maple_leafs182 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 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. Because the internet is the free flow of information, you may not always agree with the information and it may not always be true but it is still the free flow of information, in a democracy there is nothing more important. I understand what you mean by them offering a service and I would agree with you on most other goods or services but not the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Because the internet is the free flow of information, you may not always agree with the information and it may not always be true but it is still the free flow of information, in a democracy there is nothing more important. I understand what you mean by them offering a service and I would agree with you on most other goods or services but not the internet. Yep,There has never been a more powerful tool to spread information or organize citizens, the idea that the sole gatekeepers to this network should be private corporations is ludicrous. Whats even more ludicrous is that in Canada access is controlled by what amounts to a monopoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Whats even more ludicrous is that in Canada access is controlled by what amounts to a monopoly. True. But I ignore it and willing to sue if any dodo try to tell me what "illegal" channels I can view. Whatever radio waves come onto my property are mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) According to the lastest from Tony Clement via twitter: RosieBarton: Is it true you will overturn internet decision if crtc does not back down? Clement: True. CRTC must go back to drawing board http://twitter.com/tonyclement_MP Good news so far, hopefully it keeps coming. The petition is at about 378 000 so far, if you're against this keep enouraging people to sign it. Edited February 3, 2011 by Battletoads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Because the internet is the free flow of information, you may not always agree with the information and it may not always be true but it is still the free flow of information, in a democracy there is nothing more important. I understand what you mean by them offering a service and I would agree with you on most other goods or services but not the internet. So, what, you expect the internet to just fall for free from the sky? Providing a service like this costs money. I see no reason to believe or expect that the government could better provide this service than can private enterprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 So, what, you expect the internet to just fall for free from the sky? Providing a service like this costs money. I see no reason to believe or expect that the government could better provide this service than can private enterprise. ? I don't see the government slowing down/blocking/or limiting bandwidth of its competitors... and not trusting private enterprise to be the sole provider of an essential service is a very good reason to have a government option Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 So, what, you expect the internet to just fall for free from the sky? Providing a service like this costs money. I see no reason to believe or expect that the government could better provide this service than can private enterprise. Agreed...and quite incredible that what started as an ARPANET project has now become a "basic human right". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Agreed...and quite incredible that what started as an ARPANET project has now become a "basic human right". That's how addictions work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 ? I don't see the government slowing down/blocking/or limiting bandwidth of its competitors... Really? I disagree. When the government decides it is gonna provide a service, it tends to outlaw the competition. Just take a look at health care in Canada. and not trusting private enterprise to be the sole provider of an essential service is a very good reason to have a government option I don't trust the government any more than I do private enterprise. Private enterprise is simple and predictable, you can rely on it to have one objective: make more money. Government, on the other hand, has a wide range of other objectives, some obvious, some less so, that make it far less predictable and reliable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 So, what, you expect the internet to just fall for free from the sky? Providing a service like this costs money. I see no reason to believe or expect that the government could better provide this service than can private enterprise. The thing is todays telecomms didnt build the internet. Much of it was built by public investment and much of it exists on public land. Private providers made a deal with the government to able to use it, but the deal was theyd be regulated by the public. So if they adopt policies that violate the public interest they need to get smacked around. They knew the deal... they signed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 The thing is todays telecomms didnt build the internet. Much of it was built by public investment and much of it exists on public land. Private providers made a deal with the government to able to use it, but the deal was theyd be regulated by the public. So if they adopt policies that violate the public interest they need to get smacked around. They knew the deal... they signed it. So by that logic, would any provider who did build their own infrastructure then be guaranteed to be exempt from all these regulations? Or is that a little technicality that would be overlooked when the government decided to start regulating these things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 So, what, you expect the internet to just fall for free from the sky? Providing a service like this costs money. I see no reason to believe or expect that the government could better provide this service than can private enterprise. I dunno. BC Tel sure as hell provided better service than Telus does. In any case these telecomms didnt build all the infrastructure they use, and they dont own MOST of the land that its on. If they want to use it they get to follow the rules. If they dont wanna follow them theres other companies that will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) So by that logic, would any provider who did build their own infrastructure then be guaranteed to be exempt from all these regulations? Or is that a little technicality that would be overlooked when the government decided to start regulating these things? You mean a satellite company for example that doesnt need to string wires and cables across public land? I think they actually ARE less regulated. Not sure though. In any case there should be some kind of fair deal. We want these companies to be profitable so they invest in infrastructure, but in most cases the public invested a lot too so it makes sense that theres going to be some conditions if we turn it over to them. Edited February 3, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Really? I disagree. When the government decides it is gonna provide a service, it tends to outlaw the competition. Just take a look at health care in Canada. Most Canadians see Healthcare as a right not a business. I don't trust the government any more than I do private enterprise. Private enterprise is simple and predictable, you can rely on it to have one objective: make more money. Government, on the other hand, has a wide range of other objectives, some obvious, some less so, that make it far less predictable and reliable. No one would be forcing you to use or pay for a public system run by a crown corp. Saskaschewan for instance has Sasktel, a crown telecom corp, yet there are still numerous other private ISPs in sask providing the same services. and as previously mentioned sasktel kicks money back into the tax system, to the toon of about 100 million dollars. You're going to have to do better than 'Oh no them feds are bad' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) . Edited February 3, 2011 by Battletoads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) I dunno. BC Tel sure as hell provided better service than Telus does. How so? The service that is available now is vastly superior (faster) to what it was when BC Tel ceased to exist. Of course, that is mostly due to technological progress. You can't really compare the two. In any case these telecomms didnt build all the infrastructure they use, and they dont own MOST of the land that its on. If they want to use it they get to follow the rules. If they dont wanna follow them theres other companies that will. Right, because pushing out some of the few ISPs that compete with each other so that the fewer remaining ones can have something even closer to a monopoly is somehow a good idea? Edited February 3, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Most Canadians see Healthcare as a right not a business. Good for them. It's still a service that costs money and is provided by people. If you want to claim the labor and efforts of others as your "right" I can only disagree. It is fundamentally impossible from my point of view to regard something that can only be given to you by other people as a right. No one would be forcing you to use or pay for a public system run by a crown corp. Saskaschewan for instance has Sasktel, a crown telecom corp, yet there are still numerous other private ISPs in sask providing the same services. A public system has access to public money. If part of my taxes are already going to pay for a service, they have an unfair advantage over their competitors. and as previously mentioned sasktel kicks money back into the tax system, to the toon of about 100 million dollars. And? You're going to have to do better than 'Oh no them feds are bad' I didn't say anything like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) How so? The service that is available now is vastly superior (faster) to what it was when BC Tel ceased to exist. Of course, that is mostly due to technological progress. You can't really compare the two. Right, because pushing out some of the few ISPs that compete with each other so that the fewer remaining ones can have something even closer to a monopoly is somehow a good idea? No but me paying more than everyone else on the god damn planet doesnt seem like a good idea either. Neither does bandwidth throttling, content blocking, or any of the other stuff these guys are trying to get the right to do. Youre right though... you dont want to chase the private sector out of the game. But that doesnt mean there shouldnt be rules on how they do business with us, while using our infrastructure and land. Edited February 3, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) How so? The service that is available now is vastly superior (faster) to what it was when BC Tel ceased to exist. Of course, that is mostly due to technological progress. You can't really compare the two. Just better all-round customer service. Support people that spoke english... stuff like that. Telus is definately one of the worst companies Iv ever done business with in my whole life. Edited February 3, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 No but me paying more than everyone else on the god damn planet doesnt seem like a good idea either. Neither does bandwidth throttling, content blocking, or any of the other stuff these guys are trying to get the right to do. I agree that bandwidth throttling and content blocking are bad. I just think that the best solution to such things is competition. If you have two ISPs in town, one which throttles bandwidth and one which does not, you get a free choice. If one starts to throttle, the other can capitalize on that by stealing customers away from it. Youre right though... you dont want to chase the private sector out of the game. But that doesnt mean there shouldnt be rules on how they do business with us, while using our infrastructure and land. I think the distinction of our infrastructure and land is ultimately futile, since once regulations were in place, they would apply to all ISPs regardless of where their infrastructure came from. If they use some public infrastructure and build some of their own do they have to abide by part of the regulations? It just doesn't make sense. Either the regulations are a good idea or they are not. Who built what 20 years ago makes little difference. Just better all-round customer service. Support people that spoke english... stuff like that. I'll take technology that just works and is fast and doesn't need support over support any day, heh. For example, I have Comcast... I've heard terrible things about their customer support, but fortunately for me, I've never had to use it. Unlike when I lived in Vancouver and the internet (provided by Shaw) failed every few weeks or months, I've never had so much as a few second outage here. To me, that's better service right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 A public system has access to public money. If part of my taxes are already going to pay for a service, they have an unfair advantage over their competitors. Well you're a rather dense one. If a crown crop is kicking money back into the tax system, aka making profit, how is it that 'your' tax dollers are being used? Seems 'your' taxes will be lower.And I don't see any real unfair advantage a crown corp has over a private. Shouldn't theprivate businesses adapt and out compete the lazy and bloated government? I mean that is what you lot believe isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Well you're a rather dense one. If a crown crop is kicking money back into the tax system, aka making profit, how is it that 'your' tax dollers are being used? Seems 'your' taxes will be lower. Umm, cause they don't always make a profit, and when they don't they are propped up by public money. See CBC. And I don't see any real unfair advantage a crown corp has over a private. Besides public funding? Shouldn't theprivate businesses adapt and out compete the lazy and bloated government? The government can make laws that favor it. It's not an even playing field. See health care. I mean that is what you lot believe isn't it? What lot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Good for them. It's still a service that costs money and is provided by people. If you want to claim the labor and efforts of others as your "right" I can only disagree. It is fundamentally impossible from my point of view to regard something that can only be given to you by other people as a right. Maybe its like that in the states (I doubt it), but up here in Canada we enjoy numrous rights provided by other people. Feel free to read the charter some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Maybe its like that in the states (I doubt it), but up here in Canada we enjoy numrous rights I don't care what "rights" you "enjoy". I am telling you what I believe a right can and cannot be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Umm, cause they don't always make a profit, and when they don't they are propped up by public money. See CBC. Private corperations don't always turn a profit every quater either. Besides public funding? The public purse if finite. The government can make laws that favor it. It's not an even playing field. See health care. If the governments actions are to the detriment of Canadians said government will likely be removed from power by an election. What lot? You absolute free market lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.