Deal Addict
Mar 18, 2009
1446 posts
284 upvotes
Renous
Mark77 wrote: I don't have a MBA. Never claimed to have one either. Don't need a MBA to teach me that it is impossible to satisfy insatiable demand on an oversubscribed/underprovisioned system, which basically defines literally every IP network out there by definition.

Who's fault is that? :lol:

Looks like you're the only one keeping this thread alive Mark77 ;)
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
18182 posts
3178 upvotes
Toronto
Mark77 wrote: I am not a customer of Bell/Rogers/Telus/Shaw/Teksavvy/Cogeco/Videotron. Only a shareholder of the four first-listed firms, as I previously disclosed.

Sell your shares and invest in something else. You embarass yourself by coming here and spouting crap day after day.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Addict
Sep 15, 2004
3309 posts
146 upvotes
With well over 200 pages and 3000 messages to wade through, I doubt anyone including CRTC snoops or anyone else outside RFD would every dare to bother reading this thread. Mark77 how is the official troll and has done well by diffusing everyone's anger into focusing on this thread instead of something meaningful like letters to government, media and the CRTC, BTW: which are not pointless even at this late stage. UBB is busted... the entire concept reveals the sad state of Canada's telecommunication, and the reasons our world role in IT have slipped. Many have written on point so eloquently that mere words are no longer needed. Politically this shows up the CRTC sham for what it is... nothing to do with their mandate, all to do with support for backroom deals with the selected elite and their agenda. It will take courage, some sacrifice and political will to get IT technology back on track in this country.
Deal Guru
Sep 28, 2010
10682 posts
2904 upvotes
Irregular Heptagon
Mark77 wrote: I am not a customer of Bell/Rogers/Telus/Shaw/Teksavvy/Cogeco/Videotron. Only a shareholder of the four first-listed firms, as I previously disclosed.

Well, then, that explains your support for UBB. Always easier to support extortionist fees if you aren't paying them. Your already worthless arguments just became worth that much less.
2015 wins: Trip for 2 to NYC with airfare, limo, hotel and insurance ($3700); Maple Leafs tickets($250); 32GB HTC One M9 ($700), Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1($200), Samsung Galaxy Note 5($850), Aukey 2 port fast car charger($23), Fitbit Flex ($120), Blue Piston Bluetooth Speaker ($30). 2016 wins: nada
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
ah802 wrote: It will take courage, some sacrifice and political will to get IT technology back on track in this country.

Sacrifice...sure. But it seems that everyone is just expecting Bell/Shaw/Rogers/Telus to make all the sacrifice, while everyone else (including the independants) reap the rewards.

The above-4 mentioned companies (among other owners of infrastructure) have already made sacrifices, to the tune of many billions of dollars of cash which they reinvested. They've kept prices low when prices of other goods that derive themselves from infrastructure, such as oil, electricity, or housing, have skyrocketed. They deliver you 10X the service that they did a decade ago. They've enabled new applications. Yet the whiners and complainers on this thread think they're perpetually entitled to some $30 Internet package that barely even covers the cost, and doesn't even come close to providing an appropriate market-based return.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
ceredon wrote: Well, then, that explains your support for UBB. Always easier to support extortionist fees if you aren't paying them. Your already worthless arguments just became worth that much less.

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.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
patpond wrote: Who's fault is that? :lol:

Its the nature of all IP networks. Its why IP networking is cheaper than most other forms of networks. Is it the fault of Bell/Telus/Shaw/Rogers that they use a technology (IP networking) that allows them to bring you service for, at worst, $100/month, instead of a technology that might cost $1000-$2000/month?
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Jr. Member
Mar 10, 2004
172 posts
3 upvotes
Again, why in Canada are we ALREADY paying more for less in return? Mark you say we should be paying more? How has every other ISP in most other countries been able to "get by" with a lower rates?

If bell cant survive at current rates, then move over and let someone else show them how its done. We are clearly seeing that in the mobile world with globalive. Bell thinks because its been the big dog for ever it can do what it wants and keep us under there control.
Deal Guru
Sep 28, 2010
10682 posts
2904 upvotes
Irregular Heptagon
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.

Strawmen get tired. You should stop using them. I'd like to see Bell get paid. They does not mean I'd like to see them over charge their users. It doesn't mean I'd like to see them expect someone else to pay their bills. If they want to improve their infrastructure to remain competitive, let them pay for it. They should not expect that they can raise rates simply so their shareholders can continue to enjoy high returns without any risk.

Like you, I am not a customer of Bell nor their resellers for my internet, so no, I am not looking for them to give me cheap internet. Some of my funds to hold some Bell stock, but not enough to make any substantial difference. That would be a difference between you and me. I look at this subject, objectively, and find Bell lacking. You look at it and see how if affects you and doesn't affect you and use those subjective terms to decide whether it is right and wrong. My principles don't have a price tag. Yours do. You are willing to throw Canadians in general 'under the bus' so that Bell can get a free ride and you can earn some returns.

