|
Silver Member Username: KrishnPost Number: 478 Registered: Sep-06 | This is really outrageous. Call and write to your MP http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-regulator-oks-metered-internet-billing-20110125- 150349-137.html http://www.ndp.ca/press/canadians-lose-out-with-internet-metered-billing |
|
Silver Member Username: MrgregPost Number: 601 Registered: Dec-07 | What can we say we live in a communist country. |
|
Gold Member Username: Saqeeb9000Post Number: 7588 Registered: Oct-07 | subash simple answer call bell and tell them u are switching to telus ... they need ur money .. if they looose 50 customers lets say they wont be happy ... trust me it works |
|
Diamond Member Username: NydasPost Number: 20572 Registered: Jun-06 | Canada is free enterprise country. There is NO justification in allowing unlimited service at a fixed price while the amount of Bandwidth usage is exploding. A distinction has to be made between essential service and pure Internet mania and this CRTC ruling will bring a better equilibrium in the market. |
|
Silver Member Username: KrishnPost Number: 480 Registered: Sep-06 | Sada - TekSavvy and others were buying from Bell and offering unlimited bandwidth and making profit. They were paying Bell for Bandwidth - however they were running it efficiently unlike Bell with many million dollars of Bonus for CEO's etc. Now Bell has manipulated CRTC and have obtained approval for charging resellers based on usage, so they have to stop offering unlimited service. nydas: It is not free enterprise but business protectionism to guarantee huge profits. In US they have antitrust laws and free competition - result no bandwidth usage charges. Already pricing is based on your bandwidth speed that you have and it is totally unjustified to charge for usage on top of that. It is the most expensive internet service anywhere in the world. |
|
Silver Member Username: ElmoxpOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 341 Registered: Jun-06 | Ok who put those MPs in Parlament Hills ? the big companies Funds, like Bells, the same company that does not let Dishnetwork to come to Canada, and no these channels, or those, Bell and Rogers are controlling what we see, what we use, I already cancel my Cell phone from Rogers, and i dont use any bell service, |
|
Silver Member Username: MrgregPost Number: 602 Registered: Dec-07 | Hey nydas would you like to pay for my internet service since you agree with the CRTC.I also here they are hiring more idiots like you. |
|
Silver Member Username: KrishnPost Number: 481 Registered: Sep-06 | Elmo Call your MP's office. Get all your friends and neighbors to do the same. If they get many calls then they cannot ignore the issue. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ThorontoPost Number: 92 Registered: Jun-06 | I still think this is simple to resolve. I do not use Bell Services for a lot of reasons, and neither should anyone who does not like their services. |
|
Silver Member Username: KrishnPost Number: 482 Registered: Sep-06 | Thoronto: What you are saying was the solution till now, since resellers were being sold by bandwidth and it was up to the resellers to sell it the way they want. Now resellers are also being sold by usage and will be forced to charge you by usage from March 31. if you read the link then you will understand the problem: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-regulator-oks-metered-internet-billing-20110125- 150349-137.html |
|
Gold Member Username: HardrockstrikerPost Number: 1096 Registered: Apr-06 | The CRTC is the most useless governmental department ever. They are nothing more than control freaks who are high on their own power. If they are not busy censoring tv programming then they are sticking their noses into Internet issues. So one dyke complains about a Dire Straits song making a derogatory comment towards lesb1ans, and whammo the song isn't allowed on canadian radio. It's no wonder the majorithy of Canadian's don't like the CRTC. And now they are interfering in how the Internet is run businesswise?!?!?! |
|
Diamond Member Username: NydasPost Number: 20574 Registered: Jun-06 | In a nutshell, Subash, would you consider regulating the price of sugar on a per KG basis, if the wholesaler was forced to sell to the retailer 100KG bags for the same price as 1 KG bag? Would you further advocate that the end user customer of the sugar should be allowed unlimited supply of the sugar if he wants it, at the expense not of the retailer but of the wholesaler? The Internet bandwidth usage has exploded to that degree. In the above example, SOME OF the extra volume in a bag is contributed by the Government through taxpayers, but there is an additional cost to the wholesaler for acquiring, storing and transporting the bigger bags. In 1998, I was satisfied with looking at a dozen emails per week