Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

thetyee.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 269 posts

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

#231

Post by forensic »

cal5k wrote: post #65
JimmyL wrote: post #58

If you're curious about the regulatory history of this issue - and who isn't, really - then CRTC decisions 2010-255 ( http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-255.htm ) and ( http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-44.htm ) 2011-44 may be of interest to you. The former is the final in a series of decisions relating to Bell's request to allow them to move independent ISPs onto usage-based billing, and the latter is the…

This is EXACTLY what regulatory capture is all about. Bell knows the game and played it masterfully. Ask for the moon - ask for really ridiculous things, but expect to only get half of those things. The CRTC, wanting to seem "reasonable" and "balanced", meets Bell halfway. Unfortunately, halfway towards Bell's ridiculous agenda is still absolutely terrible for consumers, a perspective that the CRTC has utterly failed…

The fact that the CRTC is stacked with former Bell and Rogers employees and NO ONE to represent the public or small ISPs also helps.

The CRTC is just a stooge pretending the play the part of opposition, while they are actually a collaborator.

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

#232

Post by forensic »

chad_oliver wrote: post #201

You mean that most countries don't pay per gigabyte? I live in New Zealand, and there's only one company with an unlimited broadband package, and that's only with a two-year contract. The norm in New Zealand is to pay for say, 20GB per month, and if you exceed that then you drop down to dial-up speed (or pay for more). With all due respect to the Canadians here, it's not really that bad at all. Life goes on, and it a…

>With all due respect to the Canadians here, it's not really that bad at all. Life goes on, and it actually seems to be a pretty good life too.

You do realize you are being horribly ripped off?

It's true that life goes on, even for slaves.

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

#233

Post by forensic »

natrius wrote: post #78
acangiano wrote: post #24

I'll provide one data point of how this affects Canadian internet users. I currently have no caps with TekSavvy and pay $39 a month. Starting from March 1st, I will pay $31.95/mo with a 25 GB cap. Any gigabyte over the limit will cost about 2 bucks. Now, you can buy a block at discounted prices. According to TekSavvy, based on my internet usage, I will need to buy at least a 275 GB extra block. Believe it or not, I d…

How many alternative providers do you have access to? If providers can actually make a decent profit from charging you $39 for that bandwidth, TekSavvy's competitors should be knocking down your door to split the difference. In theory. EDIT: I just read in another comment that it's Bell Canada metering charges for bandwidth resellers. That's a bit more complicated. Hm.

It's a government-enforced monopoly.

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

#234

Post by cal5k »

derefr wrote: post #142
cal5k wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the Canadian Wheat Board, perhaps the most egregious of all monopsonies (apparently it's not a "monopoly" because it is the only BUYER of wheat).

Monopsony.

I... believe that's what I said?

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

#235

Post by ergo98 »

ZachPruckowski wrote: post #208
ergo98 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>"The parent sits at 38 points while being almost entirely wrong." Do you have any evidence that he's wrong, an argument why he's wrong, or even a different assertion of the facts? This has actually been a fairly fact-filled, low-whine conversation, with reason-filled arguments. It's a topic (proper regulation of state-granted monopolies) that goes back hundreds of years (to American Colonial times, at least). The fa…

Do you have any evidence that he's wrong, an argument why he's wrong, or even a different assertion of the facts?

This is a futile discussion. It is an embarrassment for HN and, honestly, an embarrassment for the Canadian tech community.

Download caps are way too low, no doubt about it. Providers are protecting their own self interests by undermining businesses like Netflix, no doubt about it. However that is an entirely separate discussion.

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

#236

Post by efsavage »

The most dangerous problem isn't the markup or extra cost, it's that as soon as UBB is old news, the media companies that are now also the internet companies (comcast/nbc) will offer discounts on "in network" bandwidth, so an NBC show will cost you the regular 1.99, but a movie from another network, or an independent production will cost you extra.

I'd be all in favor of this kind of pricing if it was anything resembling an open market, like how the cell phone industry had/has major downward price pressure, but there are far fewer choices when it comes to wires into your house, so the local monopoly effects are very strong.

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

#237

Post by acangiano »

vacri wrote: post #170
acangiano wrote: post #24

I'll provide one data point of how this affects Canadian internet users. I currently have no caps with TekSavvy and pay $39 a month. Starting from March 1st, I will pay $31.95/mo with a 25 GB cap. Any gigabyte over the limit will cost about 2 bucks. Now, you can buy a block at discounted prices. According to TekSavvy, based on my internet usage, I will need to buy at least a 275 GB extra block. Believe it or not, I d…

I've always thought it funny that people who use 250+GB of data class themselves as 'not heavy internet users'. "I don't torrent" != light internet use. What do most people torrent? Movies and TV. And yet there you are doing lots of HD video while claiming you're not a heavy user ("I don't torrent", "I simply..."). Out of curiosity, what level of bandwidth usage do you think quantifies a heavy user?

I never claimed to be 'not a heavy internet user'. Of course I am. I simply claimed that my data consumption is legitimate, and not caused by illegal hoarding of software, movies, etc.

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

#238

Post by Swannie »

Swannie wrote: post #81
natrius wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many alternative providers do you have access to? If providers can actually make a decent profit from charging you $39 for that bandwidth, TekSavvy's competitors should be knocking down your door to split the difference. In theory. EDIT: I just read in another comment that it's Bell Canada metering charges for bandwidth resellers. That's a bit more complicated. Hm.

Not really, from the other comments it appears that Bell Ca is not the only back-haul provider. But as I said in another comment, ISPs got a whole 90 days to deal with this, which runs out about today. That's a pathetic amount of time to tender for alternative suppliers, especially over the holiday season, in Canada. (I hear it gets cold there???)

I misunderstood. They have from a few days ago for 60/90 days. And they don't really have many options, unless they go for a massive unbundling effort.

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

#239

Post by snowwindwaves »

nitrogen wrote: post #198
ergo98 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tec…

a nuclear power plant costs 6-8 billion up front, before you get a dime back and takes 2-8 years to build. Nobody in the US except the government will loan utilities the money to build or upgrade a nuclear power plant. I'm all for nuclear power, but it ain't cheap.

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

#240

Post by antihero »

jacquesm wrote: post #108
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…

A basic 20 Mbit connection goes for about $75 in Europe, that's 1.1 ct / Gigabyte (if my back-of-the-envelope math is correct). 40 Mbit goes for about $100 / month. Metered is out, flat-rate is the future. The only hold-outs will be the mobile carriers and even there I already see flat-rate offerings. $5 or $10 / month would not work due to fixed costs and write-off on equipment higher than that. But once the equipme…

In the UK you can get Virgin 50MB with no caps for about £30~/month.
Post reply on HN