Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-05-2011, 09:30 AM   #16
Veteran Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 365
If they were to put an upgrade charge of, say $10 on my bill, and keep it unlimited, I wouldn't mind, as there would be improvements to the system, leading to me having the option of purchasing faster internet. It would give me a choice of staying where I am (a 6 mb connection), or I could upgrade to a faster connection.

Also, I have never encountered problems connecting to the internet, even when I was doing massive downloads in Steam.

02-06-2011, 06:17 AM   #17
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
now it seems that they put Wind Mobile's operations legality on question. this just keeps getting better and better.

higher rates and no competition. what a way of implementing monopolism. I'm fed-up with the excuse of Canada needs to protect it's own business. and some diehard patriots still believe that crap. So when did the Big 3 became a public ownership? it's so obvious that the big 3 are just worried of their investment. personally, I don't find overcharging Canadians to be patriotic, so why defend companies that cannibalizes on it's own people? what do these companies give in return? you guessed it, higher rates every year.
02-06-2011, 07:23 AM   #18
Veteran Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 365
Actually, we have something worse: A duopoly. A duopoly that works together to maximize their profits.
02-06-2011, 08:18 AM - 1 Like   #19
Junior Member

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Photos: Albums
Posts: 48
Here in manitoba there's no Bell or Rogers Cable, instead we have MTS - to whom I switched after Shaw (cableco) kept cutting me off after 60 gigs - not a cap, just two or three weeks into the month my internet stops working until I call them and they whine at me. With MTS they don't care how much I use the service, as "Unlimited" actually means that with them. In fact, Shaw has subsequently REMOVED the term unlimited from their advertising.

As far as infrastructure upgrading goes, if your cable/telco isn't doing *constant* equipment upgrades, what the hell is wrong with them? I've never heard of a technology/network driven company that didn't have to do constant upgrades. In the three years I've had MTS they have already upgraded my speed for free from 5 to 7 mbit - actually they made 7mbit the baseline and now I can get 15mbit dsl.

I think this is all just a cash grab, typical corporate behavior. Claim your costs are going up - despite the fact that bandwidth gets cheaper over time - and gouge the customer.

Last edited by tentacles; 02-07-2011 at 06:29 AM. Reason: typo
02-06-2011, 08:53 AM   #20
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,593
Ultimately, it will be the consumer, and it won't be cheap.
The hidden issue here is that the companies plan to rake in big profits by being able to charge people for something they don't use. When I go to the gas pumps if I pay for 5$ worth of gas, I get $5 worth of gas. At bell or Rogers, I might pay of 25 Gb, but I might only use 10. That can create huge profits for the provider. The same as if I went to the pump and paid for 5 but only put 2 in my tank.

The solution is simple. Charge a fair price per Gb and make a Gb a Gb. YOu get what you pay for. Ever since the CRTC allowed the phone companies to charge for phone service they don't provide the same way, we've been sliding down this slippery slope of pay for the right to service, not pay for use.

Bell asking to up the price for new networks is also a scam. They own the network, if they want it, they should pay for it. You don't up the price to your customers so that you own more, increasing the capital worth of your business. If the people of Canada are going to be asked to pay for these upgrades, they should own them. If Bell can find investors to cover these costs, then build the networks and raise rates to pay for the new investment. But to raise rates to existing customers to pay for the costs of expansion, and then charge them higher rates after the expansion is fundamentally flawed.

So the problem as I see it with the CRTC decision with regards to bandwidth limits, is that they never looked at Bell's or Rogers' bottom lines to see if this was a money grab or was actually needed. In the past the CRTC has allowed Bell and Rogers a green light to print money, limiting their competitions while allowing them every advantage possible in the market place. These are the equivalents of taxes paid to corporate interests. This is good for me. My pension plan owns a large percentage of Bell. As for the rest of the public.. if I was paying hundreds of dollars for TV and internet, I'd be outraged. I simply refuse to buy in to the madness. My cell phone is on a plan 50 minutes for $15 a month, and I rarely use my 50 minutes, so they still owe me money back, a basic land line and satellite TV, basic package.

The solution is simple. Internet infrastructure should be run by the Government with providers able to rent bandwidth as needed. Backbone providers should be denied the right to provide either content or bandwidth to the consumers. The backbone should be equally accessible to any mom and pop organization out there that thinks they can run an internet company.

Give bell and especially Rogers their choice, sell their content providing wings, or sell their internet backbone. Having both is a conflict of interest.
02-06-2011, 12:50 PM   #21
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
the is a huge clamor that the CRTC should now be abolished due to conflict of interests because of the strong belief that pay-offs are made to maintain the frequency of cash flow and prevent any threats to it by not allowing competition to enter. so how many decades it has been that the Big 3 never had any real competition?

the funny thing is people pay premium fees for a crappy obsolete and restricted service.
Canadian telecom has always been a joke. where can you find that you even pay for options or features that should had been already included on the cellphone? purposely blocking the features? harassment for payments? harassment for usage? etc...

Canada doesn't provide the best telecom service in the world yet we have the highest rates in the world next to the U.K. I would gladly be happy to pay such rates if they are instrumental for keeping the Canadian economy afloat and immune from any ripple effect caused by the worldwide recession and keep everything affordably low in Canada. but if they are the only ones that are benefiting for such big amount of cashflow, I want a service that is far more better than what Japan is providing.

I have an insider friend of mine who was in the telecom business for years and he said how much money the telecom company generates per day. not to mention the company that he worked for was providing real unlimited service and way cheaper rates. one can only imagine how much money the Big 3 earns especially if their rates are 5 times the cost. does patriotism cost that much?
02-07-2011, 02:08 PM   #22
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
Canadian telecom has always been a joke. where can you find that you even pay for
Where else can you find that you pay to receive phone calls??

QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
Canada doesn't provide the best telecom service in the world
I'd argue that we have among the best land-line service. Low-cost, excellent quality, widely available, etc. And of course it's hard to complain about the long-distance situation here. But .. the mobile and Internet service....

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The solution is simple. Internet infrastructure should be run by the Government
I disagree. I think that having infra firms of all sizes in the mix would do the job. The innovative and well-run places would get ahead. Going back to Japan, "Softbank" is an excellent example of improvement to the mobile space. They were an outsider and now, thanks to breaking with Japanese tradition and bringing in the iPhone, they are booming. Their signal strength etc is still by far the worst in the country but they're coming up fast and they are very profitable. And the big innovation they offer to e-commerce (etc) service providers? No more proprietary versions of HTML and channel-locked provisioning: just build a website and limit the dimensions to those of the phone's screen. It's vastly simpler than coding one version for AU, NTT, etc (or more likely, choosing the telco you want to partner with).

  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
activism, bell, canada, internet, petition, service, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SDM Petition - Let's start a fire. LeDave Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 107 12-01-2013 09:17 PM
SDM Petition - REMINDER- bc_the_path Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 01-14-2010 06:52 PM
Canadian Pentax users: Who else is disillusioned? enoxatnep Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 37 04-27-2009 11:23 AM
Orphan Works Petition nathancombs Photographic Technique 7 06-21-2008 09:59 PM
Starting a Petition benjikan Pentax News and Rumors 22 05-24-2007 12:45 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:16 PM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]