04-19-15 11:12 PM
235 ... 56789 ...
tools
  1. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    They also make it hard for Canadian providers to compete, driving prices up in the process.
    How so?
    03-26-15 11:59 PM
  2. anon(8063781)'s Avatar
    They also make it hard for Canadian providers to compete, driving prices up in the process.
    Are you really arguing that Telus, Bell, and Rogers are having trouble due to CRTC regulations, and raise prices as a result?

    Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk
    03-27-15 12:00 AM
  3. grover5's Avatar
    Well, if you believe Gov created everything around you, what can I say? That business... You didn't build that...

    However, I don't believe that Gov created everything around me. I personally believe in human ingenuity and that much of this great nation was built by those who have worked very hard to produce what they believe to be great contributions to society. Why should the FCC be the governor of all things Internet? Isn't the Internet world wide?

    The welfare state and mindset will never give up on the idea that the Gov should proportion and distribute everything around us evenly to all. It's no surprise.

    What is given can be taken.

    Posted via CB10
    Corporations are the welfare state. Who's been filling your mind with silly notions?

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    03-27-15 12:00 AM
  4. birdman_38's Avatar
    Are you really arguing that Telus, Bell, and Rogers are having trouble due to CRTC regulations, and raise prices as a result?
    Not that they're having trouble necessarily. But they will not allow profits to shrink as a result. Customers bear the brunt of it in high prices.
    03-27-15 12:05 AM
  5. grover5's Avatar
    Not that they're having trouble necessarily. But they will not allow profits to shrink as a result. Customers bear the brunt of it in high prices.
    So...where is the real problem that cannot be solved in this equation?

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    03-27-15 12:10 AM
  6. grover5's Avatar
    Its funny. The imore forums hate net neutrality with a passion. You can see the blank stare from their eyes as they blindly defend Verizon and Comcast. Android Central and Crackberry actually have a clue.

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    03-27-15 12:16 AM
  7. Smitty13's Avatar
    They also make it hard for Canadian providers to compete, driving prices up in the process.
    *Sigh*

    I was hoping the Canadian broadband market wasn't going to get brought into this...but...here we are...

    The Canadian broadband market is as much of a joke, if not a bigger joke, than our American counterparts. Essentially you have a government sanctioned oligopoly between Shaw, Rogers, and Telus. I would argue that the CRTC effectively has even less bite than the FCC in the US. Rarely do you see the CRTC hand down any policy decisions, and when they do, rest assured they are not significant and rife with loopholes.

    Let's take my provider, Shaw, as a prime example of what is wrong with the Canadian broadband market. Recently Shaw caused quite the stir amongst customers when they systematically not only performed their usual 6 month price hike, but actually lowered speeds as well. No, the evening that decision was handed down the Jolly Green Giant did not walk past your home, that was the collective shade of green envy that American providers such as Comcast and Verizon turned for not being able to pull such a blantantly price gouging move.

    The most hilarious part of that entire debacle was Shaw removing all speed tiers 100mbps and above claiming that "customers don't need or want speeds that fast"....only to turn coat due to customer backlash and offer a 120mbps package at a significantly higher cost.

    Apart from the last quarter Shaw's annual profit (not gross revenues) has grown at a meteoric pace. It is simply staggering watching that stock climb; yet, there they are, continuously raising prices on customers due to a lack of competition all the while equipment and bandwidth costs are lowering each day.

    What's that? You're in an area that actually has more than one ISP serving it? Good!

    But wait...there's more!

    Much akin to the broadband landscape in the US, the major ISPs collude equally as much here, if not more. Don't believe me? Have a look at the historic rises in prices and you will notice a very nasty habit not only in the broadband market but in the wireless market as well.

    But hold on! I actually live in a place that has a 3rd party ISP! TekSavvy!

    I am a big supporter of them too!...Which is why I was completely disappointed to see that the CRTC did not stop the Big 3 (from whom TekSavvy rents from) from increasing their wholesale bandwidth costs from $22.45 for 25mbps to $42.59 for 20mbps for TekSavvy to resell. (Source: Re: Stop the canadian ISP Gouging! - Canadian Broadband | DSLReports Forums)

    The real kicker?

