Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers. • Hacker News Board

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#191

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 2:13 AM UTC

jarek wrote: post #186

nikster wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this hits on the real, underlying issue: There is no free market competition in internet access. In the case of Canada it appears one state-owned company owns all the physical lines, and that company is starting to meter access. So, a sensible approach by the government would be to review the actual access costs - whether it's $2 / 100GB or some other figure - then fix the price at that level. Review it every…

The really stinging part is that Bell isn't state owned, even though it certainly acts the part.

Indeed, but Canada has a long history of the government supporting business interests against the interests of its own population. I have a list somewhere that I prepared for an article that I intend to write about this, it's probably never going to happen because I can't get mad enough about it any more (since I've left Canada that sort of thing has gone on the back burner).

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#192

Post by mkramlich » Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 2:22 AM UTC

Selling Internet access could become something like the next oil. Almost everyone in the US has to buy oil/gas, whether directly or indirectly. Therefore, that's a good business to be in. Internet usage, both in terms of breadth and frequency and data volume, will likely keep increasing. Therefore, getting into the business of selling access to it -- especially if you can sell metered usage -- could be increasingly lucrative. And it's a growing pie.

Furthermore, since so many mediums and industries are seeing their traditional cash flow streams go away due to the easy availability of free alternatives on the Internet, it makes sense that if you can't beat em, join em, and then just charge for the pipe to it all. So-called "pirates" can avoid paying for the official e-versions of digitizable media (songs, movies, images, encyclopedic info, sound effects, games, books, news, etc.) but it's much harder for them to avoid paying for the physical connection.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#193

Post by gabbo » Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 2:42 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #114

xxpor wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, I'm not very familiar with the telco situation in Canada. Is Bell related to AT&T (the old one)? Do they have a approved monopoly over all phone service, ala AT&T way back when (by this I mean do they carry all calls at some point, even if its only as a wholesale co)?

As it was when I was living in Toronto, the last-mile lines are owned by either Bell (DSL/Phone) or Rogers (Cable). Both of those companies are the Canadian telecom heavy-weights. Rogers does: cable tv, ip phone over cable (ala Comcast in the US), cable internet (which IIRC it own the only coax last-mile lines in the areas where it is a monopoly -- I think that west Canada has a different cable monopoly), the only gs…

A few things to add though you painted a pretty good picture:

- Shaw is the cable monopoly in the west. Shaw used to have a presence in Ontario but they did a big asset swap about 10 years ago.

- A few areas have different cable monopolies but they're vastly smaller than Rogers/Shaw. Cogeco and Videotron, I think.

- Beyond Rogers (who bought Microcell a.k.a. Fido) and the smaller players, Bell and Telus actually teamed up and built their own GSM network. I think it went live shortly before the 2010 olympics.

- As far as I know Bell and Telus both operate their own CDMA networks across Canada. In Ontario, at least, you've been able to get CDMA service from both for a long long time.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#194

Post by gamble » Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 2:56 AM UTC

spitfire wrote: post #153

fyrerise wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't accurate. Shaw has recently jumped on the same bandwagon and started enforcing hard caps with overage fees. Just go here if you want to check that: http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/High-Spee... ($2.00/GB for each GB used above plan’s limit) AFAIK, Telus isn't doing yet, but I've heard that this is a technical limitation rather than lack of desire to do so.

Have you actually gotten a bill from them yet? My bill is the same $47/mo it's been for a while. I don't have a tv.

I have. They are enforcing it now.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#195

Post by danbmil99 » Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 3:03 AM UTC

lsc wrote: post #117

neonfunk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with metering; I think it's the only fair measure. Granted, the metering you describe sounds atrocious, and there'll probably be a long messy transition to the point where our internet bill is more like our electric bill. But imagine this: on mobile networks, instead of voice minutes, text messages, data caps, fees for tethering, and every other scheme the Telcos are concocting right now (with regard…

Metering only makes sense if the costs vary with usage. In the case of DSL, the vast majority of the cost is the cost of maintaining the copper pair to your house, and that cost largely doesn't change, regardless of usage. Now, if the line from the CO (where the DSL terminates) to the internet was a significant bit of the cost, I'd agree with you. But my understanding is that the line from the CO to the 'net is a ver…

good argument for a real marketplace, instead of anti-capitalist net neutrality zealots on the one hand, and robber-baron monopolists on the other.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#196

Post by switch » Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 3:27 AM UTC

what an overreaction. I`m in Canada and calling Canadians the biggest Internet losers is nonsense.

People who use 300 GB of data per month cost the ISP more than people who use a few GB a month. That`s just a fact of life.

Should they have flexibility to charge more - Yes.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#197

Post by jarek » Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 3:33 AM UTC

slavak wrote: post #138

citricsquid wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I'm with BT in the UK and I'm on an unlimited* plan with a fair usage policy. This is fine by me, I held off downloading until night time (for both my own convenience and others) but because I had 2mb/s download and a Steam library of 200+ games, I figured I may as well DL my entire library at once. After a couple of days I'd downloaded over 300GB, one night I get an email saying blah blah fair usage cap h…

Wouldn't that be considered a breach of contract? I know that if this happened to me (Israel) the first thing I would do is call up my ISP and threaten a lawsuit unless they provide me the service I signed up for.

Some small print in a terms and conditions document probably says something like "we reserve the right to Manage Our Network (read: throttle you) as we see fit." Also "we reserve the right to terminate the contract at any time for any reason."

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#198

Post by nitrogen » Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 3:52 AM UTC

ergo98 wrote: post #184

mustpax wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situation is much more complicated than that. Smaller ISPs only piggy back on Bell's telephone lines only in the so-called last mile of the connection. The resellers have their own DSLAM equipment at the switchboards and they have to make their own peering arrangements to the rest of the internet. Bell's telephone lines have been (still are) heavily subsidized by the government, which is why the government is req…

The parent sits at 38 points while being almost entirely wrong. I want endless bandwidth as well, but this is absolutely the decline of this site, with "what I want" and "the way I present the world to support my bias" crowding out "what is real" and "actual fact". Isn't that sort of tactic best left on reddit?

1. It is within the realm of technology to profitably provide unmetered bandwidth at standard rates, with minimal shaping during peak use hours. To borrow the phrase seen used on here with reference to nuclear power, bandwidth is almost "too cheap to meter." That's what is real.

2. What the ISPs and/or infrastructure owners are charging is orders of magnitude beyond covering costs. Bandwidth is getting cheaper as technology advances and old lines are paid for, and yet they are raising prices.

3. Many of the hackers on this site are developing cloud-based solutions to computing problems, solutions which can advance the well-being of the human race and provide new value to the marketplace. ISPs' greed has stifled and will continue to stifle this economic and societal growth.

Given these three points, I think it's clear why commenters are arguing against ridiculously overpriced Internet access.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#199

Post by rapind » Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 3:52 AM UTC

itistoday wrote: post #77

If this actually passes, any sentiments I had about moving to Canada would evaporate. Good job guys, you're keeping the techies out.

They also throttle our bandwidth and our taxes are ridiculously high. You'll generally have a constant feeling of being ripped off, but you get used to it eventually, and it gives you something to commiserate and bond over with fellow canadians ;)

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#200

Post by moultano » Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 4:35 AM UTC

caf wrote: post #145

neonfunk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with metering; I think it's the only fair measure. Granted, the metering you describe sounds atrocious, and there'll probably be a long messy transition to the point where our internet bill is more like our electric bill. But imagine this: on mobile networks, instead of voice minutes, text messages, data caps, fees for tethering, and every other scheme the Telcos are concocting right now (with regard…

The problem with "just pay for data" is that mobile voice calls use such a tiny amount of data that either the cost of voice would have to drop by several orders of magnitude, or the price of data would have to be so astronomical as to make web browsing unaffordable. This is the problem that telcos have been struggling with in terms of mobile data for years - they don't want to give up their fat margins on voice, but…

It seems that you are paying for two things with your bill, the ubiquity of the network, and the marginal amount of data you use. It seems reasonable that the capital build out be paid for with a fixed monthly bill, while the marginal amount of data usage be metered on top. They don't necessarily have to lose their margins on voice, just build that into the fixed monthly cost.