As for my age, I am well into my 30s, I am a software developer in my the most densely technological region in Canada. People like you, that are only thinking of how you personally are going to get paid, that have to pretend to be more than you are to attempt to add some credibility to your arguments, don't understand in the slightest what encourages innovation. 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.
2015 wins: Trip for 2 to NYC with airfare, limo, hotel and insurance ($3700); Maple Leafs tickets($250); 32GB HTC One M9 ($700), Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1($200), Samsung Galaxy Note 5($850), Aukey 2 port fast car charger($23), Fitbit Flex ($120), Blue Piston Bluetooth Speaker ($30). 2016 wins: nada
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
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.
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!).

Petrol keeps getting more expensive as well, but people are driving more than ever, so why won't they do the same with the Internet?

You really ought to stop posting here. I am truly, sincerely embarrassed for you.

And you truly should be embarrassed for yourself.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
junglistic wrote: If bell cant survive at current rates, then move over and let someone else show them how its done.

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?
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
Piro21 wrote: Sell your shares and invest in something else.
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?

UBB is a market-based solution to the problem of excessive downloading, and the need to raise funding to build the future of infrastructure.
You embarass yourself by coming here and spouting crap day after day.

I most certainly do not, and nothing I have said is 'crap'. Geez, grow up.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jul 10, 2008
4939 posts
65 upvotes
York Region
*yawn*

just stop quoting his posts and start ignoring him. have him talk but treat it as "in through one ear, out the other".

If you keep including him in conversations he will just keep replying. If he does reply to a conversation he wasnt a part of, BFD, let it go and stop giving him attention
I.T Professional
CCNA-R&S | MCSA:Server 2012 | VCP-DCV6.5
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 30, 2003
7243 posts
607 upvotes
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?

Give it a rest, Mark. Even if you're right, Bell and the other major ISPs are losing this argument. They've gotten too many people angry, and whether Bell is right and hasn't communicated their point well enough to consumers or they're wrong, too many people have taken up the fight on the other side for you to do any good. Here's the good thing about stocks: you can always sell them if they're not doing well and get something else instead.

All you're doing is trolling right now, and antagonizing other people. Did you really think you'd win an argument as to why people should pay more on a forum dedicated to the exact opposite concept?
My nick doesn't mean I'm happy any more than yours means you're a sex machine.
Deal Addict
Nov 1, 2009
2644 posts
77 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: Petrol keeps getting more expensive as well, but people are driving more than ever, so why won't they do the same with the Internet?

Your analogy is terrible. ISPs buy "speed/capacity" in bulk from Bell - to link the customer to the ISP servers. And this is not a "flat fee" and it shouldn't be.

The last mile of copper/cable is not speed dependent. It is simply there and should be a "flat fee". The wire doesn't care how much "data" flows through it. As for the data agregation/routing layer to the ISPs, yeah, that will be a function of speed capacity that the ISP has rented out. If the ISP has bought 5000 Gbps, to divide amongst it's customers, how they divide it is their business.

Whether the ISP uses 100% or 50% or 1% of capacity is none of Bells business. The "content" that flows through these lines are not owned by Bell, they are just a pipeline. If Netflix gives me unlimited content, I should not have to pay Bell (directly or indirectly), anything "significant" (see below) other than for the speed that I signed up for. If Bell is "worried" about the peak time rates, the price for the speed capacity should be set at those rates.

Now you might say that as a private business, Bell can do whatever the hell it wants. Well they can't b/c they have received significant tax breaks (tax payers money) to develop this infrastructure and enjoy preferential treatment to lay their pipes to my house. I never asked for this - but they get the right anyway.

With these advantages comes the forced regulation into their company/industry. For the benefits they have, this is the price they pay. Now the question is what is a "fair" arrangement. This can easily be found out by audits and checking what companies in other countries (e.g. US) go through.

Either way, UBB is not the answer as it has nothing to do with allocating speed/capacity. If I create a new highway service that lease two lanes from the 401, and let my customers use those lanes exclusively, should I be charged for the # of cars that move through my 2 lanes? You might say, well as more cars move through the lanes, it will create more "damage" to those lanes and they will require maintenance. This is true. Now what is the analogy on the internet side? It would be the "damage" that is caused to the equipment as data moves through the equipment. Will a router "die faster" if it is at 50% vs 75% capacity? The effect should be marginal. The "electricity" cost of the router at 50% vs 75% should also be marginal. If we have anything resembling a "UBB", this marginal costs are what it should be based on. I suppose this is where the 1 cent - 2 cent figures come from (Teksavvy, Netflix CEO, etc.). Bell having to "add more routers" to support more users at a particular speed has NOTHING to do with this cost. THAT cost is already covered by the speed/capacity bought by the ISPs. You might say, "well, if the load is 50%, the load balancing kicks in and 1/2 routers can be completely shut off!". That may be. But, this would mean that at that time, Bell is not providing the ISP its promised speed capacity.

Top