04-20-15 12:12 AM
235 ... 678910
tools
  1. BCITMike's Avatar
    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
    Not to defend Koodo (I am a customer), but adding the wifi hotspots is likely what/why they are thinking they are providing more value. I was on the $45 1GB plan for like a year with Z10. I went over 1 GB once, for forgetting to turn wifi back on after 1-2 days. That enraged me enough that I actually got the $55 Manitoba plan that gets you 5 GB a month (I'm not in Manitoba, so there was hoops..). So I pay more, but I haven't gone over 500MB since. I have automatic hotspot login for both Shaw and Telus hotspots, so I'm covered at most businesses I'm at. Not everyone has both Shaw and Telus hotspots, and there are more Shaw than Telus ones. But in time that should change.

    My brother has like 3-4 phones on his Rogers account (with only one phone really used primarily), his bill is over $350 a month and they share 3GB. I think that would be half or less in the US?

    But yeah, the price of data in Canada is too damn high!
    03-28-15 03:18 AM
  2. Smitty13's Avatar
    Not to defend Koodo (I am a customer), but adding the wifi hotspots is likely what/why they are thinking they are providing more value. I was on the $45 1GB plan for like a year with Z10. I went over 1 GB once, for forgetting to turn wifi back on after 1-2 days. That enraged me enough that I actually got the $55 Manitoba plan that gets you 5 GB a month (I'm not in Manitoba, so there was hoops..). So I pay more, but I haven't gone over 500MB since. I have automatic hotspot login for both Shaw and Telus hotspots, so I'm covered at most businesses I'm at. Not everyone has both Shaw and Telus hotspots, and there are more Shaw than Telus ones. But in time that should change.

    My brother has like 3-4 phones on his Rogers account (with only one phone really used primarily), his bill is over $350 a month and they share 3GB. I think that would be half or less in the US?

    But yeah, the price of data in Canada is too damn high!
    Oh yes, of all the carriers I have found Koodo to be the best by far, do not get me wrong. I feel as though if it were up to the company heads of that subsidiary we would see a lot more customer friendly changes; alas, they take their marching orders from Telus.

    I just do not think it is a viable alternative for wireless carriers to point to the various wireless hotspots popping up all around the country as the solution to deplorable prices for data. The cost of bandwidth (and the associated equipment to deliver that bandwidth) has gone down monumentaly over the years, yet we see price increases and lies about how much more expensive it is getting?

    I often times feel very weary using public wifi hotspots due to the security issues associated with them. With BB10 not having the ability to use most consumer grade VPN protocols, you are leaving yourself wide open to having your packets sniffed by anyone on the network.

    No, I do not believe people should sacrifice because your network cannot handle all of those "bandwidth intensive" applications (such as Netflix); perhaps instead of stock holder dividends, they could invest that money back into company infrastructure?

    I digress. Until there is a giant pushback from the people and at least one person in the government not on one of the Big 3's payroll, it is going to be a while before we see any significant change.
    03-28-15 11:48 AM
  3. BCITMike's Avatar
    Oh yes, of all the carriers I have found Koodo to be the best by far, do not get me wrong. I feel as though if it were up to the company heads of that subsidiary we would see a lot more customer friendly changes; alas, they take their marching orders from Telus.

    I just do not think it is a viable alternative for wireless carriers to point to the various wireless hotspots popping up all around the country as the solution to deplorable prices for data. The cost of bandwidth (and the associated equipment to deliver that bandwidth) has gone down monumentaly over the years, yet we see price increases and lies about how much more expensive it is getting?

    I often times feel very weary using public wifi hotspots due to the security issues associated with them. With BB10 not having the ability to use most consumer grade VPN protocols, you are leaving yourself wide open to having your packets sniffed by anyone on the network.

    No, I do not believe people should sacrifice because your network cannot handle all of those "bandwidth intensive" applications (such as Netflix); perhaps instead of stock holder dividends, they could invest that money back into company infrastructure?

    I digress. Until there is a giant pushback from the people and at least one person in the government not on one of the Big 3's payroll, it is going to be a while before we see any significant change.
    I do think that hotspot offload should be used as much as possible to reduce the wireless congestion. There is tons more bandwidth available on local hotspots and wired backhauls than using precious wireless up. It's good for everyone to use them more. This benefits their margins more so if they are not reducing prices or providing more value than present.

