|
Kreez posted:Browsing through Facebook, I see that a ton of people I went to school with or whatever have joined anti-UBB groups. I know the vast majority of these people have a cheap Bell account. Overturning UBB has nothing at all to do with Bell's rates, it's just their applying their lovely rates onto 3rd party ISPs, right? Yeah, at its core this has nothing to do with us wanting to pay lower prices (though we do). Bell et al should be free to gouge the customer as much as they want, as long has the customer has the choice to switch to another provider that offers a better deal. The problem is that the ridiculous markups they charge their customers should not apply to their wholesale customers. It doesn't cost them but a very small fraction of what they charge us to provide the infrastructure, and wholesale customers should be able to set their own markups based on the base cost of maintenance of said infrastructure plus a reasonable markup. The UBB bill whose name is disingenuous, allows not for billing based on usage, but allows the infrastructure owners to charge retail prices to wholesale customers, essentially allowing them to set the prices that their competition must charge to their retail customers. In such an environment any sort of competition based on price would be impossible, and we will face a situation similar to the one we have in the cellular market, which if you may recall recently had government intervention to help introduce new competitive elements. e: The problem is that the only way to get people riled up and make a difference is to invoke an irrational emotional response in them (Thanks Bernays) by painting a picture of a bleak future in which watching their favorite "cat sliding into a box" video on YouTube costs them $5 a pop. ZShakespeare fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Feb 4, 2011 |
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
XYZ posted:I have a Bell 5Mbit/512k connection. Unlimited bandwidth, but with a horrendous bittorrent throttle of 30Kb/s after 4:30pm. I'm paying $60/month. If you even just moved to Teksavvy DSL with the 200gig cap, you'd be paying half what you currently do without a contract. Bell's screwing you badly (big surprise). Cable would be a good move, and you could go with the 10mbit line for marginally more than the DSL rates. If you have no problem shelling 60 a month for internet, get the fastest cable line you can. As for the DSL speeds, I find that streaming Youtube is fine so long as you don't use 720p. It can stream HD fine, but it will be maxing out your connection, and no one else using the internet will have very good success (lots of bitching about lag will be had). Netflix is the same deal, it will work fine but it will hog the entire line. If you have a bunch of roommates or siblings sharing the internet, best solution is to divvy up the speeds evenly using net limiter. QoS bandwidth shaping only controls how much you can download over a given period of time, not the speed. For Netflix or equivalent streaming, arranging times to get full access in order to stream without problems is a good way to come to a compromise. Of course, if you get a 15mbit cable line, you don't really have to worry unless you have over 4 heavy users on the connection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
http://www.financialpost.com/news/usage/4221725/story.html This Mirko Bibic chap from the financial post seems trustworthy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
hahaha, are you loving kidding me? VP from Bell is putting up editorials on the Post. How the gently caress does that guy sleep at night telling lies all day? Probably very comfortably in his king-sized bed and silk sheets, but still, what a loving slimeball. Sadly, readers will take his comments at face value.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 21:32
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
Powershift posted:http://www.financialpost.com/news/usage/4221725/story.html Honestly this is the most disgusting thing I've seen in the debate thus far. And I used to unabashedly love the National Post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
this is from the GB thread, tangentially related. THIS is disgusting. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/court-quashes-tory-cabinets-globalive-decision/article1895099/ Globe & Mail posted:A judge has struck down the Harper cabinet’s 2009 decision to overrule the CRTC and let a cell carrier with Egyptian ties operate in Canada. I have no words to express my disappointment. Dudebro fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
Isizzlehorn posted:If you even just moved to Teksavvy DSL with the 200gig cap, you'd be paying half what you currently do without a contract. Bell's screwing you badly (big surprise). Cable would be a good move, and you could go with the 10mbit line for marginally more than the DSL rates. If you have no problem shelling 60 a month for internet, get the fastest cable line you can. Well it's just me here, so I could get a 10Mbit line and still be better off than I was. Definitely going that route once things with UBB settle down. gently caress Bell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:this is from the GB thread, tangentially related. The company that launched that complaint sounds wonderful as well quote:Public Mobile only has coverage in the Greater Toronto Area and Montreal. Plans to expand their network to other large Canadian cities such as Ottawa are slated to be completed by the end of 2011. Public Mobile does not have any roaming agreements with other providers in Canada, so when outside of their network coverage area customers will have no service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
