JasonParis
Moderator
Exactly. Communications in this country simply would not work without a CRTC and why every country in the world has a similar body. Hardly a waste of space.
|
|
|
Net Neutrality / Internet Throttling Debate
- Thread starter cacruden
- Start date
cacruden
Senior Member
Except even the FCC is more of a consumer advocate than the CRTC. The CRTC is staffed by ex-Bell, and ex-Rogers people mostly. The CRTC should be reformed - where it's primary task is to represent the consumers - especially when you really only have competition between two or three companies. Supposedly the CRTC is protecting "Canadian culture", but in reality it is protecting the companies - what culture do you really find on TV? Yes, there might be some on CBC - but really - on cable - there is no culture to protect.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Kenny Vs. Spenny, KINK & Trailer Park Boys on Showcase to name a few. Good, down home Canadian culture there
khris
Senior Member
The way the CRTC operates right now IS a waste of space. They do nothing good for the consumer at all. I don't think they even work! They just sit in their offices and talk all day or something.
It needs a complete overhaul.
It needs a complete overhaul.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Did you read the ruling? The ruling was based on the specific complaint against specific laws. The CRTC did say that based on the outcome of this case, that the need for specific net neutrality laws need to be studied.
khris
Senior Member
Yes, I read it. From what I understand, it's going to take until at least July for them to come to a conclusion. July? Seriously? It's really not that complex...
digi
Active Member
What's your solution then?
You're right...you don't think.
Recently, the CRTC ruled against public broadcasters who were seeking carriage fees...that means that cable and satellite bills would have increased dramatically to cover the cost of traditionally 'free' television.
If you'd prefer to pay a premium to watch commercials, maybe you should suggest it to them.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I don't see what Bell's doing wrong here. They sell telephone service, and their potential customers are using Bell's internet service to replace Bell's core telephone service. Why shouldn't Bell be permitted to discourage their customers from doing this?
If the customers don't like it, they can choose another ISP. If there aren't enough ISP choices, that's not Bell's fault, but the market's.
If the customers don't like it, they can choose another ISP. If there aren't enough ISP choices, that's not Bell's fault, but the market's.
digi
Active Member
If Bell is losing telephone customers, that's not the markets fault, it's Bells.
Brian69
Not the Messiah
Bah. I dream of putting up with Bell's shenanigans.
After two years of mounting frustration with Rogers I thought I finally got into a good situation with my upcoming move from my present address to another. I expected to be going into what I thought was a Bell-friendly building (which meant getting Teksavvy, not Bell). Turns out the newest phase of the complex has gone with Rogers so I have to bite the bullet and look forward to more years with the happy-throttling and capping giant whose reach extends ever further with each passing day. Wankers.
After two years of mounting frustration with Rogers I thought I finally got into a good situation with my upcoming move from my present address to another. I expected to be going into what I thought was a Bell-friendly building (which meant getting Teksavvy, not Bell). Turns out the newest phase of the complex has gone with Rogers so I have to bite the bullet and look forward to more years with the happy-throttling and capping giant whose reach extends ever further with each passing day. Wankers.
smuncky
Senior Member
as of jan 2009, bell is going to be changing some rules for resellers of dsl. from what i've been told by a friend, old customers will continue to get unlimited downloading, new customers (as of Jan '09) will be limited to 60GB/month.
here is the thread with all the info.
http://community.acanac.com/acanac/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6453&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
here is the thread with all the info.
http://community.acanac.com/acanac/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6453&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Exactly. That said, if the phone infrastructure (cables, relay stations, etc) is owned by Bell, then they should get a say in how it's used, and for how much.
wonderboy416
Active Member
But should Bell be entitled to a monopoly over such a system?
What about the cable co's?
Why the heck is internet service in Canada so unbelievably bad and uber-expensive... I'm paying about $14/month for unlimited data transfer over here and consistantly getting 3-4 megs per second on my torrents, and I've seen it reach much higher... yet in the land of Rogers you pay $50+ for 60 whopping gigs and horrible speeds... yey Canada... The CRTC is not doing a good job at all.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
They don't. If you wanted to start up your own land-line telephone system, I do not believe there is anything in Canadian law saying you can't. The cable co's are doing just this, using their own infrastructure to compete with Bell. Bell built the lines, towers, relay stations and installed the phone lines for their system, so they own it. I don't think we want a nationalized phone company, that would be worse than what we have now.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- a strange reality, bizarro toronto
was it ever a crown corp or anything like that? did they ever use taxpayer dollars to expand their infrastructure?