    Setup StrongSwan on a CloudatCost VPS for $6USD for a year. Takes more effort, but in the long run, I'm happy I did.
    03-28-15 06:59 PM
  4. southlander's Avatar
    They're not trying to control the Internet, they just don't want ISPs to be a bunch of phalluses to their customers.
    Not yet. And not the folks in charge now we can suppose. Who can say what other folks will do in the coming decades now that there is legal empowerment. Can we take it away if they overstep? How hard would it be? Who knows.

    Google needs another money machine. They seem to be expanding Google fiber. Might take some years but I'll bet that market force will do more in the end. Google for example has certainly hampered Microsoft more than the US antitrust action did IMO...

    But hey the fact that even after being found guilty of violating antitrust law, Microsoft was relatively unscathed only later to miss the mobile/cloud revolution and lose market dominance in personal computing... Maybe the same pattern repeats. Maybe the FCC will watch from the sidelines as Google, Facebook, and or some other deep pockets beat the telecoms in the long run. Maybe all this debate will not even matter.

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    Last edited by southlander; 03-29-15 at 01:31 AM.
    03-29-15 01:16 AM
  5. Captain_Hilts's Avatar
    Wow, what a thread! Redlightblinking, you especially deserve some sort of medal (or at least a couple of beers) for dealing with the mass amount of ignorance and misinformation spread by certain others here.

    I too saw the title of the thread and first thought it was a joke. How can someone think that allowing multi-billion dollar corporate entities to decide what content you can receive and how quickly you can receive it is even remotely a good thing? Actually, I can hear their response now - "Freedom!" - as if it even applies to what they're so angry about. These folks need to read some David Harvey. The greatest triumph of the emergent neoliberal wing of the Republican party with Ronald Reagan and more recently the Tea Partiers (both by essentially co-opting the term "freedom") is that they have convinced the masses to vote against their own interests by convincing them that their "freedoms" are somehow being eroded, and they have convinced them of this without even providing evidence of alleged curtailing of freedoms.

    The Internet is a human right just like health-care, water, housing, clean air/water/food, and education. If some people don't like the progress that some countries are making in providing these human rights to the people, they're free to leave as far as I'm concerned and set up shop in countries with no government infrastructure whatsoever. I can only assume they'd be happier there.

    Posted via CB10
    AnimalPak200 and Shuswap like this.
    03-29-15 04:36 AM
  6. birdman_38's Avatar
    Wow, what a thread! Redlightblinking, you especially deserve some sort of medal (or at least a couple of beers)
    That user has since been banned.
    03-29-15 10:56 AM
  7. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    That user has since been banned.
    I am optimistic that the other one is off learning how his government works
    AnimalPak200 likes this.
    03-29-15 12:47 PM
  8. AnimalPak200's Avatar
    Man... I'm sad I was so busy at work the past week that I missed out on this thread's action past the first page.

    Worries me that most posts in support of the OP (mostly just by the OP thankfully) were only a few lines brimming with zero-doubt self confidence,.. while posts trying to counter by explaining the nuances and logical flaws were several paragraphs long of mostly-non emotional discussion.

    Probably explains why we are where we are.

    : /

    Posted via CB10
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    03-29-15 02:19 PM
  9. Smitty13's Avatar
    I do think that hotspot offload should be used as much as possible to reduce the wireless congestion. There is tons more bandwidth available on local hotspots and wired backhauls than using precious wireless up. It's good for everyone to use them more. This benefits their margins more so if they are not reducing prices or providing more value than present.

    Setup StrongSwan on a CloudatCost VPS for $6USD for a year. Takes more effort, but in the long run, I'm happy I did.
    I speak only from my own personal experience, but in the instances where I have used my ISP's hotspots (Shaw), I have found speeds to be only palatable at best. This is of course assuming that one has a subscription to their services to actually be able to take advantage of those hotspots. It begs the question, had Shaw invested that money back into core infrastructure (E.g. splitting/adding nodes, etc.) would I have seen a better personal service on the backend? I would hazard a guess yes.