"Public Mobile: lovely, but Canadian!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
quote:And we ask only that they pay for what they consume, so that we're not required to pass the costs of their extraordinary usage on to you. I think the low usage users should be asking this Bell jerkoff the same question in return: why do we pay for more than we consume?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
priznat posted:"Public Mobile: lovely, but Canadian!" You have plenty of choice! as long as you choose our lovely service or the big two carriers'
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
priznat posted:"Public Mobile: lovely, but Canadian!" Welp, looks like i cracked that riddle. quote:As a long time leader in the Canadian Internet, cable and wireless markets, Alek Krstajic brings years of experience and competitive insight to the role of Chief Executive Officer at Public Mobile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
Why are Canadian companies being treated like royalty? Why are you special? I dunno, just because. As long as those foreign companies give jobs to Canadians here then whatever. Who the gently caress cares if they're "Canadian blood" or not. We don't want a situation like the US where all the big companies are outsourcing their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
It seems to me that anyone wanting to start a domestic company will have a really tough time because for one the population base is not all that high and for another you'd be getting hosed over by the big incumbents constantly. And regarding foreign companies I remember reading somewhere that Amazon is having a real tough time satisfying requirements to manage to service Canadian customers and Canada was the only major country without an Amazon fulfillment centre. I think they may be building one now though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
I thought Amazon had a fulfilment centre out in north Toronto somewhere? Guess I'm wrong  some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Why are Canadian companies being treated like royalty? Why are you special? I dunno, just because. Your post answers itself. I'm sympathetic to most of the objectives of foreign ownership rules in general because of precisely this, but if you're going to restrict capital like that in the name of economic and employment diversity, you'd better make sure you actually firmly regulate the oligarchies and anti-competitive behaviour that can result from that. Telecom is an area where successive governments have failed miserably (or simply been negligent) at that, and so here we are. If the CRTC and Competition Board had actually done their jobs in this industry, we wouldn't be in this mess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I thought Amazon had a fulfilment centre out in north Toronto somewhere? Guess I'm wrong You're correct, they have a warehouse but iirc it was stuff gets cleared across the border and goes through that location, it wasn't a true fulfillment centre per se. edit: found a link on it http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/the-amazon-teapot-could-be-brewing-a-tempest/article1537121/ quote:After all, for the last six years, Seattle-based Amazon.com has been operating in Canada as Amazon.ca, fulfilling orders from a warehouse in Mississauga west of Toronto owned by SCI Group, an entity 98.34 per cent owned by Canada Post.  I think it meant they were a lot more limited on what they could stock or something like that, anyway it was foreign ownership things that kept them out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
That foreign ownership thing is going to kill me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
Now that I think about it, I wonder if the amazon fulfillment centre is running now. Perhaps that is why they switched from canada post to UPS for shipping packages? Hate UPS, bring back canada post (never thought I'd say that)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
priznat posted:Now that I think about it, I wonder if the amazon fulfillment centre is running now. Perhaps that is why they switched from canada post to UPS for shipping packages? They still do sometimes, I got a few packages from Amazon from Canada Post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
jizzpowered posted:They still do sometimes, I got a few packages from Amazon from Canada Post. Ok, interesting! Wonder what the difference is. In any case I really wish for amazon.ca to have as many different depts as the .com version. That'd be pretty frigging cool. We can let Wal-Mart and Target in but not Amazon? Wtf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
asmallrabbit posted:Would is be possible for someone to give a proper rundown on all the terms that are getting thrown around during this whole issue? Like I keep hearing different comparisons of bandwith and caps and usage and congestion used in different ways that really stands out when you start seeing news articles and people for/against it that don't really seem to understand it or use it in conflicting arguments. I'll try a quick breakdown - one problem is that there's multiple usages of the same word.
