Who's fault is that?
Looks like you're the only one keeping this thread alive Mark77
Feb 15th, 2011 6:46 am
Feb 15th, 2011 8:06 am
Feb 15th, 2011 10:44 am
Feb 15th, 2011 11:30 am
Feb 15th, 2011 11:46 am
Feb 15th, 2011 11:51 am
Feb 15th, 2011 12:01 pm
Feb 15th, 2011 12:08 pm
Feb 15th, 2011 12:08 pm
Mark77 wrote: ↑And I would say the same for you, its easier to support less than market-based fees, rates that actually destroy stakeholders' investments in those firms, if you're not a stakeholder. But in the long run, this isn't sustainable.
You might be young, and it might be fashionable to throw working people (ie: in the IT/ICT industry), and investors, "under the bus", so you can have your cheap Internet fix, but in the long run, innovation will suffer if rates do not go up.
Feb 15th, 2011 12:21 pm
Not benefit? "Bell tax"? "too expensive to bother"? Bell is not deciding anything here, they are respecting the principle of net neutrality. No services have been, or will be, stopped by higher Bell rates, but many will be enabled as the infrastructure gets upgraded. Bell does not, and cannot form a monopoly as they operate in a competitive environment in most places against other forms of infrastructure (clearly, resorting to hyperbole is a strong point of the anti-UBB crowd, when most people have 1, sometimes even 2 or 3 alternative infrastructures to chose from!).ceredon wrote: ↑ Bell's plans would kill innovation. Bell's plans would limit any innovation to what they decide is appropriate and what they could monetize. Bell's plans would have kept companies from introducing new services to Canadians because the Bell tax would have made it too expensive to bother. Bell's plans would have allowed them to develop another monopoly by having users of a service that would not benefit from the improvement pay for those improvements.
You really ought to stop posting here. I am truly, sincerely embarrassed for you.
Feb 15th, 2011 12:23 pm
Feb 15th, 2011 12:34 pm
Why? Those companies are valuable with market-based price increases. Why would shareholders get rid of perfectly valuable assets? Why would the CRTC facilitate confiscation of shareholders' wealth to keep a very small population of excessive downloaders happy?
You embarass yourself by coming here and spouting crap day after day.
Feb 15th, 2011 12:37 pm
Feb 15th, 2011 12:38 pm
Mark77 wrote: ↑Nobody can afford to take over Bell and their facilities. At least not at the current low rates for service provided.
Cross-subsidization from the wireless services is just bad for business and bad for consumers. Why should people pay inflated cell phone rates to subsidize heavy wired Internet downloaders?
Feb 15th, 2011 12:47 pm