    I am unsure if you are talking about ISP/Wireless Carrier run hotspots only, in which case I could see perhaps some merit to the idea of what you are saying, but if you are referring to any publicly open hotspot (E.g. businesses, municipality owned, etc.), then I do not agree with you. I think it is atrocious that carriers are relying on the seemingly ubiquitous hotspots across urban areas to pick up the slack on their end they should be tending to themselves. Should I count on someone else's business to pick up the slack for mine due to lack of investment in my core infrastructure? Of course not.

    Why should I have to pay extra for a VPN/VPS to ensure secure data transmission when I already pay for the "priviledge" of being on someone's network? To me, this just gets back to price gouging that carriers know they can do to a state protected oligopoly.

    Similarly (although this is a whole other ball of wax), I have relatively little faith in the VPN protocols available to us now on BB10. IKEv2 has been shown to be vulnerable to decryption attacks (Source: http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-35529.pdf). It should also be noted that when IPSec is configured to use pre-shared keys that are made public (common with public VPN services) it is vulnerable to an active MITM attack.

    All this to say, I am certainly for things that compliment one's infrastructure, but against the idea of things picking up the slack for one's infrastructure where investment and competition could have remedied any pitfalls.
    BCITMike likes this.
    03-29-15 02:21 PM
  10. crackberry_geek's Avatar
    Google controls what we buy, the news we read ? and Obama?s policies | New York Post

    I know posting of direct links without discussion is discouraged... but in this case, one really needs to read the article and digest the whole context to understand.

    And... anyone who can read the attached link and NOT be scared... well then they're beyond hope and we should all be very scared.
    03-29-15 02:40 PM
  11. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    Google controls what we buy, the news we read ? and Obama?s policies | New York Post

    I know posting of direct links without discussion is discouraged... but in this case, one really needs to read the article and digest the whole context to understand.

    And... anyone who can read the attached link and NOT be scared... well then they're beyond hope and we should all be very scared.
    I read the article and I don't see the relation to net neutrality.
    Are you arguing that black is white when red is the colour in question?
    03-29-15 03:00 PM
  12. crackberry_geek's Avatar
    I read the article and I don't see the relation to net neutrality.
    Are you arguing that black is white when red is the colour in question?
    You read the article? And didn't see the references to how Google effected modification to net neutrality?

    Posted via CB10
    03-29-15 03:22 PM
  13. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    Google controls what we buy, the news we read ? and Obama?s policies | New York Post

    I know posting of direct links without discussion is discouraged... but in this case, one really needs to read the article and digest the whole context to understand.

    And... anyone who can read the attached link and NOT be scared... well then they're beyond hope and we should all be very scared.
    The article's author Kyle Smith is a book/music/movie critic. And often regarded as somewhat of a schmuck. I don't know that one of his editorials with no sources to legitimize his claims is anything to go by. Especially given that his position in printing op-ed pieces on the entertainment industry makes him very suspect as to who lobbied to get him to write that very sensationalized article.


    Penned via Tapatalk
    03-29-15 03:29 PM
  14. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    You read the article? And didn't see the references to how Google effected modification to net neutrality?

    Posted via CB10
    Ok I see it now.
    Apparently Google flexed and got some changes to the FCC's policy.
    This OP-ED piece does not say what those changes were.
    A quick search on duckduckgo did not shed any further light on the nature of those changes.
    I am going to resist the temptation to speculate on the FUD.
    03-29-15 04:27 PM
  15. crackberry_geek's Avatar
    Ok I see it now.
    Apparently Google flexed and got some changes to the FCC's policy.
    This OP-ED piece does not say what those changes were.
    A quick search on duckduckgo did not shed any further light on the nature of those changes.
    I am going to resist the temptation to speculate on the FUD.
    If these changes had been made by "the most transparent administration in history (as claimed)"... it sure seems like we shouldn't have to be like spies to figure out what they did behind our backs.

    Posted via CB10
    LoneStarRed likes this.
    03-29-15 07:09 PM
  16. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    If these changes had been made by "the most transparent administration in history (as claimed)"... it sure seems like we shouldn't have to be like spies to figure out what they did behind our backs.

    Posted via CB10
    As opposed to the completely transparent information you've always had? (hint, you never did)

    FYI... Most Transparent does not equate to Completely Transparent. Anybody who's ever worked in a classified environment knows, especially in the military, that complete transparency is the worst thing you can do.