Where the controversy comes from can be roughly explained the image I attached that shows the usage for 2 users: Yellow is your average person who comes home, surfs the web for cat videos/porn/netflix, then stops and goes to bed. Orange is someone with a torrent box at home that does a constant amount of transfer throughout the day. Blue is the combination of both users, and represents the maximal combined usage of the clients, and what the ISP has to plan for. Usage level (y axis) can be thought of as the rate (ie: constant user does 2 units of transfer per time period). This is Bell's position: Adding the area up shows that the constant user does 100 units of transfer over the entire period, while the variable user only does 64 units. Constant user uses more, and therefore should pay more. Roughly put, the constant user has 40% higher usage. The other ISP's view: The only number that counts is the maximal transfer, since infrastructure must be purchased for that level of usage (in this case, 10 units per time period). At all other non-maximal times, the gear is sitting idle, with no reduction in costs. Also, in this case, the variable user does 400% more than the constant user. Congestion would kick in when the gear purchased can only do 8 units of transfer per period. At that point someone needs to reduce their usage - who should it be? Do you tell the variable user, who purchased a 8 unit/period connection and uses it fully on occasion that they can't actually use it all - or do you harass the constant person, who also purchased a 8 unit/period connection, but is transferring a higher total amount of data? Now expand that 2 user issue to roughly 10 million users, with about a 10:1 ratio of variable:constant user types. Of course, this is very simplistic breakdown of the congestion problem. What I didn't get into is things like: the network's capacity is in fact variable due to other services being sold (eg: iptv). There are multiple ISPs using the same service with different billing methods. The transfers in my pretty picture are in fact combined up and down usage - you actually need to split the graph for each direction. unknown fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
But most of our ISPs already throttle during peak hours. 4-6 and 8-10, my downloads slow to 1200KB/s, 6-8 they slow to 600KB/s. They want it both ways, throttling during peak hours, and charging during off-peak. When i was in australia, we had 40gb during the day or "peak" and 40gb during the night or "off peak", when we went over, we got cut down to 128KB/s. no surprise charges, no 25gb caps. The current situation is nothing but a cash grab with a ton of lies being spouted by both bell and the CRTC. A government agency lying to the government and not being called on it, out of ignorance or not, is infuriating. Powershift fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Feb 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
Exactly. They are getting people from every direction in this. As I wrote a few pages back they are essentially trying to lock you in between services so that no matter what you are boosting their profit margins. They never proved adequate congestion for UBB in the first place, that's what is so aggravating about this entire situation. All of their supposed infrastructure investment hasn't resulted in Canada having parity with the US either in terms of residential broadband offerings. If they want UBB, fine. I have no problem as a user paying a reasonable price for my own usage. I don't want Bell being the ones determining what is reasonable though, that's simply absurd. There is no way you examine this situation and determine that the CRTC should get to dictate an independent providers business model. Likewise there is no reasonable way to interpret someone charging $1+ for something that costs less than a nickle to deliver and had it's capital costs largely paid for long ago. The CRTC should not be taking cues from the telecoms, as is evident from Konrad's speech yesterday when he directly referenced Bell's stated caps as being reasonable. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
An early birthday present from shaw Their count is below my count, so it looks like i have some wiggle room.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
For the Montreal goons out there, what about ADSL2+? http://www.colba.net/main.php?lang=en&cont=&choix=&webmail= They own their own equipment so they would have been one of the few ISP's in the country that would have been able to provide unlimited internet access had the CRTC ruling not been repealed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
priznat posted:Now that I think about it, I wonder if the amazon fulfillment centre is running now. Perhaps that is why they switched from canada post to UPS for shipping packages? I've always gotten all my stuff from Canada Post (last thing I ordered was a couple days before Christmas) and from the Mississauga centre. Granted, I mostly just order books/comics/DVDs. Anyway after watching that interview with Clement I'm pretty glad he seems to understand what the big problem is. I'm also glad he plans on sticking to his guns and striking down the CRTC's decision if they just come back with the same answer in 60 days. However, I'm not sure if the interviewer was just trying to play devil's advocate but the CBC's boner for the CRTC is pretty amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
JayBulworth posted:For the Montreal goons out there, what about ADSL2+? http://www.colba.net/main.php?lang=en&cont=&choix=&webmail= I want to switch to them but their service stops 2 street away...
