Stop the Meter: CRTC's Usage-Based Billing for Internet Services

[onecoin]

Originally Posted by Team Jetfire

Popular presure by the people elected to represent them, or doing what is right by the individuals and not big business?

Where's the motivation to improve service? Where's the motivation to lower the entry level pricing? No opportunity to increase rates or increase user base means no reason to progress.

[Team Jetfire]

Your really think an ass backward organization like the CRTC is really mandated to improve service? Were are taking about a agency who has year over year has continually stopped competition at the door, thus creating a monopoly over data service providers. You want better pricing? you want better service? Open up the markets and make these companies really work to keep their clients.

[Code of Honor]

Originally Posted by Team Jetfire

Your really think an ass backward organization like the CRTC is really mandated to improve service? Were are taking about a agency who has year over year has continually stopped competition at the door, thus creating a monopoly over data service providers. You want better pricing? you want better service? Open up the markets and make these companies really work to keep their clients.

Yeah, until there's competition the thought of lower cost internet is like Robimus said, idealistic, the cost of something never goes down, only the quality.

[onecoin]

Originally Posted by Team Jetfire

Your really think an ass backward organization like the CRTC is really mandated to improve service? Were are taking about a agency who has year over year has continually stopped competition at the door, thus creating a monopoly over data service providers. You want better pricing? you want better service? Open up the markets and make these companies really work to keep their clients.

No they're here to protect Canadian interest. Other companies have tried to enter Canadian telecom and failed. The only successful ones are the one's that piggy bank off the major players. What's the answer here? Let another American comapany monopolize another critical Canadian industry. More money leaving Canada is your answer? That is never the answer.

The CRTC just went to war with the Federal Government about this with Cell Providers. The CRTC lost that battle too. Now we have an American Company in Canada that can undercut Canadian providers, because they can afford to lose money in Canada until they eat up Market Share. Then we're dependant on another foreign interest.

You must be for manufacturing moving to Mexico and Customer Support moving to India. As long as deluxe transformers are 10 bucks at Walmart right?

Issues like this are more important than me paying an extra $2.00 my internet bill.

[Dark Rage]

From what I gather, onecoin's probably employed by the CRTC.

[Dark Rage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYizoh_r6D0

I especially love how they cut off Kevin just like that. If this UBB crap is repealed, I think I'm switching over to Teksavvy.

[Code of Honor]

I can't stand that Kevin O'Lerry guy, he's an asshole.

[Team Jetfire]

Originally Posted by onecoin

No they're here to protect Canadian interest. Other companies have tried to enter Canadian telecom and failed. The only successful ones are the one's that piggy bank off the major players. What's the answer here? Let another American company monopolize another critical Canadian industry. More money leaving Canada is your answer? That is never the answer.

Telus, A seemingly Canadian company, already has moved their call center to India, so your idea that the CRTC saves Canadian jobs is a fallacy. Besides, much like unions, coddling of businesses has never cultivated innovation. Take Air Canada for example. Constantly bailed out of every bad financial situation that they have faced and still barely able to turn a profit. Then you have West Jet, a new business model forced to think a bit differently and voilÃ*, a successful airline.

The CRTC just went to war with the Federal Government about this with Cell Providers. The CRTC lost that battle too. Now we have an American Company in Canada that can undercut Canadian providers, because they can afford to lose money in Canada until they eat up Market Share. Then we're dependent on another foreign interest.

How is that dependent on other countries? If anything outside interests create new jobs in canada because they need to set up a canadian head office and brick and mortar retail outlets.

You must be for manufacturing moving to Mexico and Customer Support moving to India. As long as deluxe transformers are 10 bucks at Walmart right?

Issues like this are more important than me paying an extra $2.00 my internet bill.

Really? REALLY?

Manufacturing is a tough one. Yes there has been jobs lost, these jobs were held by unskilled union members who were paid a lot of money to work an Assembly line. Many of these workers were protected by Unions and therefore never had the motivation excel further at the job and eventually could not compete with the cheaper workforce of China or India. I feel bad for those affected, but GM is a good example of how these factory workers could not sustain these high wages in a very competitive market.

[cannabisprime]

Originally Posted by onecoin

No they're here to protect Canadian interest. Other companies have tried to enter Canadian telecom and failed. The only successful ones are the one's that piggy bank off the major players. What's the answer here? Let another American comapany monopolize another critical Canadian industry. More money leaving Canada is your answer? That is never the answer.

The CRTC just went to war with the Federal Government about this with Cell Providers. The CRTC lost that battle too. Now we have an American Company in Canada that can undercut Canadian providers, because they can afford to lose money in Canada until they eat up Market Share. Then we're dependant on another foreign interest.

Wrong; the mandate of the CRTC (as it pertains to telecommunications) is to to ensure that Canadians receive reliable and affordable telecommunications services by allowing competition (not regulation) to drive the market. Their decision to initially allow UBB flies in the face of what their supposed to be mandated to do be doing given that their current proposal does nothing to further allow competition between ISPs.

What American telecom company recently hit our shores and set up cell phone services? The only major ones to come last year were Mobilicity and Wind Mobile, both of which passed Canadian ownership structure requirements scrutiny by the CRTC itself during their review of both companies a year ago. As to your comment that "the only successful ones are the ones that piggy bank off the major players", what do you think Bell has done? They've piggybacked on the fact that, as a previous government granted monopoly, it had a decades long headstart on it's current competition in laying down its current infrastructure. Newer entrants are not playing on a level playing as it is; by tying their hands to what was once a monopoly's fee structure is anything but competitive and beneficial to the end consumers.

Originally Posted by onecoin

You must be for manufacturing moving to Mexico and Customer Support moving to India.

By your argument, you must be for textiles moving to China and getting rid of the Canadian textile industry since you're most likely wearing clothing made in China. .

[Nightscrabbler]

I will always be opposed to usage-based billing because the Internet needs to remain fully accessible and inexpensive. For me, it's not the money itself, it's the dangerous precedent it sets. The web is the best avenue for information and puts the power of free speech in the hands of ordinary people--whether they want to say stupid things or not--to tell you about what's happening. Usage-based billing is in the same scary category as ISPs picking which websites you can and can't visit.