|
Forum: General Talk
02-06-2011, 08:53 AM
|
| |
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.
|