and perhaps a download of one 1mb file a month. Today I am getting about 200-300 emails a week and downloading about 1-1.5GB a week. I am still paying approximately the same price for Internet. Who is absorbing the cost? Part of it is the taxpayer. Part of it from the increased number of customers that Bell and the like have to service and therefore get revenue from. Now we come to the long standing dilemma of and discussion within the society. Should a service be paid for from general revenues or from user revenues? Should a person using a bus service once a week pay the same as somebody using it 10 times a day? Or should it be totally free and paid for from general revenues? And if it is totally free, how much more traffic will there be and who will pay for it? The city fathers in an umpteen number of cities have decided that it should be a fee per ride, and perhaps a monthly pass for unlimited number of trips in some cities. That kind of pricing model seems to be the wise choice in most countries. |
|
Silver Member Username: KrishnPost Number: 484 Registered: Sep-06 | Nydas - bandwidth is not a perishable quantity. It is not as though the bandwidth is reserved for you since it is on Ethernet - collision detect. Always you get a much lower bandwidth if you subscribe for 30Mb you would be happy to get 20Mb. It becomes a monopoly with Cable and Telephone access that's why they were forced to sell to other resellers. There is no evidence that they were incurring a loss by their transaction with resellers - in fact they were making a profit by their sales to their resellers. However the monopolies did incur a loss of customers and price competition caused by the business efficiency of the resellers. This resulted in lower profit for the monopoly. That's what price competition in business should achieve. The CRTC ruling is protectionism of the monopoly. How can you get unlimited internet in the US for much lower price than in Canada? The answer is quite obvious open competition |
|
Diamond Member Username: NydasPost Number: 20579 Registered: Jun-06 | How come gas in USA is cheaper than in Canada though Canada exports to USA? How come you agree to pay for phone calls to other cities BASED ON PER MINUTE USAGE and are reluctant to pay for internet bandwidth? How come you pay for delivered gas not only for the quantity but also separately for delivery? All these are based on usage. How come you do not mind paying for the quantity of water you use? You are not paying a flat fee. How come you don't mind paying a different price for a ticket to a nearby city and more for a distant city? Shouldn't they make a fixed price travel across the whole country with no extra charge for distance or frequency of travel ? Have your tried to price the switching equipment and maintenance of it in the fiber network? As I mentioned before all pricing at the high level (government or big corporations) is based on a balancing act of general taxation (everybody contributes), local taxation (everybody in a local area contributes) and usage contribution, which is what they want to implement. We can go to a communist state where everybody (supposedly) gets free housing, free food, free medication and health care AND FREE INTERNET. It is already a proven fact that communism and communist style of economy does not work. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 15944 Registered: Jan-08 | Nalin Why you fight in favor of CRTC and Bell? They are both a bunch of loser! |
|
Gold Member Username: JuanchoCANADA Xx Post Number: 1033 Registered: Jun-08 | I am glad my city is the internet provider +cell, etc, as the owner for over a century . This business provide extra money for others services. here is something about this ... On Wednesday morning TBayTel made the biggest dent to completing the city's $40-million share of the planned $130-million major infrastructure fund, dumping $15.6 million into the pot through its promised special and performance dividend to the city. The money is over and above the annual $17-million dividend the municipally owned utility pumps into the city's coffers. "We are positioning our city to make sure we have the resources for our biggest dreams," said Mayor Lynn Peterson at a news conference held to announce the contribution. ------------------------------------------------- this is my... Note. Roger's customer are now under this company staring Jan.2011 provide more of 450 jobs |
|
Silver Member Username: MrgregPost Number: 603 Registered: Dec-07 | Nalin read post # 7 |
|