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
Powershift posted:http://www.financialpost.com/news/usage/4221725/story.html He's an executive at Bell, literally. http://www.google.ca/search?q=mirko...fca0d09cd825c4e quote:Mirko Bibic, Bell’s senior vice-president for regulatory and government affairs
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
less than three posted:He's an executive at Bell, literally. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I'm pretty sure he knew that judging from his manner of speaking, and the fact that it says so at the bottom of the article. It has no business being in the Post in the first place, the NP is absolutely insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
I don't believe anyone was arguing against that either?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
Somewhat related. Canadian Cellular access gets shittier: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/court-quashes-tory-cabinets-globalive-decision/article1895099/comments/
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 02:25
|
|
|
jizzpowered posted:I want to switch to them but their service stops 2 street away... Called them and they said it'll be available in my area in 2-3 weeks! Nice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
Powershift posted:But most of our ISPs already throttle during peak hours. 4-6 and 8-10, my downloads slow to 1200MB/s, 6-8 they slow to 600MB/s. They want it both ways, throttling during peak hours, and charging during off-peak. Now where in the flying gently caress do you live that you're getting 9.6 Gigabit Internet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 06:05
|
|
|
PopeOnARope posted:Now where in the flying gently caress do you live that you're getting 9.6 Gigabit Internet? Apparently i'm retarded. fixed it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 06:46
|
|
|
jizzpowered posted:Called them and they said it'll be available in my area in 2-3 weeks! Nice. I tried to PM you but you don't have the ability to receive them. Anyways, when you do switch, tell us how it is. The only thing that has me worried is that Colbanet has a lot of bad reviews from two-three years ago, none of which having to do with their ADSL2+ service. My one year contract with Acanac runs up at the end of April and while I have been very happy with them, this whole CRTC thing has me totally worried about the future. I think the only companies that will be able to provide unlimited internet in the future is something akin to SaskTel in Saskatchewan or a company like Colbanet which is lucky enough to own it's own equipment. Even if UBB never comes up again, the current speed which many of these smaller ISPs are limited to cannot be sufficient forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 07:20
|
|
|
priznat posted:Now that I think about it, I wonder if the amazon fulfillment centre is running now. Perhaps that is why they switched from canada post to UPS for shipping packages? You must be kidding. I've ordered books at the same time from both Indigo/Chapters (Canada Post) and Amazon (UPS) to a large Canadian city, both with the Free Shipping option, and Canada Post literally took 4-5 more days to arrive than UPS did. I thought it got lost. Now that simply may be because of different service levels that the store is willing to pay for, but that is a huge difference. Edit : related content : Shaw Nitro 100Mbps service is being installed on Sunday.. goooooo Giganews!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
bl4d3 posted:You must be kidding. I've ordered books at the same time from both Indigo/Chapters (Canada Post) and Amazon (UPS) to a large Canadian city, both with the Free Shipping option, and Canada Post literally took 4-5 more days to arrive than UPS did. I thought it got lost. Now that simply may be because of different service levels that the store is willing to pay for, but that is a huge difference. The problems with UPS are multiple. Shipping from the US to Canada is frequently exorbitantly expensive with UPS. They add in brokerage fees to cover customs fees, but they charge well beyond what FedEX and even Canada Customs charges. The delivery methods are terrible as well. Someone has to be there to sign for the package or they won't deliver. You can ask them to drop it on their second attempt, but if there's nowhere safe to drop it (even though you said they could), they won't leave it. They have no local pickup centers as well (at least near me), so if you aren't able to catch it at the one distribution center they have in a 100 mile radius, then the package immediately goes back to the sender. Fedex isn't much better, but they have a few more options for delivery or an easier pickup. Canada Post is generally just as fast for standard shipments, they have pickup centers everywhere, their delivery requirements aren't as strict, and they'll hold stuff for a week if you need to pick it up. Beyond that, if I need something ordered quicker, I like to go with Purolator if it's available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:The problems with UPS are multiple. Shipping from the US to Canada is frequently exorbitantly expensive with UPS. They add in brokerage fees to cover customs fees, but they charge well beyond what FedEX and even Canada Customs charges. The delivery methods are terrible as well. Someone has to be there to sign for the package or they won't deliver. You can ask them to drop it on their second attempt, but if there's nowhere safe to drop it (even though you said they could), they won't leave it. They have no local pickup centers as well (at least near me), so if you aren't able to catch it at the one distribution center they have in a 100 mile radius, then the package immediately goes back to the sender. To be honest, I haven't had much shipped across the border with UPS. For Canadian UPS delivery (Amazon only I suppose), I've never had to visit the UPS store (I'm not even sure where it is), as they always leave it on my step. This could be an Amazon only thing. Fedex, on the other hand, is a solid 35 minute drive away one-way. Purolator is pretty decent and has nearby pick-up centers, too. I guess my main complaint about Canada Post was simply the extreme difference in delivery times for a similar parcel, with probably the same delivery service level and sent from the same area.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 09:56
|
|