear this hearing APART with both hands. To be fair to him, he did say he believes caps are too low/etc, so at least he's not (totally) insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Parachute Underwear posted:- Figuring Bell/Rogers would do the responsible thing and overhaul their networks rather than filling their pockets (maybe if they got a mandate, but otherwise? gently caress no) Isn't there already precedent for them getting tons of taxpayer money to upgrade the infrastructure which never happened?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I'm (rather naievely) disturbed that we have people regulating the internet in Canada with less of an understanding of computers than the average highschool teenager. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:The anti UBB groups need to tear this hearing APART with both hands. To be fair to him, he did say he believes caps are too low/etc, so at least he's not (totally) insane. On some level I feel bad for the poor bastard because he was probably told it'd be a cush job like it's been for the last few CRTC heads. They could get away with knowing nothing and going on poor information because until now, Canadians never gave a gently caress about any of their stupid decisions. If anything needs to happen before the UBB decision, both those people who mistook GB for gigahertz need to be replaced pronto. It's pretty inexcusable that my mother knows the term for data better than the head of the organization that decides who can and cannot compete in this very market.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
Parachute Underwear posted:This whole thing just made me so angry. This old guy who barely knows what the gently caress is going on around him is spouting all sorts of bullshit to people who may or may not have advanced knowledge on the subject. Don't forget IPTV not using the internet
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
BGrifter posted:I'm (rather naievely) disturbed that we have people regulating the internet in Canada with less of an understanding of computers than the average highschool teenager. At least it's no longer a mystery as to why a country as rich as ours is so behind in telecommunications.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
One thing that got me angry was when mentioned about why the 25GB cap was "well bell residential users already have 25GB caps so we thought it was fair to force the resellers to abide by the same" I'm on Bell and I have ZERO cap limitations, if this was the honest truth why is there in the CRTC filings grandfather clauses for bell residential customers with an absurd cutoff date (2007)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:She needs to hammer on why our caps suck compared to other countries. Bell wants to impose those caps on their resellers' customers which is 100% stifling competition. Other countries don't have this barrier to competition, why do we? It's not even like there's a lack of American cities directly across the border from Canadian cities with wildly better internet service available. Detroit's a total shithole but as far as internet goes I'm pretty sure it beats the crap outta Windsor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
I'm not really worried about the gigahertz thing. I think it's very plausible that everyone involved is nervous and trying to speak at length and just messing up the terms. I know I've botched technical terms in an interview before because I was nervous. I mean I caught myself a second later and corrected, but that's just me. If you go ask him about it in a situation where he's not being put on the spot I bet you money he'd get it right. I don't think that was the worst part of the hearing anyway. There was so much more material there to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'm not really worried about the gigahertz thing. I think it's very plausible that everyone involved is nervous and trying to speak at length and just messing up the terms. I know I've botched technical terms in an interview before because I was nervous. I mean I caught myself a second later and corrected, but that's just me. Yeah, admittedly nerve might have to do with it but it's just mostly a combination of all the lovely points they had to make. Unfortunately I only caught the last half hour or so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
I posted something similar in the other thread but basically, we need somone who actually knows what they are talking about to represent the general public. It's pretty clear that these guys are horribly misinformed or just don't have a clue when it comes to the internet and issues like these. You want to talk about a small minority of power users hogging the majority of the bandwidth? How about a small minority of uninformed politicians/businesses profiteering from the majority of Canadians?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
asmallrabbit posted:I posted something similar in the other thread but basically, we need somone who actually knows what they are talking about to represent the general public. It's pretty clear that these guys are horribly misinformed or just don't have a clue when it comes to the internet and issues like these. While I fully agree, I think it would be incredibly hard to find someone who can appear unbiased in this regard. Anyone who knows enough about the technology is pretty much guaranteed to be using it in some way where UBB would seriously negatively affect them, which would make the pro-CRTC side cry bias.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
univbee posted:While I fully agree, I think it would be incredibly hard to find someone who can appear unbiased in this regard. Anyone who knows enough about the technology is pretty much guaranteed to be using it in some way where UBB would seriously negatively affect them, which would make the pro-CRTC side cry bias. Isn't that like saying the Minister of Transportation is biased because he has a drivers license? lovely car analogies aside, is this getting replayed somewhere? I want to burn up some of my new lower capacity streaming this. I hope they don't have it in high-def, I hear the pipes are getting pretty clogged around this hour. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
I agree that most tech savvy people would likely be anti UBB, but that's not to say they couldn't be reasonable. Like I'm not against UBB per se, I'm against UBB at a 5000% markup. I'm not against bandwidth caps per se, I'm against bandwidth caps that would have been shameful in 2006.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
My favorite part was Who makes your decisions? Bell What say do you have in those decisions? None Why don't you have any information on those decsisions We can't be expected to remember why we made a decision we made 2 weeks ago
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I agree that most tech savvy people would likely be anti UBB, but that's not to say they couldn't be reasonable. Like I'm not against UBB per se, I'm against UBB at a 5000% markup. I'm not against bandwidth caps per se, I'm against bandwidth caps that would have been shameful in 2006. Unlimited internet has been shown to work in other countries with way more population density than Canada. It is not some kind of fantasy world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:33
