DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Canadians - Stop Charges per Byte of Internet!
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 43 of 43, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/03/2011 11:44:51 AM · #26
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It appears the Government is going to overrule the CRTC ruling.

An election is in the air! There's nobody the Cons won't suck up to now.

Election, meh.

Message edited by author 2011-02-03 11:55:47.
 02/03/2011 12:19:02 PM · #27
Apparently, The Government is going to review the CRTC decision on March 1st. So, perhaps if we all write to Tony Clement, we can drown out the lobbyists from the big providers.
 02/03/2011 12:22:59 PM · #28
You can bet your bottom dollar that the decision will be reversed. March 1st is a good date. The budget will come down shortly after that date, and the government will stand or fall. Should it fall, its reversal of the CRTC decision will be fresh in the minds of 18-25 year old gamers and movie pirates, and out they'll come in droves to vote in the saviour of their bandwidth.
 02/03/2011 12:25:32 PM · #29
O, Louis, so cynical... (not the view of the Government, but the young voters...)
 02/03/2011 01:03:54 PM · #30
Originally posted by xianart:
O, Louis, so cynical...

On the other hand, I love everyone and everything. :-)
 02/03/2011 01:47:24 PM · #31
I used to be on a bandwidth abuse team for an ISP. Bandwidth costs money and when I was on the team there was a small percentage of users consuming the lion's share of the bandwidth. 95% of the people back then just surfed the web and read email. The other 5% pirated movies, software, TV show etc. In other words, they weren't using their service for anything legit. And really why should Joe and Jane Public pay for increasing the bandwidth of those 5%? In those terms it makes sense to charge the people using more because they are using considerably more than a typical consumer and like I said bandwidth costs money. (We're talking well over half a terabyte vs less than a gigabyte.)

Fast forward to today. Now we have Netflix and millions of Youtube videos and streaming everything. Now Mom and Pop aren't limited to email and looking at the odd web page. They are watching hours and hours of video and video-chatting with their kids and grandkids. In short, the higher usage is legit. High usage isn't the exception any more but rather the rule.

One of the remarks made previously really struck me. A lot of providers also sell TV service. So of course, downloading shows via iTunes, Netflex etc. means we aren't watching TV in the traditional sense which means the cable/satellite provider doesn't make any money. (On the other hand I am not sure how TV producers look at internet viewing in terms of ratings but that's a different topic)
 02/03/2011 01:52:36 PM · #32
lol...this was just posted on CBC.CA 1 minute before my post.
//www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/03/crtc-internet-clement.html?ref=rss
 02/03/2011 02:54:46 PM · #33
Originally posted by Citadel:
lol...this was just posted on CBC.CA 1 minute before my post.
//www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/03/crtc-internet-clement.html?ref=rss

Originally posted by CBC News:
The CRTC must reverse its decision that ends unlimited internet access plans offered by smaller internet providers, or the federal government will intervene, Industry Minister Tony Clement says."

I think ignorant activism is confusing the service Jon Q Public receives from Big Provider, versus service Poindexter Uncommon receives from Small Provider. And who's to say Small Provider doesn't cap Poindexter? This ruling was only between Big Provider and Small Provider.

Am I missing something? Hello?

The only way this will help Jon Q Public is if it sets a precedent which can be trickled down to us lowlives.

My question to the Big Providers in Canada is, how do all the providers in the USA manage to survive without setting caps, huh? Fucktards!
 02/03/2011 02:57:36 PM · #34
1. Tony Clement is piping up in case an election happens soon.
2. This CRTC thing doesn't make any difference to regular people.
 02/03/2011 03:03:02 PM · #35
The CRTC decision was only between the big guys that own the infrastructure and their wholesale customers (the downstream providers like ISPs and services such as NetFlix). It was never concerned directly with the consumer. But the consumer will get hit when the wholesalers have to start passing on the overage fees to the peons.
 02/03/2011 03:30:32 PM · #36
Originally posted by Citadel:
(On the other hand I am not sure how TV producers look at internet viewing in terms of ratings but that's a different topic)


Online viewing only counts for the Neilson ratings if it meets certain criteria, namely that it has the same length commercial breaks as traditional television. There is really only one service which provides this, and that is Xfinity(Comcast) which is only bundled with traditional cable anyway. I find it really annoying that the industry is so stagnant that they continue to rely solely on Neilson (statistical representation) when online viewing provides user-by-user granularity on viewing habits and demographic information. They have the added bonus of knowing when users actually clicked the ad! This should be more valuable than television ads where you are unable to get immediate feedback as to their effectiveness!

I have only heard of online viewing actually coming into consideration once, and that was to allow Dollhouse to have a second season before getting canceled, instead of just canceling it after the fist season as they would otherwise have done.

(edit: spelling)

Message edited by author 2011-02-03 15:31:36.
 02/03/2011 03:42:22 PM · #37
Originally posted by Louis:
The CRTC decision was only between the big guys that own the infrastructure and their wholesale customers (the downstream providers like ISPs and services such as NetFlix). It was never concerned directly with the consumer. But the consumer will get hit when the wholesalers have to start passing on the overage fees to the peons.

Doesn't Cogeco own its infrastructure in Burlington? Bell? I'm a retail customer of theirs, not of some third party wholesaler. Of course, my hate for all of them is equal.
 02/03/2011 04:50:10 PM · #38
Yeah, but Cogeco already caps you. It's 60 gigs or something at the moment.
 02/03/2011 07:11:46 PM · #39
Atlantic Canada has no caps on its internet. That said, we have crappy slow internet...but we can have as much as we want.
 02/03/2011 08:50:00 PM · #40
Originally posted by Louis:
the Savior of their bandwidth.


I like this. Has almost a religious flavor. :)
 02/03/2011 08:52:10 PM · #41
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

My question to the Big Providers in Canada is, how do all the providers in the USA manage to survive without setting caps, huh? Fucktards!


The big providers in the US either already do have caps, or have long range plans to initiate them.
The ol' boiling the frog thing don't ja know.
 02/03/2011 10:07:15 PM · #42
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by Louis:
the Savior of their bandwidth.


I like this. Has almost a religious flavor. :)

You edited in a capital S and edited out the Canadian U. What the hell are you doing?!
 02/04/2011 02:06:53 PM · #43
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by Louis:
the Savior of their bandwidth.


I like this. Has almost a religious flavor. :)

You edited in a capital S and edited out the Canadian U. What the hell are you doing?!


Sorry. It was my "Free Will Baptist" spell checker. I tried to stop it.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 01:32:37 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 01:32:37 AM EDT.