Diamond Member Username: NydasPost Number: 20580 Registered: Jun-06 | Plymouth and Subash: with you there is no "fight" - just a discussion. I have seen the weaknesses of communist type of economy and thinking. Just last week a friend of mine took a trip to Mumbai, because the Health Services of Canada could not provide him with the surgery he needed till March. He flew to Mumbai and had his surgery next day. The more we support an undifferentiated payment for services, the more likely we will have problems. With services like Netflix, the Internet use per household which already is 20-30 time more than it was only 12 years ago, will now go up to 100 times more use. When we get the broadband lines overloaded we will all suffer from inadequate services. I would rather pay for the services I need than be denied these because of overuse by a free-for-all or use-as-much-as-you-want service. |
|
Silver Member Username: MrgregPost Number: 605 Registered: Dec-07 | Nalin read post # 7 |
|
Diamond Member Username: NydasPost Number: 20583 Registered: Jun-06 | ( O -Greg- O ) aka Greg Raf Silver Member Username: Mrgreg I just found out today that you do have a learning disability. See, it is like this. People can comment and criticize about the actions of Government and Big business. That does not mean that the critic has to pay anything. It all comes out of the public funds. Do you understand that now? Read more about it at this URL |
|
Gold Member Username: HardrockstrikerPost Number: 1097 Registered: Apr-06 | Nydas, do you not agree that the Internet is more useful and helpful to people than it is bad? I think that most sociologists agree that the best model for governments aren't extremes (e.g. capitalists vs communists) but rather a mix of the two. Some things should be paid for and free to all, such as medical, education (school, libraries), communications (postal services & affordable phone service) and some things should be paid for such as how big your house is, whether or not you can take a vacation to Europe, having a car or not, etc. The Internet is like a library and a communications system, of sorts, as well as a tool. Should that not be available to everyone and the cost shared? There is enough wealth in the world to upgrade Internet trunk lines and access layer lines as well. I'm not saying that this is the right way, but wouldn't it be nice for everyone in the world to have accessible affordable services for all? I think that a lot of people agree that big business can be greedy and influence large institutions such as the CRTC to make laws to increase their profits. Gotta love greed. |
|
Silver Member Username: MrgregPost Number: 606 Registered: Dec-07 | Well Nalin you really show your brilliance here because I am not Greg Raf so do a little reading and maybe you can figure it out. If you had any brains at all you would know the without the public there would be no government.I suppose you agree with the McGuinty government still making you pay the debt retirement charge on your hydro bill even tho its payed for. That to me warrants a criminal charge being brought against the Liberals for theft period! If you were to screw them they would certainly garnish your wages or throw your as* in jail! |
|
Diamond Member Username: NydasPost Number: 20584 Registered: Jun-06 | Jason: We pay to watch a movie. The Internet wants to hog a lot of bandwidth so that You can download a movie. In my neighbourhood, some 100 have paid for and are watching a movie at neighbourhood cinema. In the same neighbourhood there are 80,000 who do not wish to budget the $4-7 to go and see a movie but will watch it if they could download it for free. If they did, the Internet would freeze up in the whole neighbourhood and we will not get our emails and important connections. If entertainment in general, is not free, why would we support an internet based videos and movies service for free or for no extra graduated charges? Whether we like it or not graduated charges are there and will remain so. There is free telephone calls within a certain radius and after that we pay for long distance. By the same token, there will be a free band width allowance and then extra for bandwidth usage. Then there will more free long distance calls and eventually there will be lesser and lesser charges for bandwidth. It is inevitable, and it is better for society to concentrate on regulating the bandwidth charges. Looking at extreme examplke: We paid for the experimentation for space travel. It would be ridiculous to expect to get free trips to the moon as frequently as you want to go there! |
|
Gold Member Username: HardrockstrikerPost Number: 1098 Registered: Apr-06 | The Internet isn't experimental, like moon travel - apples to oranges here. Also, take Netflix as an example: you're already paying for their service (legally); so why should one have to pay extra on top of that. ISPs should provide a pipeline without controlling what people download and how much unless they were at a profit loss - most ISPs are not at a profit loss. You say "whether we like it or not". That's the Canadian complacent attititude that let's one "settle" on how things are done in this country. Unless someone speaks up, decisions will be made for us by our government. It doesn't have to be that way. |