    Via Tapatalk
    03-29-15 07:26 PM
  17. LoneStarRed's Avatar
    As opposed to the completely transparent information you've always had? (hint, you never did)

    FYI... Most Transparent does not equate to Completely Transparent. Anybody who's ever worked in a classified environment knows, especially in the military, that complete transparency is the worst thing you can do.

    Via Tapatalk
    Try no transparency whatsoever with just lip service . Rinse repeat. That has been the MO.

    Comparing edicts ( can't call it legislation because it wasn't approved by an elected body which have debates, hearings and are public )to classified material which is by necessity controlled in it's dissemination is ironic but accurate.

    Why is it secret? If we can. Have such debate here, why wasn't the general public allowed to view, review and comment on the edict as was promised by Mr. Transparent himself!?

    " I do not think that word means what you think it means. "
    medic22003 likes this.
    03-29-15 10:38 PM
  18. crackberry_geek's Avatar
    As opposed to the completely transparent information you've always had? (hint, you never did)

    FYI... Most Transparent does not equate to Completely Transparent. Anybody who's ever worked in a classified environment knows, especially in the military, that complete transparency is the worst thing you can do.

    Via Tapatalk
    So this is akin to a classified military secret?

    Really?

    Posted via CB10
    03-29-15 10:57 PM
  19. deadcowboy's Avatar
    I'm rooting for the FCC on this one. Which makes me feel pretty disgusting. But throttling and fast-laning is total crap, and somebody should regulate it.

    Posted via CB10
    Me too. The cable companies have divvied up territories as if they were criminal organizations. A bunch of little monopolies all over the country with no alternatives.

    American tax payers' billions have gone to internet providers to improve their infrastructure. Nothing's improved.

    We're lagging behind much of the world in terms of speed because cable companies want to artificially ****** the performance of services that stand to end cable tv's reign (already has happened in my opinion).

    I think it should be a public utility. No doubt. Some things require government intervention, especially when they hold modern American industry hostage. The internet is no different than any other public utility. It's just as requisite for citizens of a modern western society.

    And cable companies have taken tax payer dollars already, so screw them.

    Posted via CB10
    03-31-15 01:07 AM
  20. simu31's Avatar
    I promise, I was going to read through the whole thread, but the first page just had me facepalming, so I'd like to ask just one thing:
    How have certain sections of the American political machine managed to convince the little people (you know, everyone except the top 1%), that letting multi-billion dollar companies decide what's best, is a good thing?

    Unregulated industries are a ticking time-bomb. Or have so many people already forgotten what happened when certain people decided it was best that the banks regulated themselves? We've hardly come out of that nightmare fiasco and yet some (and I'm guessing the same people) and already pushing to have no government input on other matters.

    Sorry, my American friends, but however much you hate even the idea of government controls, you just have to look at Europe to realise it works.

    Si.
    03-31-15 05:03 AM
  21. deadcowboy's Avatar
    I promise, I was going to read through the whole thread, but the first page just had me facepalming, so I'd like to ask just one thing:
    How have certain sections of the American political machine managed to convince the little people (you know, everyone except the top 1%), that letting multi-billion dollar companies decide what's best, is a good thing?

    Unregulated industries are a ticking time-bomb. Or have so many people already forgotten what happened when certain people decided it was best that the banks regulated themselves? We've hardly come out of that nightmare fiasco and yet some (and I'm guessing the same people) and already pushing to have no government input on other matters.

    Sorry, my American friends, but however much you hate even the idea of government controls, you just have to look at Europe to realise it works.

    Si.
    I was onboard until you said "top 1%". You should be saying top .001% (or something closer to that).

    "Top 1%" is completely misleading and abused. The top 1% pay most of the taxes in this country and pay the highest percentage of their income to taxes.

    The billionaires and billion-dollar companies of which you speak are the ones avoiding taxes and taking the country hostage. Companies like GE who effectively pay 0 taxes. Obama is okay with GE, but is seriously aggressive with entrepreneurs who may make good money (not insane amounts like CEOs of Banks), but foot way more risk and create jobs out of those risks.

    The small business owners who work their asses off to be in the top 1% are the ones who are being rallied against, but they're not the ones who are abusing the system. They're the ones paying 50+% taxes and footing this country's bill.

    Posted via CB10
    04-01-15 12:03 AM
  22. LoneStarRed's Avatar
    The "top 1%" pay 87 PERCENT of all the taxes! YES! Is that more than their fair share? I would say YES!

    That is a fact from the IRS and the Treasury.

    Redlightblinking banned? As far as this thread he was well within accepted behavior or am I wrong? Curious.

    " I do not think that word means what you think it means. "
    crackberry_geek likes this.
    04-01-15 01:36 AM
  23. medic22003's Avatar
    Yep they grab all the control of something and make it better all the time. I bet you like Obama care too don't you? Don't talk down to me. If you think this was to make things better for the people you have your head in the sand. They pushed through their edict with deception, JUST like Obama care, ya know we have to pass it to see what's in it. The government is about as trustworthy as the fellas in their creeper vans trolling for kids. It's no different than the garbage the epa and other govt agencies are spewing. We were told social security would only be temporary too. Should I go on? Nothing they touch is good for us in the long run. I'll not argue with you about it. You obviously have your mind made up, but 5 years from now if they have made it better I'll happily admit I was wrong.

    Posted via CB10
    04-01-15 02:02 AM
  24. medic22003's Avatar
    Lol yeah let's look at Europe to see that it works. Not. Are you kidding? Taxes so high the wealthy are leaving, government so broke they are stealing the people's money right out of their accounts. Really? It's coming here but it isn't here yet. Why? Because there are still too many of us throwing a fit.

    Posted via CB10
    04-01-15 02:08 AM
  25. deadcowboy's Avatar
    Yep they grab all the control of something and make it better all the time. I bet you like Obama care too don't you? Don't talk down to me. If you think this was to make things better for the people you have your head in the sand. They pushed through their edict with deception, JUST like Obama care, ya know we have to pass it to see what's in it. The government is about as trustworthy as the fellas in their creeper vans trolling for kids. It's no different than the garbage the epa and other govt agencies are spewing. We were told social security would only be temporary too. Should I go on? Nothing they touch is good for us in the long run. I'll not argue with you about it. You obviously have your mind made up, but 5 years from now if they have made it better I'll happily admit I was wrong.

    Posted via CB10
    Medicine is a totally different matter, and one with no easy solution. Obamacare is a mess, but at least those with pre-existing conditions are now able to purchase insurance.

    That said, we're a country of slobs. Preventative medicine is the best medicine, but we have government subsidizing GMO soy, wheat, and corn production. Is it any wonder why people are so unhealthy when soy lecethin byproduct, corn syrup byproduct, or massive amounts of refined wheat are causing both a major influx in food allergies and obesity? These are the products that comprise all the junk food that people eat, and those junk foods are government subsidized. Do people have the right to eat this crap? Hell no, it's garbage made possible by are government. You've got scumbag citizens being brainwashed by scumbag corporations who own the government. Everyone in this situation is culpable. Do we really need to have soy in every product at the grocery store? Or massive amounts of corn syrup? Almost no honest farming being done in this country any longer.

    But don't act as though Net Neutrality didn't start as a noble cause. Or still isn't. We have cable companies behaving like organized crime families, holding new industry back. Gouging the American people while making ridiculous cash. And finally, it takes a company as big as Google to challenge them. Well, do you want more giant behemoths with no oversight? Well maybe Google will bring a sea change, but maybe not. The way the cable companies have been "competing" makes me sick. Monopolies are the very worst side effects of a capitalistic society. And that's what we have. Same with the telcoms. Non-competitive practices are not American or capitalistic. They're abuses of the system, so don't kid yourself that oversight is un-American.

    So tell me, why should internet not be considered a utility?

    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by deadcowboy; 04-01-15 at 04:35 AM.
    Smitty13 likes this.
    04-01-15 04:23 AM
235 ... 678910

Similar Threads

  1. Pasting is a joke in BB10
    By trevorcroft in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-16-15, 11:53 PM
  2. Why isn't my Playbook is charging?
    By Veida Jane Mendoza in forum BlackBerry PlayBook
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-15, 12:32 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 05:37 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, 12:06 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 10:32 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD