Battletoads Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Posted February 3, 2011 Of course, it wouldn't matter what he did some wouldn't like it ( even if they really did LOL ) Have to say, even tho it's a bit off topic, I read another far left site now and then (not rabble) and sometimes I think I'm on another planet ETA: saw this which explains some of the hysteria, there is no truth to the rumour put out by Liberal MP Dan McTeague re: 25 gb limit Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/news/gigabyte+Internet+myth/4214605/story.html#ixzz1CuOjME5v He lost me around the time he started rambling about how these e-protesters are like the muslim brotherhood. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Bonam, your idea sounds good in theory but in practice, Canadians only have two possible Internet wires coming into their homes: cable and telephone. It's a natural duopoly. That's not true at all. There are a variety of other sources of internet such wireless modems, 4G, satellite, and dedicated fiber. Anyone with a 4G phone pretty much doesn't even need a separate internet service since you can just use your phone as a WiFi hotspot / tether and connect your computers to it. At 10 Mbit/sec it's a comparable speed to wired broadband. Edited February 3, 2011 by Bonam Quote
fellowtraveller Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 Yes. Currently. But private, money-making entities, quite rationally, would prefer it another way. They'd prefer to have some control over which sorts of access, which directions, if you will, might be faster and easier to get to. Those of their own choosing. Get outta here with that nonsense. I'm openly, unequivocally wishing for continued freedom of information. The "Business knows best" school of thought--a religion by this point--is begging (whether they know it or not) for something else: not the lack of regulation, as they think they're calling for, but a regulation to be determined in the interests of those who control access to information. Where do you get this stuff? Shaw, Bell, Telus et all don't give a rats ass what you download, as long as it is huge files they can charge extra money for.... Porn, movies, Netflix, WikeLeaks, Harpers secret agenda- if its big, they want you to get it. Your notion they want to control the freedom of info is just silly and ass backwards. They do not make money if they restrict content . But you are advocating govt involvlement in content, when what is required in these circumstances is to open the provision of bandwidth wide open, a free for all that will result in Canadians paying far less than they do now- perhaps even as little as Americans and Europeans pay for this exact same service. The govt in this case is part of the problem, and the decsioon to oblige the CRTC to back off is a step in the right direction. Quote The government should do something.
fellowtraveller Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 That's not true at all. There are a variety of other sources of internet such wireless modems, 4G, satellite, and dedicated fiber. Just learned yesterday of some new technology that permits two way, high speed satellite exchange of data on a small rooftop dish. The old high speed download, dial up download services are on their way out. In some cases, a TV dish can serve both TV and data. Doesn't matter much for city dwellers, but farm people are going to love it. Quote The government should do something.
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 Where do you get this stuff? Shaw, Bell, Telus et all don't give a rats ass what you download, as long as it is huge files they can charge extra money for.... Porn, movies, Netflix, WikeLeaks, Harpers secret agenda- if its big, they want you to get it. Your notion they want to control the freedom of info is just silly and ass backwards. They do not make money if they restrict content . Not technically true. ISPs can make money by signing deals with web companies to provide preferred access to their websites. For example, your ISP could sign a deal with Google to ensure that you get maximum speed when accessing content via Google but only second-priority bandwidth when accessing other content. The debate about whether such deals should be allowed continues. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 I am under no obligation to use Google or any search engine. I am obliged to pay far too much for far too little if the CRTC gets bitchslapped by Bell. Looks like that screwing of consumers, that part at least, might be on hold now...... Quote The government should do something.
Topaz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 Do any of you know what the increase will be by your ISP? I just read mine and ie. basic high speed, they will give you 2G but anything between 2-300GB will be charged $2.00GB to $60.00 plus the monthly charge. So I guess you could say, customer could go from 45.00 unlimited to well over $100.00 monthly. My ISP says this will start as of the 1st of March. I wonder how many Tory supporters are peeved? Quote
scribblet Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Why would Tory supporters be peeved any more than anyone else, this isn't the fault of the gov't. it's the CRTC. This is interesting, how did Openmedia know who signed the petition ? http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/how-did-liberal-party-know-i-signed-anti-isp-usage-billing-petition/ Edited February 4, 2011 by scribblet Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Bonam Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Do any of you know what the increase will be by your ISP? I just read mine and ie. basic high speed, they will give you 2G but anything between 2-300GB will be charged $2.00GB to $60.00 plus the monthly charge. So I guess you could say, customer could go from 45.00 unlimited to well over $100.00 monthly. My ISP says this will start as of the 1st of March. I wonder how many Tory supporters are peeved? Er what? You sure you read that right? You are gonna get charged $2.00 for every GB beyond 2 GB/month? Most ISPs give you at least 100 GB before charging anything extra. You may have read something wrong. If it's true, I'd immediately cancel service with such an ISP. After all, I use over 200 GB/month. Edited February 4, 2011 by Bonam Quote
dre Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Not technically true. ISPs can make money by signing deals with web companies to provide preferred access to their websites. For example, your ISP could sign a deal with Google to ensure that you get maximum speed when accessing content via Google but only second-priority bandwidth when accessing other content. The debate about whether such deals should be allowed continues. Thats a worry for sure. The big worry is that the small handfull of teir 1 providers that own the majority of the backbone in North America are already actively becoming content providers. If one of them wanted to go into the movie rental business they can block netflix to wide swaths of the internet or slow it right down, as a means of building their own businesses. And thats exactly what they WILL do if they CAN do it. If they want to run a search engine business they can do the same to google, and if they want to run their own retailer they can do the same to Ebay. Thats why the proponents of net neutrality are not just people worried about the publics interest. The group is lead by online businesses like Google, Ebay, Skype, etc, etc. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Thats a worry for sure. The big worry is that the small handfull of teir 1 providers that own the majority of the backbone in North America are already actively becoming content providers. If one of them wanted to go into the movie rental business they can block netflix to wide swaths of the internet or slow it right down, as a means of building their own businesses. And thats exactly what they WILL do if they CAN do it. If they want to run a search engine business they can do the same to google, and if they want to run their own retailer they can do the same to Ebay. Thats why the proponents of net neutrality are not just people worried about the publics interest. The group is lead by online businesses like Google, Ebay, Skype, etc, etc. Right, which is why I think that even though net neutrality is something to strive for, it doesn't necessarily have to be a law passed by government. Quote
dre Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Right, which is why I think that even though net neutrality is something to strive for, it doesn't necessarily have to be a law passed by government. I dont see any other way to do it. If you look at the internet youll see why. Theres only a small handful Tier 1 networks, and its essentially a bunch of regional monopolies. Those companies can do the exact same thing to ISP's as ISP's are trying to us now. They ONLY way they wont is if they are forced not to. All those different services you mentioned a little ways up the page arent really different options. They all need to use the same infrastructure to get you to the network of your choice. http://sf0.org/thecunninglinguist/What-Is-The-Internet/ Take a quick look at that map. There IS no competition, besides ISP's tripping over each other to resell network traffic. But all those companies are doing is renting bandwidth from either AT&T or VERIZON, or QUEST. When you look at that map you dont see areas where theres a mixture of red and blue, or blue and green. You see vast areas of red, blue, green, black, gray, etc. Those are all major carriers that have government granted regional monopolies. Theyre already trying to become content providers or buying up content providers, and they absolutely WILL use their infrastucture to promote their content businesses and are already talking about it. This whole idea that "If providers start throttling or blocking, consumers will just go elsewhere!" philosophy only applies to end-point providers. But all they do is resell bandwidth! When it comes down to Tier 1 networks there IS no choice, and there IS no competition. And there SHOULDNT be. It makes no sense for 5 different Tier1 providers to have infrastructure in the same cities. Prices would go way up. Regional monopolies work as long as theyre regulated to ensure that carriers treat each others traffic fairly and without prejudice. Otherwise they wont. You arent going to get network neutrality without regulation which is exactly why so many web based businesses are siding with the regulatory bodies against the major carriers. They arent stupid, and they know whats coming. Edited February 4, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Scotty Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 The corporation is the one providing you with the option to purchase internet access from it. How is it limiting your freedoms? The fact that you think the price of a certain service is too high is not an infringement of your freedoms. We pay among the highest, if not the highest prices in the world for our telecommunications services, be it cable, satellite TV, cell phone service or internet. Why should we not complain when the reason appears to be government regulation which allowed the creation of and sustains the existence of a business model were oligarchies control what we pay, and profit nicely from it. The same could be said about our banking industry, btw, enormousy profitable because banking regulations shield them from outside competition. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Battletoads Posted February 4, 2011 Author Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Where do you get this stuff? Shaw, Bell, Telus et all don't give a rats ass what you download, as long as it is huge files they can charge extra money for.... Porn, movies, Netflix, WikeLeaks, Harpers secret agenda- if its big, they want you to get it. Your notion they want to control the freedom of info is just silly and ass backwards. They do not make money if they restrict content . Every one of those companies has had packet shaping technology for years. (Packet shaping technology degrades the speed at which you can download certain materials, what the materials are is up to the isp). Edited February 4, 2011 by Battletoads Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Battletoads Posted February 4, 2011 Author Report Posted February 4, 2011 Right, which is why I think that even though net neutrality is something to strive for, it doesn't necessarily have to be a law passed by government. you've said it yourself, you can only count of private enterprise to do one thing, earn profit. Unless Net Neutrality is mandated it will never happen, plain and simple. Why?, because a neutral net is not in the interest of anyone who earns money off selling access to the net. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Bonam Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 you've said it yourself, you can only count of private enterprise to do one thing, earn profit. Unless Net Neutrality is mandated it will never happen, plain and simple. Why?, because a neutral net is not in the interest of anyone who earns money off selling access to the net. But it IS in the interest of the many other companies that do not sell access to the net, but do provide content on it... and they have influence. Quote
August1991 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) But private, money-making entities, quite rationally, would prefer it another way. They'd prefer to have some control over which sorts of access, which directions, if you will, might be faster and easier to get to. Those of their own choosing.Bloodyminded, it is arguably better to depend on someone acting in their own best interest rather than to depend on their kindness.Between corporations in a competitive environment, and the kindness of bureaucrats, I would choose the Evul Corporations. you've said it yourself, you can only count of private enterprise to do one thing, earn profit. Unless Net Neutrality is mandated it will never happen, plain and simple. Why?, because a neutral net is not in the interest of anyone who earns money off selling access to the net.And a government bureaucrat is "neutral"?Battletoads, you are under the naive belief that bureaucrats/politicians are "neutral". This might be the first thread, where "The Right" looks both confused and conflicted. But one thing is clear, I would want few in this thread to be making any decisions for myself and the internet. Some of the comments here are downright scary, naive and backwards. Luckily the techies got the message, mobilized and the Liberals then the Conservatives fell in line.So Techies are Leftists. Or, do you mean that Techies just want a Free Lunch?That's not true at all. There are a variety of other sources of internet such wireless modems, 4G, satellite, and dedicated fiber. Anyone with a 4G phone pretty much doesn't even need a separate internet service since you can just use your phone as a WiFi hotspot / tether and connect your computers to it. At 10 Mbit/sec it's a comparable speed to wired broadband. Bonam, most WiFi hotspots in Canada (eg. Starbucks) rely on a cable TV or telephone line connection to the Internet. Cellphone connection, to the extent cellphone service is not provided by the Big Three (of Rogers, Telus, Bell), may provide competition in the future. But cellphones cannot provide sufficient bandwidth now.The basic fact is that most people connect to the Internet through their phone line, or their cable TV line. (Another possibility is to use your hydro line to connect to the Internet - and yes, it's feasible. At bottom, we're looking at wires into houses.) You mention fibre optic cable. In fact, that's what I have in Montreal but it still goes through my cable TV line. ----- How often do I have to say this? In any local market, there is a duopoly. (eg. Rogers/Videotron for cable. Bell for the phone line.) This duopoly must be regulated. If these main "Last Mile" owners can't charge per Gigabyte, I suspect that they'll just return to traffic shaping. That's dumb, but what else to do? Edited February 4, 2011 by August1991 Quote
August1991 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Just learned yesterday of some new technology that permits two way, high speed satellite exchange of data on a small rooftop dish. The old high speed download, dial up download services are on their way out.Sounds good in theory, and technology may change, but I doubt this makes sense froma cost sense.Your GPS device can easily pick up a satellite signal. But could a satellite pick up a signal from your GPS? When Neil Armstrong was on the moon, a vast array of antennae existed to receive signals from the LM. Local wifi can handle such data volumes if users are relatively small in number. Even cellphone networks can manage this if bandwidth is not large. (I occasionally use an iPhone for connecting my laptop to the Internet. It works, but slowly.) So for the foreseeable future, we must rely on wired connections and for most of us, that means two choices. If the owners of these two wires can't charge per Gigabyte used, they will get their money some other way. As Coyne said, the bandwidth hogs want the rest of us to pay for their gluttony. Edited February 4, 2011 by August1991 Quote
dre Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Between corporations in a competitive environment, and the kindness of bureaucrats, I would choose the Evul Corporations. No you wouldnt. You only say that because youve never lived in a world where that choice has been made. The reality is either of those extremes would be an unmitigated disaster. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
August1991 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) No you wouldnt. You only say that because youve never lived in a world where that choice has been made. The reality is either of those extremes would be an unmitigated disaster.The best protection against idiocy is choice. And the best way to trust someone is to know that they are acting in their own best interest.Bureaucrats rarely offer either. Politicians (in democracies) at least accept the fact of choice when they face election. I once had this 18th century quote of Montesquieu as my tagline: «L'effet naturel du commerce est de porter à la paix. Deux nations qui négocient ensemble se rendent réciproquement dépendantes : si l'une a intérêt d'acheter, l'autre a intérêt de vendre, et toutes les unions sont fondées sur des besoins mutuels.» (You can use Google translate to get the gist. I still use the quote on my French forum.) The Scot Adam Smith stood on the shoulders of the French Enlightenment. (Sorry for the vaguely related diatribe/thread drift.) Edited February 4, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Topaz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Why would Tory supporters be peeved any more than anyone else, this isn't the fault of the gov't. it's the CRTC. This is interesting, how did Openmedia know who signed the petition ? http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/how-did-liberal-party-know-i-signed-anti-isp-usage-billing-petition/ I know it may not be the fault of the government, for once, but they do have the power to stop it. They have thousands of e-mails on this and the Tories can't afford to let it pass. Quote
August1991 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) I know it may not be the fault of the government, for once, but they do have the power to stop it. They have thousands of e-mails on this and the Tories can't afford to let it pass.By some reports, there are 300,000 emails. There are 30 million Canadians.Should 1% of Canadians have the power to take money from the other 99%? Is that democracy? (Make no mistake. The 1% are download hogs. The rest of us are standard users.) Heck, if we're talking democracy - one person, one vote. Should 51% of Canadians have the power to take money from the other 49%? Edited February 4, 2011 by August1991 Quote
charter.rights Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 By some reports, there are 300,000 emails. There are 30 million Canadians. Should 1% of Canadians have the power to take money from the other 99%? Is that democracy? (Make no mistake. The 1% are download hogs. The rest of us are standard users.) Heck, if we're talking democracy - one person, one vote. Should 51% of Canadians have the power to take money from the other 49%? It isn't a democracy when a monopoly like Bell can demand that the rest of Canada pay for over usage just because it is profitable for them. The practice allows Bell and Rogers to cram more users on a single IP giving them more profits on less bandwidth. The government represents US. If 1% of "us" are upset then the government should be using its power to investigate and rescind silly decisions like the CRTC made in support of the monopolies. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
punked Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 By some reports, there are 300,000 emails. There are 30 million Canadians. Should 1% of Canadians have the power to take money from the other 99%? Is that democracy? (Make no mistake. The 1% are download hogs. The rest of us are standard users.) Heck, if we're talking democracy - one person, one vote. Should 51% of Canadians have the power to take money from the other 49%? That isn't the way it works if 300,000 email that means there are at least 3 million supporting the issue probably more that is as many people as voted for the Liberals last election. No you are wrong if you think that is how it works. Quote
August1991 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 It isn't a democracy when a monopoly like Bell can demand that the rest of Canada pay for over usage just because it is profitable for them... I love when bandwidth hogs hide behind Evul Corporations to justify their compulsive behaviour. (You want it? You pay for it.) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.