Support NeoGAF

[lunarworks]

http://tonyclement.ca/EN/3413/124561

tony clement just gave a durrr durrr response

though he says it will be looked at - im not sure how anyone needs to look at it long to realize its a sham

The Conservatives only care about wedge issues. Unless it needlessly riles-up their base, like the census and gun control, it's not on their radar.

However, they're underestimating the internet. Mess with it at your own peril. Right now only "nerds" are up to speed on the issue, but these days anger spreads quickly and virulently. The whole public is gonna be aware very soon.

 

[Kifimbo]

Maxime Bernier was the best thing that happened to the Minister of Industry. So of course he lost his job. They gave him Foreign Affairs, where he didn't belong and was clueless. The rest is history.

 

[Zombie James]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/...ing-what-do-you-think-of-the-crtc-ruling.html

 

[Stumpokapow]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/...ing-what-do-you-think-of-the-crtc-ruling.html

97% against UBB
3% for UBB

 

[TheRagnCajun]

I love the bit about light users subsidizing the heavy users. As if rates would go down at all.

 

[DopeyFish]

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/...rnet-usage-based-billing-clement-garneau.html

liberal party wants decision reversed

 

[Slavik81]

I love the bit about light users subsidizing the heavy users. As if rates would go down at all.

When you have a marketplace like the Canadian telecoms market, you're going to have that problem regardless of what the billing method is. It really bugs me that they've tried to disguise a price-hike as a switch in billing systems. They're probably forever doomed the concept of usage-based billing because it will forever be associated with this moneygrab and abuse of market power.

They'll have left us with a stupid cell-phone plan style industry. Data will never become a commodity, and every company will keep offering nonsensical and difficult to compare plans. And phone/cable companies love that. Look at what they've done to their own industries.

If this move succeeds, Bell wins. If it doesn't, Bell still wins.

 

[mjemirzian]

Would be nice if Bell and Rogers increased their caps to make up for this change, but we all know it's just a brazen money grab and caps/prices will only get worse.

 

[Oxymoron]

Maxime Bernier was the best thing that happened to the Minister of Industry. So of course he lost his job. They gave him Foreign Affairs, where he didn't belong and was clueless. The rest is history.

Hahaha, this is literally the inverse of what is true. The CRTC's deregulatory fever is a direct result of the time Bernier spent at Industry, and the priorities, rules, and procedures he put in place at the time. If you want to blame only one person for the CRTC allowing Bell to go forward with this, blame Maxime "government probably shouldn't regulate ISPs at all, actually" Bernier.

 

[amrod]

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/...rnet-usage-based-billing-clement-garneau.html

liberal party wants decision reversed

This is enough to make me wanna vote liberal

 

[Entropia]

There truly is a UBB defense force. I sent an email to a friend explaining what the issue is with UBB, and she basically replied that it's a logical business decision to do something like this, and asked why it's such a foreign concept that people be responsible with their usage.

There are two sides to every argument though. If you were selling something, say, apples, and I bought wholesale apples from you at a discounted price and resold them to people for a price cheaper than you were selling your apples... you would probably not be too happy about that. I'm just reselling YOUR apples! If people want your apples, why shouldn't they buy them directly from you? So you stop selling me the apples at such a great deal. It sucks for me, it sucks for my apple buyers, but it is a logical business decision.

 

[YYZ]

Your friend is comparing apples to bandwidth. Goddamn I hope she's hot at least.

 

[Oxymoron]

This is enough to make me wanna vote liberal

Note that the Liberal position is a lot weaker than the NDP position. The Liberals have come out against this specific decision, which allows Bell to force smaller DSL resellers to implement UBB. They don't have a position on UBB itself, however, and have no problem with Bell, Rogers et al screwing over their own customers. In contrast, the NDP wants UBB gone, at all levels.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

There truly is a UBB defense force. I sent an email to a friend explaining what the issue is with UBB, and she basically replied that it's a logical business decision to do something like this, and asked why it's such a foreign concept that people be responsible with their usage.

hate to be mean but your friend is pretty stupid

 

[Entropia]

Your friend is comparing apples to bandwidth. Goddamn I hope she's hot at least.

She's a cutey, but wouldn't let me smang it. Disappoint.

 

[DopeyFish]

There truly is a UBB defense force. I sent an email to a friend explaining what the issue is with UBB, and she basically replied that it's a logical business decision to do something like this, and asked why it's such a foreign concept that people be responsible with their usage.

#1 data isn't a resource, it's a gateway... it's like toll highways... they're not taking something irreplaceable and selling it cheaper

#2 - the rates they're charging consumers and in turn, their competitors (an anti-competitive and monopolistic gesture) are completely bullshit. it's like charging $10 for a bottle of water from a stand you setup right beside a clean fresh water lake... sure... there was work involved in getting that water in that bottle, but it isn't worth anywhere near the price its being sold at

your friend is wrong...

 

[Zzoram]

Note that the Liberal position is a lot weaker than the NDP position. The Liberals have come out against this specific decision, which allows Bell to force smaller DSL resellers to implement UBB. They don't have a position on UBB itself, however, and have no problem with Bell, Rogers et al screwing over their own customers. In contrast, the NDP wants UBB gone, at all levels.

Yes but the Liberals actually have a chance at governing. NDP will never govern federally.

 

[Slavik81]

hate to be mean but your friend is pretty stupid

No. She's entirely right. She's looking at the situation from Bell's point of view and her analysis is perfect. Bell doesn't want to have to sell its bandwidth to resellers at low prices when it could just sell its bandwidth to customers directly. It absolutely is a logical business decision for Bell.

The part where her argument breaks down is that Bell's point of view is unimportant. They are a near monopoly in many areas and what's best for Bell is not what is best for the rest of the world. That's why we regulate monopolies. Logical business decisions for monopolies are bad for society.

She could be talking about imaginary widgets and her argument would still be correct. It's quite embarrassing to be wrong, especially when you're insulting someone behind their back, so I hope you feel somewhat bad about yourself.

 

[Lothars]

97% against UBB
3% for UBB

I am truly dissapointed that there's even 3% for UBB.

 

[Lothars]

No. She's entirely right. She's looking at the situation from Bell's point of view and her analysis is perfect. Bell doesn't want to have to sell its bandwidth to resellers at low prices when it could just sell its bandwidth to customers directly. It absolutely is a logical business decision for Bell.

The part where her argument breaks down is that Bell's point of view is unimportant. They are a near monopoly in many areas and what's best for Bell is not what is best for the rest of the world. That's why we regulate monopolies. Logical business decisions for monopolies are bad for society.

She could be talking about imaginary widgets and her argument would still be correct. It's quite embarrassing to be wrong, especially when you're insulting someone behind their back, so I hope you feel somewhat bad about yourself.

Yeah and because they are a monopoly it breaks down and it does make her argument look all the more stupid.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

I am truly dissapointed that there's even 3% for UBB.

Bell CEO: "Everyone, vote on the CBC poll now!"

 

[DopeyFish]

I am truly dissapointed that there's even 3% for UBB.

not even

i dont mind paying for what i use.... just not at a 100-200x markup bell is selling

$5 for 200GB is fair value, not $200-400.

 

[Entropia]

No. She's entirely right. She's looking at the situation from Bell's point of view and her analysis is perfect. Bell doesn't want to have to sell its bandwidth to resellers at low prices when it could just sell its bandwidth to customers directly. It absolutely is a logical business decision for Bell.

The part where her argument breaks down is that Bell's point of view is unimportant. They are a near monopoly in many areas and what's best for Bell is not what is best for the rest of the world. That's why we regulate monopolies. Logical business decisions for monopolies are bad for society.

She could be talking about imaginary widgets and her argument would still be correct. It's quite embarrassing to be wrong, especially when you're insulting someone behind their back, so I hope you feel somewhat bad about yourself.

I'm not saying that she's wrong, at all, from Bell's PoV she's right. However, her response to my email was fairly complacent towards UBB.

 

[Zombie James]

http://business.financialpost.com/2...sts-internet-caps-suitable-for-vast-majority/

The central defence from Bell: “Congestion is clearly an issue at this point. Think about the incredible growth in bandwidth consumption,” Mirko Bibic, senior vice-president of regulatory affairs said in an interview late last week.

Oh, so Bell's having congestion issues because of the HUGE amounts of bandwidth users ar--

Bell has been “sensitive” to user patterns, aligning them with suitable pricing on “first stage” data caps, Mr. Bibic says. “The vast majority — and I mean the vast majority — don’t even come close to using up their allotted bandwidth.”

Figures provided by the company indicate half of all retail customers use less than five gigabytes (5GB) a month, a relatively small amount by today’s standards. “Heavy users” drag the overall average up to 16GB.

Roughly one in ten exceeds their monthly cap, a Bell spokesman said, and is billed for it accordingly. Bell charges overage fees of between $1 to $2.50 per gigabyte depending on province.

Bell logic in a nutshell: There's a huge congestion problem because the vast majority don't even come close to the cap.

...

 

[YYZ]

Stupid argument deserves a stupid response. Don't trust that commie Mirko Bibic.

 

[DopeyFish]

wow 16 gb huge congestion LOL

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

Wow, it's almost 10,000 away from 200,000 on the petition.

 

[Slavik81]

I am truly dissapointed that there's even 3% for UBB.

I'm sure that most of those 3% are in favour of the concept, which could mean lower prices for most people, and more efficient utilization of our network. The idea of UBB's not bad.

I went to vote, but then abstained because I support UBB in principle, but abhor what's actually happening. I wouldn't want to vote and somehow make it seem like I support Bell's cashgrab.

Yeah and because they are a monopoly it breaks down and it does make her argument look all the more stupid.

That doesn't make her stupid, nor does it give you leeway to insult her. Refute her argument and be done with it.

Seriously. Treat people with a little respect. Even if you disagree with them.

 

[Oxymoron]

Yes but the Liberals actually have a chance at governing. NDP will never govern federally.

Not with that attitude they won't


But seriously, the NDP is aiming to come out of the next election campaign with a large enough caucus to be able to force the Liberals into accepting a coalition government. This is the kind of issue that the NDP actually cares deeply about but the Liberals only make a show of to get votes, and having Dippers around the cabinet table in government is the only realistic way I can see of getting consumer friendly internet regulations. The Liberal Industry critic, Marc Garneau, has a particular habit of doing corporations' bidding, and I'd hate for it to be his call, so it's important to have a large NDP presence in the next parliament.

 

[Lothars]

not even

i dont mind paying for what i use.... just not at a 100-200x markup bell is selling

$5 for 200GB is fair value, not $200-400.

That's a good point but if UBB exists in the form it's now than the companies will be using it to rip off consumers, I don't have any faith in any of the telecom's we have here but if UBB is fair than all the more power to it.

 

[enzo_gt]

http://business.financialpost.com/2...sts-internet-caps-suitable-for-vast-majority/



Oh, so Bell's having congestion issues because of the HUGE amounts of bandwidth users ar--



Bell logic in a nutshell: There's a huge congestion problem because the vast majority don't even come close to the cap.

...

What the hell is this BS? Is Bell run by idiots or something?!

Spoiler

Rhetorical question.

 

[Lothars]

I'm sure that most of those 3% are in favour of the concept, which could mean lower prices for most people, and more efficient utilization of our network. The idea of UBB's not bad.

I went to vote, but then abstained because I support UBB in principle, but abhor what's actually happening. I wouldn't want to vote and somehow make it seem like I support Bell's cashgrab.


That doesn't make her stupid, nor does it give you leeway to insult her. Refute her argument and be done with it.

Seriously. Treat people with a little respect. Even if you disagree with them.

I never said she's stupid, she's not, I said her Argument is. it's two different things.

 

[Firestorm]

I voted NDP due to my MP's stance on net neutrality in the last election. I'll do the same in the next election. He seems to give a shit regardless of media attention.

 

[Slavik81]

I never said she's stupid, she's not, I said her Argument is. it's two different things.

I was presuming you were defending -Pyromaniac-, who did. My point was really aimed at him, and those defending that sort of stance.

 

[the_prime_mover]

I am pro UBB if the charges to consumers reflect the fair market price. However a monopoly has no incentive to set prices at a fair level. Given the importance of internet telecommunications in modern society, I see little reason to keep the infrastructure in the hands of private companies.

 

[Lothars]

I was presuming you were defending -Pyromaniac-. My point was really aimed at him, and those defending that sort of stance.

I apologize, I wasn't I just don't agree with her argument but my post wasn't a personal attack on her.

 

[dream]

This might only be peripherally related but...the state of our fucking gov't, I swear:

EDMONTON - Tory MLAs on Monday voted against making information about the freebies they receive easily available to the public online.

The gifts made headlines last year when The Journal revealed that Tory MLAs accepted west coast fishing trips, concert tickets, rounds of golf and other gifts from lobbyists, oil companies and a billionaire businessman.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news...nst+online+gift+disclosure/4198093/story.html

 

[Stumpokapow]

I am pro UBB if the charges to consumers reflect the fair market price. However a monopoly has no incentive to set prices at a fair level. Given the importance of internet telecommunications in modern society, I see little reason to keep the infrastructure in the hands of private companies.

That still doesn't make you pro-UBB, it just makes you not theoretically opposed to caps.

UBB is the plan that lets Bell charge TekSavvy, not the plan that lets Bell charge you.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

No. She's entirely right. She's looking at the situation from Bell's point of view and her analysis is perfect. Bell doesn't want to have to sell its bandwidth to resellers at low prices when it could just sell its bandwidth to customers directly. It absolutely is a logical business decision for Bell.

The part where her argument breaks down is that Bell's point of view is unimportant. They are a near monopoly in many areas and what's best for Bell is not what is best for the rest of the world. That's why we regulate monopolies. Logical business decisions for monopolies are bad for society.

She could be talking about imaginary widgets and her argument would still be correct. It's quite embarrassing to be wrong, especially when you're insulting someone behind their back, so I hope you feel somewhat bad about yourself.

I feel great, thanks. Phenomenal actually. Looking at things from Bell's point of view means she simply isn't comprehending the issue in the overall context of those so strongly against it. Oh really it makes business sense for Bell? Who the hell argued it didn't? Of course it does, why else would they do it. But I guess stating the obviousness of a certain part of a situation is enough to consider your argument at least a little credible.

You mention the part where her argument breaks down as if that wasn't the whole entire basis of her argument, in fact that's ALL she said. Once again, it's all about context and nobody is arguing what is good or not good for Bell. What's good for Bell is to bend us all over and fuck us anally till we bleed (two birds in one stone for them considering it effects wholesalers and customers negatively), we don't need someone telling us that this makes sense for them and it has zero to do with why people are outraged over this. Just seems like she was making an empty point. Saying something just to say it. I don't know this girl, me calling her stupid was obviously hyperbolic as I clearly know nothing about her existence beyond that one paste of her argument. But it was a stupid thing to say. Feel free to change the word stupid to meaningless/irrelevant/challenged/etc... at your own discretion.

 

[YYZ]

I feel great, thanks. Phenomenal actually. Looking at things from Bell's point of view means she simply isn't comprehending the issue in the overall context of those so strongly against it. Oh really it makes business sense for Bell? Who the hell argued it didn't? Of course it does, why else would they do it. But I guess stating the obviousness of a certain part of a situation is enough to consider your argument at least a little credible.

You mention the part where her argument breaks down as if that wasn't the whole entire basis of her argument, in fact that's ALL she said. Once again, it's all about context and nobody is arguing what is good or not good for Bell. What's good for Bell is to bend us all over and fuck us anally till we bleed, we don't need someone telling us that this makes sense for them and it has zero to do with why people are outraged over this. Just seems like she was making an empty point. Saying something just to say it. I don't know this girl, me calling her stupid was obviously hyperbolic as I clearly know nothing about her existence beyond that one paste of her argument. But it was a stupid thing to say. Feel free to change the word stupid to meaningless/irrelevant/challenged/etc... at your own discretion.

Put it better than I could.

 

[obonicus]

http://business.financialpost.com/2...sts-internet-caps-suitable-for-vast-majority/



Oh, so Bell's having congestion issues because of the HUGE amounts of bandwidth users ar--



Bell logic in a nutshell: There's a huge congestion problem because the vast majority don't even come close to the cap.

...

They oversell, though, that's why you people can get multiple megabit connections for so little money. They don't expect most people to use their cap, either. If people did, it'd probably bring their infrastructure to their knees.

 

[Crazymoogle]

I voted NDP due to my MP's stance on net neutrality in the last election. I'll do the same in the next election. He seems to give a shit regardless of media attention.

I'm not sure I could ever vote NDP after what they've done in the past, but I'm keeping my eye on what goes on with BC rent laws. Now that the BC Apt Owners/Managers Association is pursuing a "fair marketplace" with no laws against raising the rent...well, somehow I don't trust any of these guys to build such a thing.

Is there a provider-by-provider list yet of all of the speeds/caps? I'm just seeing the Teksavvy stuff so far...

 

[TAS]

YES..that's it my brethren. Uprise until the stink reaches so far up the CRTC's ass that it chokes the whole fucking lot of them!

 

[YYZ]

They oversell, though, that's why you people can get multiple megabit connections for so little money. They don't expect most people to use their cap, either. If people did, it'd probably bring their infrastructure to their knees.

Haven't we been over this already? There are peak hours during the day regardless of what speed everyone is going at or their bandwidth used. There's literally no congestion problem right now.

 

[the_prime_mover]

That still doesn't make you pro-UBB, it just makes you not theoretically opposed to caps.

UBB is the plan that lets Bell charge TekSavvy, not the plan that lets Bell charge you.

Perhaps the acronym is the confusing part then. I have no issue at all with usage based billing in any system based on a commodity that can be reasonably subdivided into homogonized units.

I am however opposed to caps on the basis that they automatically presuppose that the usage allowance below the cap is somehow a privledged amount that does not operate on the same pricing mechanism as usage above the cap. That is price discrimination and is generally the domain of the monopoly.

Teksavvy and any other reseller should be expected to function on a usage based billing system, but they should have the freedom to do so in a market where the only distributor/wholesaler is not also their primary retail competitor.

 

[AIRic]

Newfoundlander here, Bell Aliant is still cap free temporarily, so I guess that makes St. John's the last bastion for free internet. Don't any of your mainlanders think about moving here to soak up mah bandwidth!

Same thing for Bell Aliant in New-Brunswick.

 

[Slavik81]

That still doesn't make you pro-UBB, it just makes you not theoretically opposed to caps.

UBB is the plan that lets Bell charge TekSavvy, not the plan that lets Bell charge you.

Caps are really different. In a purely UBB-world, there would be no such thing as a cap.

Really, a cap is the opposite of usage-based billing. It's fixed-billing that then determines your allowable usage.

I don't think that's what the_prime_mover supports.

I feel great, thanks. Phenomenal actually. Looking at things from Bell's point of view means she simply isn't comprehending the issue in the overall context of those so strongly against it. Oh really it makes business sense for Bell? Who the hell argued it didn't? Of course it does, why else would they do it. But I guess stating the obviousness of a certain part of a situation is enough to consider your argument at least a little credible.

You mention the part where her argument breaks down as if that wasn't the whole entire basis of her argument, in fact that's ALL she said. Once again, it's all about context and nobody is arguing what is good or not good for Bell. What's good for Bell is to bend us all over and fuck us anally till we bleed (two birds in one stone for them considering it effects wholesalers and customers negatively), we don't need someone telling us that this makes sense for them and it has zero to do with why people are outraged over this. Just seems like she was making an empty point. Saying something just to say it. I don't know this girl, me calling her stupid was obviously hyperbolic as I clearly know nothing about her existence beyond that one paste of her argument. But it was a stupid thing to say. Feel free to change the word stupid to meaningless/irrelevant/challenged/etc... at your own discretion.

Thanks for taking the time to write that. For what it's worth, this post improved my opinion of you immensely.

Politics so often descends into people insulting each other and shouting past each other. This sort of discourse is so much better.

 

[the_prime_mover]

Haven't we been over this already? There are peak hours during the day regardless of what speed everyone is going at or their bandwidth used. There's literally no congestion problem right now.

Yeah, I fail to see how the amount used in a given month is in any way comparable to the amount used at any given moment. If we all had 25GB limits but used them all at the exact same times of day then we may have a problem (proof?), however Bell even stated that current average monthly consumption is 16GB per household. Thus, if they are selling 25GB limits, what 6down1up, then obviously they must suppose that the infrastructure can support that sustained transfer speed at any given time of day as the new pricing regime will do nothing to mitigate that possibility.

 

[Slavik81]

Yeah, I fail to see how the amount used in a given month is in any way comparable to the amount used at any given moment. If we all had 25GB limits but used them all at the exact same times of day then we may have a problem (proof?), however Bell even stated that current average monthly consumption is 16GB per household. Thus, if they are selling 25GB limits, what 6down1up, then obviously they must suppose that the infrastructure can support that sustained transfer speed at any given time of day as the new pricing regime will do nothing to mitigate that possibility.

I doubt they actually prepare for that possibility. They probably base it on statistical analysis of normal usage patterns, and ensure that something like 99.99% of the time they won't have to throttle traffic. If they did build infrastructure for 100% utilization, the network would be almost entirely unused all the time, and therefore an incredible waste.

UBB could help manage network load by having costs vary dynamically. Bandwidth during off-peak hours could be cheaper, encouraging people to make large transfers during other times. For the most part, I'd expect the impact to be very small on minor users, but large companies might choose to transfer backups off-site at cheaper times, or stuff like that.

We're trying to move towards that sort of system for electricity. That's part of the point of the 'smart grid'. Do energy-intensive things at night when it doesn't contribute to peak-power. Like processing aluminum and such. In fact, I'd bet that big electricity users already have deals of that sort.

 

[YYZ]

Instead of arguing with hypotheticals, why don't we just see if other parts of the world where they have fiber and unlimited caps have congestion problems?

Everyone who has said they have great internet, e.g. Sweden, has mentioned nothing about congestion problems. This is where EVERYONE has great options.