|
Diamond Member Username: NydasPost Number: 20585 Registered: Jun-06 | I have a monthly pass to watch all the movies I want to watch at the local Cinema. Costs me only $59.95 per month. Damn it! TTC wants me to pay for bus rides every time I want to go to the Cinema. And the popcorn vendor wants extra money for each bag of popcorn I buy to take inside. |
|
Diamond Member Username: NydasPost Number: 20586 Registered: Jun-06 | ? |
|
Bronze Member Username: SkittersGrand island, New york USA Post Number: 12 Registered: Jan-11 | Thanks for the compliment rosebud |
|
Silver Member Username: MrgregPost Number: 607 Registered: Dec-07 | Nalin if your so dam rich pay for my internet and everyone that comes here.You are like talking to a brick wall.You are a total waste of time.If you are so rich why don't you take a trip to the moon and do us all a favor. |
|
Gold Member Username: HardrockstrikerPost Number: 1100 Registered: Apr-06 | It's funny to hear a person complain against people demanding a reasonable price on a de facto essential service/utility such as the Internet, when this same person helps others get free TV, which is deemed a luxury! C'mon people, you have to admit that the timing of CRTC seems a bit more than co-incidental, no? There is NO bandwidth shortage in Canada - the numbers are out there. Btw, many of my clients are ISPs. |
|
Silver Member Username: KrishnPost Number: 488 Registered: Sep-06 | There is no response to an issue I raised: Did the main provider who had to open their infrastructure and sell the bandwidth to other providers ex. Bell to TekSavvy sustain any loss by that particular transaction? Obviously not, so the only answer is greed Also another point is the following c&p: "Internet is a big part of how we live our lives today, and the only ones coming out ahead here, are the big providers. The cost to deliver a gigabyte of data to a customer is less then $0.10, and according to TekSavvy, customers will pay approximately $4.75 per 40GB of data, on top of their monthly internet rate. So, what does the monthly rate cover exactly? Shouldnt the monthly rate include the service being provided as well? Companies such as Netflix, who only recently entered the Canadian market, are also going to pay the price if their customers are afraid of exceeding the monthly cap" |
|
Silver Member Username: MrgregPost Number: 610 Registered: Dec-07 | This must really upset you Nalin that the government is making the CRTC change their tune or they will do it for them.You better get on the horn and tell the big providers you will make up the difference. |
|
Silver Member Username: KrishnPost Number: 494 Registered: Sep-06 | The link below in the Globe and Mail provides a real picture. It costs only 3 cents per gigabyte of data. The following statement in the article sums it up accurately. "Rather than ensuring consumers receive fair Internet pricing, the CRTC seems content to line the pockets of Cable and telecommunications companies by forcing Canadian consumers to pay Internet data rates that have no basis in reality " http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/gadgets-and-gear/hugh-thompson/wh at-is-a-fair-price-for-internet-service/article1890596/ |
|
Diamond Member Username: NydasPost Number: 20596 Registered: Jun-06 | Subash: You are confusing two issues. 1. A flat rate pricing v. Use-Based pricing. The market has demonstrated clearly that use-based pricing is viable. The article you are quoting from has the following: "But perhaps there is a simpler reason for trying to justify why UBB and data caps are a more fair than flat-rate pricing? If you went into a restaurant with a friend and they had an appetizer, main dish and a dessert while you had coffee and a salad, would you want to split the bill? The notion that if you consume more Internet traffic, you should pay more seems like a fair argument. The question then becomes, what is a fair price for those extra gigabytes of data? " 2. So the main argument boils down to the exact price at different levels. If we are to accept that the cost to Bell is 3 cents/GB and they are charging the wholesalers 10cents/GB, then one would question the actuarial justification (the word IS actuarial, not actual). In many industries the cost/sale ratio (manufacturer to wholesaler) as seen above is acceptable. Since I am not an actuary, I would accept a simple mirroring of the situation, and the writer at Globe and Mail has accepted this. What the writer has failed to demonstrate is the differentiation of wholesale/retail pricing. He says "Bell is able to sell 40 GB of data to wholesalers for $4.25 ". (my emphasis). There are two business aspects of this 1. A wholesaler should refrain from being a retailer to the same customer