Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
mucat wrote: You can't argue with crazies.

I definitely sympathize with the other side of the argument, and my b/w usage this month is going crazy because of watching live TV of the Japan earthquake, but as I've said all along, the status quo of unlimited, and Internet getting progressively cheaper, and people dropping cable TV in order to 'save' money isn't sustainable from the perspective of providing high quality, robust infrastructure that meets present and/or future performance requirements.

Most posters here are of the attitude that Bell's systems should be in shambles from not enough investment, before they believe that there is a problem with infrastructure. That same attitude was attempted in Ontario Hydro Nuclear in the 1990s, and the results were disasterous for Ontario. Repeating the same with Internet would have enormous long-term consequences on Canadians' access to the infrastructure we need to be competitive going forward.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Guru
User avatar
Apr 24, 2006
10140 posts
640 upvotes
Mississauga
So who is to blame for the demise of internet in Canada when it is a thriving business model all around the world? Why is Canada "special" to this bandwidth issue...

All I'm going to say, is what I learned in school, was that you only give out dividends if you can afford it. You don't give out money if you can use that, especially if your system is "crumbling" under normal/average load.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
Tijuana wrote: So who is to blame for the demise of internet in Canada when it is a thriving business model all around the world? Why is Canada "special" to this bandwidth issue...

All I'm going to say, is what I learned in school, was that you only give out dividends if you can afford it. You don't give out money if you can use that, especially if your system is "crumbling" under normal/average load.

And what I learned in school is that you raise prices when your product is heavily in demand, people are addicted to it, and you want to build new capacity.

The issues are similar in the United States and elsewhere which is why UBB is being turned to for a solution. Even Australia uses UBB in their latest/greatest optical networks.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Guru
User avatar
Apr 24, 2006
10140 posts
640 upvotes
Mississauga
Mark77 wrote: And what I learned in school is that you raise prices when your product is heavily in demand, people are addicted to it, and you want to build new capacity.

The issues are similar in the United States and elsewhere which is why UBB is being turned to for a solution. Even Australia uses UBB in their latest/greatest optical networks.

Didn't answer my question. Why are business models striving without UBB all around the world? What is "unique" to Canada. The answer is a duopoly with collusion, in order to keep prices high. Before Globalive/Mobilicity, there was only artificial competition, Rogers/Bell made other brands for the sake of "competition" just so they can say it is a highly competitive market.

It's like if you have 3 kids and you give them money/equipment to run a lemonade stand. You can raise prices because your other siblings are raising there's and then you can say "look how competitive this market is, we can't make our prices any lower" even though all the money ends up going to daddy...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
Tijuana wrote: It's like if you have 3 kids and you give them money/equipment to run a lemonade stand. You can raise prices because your other siblings are raising there's and then you can say "look how competitive this market is, we can't make our prices any lower" even though all the money ends up going to daddy...

Yeah, but prices are not high. They're low. Too low. Eventually, the 3 kids running competitive lemonade stands competely run each other out of business, not earning enough to purchase the next batch of supplies once the current batch runs out. That's what's happening here. And daddy (investors) doesn't want to bail them out, and essentially subsidize the price of lemonade for the entire neighbourhood, which is quite reasonable, especially since the neighbourhood is addicted to delicious lemonade.

Unlike service disruptions in lemonade, which aren't serious -- service disruptions in Internet are serious. And infrastructure has lead times measured in years, not just a 5-minute drive to the grocery store for more lemonade supplies.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Guru
User avatar
Apr 24, 2006
10140 posts
640 upvotes
Mississauga
Mark77 wrote: Yeah, but prices are not high. They're low. Too low. Eventually, the 3 kids running competitive lemonade stands competely run each other out of business, not earning enough to purchase the next batch of supplies once the current batch runs out. That's what's happening here. And daddy (investors) doesn't want to bail them out, and essentially subsidize the price of lemonade for the entire neighbourhood, which is quite reasonable, especially since the neighbourhood is addicted to delicious lemonade.

Unlike service disruptions in lemonade, which aren't serious -- service disruptions in Internet are serious. And infrastructure has lead times measured in years, not just a 5-minute drive to the grocery store for more lemonade supplies.


:facepalm: It's an analogy. Huge fail for implying a disruption in lemonade services does not equate to a disruption of internet service...

Only problem, kids in South America, Europe, Africa, Asia are all selling their lemonade for either the same price or less, and quite better lemonade, if I may add. Canadian want better lemonade, but with no competition, there is no incentive. Daddy gives dividends to his kids if they have a good year. Unfortunately, Daddy has been giving too much for the past few years, and now, since the kids didn't bother saving their money, they are begging daddy for more. When the kids don't get what they want, they run to mommy(who is really in charge of daddy) and starts crying to her, that they can't make any money. So mommy gives daddy a bat, so he can smash any other lemonade stands that pop up.
Deal Addict
Nov 1, 2009
2644 posts
77 upvotes
I have to say that AT&T announcing their caps is AWESOME news! Perfect timing to screw over Bell. As great as the Canadian consumers are, we are not large enough to make too many waves on the general internet. We are big enough to make things happen within Canada, but not in the general world wide public eye.

B/c of the AT&T announcement, there is already a big **** storm developing due to the shear number of pissed of US consumers. lol. This is a good article that talks about the issue:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... tified.ars

The funniest is that BT (in England) just announced that they are getting rid of THEIR caps after they improved their network:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Brit ... ocomment=1

Got to love the slashdot exposure this issue is getting now ;) .
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/03/14 ... dband-Caps
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
Tijuana wrote: Only problem, kids in South America, Europe, Africa, Asia are all selling their lemonade for either the same price or less, and quite better lemonade, if I may add.
Yes, but they have cheaper access to the raw materials, labour, and fewer regulations on the finished product, lemonade. Canadian lemonade must be made adhering to very strict regulations, which include requiring that each lemonade seller give the mentally handicap boy next door (we'll call him "Teksavvy") a couple of almost free glasses to re-sell to the customers right in front of the main lemonade stands. You know, to help his self-esteem and to make him feel like a 'winner', after all.
Canadian want better lemonade, but with no competition, there is no incentive. Daddy gives dividends to his kids if they have a good year.
No, the kids should be giving daddy a dividend; he's the investor. The UBB-haters want Daddy to keep on pumping in more money without receiving his investment back, in full. They expect that Daddy should just perpetually keep opening his wallet to subsidize the lemonade stands. The UBB haters want the kids to get their friends to work at the lemonade stands for free without payment. And those same UBB haters insist that this almost free lemonade served up by slave labour should be of the same quality as expensive lemonade made by the best lemonade chefs around.
Unfortunately, Daddy has been giving too much for the past few years, and now, since the kids didn't bother saving their money, they are begging daddy for more.

Nope, they're not begging Daddy for more, they're merely raising their prices so they can earn more from the lemonade customers, the people who are addicted to the stuff and keep coming back to the lemonade stand 5X a day for more, as though its crack or opium or some addictive narcotic.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Guru
User avatar
Apr 24, 2006
10140 posts
640 upvotes
Mississauga
Mark77 wrote: Nope, they're not begging Daddy for more, they're merely raising their prices so they can earn more from the lemonade customers, the people who are addicted to the stuff and keep coming back to the lemonade stand 5X a day for more, as though its crack or opium or some addictive narcotic.

So did the Canadians spike their lemonade with a "unethical" ingredient? Because all those people drinking lemonade in South America, Europe, Africa, Asia all seem to drink it fine and don't go crazy for it. Could it possibly be because of its reasonable price, rather than it being addictive?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 19, 2004
8703 posts
1695 upvotes
Cambridge, ON
Phoenix3434 wrote: I have to say that AT&T announcing their caps is AWESOME news! Perfect timing to screw over Bell. As great as the Canadian consumers are, we are not large enough to make too many waves on the general internet. We are big enough to make things happen within Canada, but not in the general world wide public eye.

B/c of the AT&T announcement, there is already a big **** storm developing due to the shear number of pissed of US consumers. lol. This is a good article that talks about the issue:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... tified.ars

The funniest is that BT (in England) just announced that they are getting rid of THEIR caps after they improved their network:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Brit ... ocomment=1

Got to love the slashdot exposure this issue is getting now ;) .
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/03/14 ... dband-Caps

Some points in those articles:
But drilling down into the company's 2010 annual report (PDF) shows that wireline earned $7.8 billion of that $20 billion. And wireline expenses are actually shrinking, not increasing as one might expect in a congested network.
Suggesting yet again they are making money and it is costing them less to do so.

And again the real heart of the matter is not congestion but...
The real problem for wireline isn't data revenues—it's that people are shedding landline voice services. Those users aren't coming back—analog phone service is certainly dying out...
...the attempt to block progressive and desperately cling to the past instead of trying to innovate for the future. I don't blame these companies but it is sad to see the lack of vision for the future.

And a question asked by us before:
But as Internet video continues its march into our homes and living rooms, Internet bandwidth use will continue to grow. Will caps be raised over time to rein in outliers only, or will they remain at current levels and catch more and more users?
As I have mentioned before with the Bell UBB, it is not about the heavy user, it is about price gouging the average user. At least with AT&T they have a high cap. Not supporting them either but an average user according to AT&T is 18GB per month and so they give a cap of 150GB or 250GB, which means anyone on the high side of average will still not likely be paying. Unlike Bell who claims average is 15GB and gives a 25GB cap meaning many will be paying for overage.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
9071 posts
1397 upvotes
Victoria
I don't get why DSL would need to cap. They don't have the congested node issue cable providers have. They just need to increase capacity at their backend which is way less cost intensive. I know cable companies want to save money by running crowded nodes, hence why its a win/win with UBB.

But DSL is much better suited to deliver more bandwidth. So when I see DSL companies implement caps it doesn't seem right (allthough I wouldn't be against caps where they charged you slightly above bulk rates for additional bandwidth. 10 cents a gig would still turn a decent profit).

Telus out west has been running fine for years without enforcing their caps or charging overage. It's not impossible to do. It seems the rest of the world has the same or better prices then canada, with higher or non-existant caps.
Sr. Member
May 24, 2003
931 posts
43 upvotes
UBB is all about Netflix, and people leaving cable because they can stream off the web. Bell is trying to protect their satellite market by imposing ridiculously small caps, high overage fees, and imposing their pricing scheme on wholesalers to diminish any competition in the market. Rogers will be following suit as well. If anybody says anything different they are full of ****. Did the technological field die when Nortel went belly up and quit spending money on R&D? Nope because there were companies who came after them to fill in the void left by them. Same thing with Bell, Rogers, AT@T, etc.. there will ALWAYS be a company willing to spend the money as long as there is demand. Bell is trying to stifle this demand by decreasing any competition.

I say **** them all and went with Wightman's for internet and phone and cancelled my tv. Unfortunately I can't get fiber optic, but would gladly sign a contract to get it if it means I don't have to settle with Bell's pricing scheme and get a higher cap. Bell should be losing a lot of customers over this issue. Speak with your wallets and people will listen.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
Tijuana wrote: So did the Canadians spike their lemonade with a "unethical" ingredient? Because all those people drinking lemonade in South America, Europe, Africa, Asia all seem to drink it fine and don't go crazy for it. Could it possibly be because of its reasonable price, rather than it being addictive?

I don't know; you tell me why you're on RFD with a response barely 10 minutes after I tapped mine out. Addicted? I think so.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Guru
User avatar
Apr 24, 2006
10140 posts
640 upvotes
Mississauga
Mark77 wrote: I don't know; you tell me why you're on RFD with a response barely 10 minutes after I tapped mine out. Addicted? I think so.

Why did you not answer my question? Why are Canadian the only ones that are addicted, and no one else in the world?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 11, 2008
9433 posts
470 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: Why does it even matter to Teksavvy?

Oh right... Teksavvy built their business on being able to get service cheap from Bell.

And now they're crying that Bell is yanking that away.

Maybe if they were better businessmen, they would have realized that a good situation wasn't to last forever, and invested in infrastructure of their own (outside of their limited service infrastructure in Chatham).

Especially when their raison d'etre was providing service to the heaviest users, and even offering tools that were specifically used for de facto evasion of Bell's CRTC-approved traffic management policies, to wit: ML-PPP.

so explain to me how you would compete with a monopoly where that monopoly was afforded to them by taxpayers?
You use arguments that would work very well in a competitive market. But it fails in this case because it is NOT one.

Top