    That blantant pricing rip off wasn't even approved by the CRTC as the previous pricing was! Do you think Shaw was punished for it? *Cue the drum roll* NO!

    The entire broadband and wireless industry is beyond rigged in Canada. The real sad part is that when the CRTC even attempts to evoke change they are either sued by all the major players or the major players respond with changes that all consumers know amounts to nothing more than price fixing. Of course after said fixing, all of them, in unison, point to the CRTC as the big bad regulator that made all these horrible changes happen.

    In closing, I find it hard to believe even for one second that the major cartels ISPs in Canada have even the slightest bit of a hard time in turning a grotesque profit. Heck, I know if I were retired Shaw CEO Jim Shaw I would have a hard time making ends meet in my retirement because of the evil regulations the CRTC put in place! I mean...who here could survive on a mere $5.95 million annually?!
    Last edited by Smitty13; 03-27-15 at 12:53 AM. Reason: Spelling
    03-27-15 12:51 AM
  8. anon(8063781)'s Avatar
    Not that they're having trouble necessarily. But they will not allow profits to shrink as a result. Customers bear the brunt of it in high prices.
    I really haven't heard a convincing argument against regulation. Corporations will attempt to maximize profits with or without regulation. I guess I prefer a counterbalance. You would prefer none. I wish we could both have what we wanted.

    Sent from my Sony Tablet S using Tapatalk 2
    03-27-15 12:55 AM
  9. Iggy City's Avatar
    The best government is no government.

    Hail Hydra!

    All shall prevail under the master race. Come join thee for free Internets.

    All together now, Hail Hydra!
    mkelley65 and FrankIAm like this.
    03-27-15 01:37 AM
  10. MarsupilamiX's Avatar
    I hope they will prevail.
    No good can ever come from Gov intervention in the private market, IMO. Fight the power! LoL
    Americans and their anti-regulation fetish... I'll never understand it, honestly. Half of the socio-economic issues could be solved through more regulations.

    Like broadband monopolies who charge more money for a Mbit/s than in any other developed country in the world (the funny thing here is, that those other countries have far more regulations, yet the monthly subscription fee is far less, than the American equivalent).

    But that's just one example.
    Anyhow, I fully support the FCC on that move. I was actually impressed, that finally someone had the cojones to impose rules, on these rogue monopolies.

    The vast majority of people will profit from the reclassification. So I'd say, it's time to support some regulations.

    Well, I don't believe the Gov should be able to confiscate someone's legal business and distribute it to those that failed to compete. If that's what you're asking me.

    Posted via CB10
    Not the same as endorsing monopolies and price fixation and a complete disregard for services.

    Monopolies are a system immanent problem, because of how the free market is allowed to operate. Human greed and the fixation on endless growth, has a natural tendency to produce monopolistic behaviour.

    And everyone who had some econ 102, knows that monopolies will harm the consumer in 99.9% of the time.
    It's also interesting to see the following cognitive dissonance:
    A big majority of conservative Americans who actively fight (legally and through lobbying) the state's monopoly of violence, endorse "free market" monopolies who screw them over in a way the government couldn't even start to dream of.

    This is fascinating for me.
    03-27-15 06:44 AM
  11. Prem WatsApp's Avatar
    This is one hot thread, haha... :-)

      Passposted while waiting for the Zzzzzlider....  
    03-27-15 07:02 AM
  12. MarsupilamiX's Avatar
    Fairness means that people have opportunities to create their own way in life. If you want something you strive to achieve it. It is a race to the top and your piers have no right to a head start provided by the Gov. You want high speed, you earn enough to pay for it. You don't say everyone should get it because you think it's too expensive. The market should dictate what the costs are and if the market states it should be $1k monthly, you either pay or make a decision that you can't afford it.


    Posted via CB10
    Sorry to ask this way...
    Are you really that delusional, that you think that our system provides equal opportunity?

    Our system reproduces itself. There is basically no social mobility compared the 70's.
    With one of the biggest problems being heritage, as it allows an unfair start into your future life.

    Someone who has a heritage of 1 million dollars, will have it easier to invest than someone who has a heritage of 0$.

    The free market works more or less, but what doesn't work, is to endorse monopolies who screw you over.
    Monopolies are anti-consumer, anti-competition and try their best to milk the customers until there is nothing to milk anymore.

    Monopolies have a cost to our society. They retain money, resources and stiffle innovation through their anti-competitive behaviour.
    They create immense barriers of entry, to ensure their position. And since the free market needs competition to work, even on its most basic principles, it's obvious that monopolies are system immanent errors, that need to be regulated.

    Talking about fairness and implying that we should apply that concept to monopolies. Hilarious.

    OP- your Robber Barron 1% attitude has been rejected not once but twice in the last two presidential elections. That "wild west", or "I've got mine, you get yours" philosophy has been proven over and over and over throughout history to always lead to stiffing progress and growth (except for the monopoly and it's handful of investors) and to more of a "Game of Thrones" society.

    Most of your tired, old arguments have been re-treaded so many times the rest of us can see them coming a mile away. It's like listening to a crying baby in the back sear of a car. You argument (inspired by the Mitt Romney's the world) that everyone has "opportunities" is so ridiculous it's laughable. The entire point of regulation is to maintain opportunities, otherwise many simply have opportunities that others never get because of things completely beyond the control of either of them.

    Finally, the government IS the people. It is run by people elected and appointed by those elected. What always seems so funny (scary) to me is that the same people making these anti-government arguments, in which they basically don't like the results of the election, seem to use that as a justification that the elections are pointless to begin with and we should overthrow the government. UNLESS, the election goes their way....then there's not a peep about this terrible government as they're too busy going full speed at tearing apart regulations that protect people, and installing ones that are based on their fairy tale religious beliefs.

    The very fact that you are openly opposed to being "neutral", yet use the "sticking your nose in" argument, speaks volumes. You want "neutrality", but you want it from the government. You want the government to stay out of things (that governments exist for to begin with) and yet want to leave it up to monopolistic shareholders to stay un-neutral. In other words.....you hate democracy.

    Please proceed, Governor.
    Who would have thought that I'll agree with you :O

    But at least it's a topic of importance, not something like phones.
    03-27-15 07:41 AM
  13. birdman_38's Avatar
    Corporations will attempt to maximize profits with or without regulation. I guess I prefer a counterbalance. You would prefer none.
    I didn't say that. I'm a consumer as well. I simply acknowledged that the CRTC's heroic efforts to protect the consumer actually trigger higher prices.
    03-27-15 08:24 AM
  14. Cynycl's Avatar
    I didn't say that. I'm a consumer as well. I simply acknowledged that the CRTC's heroic efforts to protect the consumer actually trigger higher prices.
    Well it's my experience that Bell, Telus, Rogers, etc. etc. have a propensity to screw over their customers as often as possible and furthermore, they have never ever ever, improved their service or product or lowered costs to the consumer without being forced to do so by some form of Regulation.

    If it were up to Bell, all Canadians would be paying $90.00 for dial up with a 500 mb data cap and paying $4.50 a minute to call the village 5 miles away on a rotary dial phone.

    Perhaps if these soulless coke smokers would police themselves, there wouldn't be a need for the CRTC and we could fire a couple thousand sunshine list political appointees and save the average Canadian some tax burden.

    F@#&% em all but six................ that's my feelings on both Government and the Monopolies they helped create. Neither has the interest of the shrinking middle class tax paying citizen/customer on their radar.
    Last edited by Cynycl; 03-27-15 at 09:24 AM.
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    03-27-15 09:05 AM
  15. MarsupilamiX's Avatar
    http://time.com/2985964/comcast-cancel-ryan-block/

    "Not taking no for an answer, the rep peppered Block with questions: You dont want something that works?; So youre not interested in the fastest internet in the country?; Im really ashamed to see you go to something that cant give you what we can!; What is it about this other internet provider???

    But Comcast wasnt a spurned lover deserving of an explanation. It is a cable provider.

    Block maintained an impressive state of calm, cooly repeating Im declining to state, can you please go to the next question so many times that if this were a drinking game, players might not survive the length of the call."

    It's pretty simple:
    That's what happens when there are no regulations.