base, <i.and>; 2. the wholesaler should have a retail price that makes it easy for his own retailers to compete with. Therefore, CRTC, in their evaluation have granted a certain price such that the retailers, such as Techsavy and Acanac would be able to stay in business. I presume you accept that competition is healthy and accept the Completions Act. Retailer, including Bell as a retailer (distinct from Bell the wholesaler) have their own costs of distribution and maintenance. So the real issue is whether the price granted to retailers so that can make a profit and stay in business - is that price fair? The article says what already is the case in the cable world - a situation, I might remind you, everybody seems to have accepted without grumbling. "Shaw is charging $2.00 per GB on its popular high-speed package while Rogers is charging a whopping $5 per gigabyte on its Ultra Lite plan and $2 per GB on its popular 10 Megabits per second service. " The same article earlier says "Bell will charge you an additional $2 per gigabyte to a maximum of $60 a month up to 300GB. After 300 GB, you'll pay a $1 a gigabyte. " So apparently CRTC, has granted the same increase that has been a de facto standard in the industry - actually not the same but a little less if you use over 60GB/month. CRTC is a body with at least some brainy people out there, and i am sure there is an Actuary or so, and consumer watchdogs as well. If I cannot justifiy a user pay model, I would complain, and yes there cannot be a significant user pay and yet we accept it in satellite transmissions viewing. If CRTC had granted a price more that the de facto industry standard, I would see reason to complain or agitate or revolt. But they have not. All CRTC has done, is to allow equal platform competition between Cable providers, and Bell, and between the various retailers including Bell the retailer. If I could justifiably say that the CRTC consists of morons, I (as a citizien) would ask for changing the CRTC. |
|
Gold Member Username: RunnerguyPluto Post Number: 2284 Registered: Sep-06 | It is ALL to obvious that Subash is correct in this instance. Thank You Subas!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: MrgregPost Number: 611 Registered: Dec-07 | Like I told you's before you cannot beat the QUEEN or should I say KING as he knows it all! |
|
Bronze Member Username: Dr_ruthlessBancock, Taiwai Korea Post Number: 82 Registered: Dec-09 | Greg, you are being too harsh. Calling Nydas an "idiot" is an insult to real idiots. Perhaps Nydas with over 20,000 posts has nothing better to do with its time than act like a Bell mole when it suits itself. It can not see that the extra bandwidth costs the monopoly next to nothing as they try and gouge the consumer. Nydas is not well to devote so many hours in the day every week over many years to hacking television against Bell then supporting its right to over bill... sicko... koo-koo nuts... wait, that's an insult to that group too. |
|
Gold Member Username: HardrockstrikerPost Number: 1107 Registered: Apr-06 | ... a victim of media brainwashing, he is. Even the federal government is against this CRTC proposal. |
|
Diamond Member Username: NydasPost Number: 20602 Registered: Jun-06 | FOk Yu: FOk Yu! I think you have a problem of not being able to read and understand. In all the posts in the last week over this issue, I have tried to show to idiots like you the difference between cost of satellite signals and the resale of these as opposed to cost of internet bandwidth as transmitted by fiber network. Satellite signal whether it arrives at somebody's home in remote northern Ontario, or in Toronto is the same. Cost of fiber and transmission of Internet signals goes up further it goes towards the periphery and hence it can't logically be the same. some writers refer to this as the cost of "the last mile". Similar argument can be applied to ploughing the road in remote regions - "The last mile" costs more than central Toronto. The decision and the discussion is around who should pay for "the last mile". In case of snow removal the Government pays through tax revenue and up till recently the same applied to Internet signals, i.e everybody paid the same and those nearer the hub were subsidizing the peripheral users in "the last mile". Now this anomaly has been settled in favour of differential tariff, fortunately not on the remoteness of the user's computer but on the volume of usage. In a way this may sound unreasonable, but in reality, sending a big volume of traffic to a remote user costs disproportionately high compared to delivering it to near the central hubs, so the inequality still remains that the users near the hub are paying to support the ones living at the fringes of the fibre network. The price accepted by the CRTC is the same as you, Fok Yu were paying to Rogers and not complaining. |