11–20 of 269 posts
Seems like the CRTC needs to find a way to remain relevant. This is central planning, socialist style. I hope everyone enjoys it.
This is also not free-market capitalism. I'm not sure what you would call it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uhh, not quite socialist, very much capitalist. This is poor regulation of a growing industry monopolized by the huge corps that own cable and phoneline infrastructure. They've somehow lobbied and convinced our government to allow them to charge us up the ass for 'overages'.
That still doesn't sound like a free market to me. Very much capitalist?
Iv'e been following this debate, but it's been difficult to find actual facts. Right now with Telus (Canadian dsl ISP) i pay for 125gb transfer a month and $2/gb if I go over. Yes, the overage charge is insane but it's been like that for a long time. As far as I can tell, the issue is that the big ISPs (tells, Rogers, bell) all have caps/overage, but the smaller ISPs that piggyback on their network can offer unlimite…
Not only have caps been introduced but the wholesale discount is alarmingly small, so small ISPs aren't free to compete on features or price. Small ISPs can't go and find another backbone because they're all owned by this group of companies.
Note that in Quebec the cap is higher (60GB/month instead of 25GB/month). In most of Canada Bell/Rogers/Shaw own the DSL and cable networks. In Quebec, Bell mostly own the DSL lines but Videotron (Quebecor) own the cable network, so it's almost like competition. Also Quebecor has unshakable ties to the provincial government.
Seems like the CRTC needs to find a way to remain relevant. This is central planning, socialist style. I hope everyone enjoys it.
Uhh, not quite socialist, very much capitalist. This is poor regulation of a growing industry monopolized by the huge corps that own cable and phoneline infrastructure. They've somehow lobbied and convinced our government to allow them to charge us up the ass for 'overages'.
There is an ongoing confusion about what is the free market and what is corporatism/fascism. The free market provides for free competition between individuals where all transactions are voluntary and no force is used to interfere with any interactions between parties. In a corporatist/fascist environment the government uses force to interfere in nearly all aspects of the market. In fascism, corporations end up in bed with the government and the corps use that power to get what they want while the government sells the idea by using propaganda to fool people into thinking that "it's all for your own good".
When the government is in charge of setting rates for internet access this is the farthest thing in the world from a free market. What it is, is soviet style socialist central planning.
But there seems to be a strong desire to blame the free market for all woes, despite the obvious government interference in all aspects of these interactions.
What is free about having the government set the policies for internet charges?
In a free market the government wouldn't be involved at all, and the rates would be determined via competition.
Take a look at markets that are relatively more free, such as the cell phone market and the market for computer chips. Quality and features improve while prices go down over time.
When I admire my HTC Android phone I marvel at the quality and features and the amazing technology. This is the result of healthy competition.
Take a look at markets where the government is involved such as health care. Quality and choice are reduced while prices go through the roof. (and no, that's not going to change with "obamacare")
Please don't confuse markets that are highly regulated and controlled by the government with free markets. They are polar opposites.
Seems like the CRTC needs to find a way to remain relevant. This is central planning, socialist style. I hope everyone enjoys it.
If this was socialism then either the government or the public would own Bell/Rogers/Telus. This is also not free-market capitalism. I'm not sure what you would call it.
Iv'e been following this debate, but it's been difficult to find actual facts. Right now with Telus (Canadian dsl ISP) i pay for 125gb transfer a month and $2/gb if I go over. Yes, the overage charge is insane but it's been like that for a long time. As far as I can tell, the issue is that the big ISPs (tells, Rogers, bell) all have caps/overage, but the smaller ISPs that piggyback on their network can offer unlimite…
Seems like the CRTC needs to find a way to remain relevant. This is central planning, socialist style. I hope everyone enjoys it.
If this was socialism then either the government or the public would own Bell/Rogers/Telus. This is also not free-market capitalism. I'm not sure what you would call it.
This doesn't explaining what's going on very clearly. Small Canadian ISPs are allowed to use the infrastructure of Bell Canada at wholesale rates in order to foster competition. This has been reasonably successful. What has happened now is that the CRTC ruled that Bell is allowed to impose the same per-user bandwidth caps on its wholesale customers as it does on its own users. Since the smaller ISPs should simply be…
This doesn't explaining what's going on very clearly. Small Canadian ISPs are allowed to use the infrastructure of Bell Canada at wholesale rates in order to foster competition. This has been reasonably successful. What has happened now is that the CRTC ruled that Bell is allowed to impose the same per-user bandwidth caps on its wholesale customers as it does on its own users. Since the smaller ISPs should simply be…
I'm Canadian but I have been out of the country for a longish time now. The whole debate made no sense to me.
Yeah it sucks to be charged per byte, but surely Bell has the right to charge however they like. In the linked article, The Tyee's conspiracy theory that they wanted to force people back to television seemed inane.
But if it's about imposing a user-based rate structure on Bell's competitors that use them as a bandwidth provider, that makes perfect sense.
I'm not opposed to usage based billing - users who use more should pay more, but the rate should be commensurate to actual costs. Regulation is meant to protect the public from potentially unfavorable actions by authorized natural monopolies. Perhaps the ISPs should be selling bandwidth on a market, like with electricity.