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
So what happens from here? A sixty day wait while companies like Teksavvy/other small ISPs are hemorrhaging customers can't be an acceptable response. It gives the Conservatives political cover to throw their hands up in the air and say they tried.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/Full+transcript+CRTC+head+Konrad+Finckenstein/4220102/story.html "full transcript" only covers Finckenstein's opening statement. Thanks global!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I agree that most tech savvy people would likely be anti UBB, but that's not to say they couldn't be reasonable. Like I'm not against UBB per se, I'm against UBB at a 5000% markup. I'm not against bandwidth caps per se, I'm against bandwidth caps that would have been shameful in 2006. I'm not set against UBB either, like you said %5000 markup is what gets most of us. I'd be in favour of a small ($5-10) monthly fee and then paying for what I use based on the actual cost of bandwidth. That douchenozzle @acoyne on twitter actually said there's a scarcity of bandwidth
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Unlimited internet has been shown to work in other countries with way more population density than Canada. It is not some kind of fantasy world. It's also been shown to work in countries with lower population density, poorer countries (India's a good example), and more remote areas (New Zealand), just so we've covered all the bases. More population density is a GOOD thing for internet, you cover more people running a single cable to a high-rise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Yeah but if you have a higher density then there's more chance for congestion. Are they constantly overcongested in those high-density broadband-minded countries?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:50
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Yeah but if you have a higher density then there's more chance for congestion. Are they constantly overcongested in those high-density broadband-minded countries? Fiber has a shitload of bandwidth. And it's much easier to upgrade the software and equipment on either end to meet the demand than pulling new lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Unlimited internet has been shown to work in other countries with way more population density than Canada. It is not some kind of fantasy world. I'm not saying I wouldn't PREFER unlimited uncapped internet or that it's impossible to do, but if we're going to have a reasonable debate about making concessions then I'd be ready to concede that a cap of 250-400gb is reasonable, at least on a mid-tier package, for example. Other people can debate that it isn't enough, but at least it's in the realm of possibility, unlike the "hey 60gb should be enough for a family of four" thing which is just asinine. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
True usage based billing would also mean that the dude who actually only uses 1 gigabyte a month would pay like $8 a month to cover the other expenses besides bandwidth and the ISPs won't be having that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Yeah but if you have a higher density then there's more chance for congestion. Are they constantly overcongested in those high-density broadband-minded countries? You mean like in Japan with its population five times Canada's where 160 megabit internet for $60 is the norm? No, although in fairness I'm not sure what constitutes normal use over there (freeish* digital over-the-air TV is available everywhere, no one games on PC, virtually all Japanese PC games are retail packages only, their rental stores are basically heaven so you really don't need to download a movie illegally, and even if you could good luck finding Japanese subtitles for it); I think in Japan they just innovated everything else so the internet was less of a priority. * - Minus NHK's legally-required cut
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
This is complete regulatory capture of the CRTC. There's no other way its chairman could say Internet Protocol TeleVision is not an Internet service with a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
fishmech posted:True usage based billing would also mean that the dude who actually only uses 1 gigabyte a month would pay like $8 a month to cover the other expenses besides bandwidth and the ISPs won't be having that. hahaha, that's a good point. Bell: Usage-based billing is the only fair way for us to move forward in this industry. TV Host: So it really is a good idea to charge for what someone uses. I see. Bell: Yes, it is. TV Host: So if the vast majority of your end-users use 15GB a month, why not charge them $0.10/gigabyte? That's already a 1000% mark-up by the way. Sounds like huge profits for you. Bell: Ummm...*crickets* I don't even think there are other fees. You could pay a set up fee. Then the connections are made. You may not even need to get a paper bill. There would be someone looking after hundreds of user accounts, but most of it is automated anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:hahaha, that's a good point. My wife and I were talking about this last night and realized that if internet service was just a generous $0.10 / Gigabyte cost then we'd be paying around $26-32 a month for internet, which is pretty much exactly in line with what we pay Teksavvy right now. In a magical, perfect world, the CRTC would mandate a $0.05 / Gigabyte UBB fee to wholesalers using Bell and Rogers networks, do away with the flat fee, and order speed matching. Then I would enjoy my magical 50 megabit Teksavvy cable internet connection for $15 / Month. Also George Burger would be my grandpa 
8ender fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's not even like there's a lack of American cities directly across the border from Canadian cities with wildly better internet service available. Chiming in here because I am in Windsor. Our internet is complete poo poo. We're lucky if we even get 5mbs. A Bell Tech employee told me that, until Bell installs fiber optic lines, it will be lovely. I'm with Teksavvy and we only get 1mbs. The university's internet isn't that great either. Cogeco and Bell have a stranglehold on the entire city.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
Dudebro posted:Australia was in the same situation that we are in now, perhaps even worse. Now they have a national broadband plan underway as we speak, and with plans to have speeds 50 times faster than what's available in Canada. If they can do it, why can't we? They are also a huge country with densely populated urban centres. I was in Windsor a couple of years ago with Teksavvy dry loop DSL, but the line speed fluctuated from 500Kbit to 1400kbit, depending on how much water was in the wiring junction pits. Cable is more prevalent in Canada than Australia so the situation with lovely speeds is not directly comparable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 02:41
|
|