    Everyone who wants to deal with that on a regular basis, should lobby against regulations.
    03-27-15 09:14 AM
  16. birdman_38's Avatar
    Bell, Telus, Rogers, etc. etc. have a propensity to screw over their customers as often as possible and furthermore, they have never ever ever, improved their service or product or lowered costs to the consumer without being forced to do so by some form of regulation.
    They've expanded their network coverage (especially LTE) without being regulated to do so.
    03-27-15 09:42 AM
  17. FunktasticLucky's Avatar
    MADBRADNYC, I don't think you have any clue what you're arguing here. It seems like you are just straight up against government regulations of any kind and would like to see complete anarchy. You sound like an anti government extremist.

    Here are some facts. The Internet is needed in today's society. Even schools are moving towards it to save on costs. I have friends who their children have to save their homework assignments at home and email or print them out and bring them home. Or people have to have it for their jobs.

    Time Warner lost quarter posted a 97 percent PROFIT on high speed Internet. That's PROFIT! Revenue minus expenses. Where is this money going? It sure as hell isn't going into upgrading their infrastructure cuz that would be expenses. And they have some crap service right.

    The issue here is that money talks. These major cable corporations have made deals with each other to not encroach on other people's territories so as people have no other choice but to have service with them. You talk about smaller companies crying to the government because they can't make it? They can't make it because these cable companies have paid off the state or city politicians to create laws and regulations making it illegal to expand in these areas. Google isn't a small time company and its having issues still expanding it's fiber. Internet to cities around the United States.

    Also, all of these big time companies took major tax breaks from the government to lay fiber. Most cities are already wired and ready to go. But the companies took the tax cuts with the promise of upgrading everyone and then didn't upgrade their customers. The fiber is still dark.

    They are a monopoly and are there to rip of the customers. When a company or an industry as a whole has grown beyond the means to responsibly govern themselves in a reasonable manner then it's time to step in and be governed. Which is why the FCC was created. To be a checks and balance in this industry.

    You are entitled to your opinion but I'm sorry to say you aren't thinking correctly here. You're letting your hatred for anything government cloud your thinking. There was a vote. For a very long time. The FCC was open for comments on the matter for months. There were far more comments stating to classify them as a utility and regulate them to prevent them from screwing over customers further. And it's gotten so bad that in the 300 page document they even specifically call out Verizon several times for their BS practices. The only thing I'm not happy about is that the FCC did not discuss the data caps. But it's a very well written document and I'm 200 percent on board. This was needed.

    Posted via CB10
    03-27-15 09:57 AM
  18. MarsupilamiX's Avatar
    The FCC is pretty needed IMHO. Without regulating the airwaves, nothing would work because anyone could use any frequency. Without forcing things like the switch to digital television, then their wouldn't have been all this 700 MHZ spectrum available to deploy expanded phone services.

    Now for net Neutrality, my understanding is that it is to prevent my ISP from charging me, or a company like Netflix, a cost to get that particular data, which has never been the way the Internet worked. It is to keep the Internet the way it has always worked, I buy my pipe and my provider gets my money for the pipe and I can use it to surf, watch or download whatever I want, and Netflix buys their pipe from their provider and delivers the services out that pipe and scales that pipe based on demand. The ISP's wanted the Netflix to pay for the right to use a pipe way down the line or they would block/throttle packets from Netflix. If this is what the FCC is doing, which is my understanding of the intention, then I'm all for it.

    If anything we can see in both the late 1920's and with the more recent crash what can happen without regulation and when regulations were rolled back and corporations went wild. As typical we were told those regulations were killing businesses and competition, but they were really protecting everyone else from greed. Alan Greenspan even said the collapse when grilled how did this happen and he responded that their models and theories didn't take corporate greed into account.

    Posted via CB10
    03-27-15 10:05 AM
  19. Smitty13's Avatar
    They've expanded their network coverage (especially LTE) without being regulated to do so.
    Their wireless divisions also recently increased prices in unison all the while claiming it was mere coincidence that those increases coincided with one another.

    Speaking from personal experience, their sister-company resellers (in my case, Koodo) not only increased prices but also removed packages that offered some semblance of value. My $60 which once bought unlimited text/phone and 2GB of data now buys only 1GB.

    Similarly, it is a downright joke that any wireless provider measures any of their data packages in MB. $40/month for 300MB, Koodo? Wow. Are these carriers stuck in 1999?

    And to address your expansion statement. In my area, Northwestern Ontario, Bell only expanded due to the downright monopoly that TBayTel enjoyed for many years. They offered 6GB packages that could not be found in any other area of the country. If I were a betting man, I'd guess that if my area was already served by even 2 wireless providers Bell would never have ventured to the area.

    Posted via CB10
    Cynycl likes this.
    03-27-15 10:22 AM
  20. playbook_swiper1's Avatar
    I know right! I'm enjoying MY popcorn.
    03-27-15 12:30 PM
  21. playbook_swiper1's Avatar
    Whoa. Some of these novels are just out of the Gov playbook. Lol. No wonder Gov rules are loved so much. Chen couldn't have said it better!

    Posted via CB10
    Yeah! Those darn book-learned people supporting their position with facts and evidence! We could have just typed louder and more nonsensical rabble, rabble, rabble! Neutral = stalled! Neutral = BAD! Guvmint = BAD! Rabble! RaBBle! RABBLE!!!

    LOL!
    03-27-15 12:46 PM
  22. playbook_swiper1's Avatar
    Being that you know what? Seriously?

    You state repeatedly that I have no idea what Net Neutrality is about. So in order to state such claims, you would have to know what's in the bill, correct? Otherwise you are just voicing an opinion. In which you are entitled to, but you're not entitled to say I can't have mine.

    When you actually know what's in there then refute what I have to say. How can you say I'm wrong when you don't know if I am. Aside from your opinion of course.

    So, let us know what's in the bill. Or else your guess is as good as mine. And mine is from historical experience. Unless you can tell me what good has Gov intervention has produced.

    Posted via CB10
    So you admit blatant ignorance and that you have no idea what net neutrality is, but that it is bad. Gotcha.
    03-27-15 12:56 PM
  23. Cynycl's Avatar
    They've expanded their network coverage (especially LTE) without being regulated to do so.
    Not without prior regulation to force them to allow competitors into the market place on the existing infrastructure and yet still they charge more and provide worse service/coverage than so called third world telecoms. Cell service aside this thread is supposed to be about internet service/traffic (along with lots of soverign national militia NRA soundbites and doomsday prepper rhetoric about da evil guvamit)

    Fact is my neighbourhood Bell offers "up to 5 mb/s DSL internet speed, that typically runs about 1.2mbs and a 40 GB data cap for 48.95 per month. The same crap speed with a 140 GB cap runs another five bucks. This is the only service they offer. Once your out of one of the five or seven major metropolitan areas Bell is at best a joke. The other major players offer similar crap service for the same inflated price. (price fixing)

    The faster they strip these companies apart and open the market to some real competition the better. The only thing we have over the Americans thus far is that they haven't bought off our politicians to the point where they outlaw expansion by municipalities and smaller competitors, but I'm sure it's coming. In the meantime, I'm all for forcing net neutrality requirements on these parasites.

    When it comes to telecoms the more regulation the better, starting with having someone at the very least speak some level of broken English when they answer a phone.

    All but six I tell ya..........all but six.
    Last edited by Cynycl; 03-27-15 at 01:39 PM.
    MarsupilamiX and scrapmetal58 like this.
    03-27-15 01:27 PM
  24. tchocky77's Avatar
    Hope this gets shot down in court. American Internet infrastructure is slower than post-communist states in Eastern Europe even before ISPs stick up content providers in order to stream faster.
    That's because those markets are regulated.

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    03-27-15 06:26 PM
  25. birdman_38's Avatar
    Cell service aside this thread is supposed to be about internet service/traffic
    You're right. We digress. Same premise though.
    Cynycl likes this.
    03-27-15 08:17 PM
235 ... 56789 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Pasting is a joke in BB10
    By trevorcroft in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-16-15, 10:53 PM
  2. Why isn't my Playbook is charging?
    By Veida Jane Mendoza in forum BlackBerry PlayBook
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-15, 11:32 AM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 04:37 PM
  4. Where is the voicemail indicator on my BlackBerry Classic?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum BlackBerry Motion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 11:06 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 09:32 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD