Canada Splits Local Phone, DSL Services

so... by Gibble · 2003-07-21 07:08 · Score: 1, Offtopic

In my area, ADSL is much slower than Cable, I'll stick with my cable and my connection that isn't capped as low as ADSL

--
Gibble: Descriptive of an emotional state in which one's mind is scrabbling for some purchase on reality

Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-21 07:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

Cable will always be faster than ADSL, but Sympatico now offers unlimited bandwith.

Why is high download speed important? As long as pages load, I have no problem. Most websites and download locations don't even offer what you can get from a 1.5mbps connection anyway, why would you need 4mbps? You're not downloading illegal stuff from Kazaa arn't you?
Re:so... by Malc · 2003-07-21 07:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

In my area (Toronto), DSL is much faster than cable. I get 3.5Mbs/800Kbs for about CAD$50. Cable isn't an option as it is only offered one company (Rogers), and it's a horrible one at that.
Re:so... by Gibble · 2003-07-21 07:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Online Gaming, and legal software downloads (linux ISOs and packcages, etc) these all eat bandwidth and when I'm downloading a 650MB ISO, I'd like it to be done within a reasonable time, not days.

I'm also a webdesigner and I am constantly uploading files to webservers, I like to be able to do this quickly and not have to wait around killing productivity. When I need to VNC to a server I wouldn't mind a decent response, rather than an extremely choppy connection.

There ARE legitimate uses for bandwidth by home users.

In the small town I live, we have the choice b/w Cable from Shaw, or ADSL from MTS ... Cable is by far the superior choice in Manitoba.

But forcing companies to provide a service...seems wrong, if you want to regulate, don't have private companies. If they want the control, the gov't should run them.

--
Gibble: Descriptive of an emotional state in which one's mind is scrabbling for some purchase on reality
Re:so... by Malc · 2003-07-21 08:00 · Score: 1

I occasionally (several times per week) see 350KB/s on individual downloads. I often see it on aggregate though. The upstream is the killer: since it was upgraded from 160Kbs to 800Kbs, I haven't seen an upload kill my network connection. Kazaa and apt-get just fly along on the connection, and so did MSDN until MSFT started capping throughput at 40KB/s.
Re:so... by Jucius+Maximus · 2003-07-21 08:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

"In my area (Toronto), DSL is much faster than cable. I get 3.5Mbs/800Kbs for about CAD$50. Cable isn't an option as it is only offered one company (Rogers), and it's a horrible one at that."
That DSL is a sweet package, but cable is not quite so 'horrible' as you describe. Rogers cable is 1.5M/256K for $45 and it works just fine. (The intro rate for the first 4 months is $25.) In the short intervals when I lived in Toronto for business purposes (about 7 months) I *never* had a problem with it except ones that were related to my own cable box. (Some assclown tampered with it.) It worked up to the advertised speeds and my bittorrent client was very happy compared to the ultra-lame 28.8 dialup at home. (There is no broadband or even 56K available at home from any provider. Stupid rural areas.)
Clearly rogers cable is less cost effective than your DSL, but I DSL's hidden cost is that you have to pay for a phone line as well. I just rely on my cell and forego the landline. I only needed rogers long enough to scrap it at the end of getting the intro rate and then move out of TO again, but I can say for sure that it was not 'horrible.'
Re:so... by Ominous+Coward · 2003-07-21 08:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

as a web designer, you should maybe make your files a bit smaller? It'd take less time to upload, regardless of connection, and your site would be more user-friendly, no?

--
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
Re:so... by Malc · 2003-07-21 08:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

"When I need to VNC to a server I wouldn't mind a decent response, rather than an extremely choppy connection.

Latency, not bandwidth affects VNC the most.
Re:so... by Malc · 2003-07-21 08:09 · Score: 1

The Internet != the World Wide Web! Loading pages is only a very small proportion of what I use the internet for. If you can't imagine what you'd use a fast connection for other than illegal activities, then either you don't have one, or don't need one, or you're unimaginative.
Re:So... by gobbo · 2003-07-21 08:13 · Score: 1

That's ridiculous! Mod parent as troll please.

I Am Not A Liberal, I'm not even a federalist or any kind of supporter of the Canadian government... end qualifier.

Chretien has been in power for such a long time [longer than Trudeau!] for a number of reasons, not all of them because he's canny at manipulating party politics. He has a populist approach (how many national leaders regularly lampoon themselves on nationally broadcast comedy shows), he's a classic Liberal after the fashion of Trudeau in many respects, and the Canadian gov. under him has many international accomplishments to chalk up.

If you're referring to the resistance to join in the invasion of Iraq (while supporting them with reconnaisance and being a full member of the War on [anything we define as] Terrorism), then you aren't really paying attention to the International stage of politics as a whole. As a statesman who's been in elected power for a realllly long time, word is that he's respected.

Paul Martin will likely be the next PM, and chances are he'll be a Quisling to the Americans, so many Canadians are nervous, remembering how Mulroney sold us out in the same way.

--
Damn those pesky terrorists
Re:so... by Malc · 2003-07-21 08:26 · Score: 1

Let me clarify: when I tried Rogers a couple of years back (before split from @Home), the actual service was dreadful. The first four days the DHCP servers were down so I couldn't get an IP. I found huge amounts of latency that increased at every hop. It could have been my neighbourhood. I wouldn't go back to them now because of their AUP: no servers. I pay $4/mo for a static IP (Rogers doesn't offer that at all), and I have freedom to use my connection as I see fit. I host my own domain on it amongst other things.
Re:So... by Merk · 2003-07-21 08:30 · Score: 1

It's Damn Cold.

Granted, there are places like Vancouver which are miserable and soggy, but not Damn Cold in the winter, but the rest of the place is frigid. Even down in Toronto which is North of parts of the US, in the winter it often gets Damn Cold.
Re:So... by thebigmacd · 2003-07-21 08:37 · Score: 1

Uh how is Toronto being north of parts of the US anything new? The whole of Canada is North of parts of the US. Oh perhaps you mean South of parts of the US. Yes, and Pelee Island in SW Ontario is south of parts of California. But keep in mind that I am being particular and the fact is that MOST of Canada and just about ALL of the population is farther south than the State of Alaska, so that's nothing new either.
Re:So... by nemoest · 2003-07-21 09:02 · Score: 1

I can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet, but as any self-respecting geek should know, in Cananda soft drinks that aren't brown generally do not have any caffeine in them!!

Mountain Dew for example. In the US it is the sweet nectar of the gods fueling hours upon hours of coding, but in Canada it is little more than colored Sprite.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ gu arana/index2.html

While that isn't a story *directly* about the lack of caffeine (it is an expose on guarana-based caffeine in energy drinks and how it isn't regulated), it does mention that Mountain Dew has no caffeine for the people would would argue otherwise.

You've been warned!
Re:so... by Hoser+McMoose · 2003-07-21 09:08 · Score: 1

Cable is definitely NOT always faster than ADSL, it depends entirely on the quality of service. Both cable and DSL connections can have an artificial speed cap set by whatever company provides the service. However, what's even more important is the upstream bandwidth of the provider. Even if cable offers you a theoretical 5Mbit/s connection vs. a 1.5Mbit/s DSL connection, the actual bandwidth could be higher for DSL if the cable companies upstream connection is saturated.

As for the big bandwidth question, that should be obvious! DSL and cable are all about getting the biggest pr0n pipe!
Re:So... by MKalus · 2003-07-21 09:42 · Score: 1

Paul Martin will likely be the next PM, and chances are he'll be a Quisling to the Americans, so many Canadians are nervous, remembering how Mulroney sold us out in the same way.

I am only living here for the past 3 1/2 years and don't even hold a Canadian Landed Immigrant status, but even I am getting nervous about Martin becoming the next PM.

On the other hand: I don't see anyone else who might even have a remote chance. I guess it's going to be very interresting to see what happens next in Ontario:

- Who comes after Lastman in Toronto (really, that guy is way past his prime, he isn't even funny anymore).
- With Eves gone (I can't see ANYONE voting him back into the office) who will come next?

Interresting times we're living in... And I still think the Canadian Parliament is more entertaining than anything but maybe the british.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Re:So... by MKalus · 2003-07-21 09:45 · Score: 1

Why Unfortunatly?

The little bit I have picked up about Canadian history I would say that he did a pretty good job (yeah, despite giving so much to the Quebecoise). Anybody I talked to seems to think Trudeau did a pretty good job and most people look at Chretien in at least a favourable way as well.

Or what am I missing here?

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Re:so... by rikkards · 2003-07-21 10:01 · Score: 1

I have been on Rogers for about 2.5 years. I have only lost connection once and that was a planned outage for about 2 hours. They say no servers but I have had an ftp server, Terminal server for pretty much the same amount of time and they haven't said a word. However every once in a while they do a scan for SMTP and NNTP servers but that's about it.
Re:So... by Merk · 2003-07-21 10:48 · Score: 1

I blame the cold. ;)
Re:So... by Rick+BigNail · 2003-07-21 11:59 · Score: 1

Only one problem I can see: Strike of the public union.
Re:so... by uberdave · 2003-07-21 12:11 · Score: 1

I found Rogers to be "bursty". There would be times when it would be fast, but there would be a couple of seconds where the speed dropped to zero. Overall speed seemed slower than DSL (no hard numbers, just a general "feel"). Also, at my previous residence, it took around two weeks from installation to connection. Rogers charges an extra $10/Month if you don't get cable, and they do not give static IPs, nor do they allow you to run servers. My DSL provider gives me faster, smoother service, a static IP address, and I can run servers to my heart's content for $36.33/month. It was a no brainer.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Re:so... by Jucius+Maximus · 2003-07-21 12:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

" Let me clarify: when I tried Rogers a couple of years back (before split from @Home), the actual service was dreadful. The first four days the DHCP servers were down so I couldn't get an IP."
The stories I have heard from my friends that had it back then concur with that. But basically the one time they did get an IP they just recorded it and told the computer that it was a static address. After entering the DNS of the local university, all was good.
"I found huge amounts of latency that increased at every hop. It could have been my neighbourhood."
I hadn't heard any stories like that, but I guess it varied from area to area. It was still fast 4 years ago for my friends when it worked.
"I wouldn't go back to them now because of their AUP: no servers. I pay $4/mo for a static IP (Rogers doesn't offer that at all), and I have freedom to use my connection as I see fit. I host my own domain on it amongst other things."
That's your option. I would do the same as what you did if I actually lived in TO on a permanent basis and had a land line and such. But for my current setup, rogers fits the bill more nicely than something connected to a landline.
The few times that I have run a server, I just kept it on a high port and I never heard anything about it.
Re:so... by Malc · 2003-07-21 14:45 · Score: 1

" Let me clarify: when I tried Rogers a couple of years back (before split from @Home), the actual service was dreadful. The first four days the DHCP servers were down so I couldn't get an IP."

The stories I have heard from my friends that had it back then concur with that. But basically the one time they did get an IP they just recorded it and told the computer that it was a static address

I've heard stories like that too. It's real arsehole-ish thing to do, and pretty dumb too. No wonder they have network problems. Once the DHCP server doesn't get a lease renewal, it will try to give the IP to somebody else who will then have network problems.

"The few times that I have run a server, I just kept it on a high port and I never heard anything about it."

*chuckle* Not much good for a standard MX record though.
Re:so... by Jucius+Maximus · 2003-07-21 16:00 · Score: 1

True, although if they had had functioning DNS and DHCP to begin with they it wouldn't have happened. And I do agree with you about running standard MX servers - clealy rogers service is only for casual use.
Re:So... by autechre · 2003-07-21 16:48 · Score: 1

Well, I must admit to having been vastly entertained and informed. In the spirit of pretending that /. is a mailing list or a normal discussion board, thanks!

I don't drink caffeine (except for hot chocolate), so I wouldn't even have to get used to calling it "pop", because I wouldn't care. Cold weather is GREAT*. Privatisation...can we take it back if it doesn't work? Interesting that a nation with national health care is heading this way.

I don't know anything about the PM or potential replacements, or striking of public unions, but I'll try to remember to look into those first. Of course, I still have to fight off my Aussie co-workers (hooray freshmeat) trying to drag me to THEIR country :)

* The only thing that would concern me about the cold weather is the likelihood of getting fresh produce regularly. On the plus side, Canada has some of the highest-protein flour anywhere (mmm, pizza).

--
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Re:So... by Idarubicin · 2003-07-21 18:36 · Score: 1

One word....Chretien.
Our current Prime Minister is a complete embarrassment on the international stage.
Yes, but remember that the parent poster is considering a move from the United States. President Bush on the international stage is an embarrassment with access to nuclear weapons, who seems bent on actively destructive foreign policy.
I would be the last to claim Jean Chretien is a perfect Prime Minister, but at least he runs a friendly dictatorship, and one where he's clearly responsible for his own opinions. He says what he thinks (embarrassing or otherwise)--he definitely doesn't have a Cheney or an Ashcroft pulling his strings.

--
~Idarubicin
Re:So... by jamesmrankinjr · 2003-07-22 03:13 · Score: 1

"'m a moderate with a bit of a leftward bent (Kucinich is looking surprisingly good for a Democrat)"
Moderate??? Kucinich is about as left as you can get.
It's always interesting to me that liberals are so utterly ashamed of their ideology that they can never bring themselves to admit that they're liberals.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Re:so... by gklinger · 2003-07-22 05:05 · Score: 1

$50 for 3.5Mb/800Kb per second? That's remarkably good. The best deal I've been able to swing is 3Mb/768Kb for a little under $100 and that's through a friend. The regular price is about $180 from what I understand.
Where are you getting this great deal? If their connectivity is even remotely decent, I would love to get in on that deal.
Re:so... by Malc · 2003-07-22 05:34 · Score: 1

IStop.com. Their prices are online too. The web page is no frills, they're looking for customers who technical and can support themselves, and they don't offer service in French. The service has been stabalising for some time, especially since mid-last year when they're tried to expand too quickly and got burnt.
Re:so... by alexo · 2003-07-22 08:42 · Score: 1

> In my area (Toronto), DSL is much faster than cable. I get 3.5Mbs/800Kbs for about CAD$50. Cable isn't an option as it is only offered one company (Rogers), and it's a horrible one at that.

Care to name the provider? Does not sound like Bell as the best that they offer is 3M/640K for about $70.
Re:so... by Malc · 2003-07-22 09:10 · Score: 1

Bell's being conservative with those numbers. Actual modem sync rate is 3,488Kb/s down, and 800Kb/s up - assuming your line is good enough. There are some overheads, such as PPPoE. All providers of the 3 meg service get this sync rate as they lease the DSLAM port from Bellnexxia, including Sympatico. FWIW, I use IStop.com. I have seen 350KB/s in a Mozilla download, which is pretty good considering I'm at 4.5km, I don't get any of the high or low frequency channels, and I sync at 3,000-3,200Kb/s.

Oh I could only wish... by TWX · 2003-07-21 07:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

... that someone here would work to implement this in the United States. It would mean that companies like Verizon and Qwest wouldn't have the stranglehold on broadband that they currently do...

In Phoenix, we have two different Cablemodem providers, with some fairly significant overlapping coverage, but all of the independent DSL line providers for residential closed except for Qwest, and Qwest still uses Pair Gain, which kills DSL.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:Oh I could only wish... by nsideops · 2003-07-21 07:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I live in a farily small town. Any area you live in has "one" broadbrand option. There is no (or very little) overlapping. There is no choice here. In town you have a choice of the one cable or one dsl, but this is honestlly a small area. I live outside the city limits so it's either take what they give you or get nothing. I've found it's like this in quite a large section of the US.

--
Teach someone to use the net and they won't bother you for weeks; show them Slashdot and you may never see them again.
Re:Oh I could only wish... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-21 07:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Nice. "I didn't read the article but I have a post that people will like and will post it anyway." This is about forcing big phone companies to offer DSL in areas where they don't offer local service. It has nothing to do with decreasing monopolies in areas that the big companies already exist. It would be like getting RCN local phone service but still being able to get Verizon DSL. Why I would want to do that (since Verizon DSL sucks) I don't know. I am much happier with my RCN cable modem which averages around 1.2 Mbps.
Re:Oh I could only wish... by Azghoul · 2003-07-21 07:23 · Score: 1

Guess we should all move to places where there the population density is above 0. :)
Re:Oh I could only wish... by GoofyBoy · 2003-07-21 07:23 · Score: 1

> It would mean that companies like Verizon and Qwest wouldn't have the stranglehold on broadband that they currently do...

You can already get broadband from a variety of different vendors here in Canada. If you can get high-speed from Bell, then you can also get it from other re-sellers also.

So this is more of a "freedom" from who you get your local phone service from.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Oh I could only wish... by Phroggy · 2003-07-21 07:25 · Score: 1

In Phoenix, we have two different Cablemodem providers, with some fairly significant overlapping coverage, but all of the independent DSL line providers for residential closed except for Qwest, and Qwest still uses Pair Gain, which kills DSL.

Covad is still open (they recovered from Chapter 11), and does service Phoenix. SpeakEasy uses Covad exclusively, and as far as I know Earthlink uses Covad in Phoenix. Of course, Covad's ADSL normally uses line sharing on top of Qwest's line, so if Qwest's line won't qualify for DSL, you're probably still out of luck. See if SDSL is an option (SDSL normally runs on a dry pair).

Pair gain does kill DSL, but don't assume you can't get DSL through Qwest until you talk to Qwest and they tell you you can't. They may switch your phone line to a new pair.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Oh I could only wish... by TWX · 2003-07-21 07:37 · Score: 2, Informative

"Pair gain [bldrdoc.gov] does kill DSL, but don't assume you can't get DSL through Qwest until you talk to Qwest and they tell you you can't. They may switch your phone line to a new pair."

They won't. A friend of mine lived 7000 feet from the CO, and he tried asking, he tried three different phone lines, and they all were pair gain. His upstairs neighbour had DSL though, so that really made him mad that it was available there and yet they wouldn't do one little change that could have allowed them even more low-maintenance revenue...

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Oh I could only wish... by Phroggy · 2003-07-21 07:53 · Score: 1

They won't. A friend of mine...

Don't assume you can't get DSL through Qwest until you talk to Qwest and they tell you you can't. Your experience may differ from your friend's. I'm not saying it will, just saying it could.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Oh I could only wish... by Fulg · 2003-07-21 08:12 · Score: 2, Informative

You can already get broadband from a variety of different vendors here in Canada. If you can get high-speed from Bell, then you can also get it from other re-sellers also.

I believe that the service is still actually offered by Bell, regardless of who sells it to you... The "other resellers" just buy bandwidth on Bell's existing infrastructure.

In effect you just get to choose the letterhead on your bill :)

It may be cheaper in the end but you get the same (possibly sucky) service either way.

--
gcc: no input sig
Re:Oh I could only wish... by Bob9113 · 2003-07-21 08:34 · Score: 1

In Phoenix, we have two different Cablemodem providers, with some fairly significant overlapping coverage, but all of the independent DSL line providers for residential closed except for Qwest, and Qwest still uses Pair Gain, which kills DSL.

FWIW, I too live in Phoenix, and can verify that my DSL speed is pretty weak considering how close I am to the CO. If you do need static IPs for a reasonable price though, you can get a pretty good deal with QWest on local loop and Deru on bandwidth.

I've never had to talk to their tech support, so I don't know if they're customer oriented, but I did colo a server with them and I can testify that they are true geeks. The sales guy I talked to was the same guy that pulled the cat 5 to my box.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Oh I could only wish... by BagOBones · 2003-07-21 08:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Close. The way ADSL works here (Edmonton, Albert, Canada) is that Telus (Main phone company) owns almost all of the phone lines and they are connected to their wiring centre.

When you sign up for ADSL from an alternate provider. Your modem is connected to Telus lines and goes through the Telus wiring centre then it goes the the ISP you signed up for who then connects you to their backbone connection.

This also means that if Telus has screwed up your phone line or you simple have poor wiring it doesn't matter who you sign up with you get the same problems.

Also the alternate ISP is at the mercy of Telus support when something goes wrong at the wiring centre.

So your ISP controls your bandwidth and charges, but the Phone Company owns and controls the lines.

--
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
Re:Oh I could only wish... by rikkards · 2003-07-21 10:11 · Score: 1

This is the same in the East with Bell. For 'mericans, Telus is a merger of BC and Alberta's baby bells in the west while Bell Canada is the big evil corporation in the East( this is more or less what it is).
My last occupation was at a company who was getting ADSL from a local ISP. However they were reselling Bell. The problem was that the ADSL modem ended up becoming flakey and would stop transmitting.
I put a call in with the local ISP and they confirmed it. However since it was a resale of Bell's service, the ADSL modem was also Bell's property so the ISP had to put a call in with Bell Nexxia which is Symatico's Business division (which is Bell's Internet division (lost yet?)) Anyways we would put the call into the ISP, the ISP would put in a call with Bell and then about 2 hours later they would look at it and lo and behold it would be working again. This went for about 3 days and even involved us calling Bell and threatening lawsuits (I worked for an IP law firm, no problem getting a lawyer) before they finally came in.

5 minutes after the guy showed up the problem was gone. They guy even mentioned they were replacing the old modems with an Alcatel version.

Quite annoying.
Re:Oh I could only wish... by TWX · 2003-07-21 10:12 · Score: 1

Well, having dealt with Qwest.net and Quest Communications, which are run as seperate companies, I can tell you that it is difficult to impossible to get the line provisioning part of the company to do something, even if the Internet/DSL portion wants it done. I used to do phone support for an Internet provider, and back when I was doing that, the ISPs were responsible for submitting DSL line requests and seeing what the outcome was from Qwest. We received very little explanation for why a line wouldn't qualify, and the only contact that we had to attempt to resolve things with was *surprise* in the Internet portion of the company, not in the raw equipment/line part of the company. Qwest has a hard enough time providing decent telephone service, and they're so focused on trying to convince the Arizona Corporation Commission and the Utility Regulatory Agency to allow them to sell long distance service that they're doing a piss-poor job with maintenance on their other services. The Spirit of Service indeed, in this case, 'spirit' must refer to the soul of something dead.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Oh I could only wish... by Ryandav · 2003-07-21 12:45 · Score: 1

actually, speakeasy uses a few different different CLECs, including Worldcom. You can call and ask their sales department, but this allows them to play vendors against each other just like any other competitive market. I think they also have services through New Edge Networks, as well.

I wish, I wish, I wish that legislation like this had a chance here across the border.

--
Check my Go-related blog for beginners: DGD
Re:Oh I could only wish... by sexykitty · 2003-07-21 22:47 · Score: 1

Very similar to how things work in New Brunswick. Our main phone company,NBTel/Aliant, which I believe used to be Government funded and I know used to be a monopoly owns all lines in the province. I used to work for a small independant dial-up provided here and we had to buy all our bandwidth from said company (at very unreasonable rates I might add).

Now on to the ADSL issue; I personally wrote to the CRTC to speak out against the policies of ADSL in my province. All I wanted was to keep my ADSL internet access but drop my local phone service altogether in preference for a cell phone (from a competing company). After some "lost" email between myself and the company was finally directed to the right people they responded simply telling me that thier technology did not make it possible to provide ADSL service without a local phone line. Knowing that there were regulations and tariffs preventing such a policy I wrote the CRTC. They were very encouraging in thier initial response and several months later wrote back with an update and hinted that this very legislation was forthcoming.

Whatcha gonna do now NBTel? I'm calling customer service immediately to talk about cancelling my local phone service again....

--
echo $wittysigline;

hmm by UU7 · 2003-07-21 07:09 · Score: 3, Funny

This is quite good news. I'm glad we aren't following the US.

I love living here :)

They'll just bypass this edict... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-21 07:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

...by pricing it ridiculously high. If they get suckers who sign up, then they profit. If they don't, well they really didn't want the business anyway.

Re:They'll just bypass this edict... by Zathrus · 2003-07-21 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's fine. As long as they offer it to everyone, indiscriminately, at that price. Including internal customers.

Anything else is price discrimination, which I'd bet is illegal in Canada.

Offering it at absurd prices will merely kill it outright and drive customers to alternate providers and/or services. This is the entire idea behind deregulation, and if it's implemented properly it can work.

When it's implemented improperly, however, it becomes a nightmare and causes far more problems than existed previously -- for examples on badly done public utility deregulation see California's electric power dereg or Georgia's natural gas dereg. Either one is a case study in how not to do it, and between the two they've frozen dereg pushes on power or natural gas across the US.
Re:They'll just bypass this edict... by Malc · 2003-07-21 07:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, Bell makes a lot of money off the people who don't sign up with Sympatico. They lease the DSLAM ports and don't have to provide end user support or any other ISP infrastructure.
Re:They'll just bypass this edict... by bobtheheadless · 2003-07-21 09:20 · Score: 1

Anything else is price discrimination, which I'd bet is illegal in Canada
AFAIK, yep :). For the communications industry, anway.

--
--- If I had a funny sig too, you might be laughing now.
Re:They'll just bypass this edict... by martok · 2003-07-21 09:21 · Score: 3, Informative

Unfortunately for consumers, higher DSL prices when the local line is
through a competitor are likely. Telus already does something similar with
long distance and calling features. The idea is that you can get your call
waiting, callerid, and some other features at a discount as part of a
bundle. However, this bundle must include a long distance package. Switch
to Sprint for example for your long distance and your optional phone service
prices go up. They could offer similar DSL discounts for local-line
customers.

I suppose they see it as more of an insentive program for loyal customers
but it makes it very difficult to switch optional services from the big
telco such as long distance or DSL.
Re:They'll just bypass this edict... by shfted! · 2003-07-21 10:37 · Score: 1

No, they won't. Because the price they are allowed to charge is also regulated, and they have to apply to the CRTC to make a change upwards or downwards in rates. In fact, it's already quite common to have several business in one town all reselling the telco's ADSL. In Canada, most of the telephone and cable companies are granted monopolies, but in turn, their pricing is heavily regulated. Also, they are forced to provide service in rual areas, which they would otherwise not do (they run at a loss).

--
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
Re:They'll just bypass this edict... by Cidtek · 2003-07-21 14:07 · Score: 1

"...by pricing it ridiculously high"

Doesn't matter

They have to discount their own selling price by 25% to the ISPs. They aren't going to raise any street prices when cable is in a price war with DSL.

Still no adsl-only service by tomhudson · 2003-07-21 07:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Unfortunately, the decision only applies if you have service from some telco - it doesn't make it possible to have ADSL-only service for those of us who use our cell phones as our only voice line.

Should happen soon, though - you can already order internet access from cable companies w/o subscribing to their TV services.

Re:Still no adsl-only service by Quasar1999 · 2003-07-21 07:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sure you can... You just pay a $15 premium for the privelage of having service without a voice line. Thus defeating the purpose since basic service is $18...

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Re:Still no adsl-only service by Azghoul · 2003-07-21 07:20 · Score: 1

I can order cable modem only from Cox, and could do so with Adelphia here in the states. Of course, they charge you additionally... surprisingly the same price as carrying the broadcast channels.

So now i have basic channels on cable, the modem, and everything else on Direc(Just as big thieves as cable co's)TV...
Re:Still no adsl-only service by eight22 · 2003-07-21 07:32 · Score: 1

You can get Internet only on Rogers Cable with a $10 surcharge. Basic cable cost $22 so it's still a good deal. Of course, after I refused to pay the extra $12 dollars for the cable, they called me and offered to give me free cable for two months, which worked out great.

--
= + :c: YELLBACK :tm: +
Re:Still no adsl-only service by tomhudson · 2003-07-21 07:35 · Score: 1

That's what I was thinking of doing also, but I don't have time to watch more than an hour or 2 of TV a week.
Re:Still no adsl-only service by Jucius+Maximus · 2003-07-21 08:08 · Score: 1

"Should happen soon, though - you can already order internet access from cable companies w/o subscribing to their TV services."
The assclowns at Rogers charge you an extra $10 per month to get cable internet without cable TV. This was thoroughly covered by the Royal Canadian Air Farce.
Re:Still no adsl-only service by tomhudson · 2003-07-21 08:21 · Score: 1

Yeah, and Videotron charges $20, while basic cable service is $23. I think that we're going to see all this change pretty quickly, though. Bell had to remove their bandwidth caps, or loose out to cable. Now cable has to fight back somehow.
Ahh, competition - ain't it great?
Re:Still no adsl-only service by HermanAB · 2003-07-21 08:27 · Score: 1

Hmm, should be easy: Order the phone service from somebody else, then close the account after you got ADSL?

--
Oh well, what the hell...
Re:Still no adsl-only service by RedK · 2003-07-21 09:15 · Score: 1

> Yeah, and Videotron charges $20

Err.. Videotron actually gives you a 10$ rebate if you have cable TV with them, not 20$. The other 10$ comes from a 1 year engagement with them, which you can have TV or no TV.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re:Still no adsl-only service by rikkards · 2003-07-21 10:16 · Score: 1

Get Basic service for a month. Get rid of it after the first month. Tell them if they increase the rate you will cancel your high speed and go to Sympatico. They will not add it for about 6 months if not longer. My brother has been doing that for over 2 years. The longest period was about 1.5 years
Re:Still no adsl-only service by Kashif+Shaikh · 2003-07-21 13:31 · Score: 1

Yes, but they charge you broadband cable price 20% extra for it.
Re:Still no adsl-only service by Sherloqq · 2003-07-22 00:00 · Score: 1

you can already order internet access from cable companies w/o subscribing to their TV services

Yup. Happens already with Cogeco in SE Ontario.

I used to be with Adelphia in the States, and it was cheaper to get cable + really_basic_tv_service ($6) than to get cable + no_tv_whatsoever_service_charge ($10). But with Cogeco, you can get cable internet-only service and they don't charge you extra for not having tv. At least they didn't do that when I signed up over a year ago (I still have it).

Props to Cogeco.

--
Have EVDO, will travel.
Re:Still no adsl-only service by Deluge · 2003-07-22 05:00 · Score: 1

If only Bell had to face this kind of pressure in Ontario. Their DSL service is insanely expensive, and makes you wonder if they're actually trying to turn people who research the matter even a little bit away to other ISPs.

They offer DSL Basic, which is 128/64kbps, for $29, a regular DSL for $35 + $10 for the modem (and they don't let you buy a diff modem, even though I own my DSL modem from another ISP) for "up to" 960/120kbps.

And of course the DSL Ultra, which is simply "faster" (no link to tech specs on its page, just a link to order) for $70. I'm with Golden.net, a nice local provider which has been around for ages, starting with 28.8k dialup, and they charge $35/mo for unlimited bw, and 1.2Mbps/128kbps. And I own the modem.

Now if only Golden's news servers didn't suck...

yay canadians! by Machine9 · 2003-07-21 07:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

such sensible people!

maybe next they'll force computer manufacturers to offer alternative OSses on computers, to open up competition and lower prices.

--

Machine9dotNet

Re:yay canadians! by goldspider · 2003-07-21 07:21 · Score: 1

"maybe next they'll force computer manufacturers to offer alternative OSses on computers, to open up competition and lower prices."

You mean like this one?

Alternatively, would you consider manufacturers offering PCs with NO operating system a viable substitute?

And I also wonder if anyone would take a free Linux CD from a free bin if places like Circuit City and Best Buy offered it.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:yay canadians! by Machine9 · 2003-07-21 07:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think you're on to something there...
what a wonderful place the world could be.
you think we can convince RedHat to press 3.000.000 cardboard-sleeved 1 CD editions of their flavour of linux? I'm sure at least SOME people would pay for support after installing that.

--
Machine9dotNet
Re:yay canadians! by goldspider · 2003-07-21 07:44 · Score: 1

Of course, there wouldn't be any PROFIT in it for the retailor, so I suppose they'd have no reason to set aside valuable store space for such a bin/display. Probably a huge hurdle across the board in the way of getting OSS to the masses.

A shame too. I'd love to not have to spend a day downloading the latest distribution of Mandrake....

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:yay canadians! by tomhudson · 2003-07-21 07:46 · Score: 1

you think we can convince RedHat to press 3.000.000 cardboard-sleeved 1 CD editions of their flavour of linux?
You want to make redhat into another aol, with junk cds everywhere?
Why not just burn a few and slip them into Windows magazines at the magazine store?
Re:yay canadians! by Jucius+Maximus · 2003-07-21 08:11 · Score: 1

"maybe next they'll force computer manufacturers to offer alternative OSses on computers, to open up competition and lower prices."
This would be unlikely because the federal government would lose the 7% GST (goods and service tax) they make when someone buys a windows license.
Re:yay canadians! by Richthofen80 · 2003-07-21 08:31 · Score: 1

maybe next they'll force computer manufacturers to offer alternative OSses on computers, to open up competition and lower prices

yeah, there's nothing that spurns competition like the application of force.

--
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Re:yay canadians! by geekee · 2003-07-21 12:14 · Score: 1

" such sensible people! maybe next they'll force computer manufacturers to offer alternative OSses on computers, to open up competition and lower prices."

It's a real win for freedom when the govt. points a gun at you an tells you how to run your business. This market will never be really free as long as the govt. is regualting who can run network cables, and where.

--
Vote for Pedro

I'm an American by Gefiltefish11 · 2003-07-21 07:11 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm an American, you insensitive clod!

Re:I'm an American by Pyrosz · 2003-07-21 07:24 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm an American

I'm Sorry.

--

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
Re:I'm an American by djmurdoch · 2003-07-21 07:49 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm Sorry.

You forgot the URL: Colin Mochrie as Reporter Anthony St. George offers a public apology to America.
Re:I'm an American by statusbar · 2003-07-21 08:13 · Score: 1
(BTW I'm Canadian)

What does a Canadian say when you step on his foot?
- "I'm Sorry."
And it is too true.

--jeff++
--
ipv6 is my vpn
Re:I'm an American by enjo13 · 2003-07-21 08:13 · Score: 1

That's funny.. I'm not. I'm actually quite happy being an American.

--
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Re:I'm an American by Distinguished+Hero · 2003-07-21 09:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Here's the direct RealPlayer link.

--
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
Re:I'm an American by stonechucker · 2003-07-21 13:08 · Score: 1

I'm an American, you insensitive clod!

Honestly... how can this be considered funny, when it happens everytime the story ISN'T US centered?
Re:I'm an American by zhadu · 2003-07-22 09:34 · Score: 1

And for that, sir, I am truly sorry.

Will it work out much better than in the US? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-21 07:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

The phone companies are already basically monopolies, and here they were willing to sell their DSL at a loss for a few years to put other DSL providers out of business. Sure, they had to share the lines under the law, they just made it difficult and expensive.

Re:Will it work out much better than in the US? by Matt+Ownby · 2003-07-21 08:52 · Score: 2, Funny

I don't know how things are where you live, but where I live, Canadian internet looks like a dream. The DSL (which I have) is $30 a month + ISP charges for 65k/s download and 25k/s upload which really kind of sucks compared to rates/bandwidth/latency ratios which I hear about in other countries and my phone company isn't making any effort to "compete" either. Something tells me they can't afford to.

The US is definitely not the place to be for high speed internet. Canada, Sweden, Korea... they all have the US beat hands down. I don't get what the problem is, surely there must be demand here :(

Ouch. by Quasar1999 · 2003-07-21 07:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

Bell was losing hundreds of subscribers a day due to their bandwidth capping earlier this year, and now they have to provide ADSL service to really small markets where it will cost them more to upgrade the infrastructure to support ADSL than they could possibly make in revenues from customers?

Sell your Bell stock! ;)

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

Re:Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-21 07:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Read the ruling again. They're not required to provide ADSL everywhere (which would entail huge upgrade costs).

What they do need to do is provide ADSL, in areas that they already serve, to customers who use local phone service from someone else.
Re:Ouch. by spy5600 · 2003-07-21 07:32 · Score: 1

Well Bell, since july 4, removed the capps (at least for Québec and Ontario).

--
---
Re:Ouch. by ebuck · 2003-07-21 07:32 · Score: 1

Although I get a good laugh out of your byline, I have to wonder...

How much is their stock inflated by dragging in customers they normally wouldn't have? For example, my local telco wasn't "able" to provide me with ADSL unless I managed to change my phone service and my long-distance service. They won't make any money from the long distance service (1 call in 4 years), but I remeber what a fight it was (in the media) to even have a choice of local providers.

Mabye I could have fought it, and mabye I couldn't. But it was definately portrayed as a "you HAVE to use us to use OUR ADSL" situation.
Re:Ouch. by Quasar1999 · 2003-07-21 07:41 · Score: 1

First off, it was truely meant as a joke... I don't do any stock market trading..

As for the Long distance service, I don't know about you, but I am a Bell customer, and I had to cancel my Long distance service with them, since they introduced a monthly surcharge of $5.95 just for the privelage... and I NEVER make long distance calls... I had no trouble getting ADSL service from them... mind you, I subscribe to one of their 'packages' for callerID and Call Answer, so I'm sure they're making their money from that... But paying $75 a month for ADSL is pretty expensive, and I doubt they're losing money on me...

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Re:Ouch. by Trigun · 2003-07-21 07:45 · Score: 1

Yes, Bell has removed their caps, but from my experience, they are very hard to deal with, do not provide a full service (port filtering) and tech support is a bitch. My Dad knows more about the computers than their level one techs. We switched him to a local provider ASAP.

My local provider really doesn't care what I do with my service, as long as I don't bother him about supporting it. No filters, no port blocking, I can serve my own webpages, e-mail, whatever I want to do, as long as I don't cause them grief. I've had the service for three years now, and I only talked to them once, and that was when Bell fscked with the MTU sizes and cut a bunch of us off.
Re:Ouch. by Trigun · 2003-07-21 08:55 · Score: 1

I had a hard tiem running napster on it, let alone even making a ssh connection. Maybe they changed their ways.
Re:Ouch. by 58514154 · 2003-07-21 09:28 · Score: 1

Although they removed the cap earlier this month. And they mention it in a rather large font.

Bell Sympatico's site.

Still, sell your Bell stock!, I too say.
Re:Ouch. by 58514154 · 2003-07-21 09:30 · Score: 1

D'oh! Double post. I'll learn to read.
Re:Ouch. by tius · 2003-07-21 12:43 · Score: 1

Uh huh...right....sorry but equipment payback is something ridiculously short like 3 months (DSLAM side).

I don't feel for the telcos...they're milking me for network improvements and I can't even get DSL out here in the country. Not to mention that they still charge for DTMF/tone dialing when it would actually cost them more to provide pulse dialing.

Nope, no sympathy here.
Re:Ouch. by compwiz3688 · 2003-07-21 13:31 · Score: 1

They've actually blocked port 25 for business lines in the name of killing open relays. Of course, those of us who actually did the smtp server correctly suffered. Luckily for us, we got a port forwarding service from our domain provider.
Re:Ouch. by Deluge · 2003-07-22 05:06 · Score: 1

Mmm... so how long before they catch up to cable speed? I had cable almost from the day they started offering it in the Kitchener-Waterloo area and aside from the 1st few months when I had 512kbps both ways, I ended up with 3Mbps/512kbps for the rest of the time I was with them (until last year, when I moved out into the semi-boonies, an area which only 3 months ago finally got DSL, and will most likely never get cable because of the low population density - Rogers told us that unless we want to pay to have the cable run out there, we're out of luck).

Re:Canada by kurokaze · 2003-07-21 07:14 · Score: 1

In that case Canada == America since your
post-increment doesn't occur until after
the statement.

You're not a programmer by any are you?

Re:Canada by UU7 · 2003-07-21 07:15 · Score: 1

Jealousy brings out the worst in people :)

A word of caution: by Meat+Blaster · 2003-07-21 07:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

We split our national phone company, and it turns out the rates kept going up while the level of service went down. Apparently, there's some sort of economic force called "scale economy" that reflects the fact that having multiple companies providing the same service means a lot of costly redundancy.

Some monopolies should be broken, but others are better off regulated. We got Unix out of AT&T, but I'm not even getting reliable Caller ID out of the local tel.

Re:A word of caution: by Realistic_Dragon · 2003-07-21 07:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

We split our national phone company, and it turns out the rates kept going up while the level of service went down.

We split up our ADSL providers in the UK, and service went up while costs went down with the exception of the services offered by the old monopolist.

They offer the worst service with the worst reliability at almost the highest cost - now imagine how bad it would be if they had no competition at all?

--
Beep beep.
Re:A word of caution: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-21 07:39 · Score: 1, Funny

We got Unix out of AT&T

We did? Apparently *SCO* got Unix.
Re:A word of caution: by swillden · 2003-07-21 14:18 · Score: 1

Some monopolies should be broken, but others are better off regulated. We got Unix out of AT&T, but I'm not even getting reliable Caller ID out of the local tel.
And how good was the Caller ID service you got from AT&T?
Phone deregulation in the US has been great. Long distance service is dirt cheap and the service is next to perfect (when was the last time you got a bad connection that didn't involve a cellphone?). Local service hasn't benefited as much, but that's probably largely attributable to the fact that local service still hasn't seen much competition. Still, although customer service generally sucks, and prices are probably a bit higher than they were years ago (mostly because local calls are no longer subsidized by long-distance fees), we have more features and more choices than before. Further, now that deregulation is really hitting local service as well, (especially with cable companies getting into the act), I expect the competition to drive prices down and service quality up over the next few years.
Ask someone who's over 50 (but not grouchy or hopelessly nostalgic) whether their phone service was better 30 years ago.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Re:Canada by kurokaze · 2003-07-21 07:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, it's a compliment.

Although his logic is wrong, taken literally
(albeit incorrectly)

Canada==America++

would mean that Canada is 1 up on America.

Two edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-21 07:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Effectively this ruling splits local phone and net services, opening both up for competition and lower prices

This also opens up the possibility of finger-pointing and blame assigning, instead of problem resolution. A couple of years ago, I had difficulty getting DSL from DirecTV DSL over BellSouth's phone lines - rather than solving my problem, the two companies used me as a message carrier in their blame war. I gave up, got a cable modem, and haven;t looked back.

Re:Two edged sword by swillden · 2003-07-21 14:21 · Score: 1

I had difficulty getting DSL from DirecTV DSL over BellSouth's phone lines - rather than solving my problem, the two companies used me as a message carrier in their blame war. I gave up, got a cable modem, and haven;t looked back.
So what you're saying is: Thanks to competition you got what you wanted at a price you're okay with. Right?

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Does this mean...? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-21 07:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

They have unbundled local service and dsl so that people don't have to pay for a land line to get high speed internet access? So a person could just subscribe to the high speed service and do his own internet telephony?

But, can they still compete with cable? by BiteMyShinyMetalAss · 2003-07-21 07:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sure, opening up things to competition would be nice, but at the moment, there's two big things that hold me back from using Bell's ADSL: the monthly bandwidth cap, and the speed. I'm with Rogers, and they decided to hold back on implementing a similar plan until they were done seeing how Bell fared with it... and they haven't implemented it yet. :) Plus I've found that my cable connection is often faster than friends of mine who went with Bell.

From where I'm sitting, it costs about the same for Bell or Rogers. The unlimited bandwidth and increased speed that Rogers offers is very nice, considering that I have roommates whose downloading habits I can't control.

In other words, the telcos can compete with themselves all they like, but (at least in my situation) it's a moot point if they still can't really compete with cable.

Re:But, can they still compete with cable? by gregmac · 2003-07-21 07:26 · Score: 4, Informative

From where I'm sitting, it costs about the same for Bell or Rogers.
I've been using smaller ISPs for DSL, and they're a lot better. Bell Nexxia owns the DSL network. Sympatico 'rents' the lines/bandwidth from Nexxia to provide high-speed internet. The problem with Sympatico is that they rent a certain amount of bandwidth for a geographical area (well, really, per-CO switchbox), and if they happen to have 300 subscribers in that area, they all have to share that limited amount of bandwidth, which is why it is often very slow.
The smaller ISPs will actually purchase 1.2mbit of bandwidth (or whatever plan you have) per customer. If they have 10 customers in that area, they get 12mbit of bandwidth (in reality, they probably maintain a ratio, but the effect is the same). As number of users increases, they get more bandwidth. As a result, my DSL is a lot faster than a friend of mine's who lives in the same building but is on Sympatico.

--
Speak before you think
Re:But, can they still compete with cable? by Demanche · 2003-07-21 07:33 · Score: 1

Just a fyi, bells caps may soon be history, see their webpage for more details.

--
Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
Re:But, can they still compete with cable? by ShwAsasin · 2003-07-21 08:02 · Score: 1

I hate saying this but you've got wrong information. Bell removed their caps at the beginning of the month so they have unlimited bandwidth. Bell just recently upgraded their lines 1.5Mbps which is where Rogers claims to be at. By the way, which modem does your friend have? Did your friend remember to put the filters on each phone line? Did he tweak things out to the proper settings and NOT use access manager? My speeds are on Bell Ultra (3.5Mbps) are far faster than anyone I know on Rogers or most ADSL companies.

By the way, Rogers has silently reduced their speeds by 50% over the past year to accomodate new users.
Re:But, can they still compete with cable? by MacGod · 2003-07-21 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Bell removed their bandwidth cap a few months ago. See This page for details. My guess is that they were getting killed by Rogers.
Ironically, Rogers was thinking of implementing a bandwidth cap, but In response to Bell eliminating their cap, they backed down.
In some cases, capitalist competition really works!
As for the speed, I've used both and found the two comparable, with Rogers a little faster. Bell (as all DSLs) varies depending on where you are in relation to the phone switching station. Rogers (as in all Cable internet) varies depending on how many people in your vicinity are actively using a cable internet connection.

--
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
Re:But, can they still compete with cable? by TobyWong · 2003-07-21 08:26 · Score: 1

Rogers speed is *garbage* now.

They have gutted their speeds multiple times to the point where upstream in laughable.

Sympatico basic is similarly crappy as far as speed goes.

The ultra pkg is an entirely different story. I regularly get 300+k/s downstream and 80+k/s upstream which is more than adequate for an impatient user like me.

--
- Toby
Re:But, can they still compete with cable? by MarkLR · 2003-07-21 09:00 · Score: 1

The monthly bandwidth cap has been dropped.

I thought it had to do with competition from Rogers, but may Bell knew which way things were going with the CRTC and dropped the cap to make its service seem better when comparing to upcoming competition for DSL service.
Re:But, can they still compete with cable? by rikkards · 2003-07-21 10:25 · Score: 1

Not sure if you got the email but I got one for two of my mail accounts. Rogers was asking if I wanted to Beta test a bandwidth accounting page of theirs. I responded saying unless they were planning on paying me per diem to do their work for them they could "bite my shiny metal ass" :)
Re:But, can they still compete with cable? by pdaoust · 2003-07-21 12:11 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't know where you got you info from but this is not exactly the way it works.

A smaller ISP's connection and a Sympatico connection are exactly the same all the way from the house to the Broadband Aggregation Server (BAS). In Nexxia's case they use Juniper ERX and Redbacks SMS-1800. From the BAS, the Sympatico customers go straight to the Nexxia IP cloud via a FE or GE connection while the smaller ISP's traffic has to be backhauled again over ATM via an L2TP tunnel. Only then do you access the small ISP's IP network. In fact this actually makes it worse because you add extra overhead (not that much but most of the time you have to reduce your MTU even more when you are with a smaller ISP or risk fragmentation and certain web sites not loading at all).

Given that a lot of these small ISPs actually use Nexxia as their ISP I find it hard to beleive that they would in fact be faster than Sympatico.

I've been on Sympatico HSE for over three years and have been very satisfied. I have friends who use the smaller ISPs, but its certainly not for speed... maybe more for the more "specialized" kind of service they offer (static IP, droneless help desk, better NNTP feed...).
Re:But, can they still compete with cable? by BlackEmperor · 2003-07-21 13:05 · Score: 1

I may be wrong, but I think that AOL also intimated that they would return to the high speed market if bandwidth caps were introduced.

So this may also have influenced their decision making.

--
"all broken things dream of repair" - chris letcher
Re:But, can they still compete with cable? by alexo · 2003-07-22 08:35 · Score: 1

In my case, there is no competition. It is either Rogers or dialup.

Two years ago, I contemplated switching to DSL. Guess what, it is not available in my area.
Today I checked again, still unavailable (and we're talking about Richmond Hill, not some rural area).

The good part is that I finally reached a representative and she told me that "according to the system, it should be in 2003". Let's hope her info is accurate, I like choices.

Discrimination against competitors? by The+Masked+Fruitcake · 2003-07-21 07:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

From the article:

...by refusing to provide retail high-speed Internet services to competitors' customers, incumbent telephone companies are unjustly discriminating against their competitors and giving themselves an undue preference.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for more competition. But "unjustly discriminating against their competitors"? And "undue preference"? Since when is it bad to give your own company "preference", and who are they to say it is "undue"?

This looks to me like socialism at work under the guise of capitalism. In the one hand, they uphold the virtues of competition, and in the other, they take away the rights of businessmen to decide how they compete. *shrug*

--
Sola Scriptura * Sola Gratia * Sola Fide * Solus Christus * Soli Deo Gloria

Re:Discrimination against competitors? by smcavoy · 2003-07-21 07:27 · Score: 1

The problem is we have almost no local phone company competition in Canada.
If I *were* to use sprint instead of Bell, I would not be able to have ADSL, I would need to have a bell local line.
That seems unfair does it not?
And their not deciding how they will compete, their forcing them to do so.
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by Z0mb1eman · 2003-07-21 07:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

>and in the other, they take away the rights of businessmen to decide how they compete

The rules are different when you're a monopoly, and the government is the only one who can enforce that. I don't see how this is socialism while crying foul about Microsoft's actions isn't.

--
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by The+Masked+Fruitcake · 2003-07-21 07:50 · Score: 1

The problem is we have almost no local phone company competition in Canada. If I *were* to use sprint instead of Bell, I would not be able to have ADSL, I would need to have a bell local line. That seems unfair does it not?

Oh, I agree entirely with you. That does seem very unfair. However, being "fair" does not always equal "doing good business". That's where I question a governmental agency coming in to interfere. I agree that this action is probably better for consumers. As such, I don't necessarily challenge it in particular. It's the principle behind the action--I do challenge the right of governmental agencies to come in and dictate how a private business is allowed to (or forced to) compete.

And their not deciding how they will compete, their forcing them to do so.

Well, by forcing them to do so, that is dictating how they operate their business. Certain things need to be regulated, others...I'm not so sure. It's easy in the case of big companies to dehumanize them and portray them as heartless and soulless, and sometimes that's true. But the principles of government that drove this action will also impact other future legislation on small business owners, and eventually (at the end of the slippery slope) you end up with a government-run, socialist state. Which I think is a Bad Thing(tm).

--
Sola Scriptura * Sola Gratia * Sola Fide * Solus Christus * Soli Deo Gloria
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by smcavoy · 2003-07-21 08:00 · Score: 1

Well in many (if not most) ways, Canada is a socialist state.
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by Wiwi+Jumbo · 2003-07-21 08:00 · Score: 2

Thank you!

In every topic about Canada I always look to see how quickly there are posts about nasty old socialism up here in Canada.

I don't know why but it always makes me laugh. :-D

--
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by gobbo · 2003-07-21 08:00 · Score: 1

"This looks to me like socialism at work under the guise of capitalism." -- First of all, let's get clear that all the North American (and industrialized "democracies'") economies are mixtures of both capitalism and socialism, in varying degrees. Don't they teach anything in Social Studies?

"...they take away the rights of businessmen to decide how they compete." -- More like 'limit' than 'take away' -- it's called regulation and it's the norm for all industry, practically everywhere, again in [hugely] varying degrees.

The issue here seems to be a mixture of the move to competition in the local phone markets (we're still mentally used to Utility Monopoly in most parts of Canada... and often fond of its simplicity) and a policy approach that considers online access as a kind of essential service, and therefore needing greater protections from leveraged competition that doesn't favour the consumer.

--
Damn those pesky terrorists
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by The+Masked+Fruitcake · 2003-07-21 08:05 · Score: 1

Yeah. At least they're consistent, I guess. :) I merely say that while I'd love to get cheaper DSL (who wouldn't?), I won't be on the bandwagon for getting it this way in the US. :)

--
Sola Scriptura * Sola Gratia * Sola Fide * Solus Christus * Soli Deo Gloria
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by The+Masked+Fruitcake · 2003-07-21 08:10 · Score: 1

I agree with you. :) I don't cry foul about Microsoft's actions, and I think the government should have stayed out of it. I harbor absolutely no good feelings toward Microsoft, but not because of their business model. Their business model was downright good. (Now, about their software...)

--
Sola Scriptura * Sola Gratia * Sola Fide * Solus Christus * Soli Deo Gloria
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by Malc · 2003-07-21 08:11 · Score: 1

There is no competition. That is the problem.
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by smcavoy · 2003-07-21 08:13 · Score: 1

Even before this, DSL/Cable is pretty cheap.
Basic 128kbps services run about 25cdn/month
1.5mb DSL/Cable runs about 40cdn
3.0mb DSL (no 3mb cable yet) runs about 65cdn

We must be doing something right up here :)
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by s20451 · 2003-07-21 08:17 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm not a lawyer, but I did sit in a lecture on telecom law, which had the following interesting tidbit:

Under telecommunications law in Canada, telcos must offer services without discrimination. When the telcos were mostly monopolies, this provision was interpreted to mean that the telcos had to offer services to each individual customer who wanted them, without preferential service or pricing. Now that the telcos are facing competition, and deal amongst themselves, the provision has been reinterpreted to mean that telcos also cannot discriminate against businesses, even their competitors. That's probably where this ruling is coming from.

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by The+Masked+Fruitcake · 2003-07-21 08:25 · Score: 1

Wow! *runs to look up the current exchange rate* Good grief, if that's all you're paying, why is getting cheaper DSL even an issue for you people?! :) *Now* I'm going to have to question this whole topic from a different perspective--"how cheap does it have to get??" :)

On the other hand, I'll just keep quiet. If cheap DSL is enough to keep Canadians happy with all the other stuff their government does, then far be it from me to rock the boat. :) LoL

--
Sola Scriptura * Sola Gratia * Sola Fide * Solus Christus * Soli Deo Gloria
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by The+Masked+Fruitcake · 2003-07-21 08:34 · Score: 1

Fascinating...that's a very interesting twist of interpretation. That's yet another reason to pass as few laws as absolutely necessary, and make the necessary laws as clear and unambiguous as possible. Thanks for posting that! Somebody mod this fellow up "Informative"! :)

--
Sola Scriptura * Sola Gratia * Sola Fide * Solus Christus * Soli Deo Gloria
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by forgetmenot · 2003-07-21 08:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Not really. Prior to the ruling, a Telco could refuse ADSL to a customer if that customer was not also buying local phone service from same Telco. This is where the discrimination comes from and where the parent post is wrong. There is no "favouring" going on here. Favouring implies that the customer can still choose the telco independantly of the ADSL service and just that the terms will be better if you get the ADSL and phone service from the same provider. That is NOT what was happening. You got NO ADSL service if you used a different phone provider (or more to the point if you have NO local phone service).

The reason this increases competition is because there is little if any competition (despite what the industry might say) in the local phone service and consequently tying ADSL to local phone provider meant likewise no competition there as well. The discrimination, therefore, is not so much against competing business (again, because there isn't much competition) so much as it discriminates against those "customers" who *horror-of-horrors* don't have local phone service (which is increasingly common as more and more people move to cellular phones).

So the ruling talks about providing ADSL service to competitors lines but what it really boils down to is a Telco can't force a customer to buy their (probably unnecessary) phone service just to get the ADSL, (just like a cable internet provider can't force you to buy the TV package). However, it does not prevent the Telco from adding a surcharge for providing ADSL sans phone which is similar to what the cable providers do if you buy the internet access without the TV package. Now... if they could only regulate THAT away we'd be really laughin.
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by Z0mb1eman · 2003-07-21 09:08 · Score: 1

Well, many would argue that Microsoft's software quality is directly related to being allowed to continue with their business model for so long... same old tired arguments that have been repeated on Slashdot millions of times (business model works too well, competition squashed, monopoly, no reason to make better products, etc.)

If the business model and the product ARE interrelated, I'm not sure you can be okay with one, but not the other :)

This is a somewhat silly argument, because I agree with you that the wording in the article was a bit odd; I never thought that being nice to competitors is expected of a business. I do believe that monopolies should be forced to play by different rules though. If that helps the economy run smoother and keeps the market closer to a true free market, is it really socialist? (lack of government intervention does not a free market make...)

--
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by nightwing2000 · 2003-07-21 09:37 · Score: 1

No, it means what it says... You are granted a license to be a "Phone COmpany". With this comes special rights that others don't have, such as the right to string cables all over the place, dig trenches and bury cable, cross roads, etc. - but only for Phone Company services. Note this is a Phone Company right. If you allow anyone to use the service, you must offer it WITHOUT discrimination to all comers at a fixed price. You can't give your own internet subsidiary a free ride to use the phone lines for internet. If your internet subsidiary doesn't pay the market rate, then really what's happening is the average plain old phone customer is paying for the internet users. The CRTC (and the FCC?) specifically (are supposed to) guard against "monopolist" activity -where the captive audience subsidizes the crushing of the competition in related fields. (Sorta like where MS-Windows profits subsidize all those other money-losing software activities). So Bell has to charge Sympatico the market rate for the DSL access service they provide; and Sympatico's business plan has to show that they have a "reasonable expectation of profit" at that rate. Well, if Bell can quantify a market rate and charge it to Sympatico, then they can do the same calculation for AOL or Shaw or whomever. If it were just Ford deciding how much to charge Ford Leasing for rental cars, say, only the shareholders would care. But because were dealing with a special regulated and effectively a monopoly business - regulations apply. It's not socialism. It's as if the water commision in town ran its own restaurants, and nobody else could use tap water for a restaurant. (Truck it in if you want to run a restaurant, you commie...) Of course, where they get the small ISP's is the entry requirements. Their own T3 line to the next floor in the building will be much cheaper than the competition's line across town... Plus the CISCO 5500, plus the 5 servers for security and authentication, plus... plus... Guaranteed the requirements will keep out anyone smaller than themselves anyway.
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by evenmoreconfused · 2003-07-21 09:42 · Score: 1

They phrased it that way because it matches the way the statute is written.

This practice contravenes subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act which prohibits unjust discrimination and undue preference.

--
No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by freeweed · 2003-07-21 10:15 · Score: 1

Usually those that laugh about socialism tend to be the ones on the receiving end.

Those of us paying for you don't laugh at the concept, we laugh at the abusers.

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by drizzx · 2003-07-21 13:16 · Score: 1

Competition is a good thing, and breaking the monopolies down to allow competition certainly didnt hurt things either.

However, the CRTC lately seems to be ignoring the fact that the "incumbent" telco's still have to do business as well.

Most DSL providers do not make money on their service. In fact, All telco's that offer a "light" version of their highspeed are losing money on it. The only guarantee of income from the telco with those light customers was knowing they would receive some, (albeit very little) revenue from local service.

Now the CRTC takes that away as well.

The problem I see is the CRTC is striping the telco's who have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in infrastructure of all their profits while handing them over to little telco's who have no investment. They own little to no hardware, they own no infrastructure, they have little to nothing to upgrade or maintain, they outsource their billing. What a sweet company to run (comparibly).

Why shouldnt the companies who have the most to risk also have some benefits over those who do not?

The way the CRTC is going, the Incumbent Telcos' wont have the money to maintain their infrastructure. Further, What incentive do they have to risk continued investment; to take that risk, when others can take advantage of it without any?

If the CRTC wants to keep handing free rides over to the little guys, perhaps they should take over all the infrastructure from the telco's and try to manage/maintain and upgarde it themselves. Then they've created the level playing field they are trying to.

Ask yourself this. If you spent hundreds of millions on infrastructure, would you be feeling a little ripped off if a governing body ordered you to share your investment with competition. Competition that doesnt have to make any significant risk or investment? Then be told by that body that you must continue to canibalize your services, so those same companies can continue to make money riding on your coat tails?

The CRTC does just as much to stifle competition as it does to create it. Another great example of that is Canada's Cable Television industry. CRTC's regulations have left us 10 years behind the U.S. in programming. All in the name of competition.
Re:Discrimination against competitors? by leandrod · 2003-07-25 22:30 · Score: 1

> Since when is it bad to give your own company "preference", and who are they to say it is "undue"?

You have to learn some History... the current incumbents are the successors to Ma'Bell, who was find guilty of illegal competitive practices. The penalty was the breakup, and with it a whole set of rules to ensure this would not repeat, and in some measure to revert the advantages gained thru illegal acts.

Not only that, telephone service is a government concession, so companies exploring it have to obey government regulations that seek competition and citizen's benefits.

Given that, one can still question the wisdom of this particular decision.

--
Leandro GuimarÃ£es Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin

Re:Canada by mjmalone · 2003-07-21 07:19 · Score: 1

I think he meant Canada == (America++)... silly order of operations

--
Visualize the world of wine

land line telephone services = days are numbered by Supero100 · 2003-07-21 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Interesting - let the competition begin.

However, we'll all be wireless before too long, and there will be no place for DSL - unless this market competition drives the overall costs down. Who wants to pay for local phone service (if you're already paying for it with your wireless plan) if you just want DSL, which would then be an additional cost to the local line?

$30 local phone
+$60 DSL service
-----------------
($50) Digital Cable + ($45) Cable Internet

Assumption: You already pay $35 for a cellphone.

Sure, I'll take 125 channels as a perk for my decision making skills.

I hope this will make it harder for my decision making skills, it's amazing how quickly you learn that you have 125 channels and nothing is ever on!

Yes. by Ron+Harwood · 2003-07-21 07:19 · Score: 1

Here's the deal...

All dsl lines are owned by the major telcos... the CRTC forces them to let smaller ISPs resell the lines (bulk pricing allows for profit)... services (email etc) and the actual pipe to the internet are provided by the ISP... but the dsl line is owned and supported by the telco.

--
BlackNova Traders

Not pro-consolidation by volkris · 2003-07-21 07:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

Stupid Slashdot...

The FCC rulings of late are NOT pro-consolidation, but simply anti-regulation.

The FCC is very simply recognizing that its place in the system is changing with the times.

This is one of those VERY rare times where a governmental organization has decided to limit its own powers, and Slashdot's complaining! The experts employed at the FCC recognize that its place is changing, and it shows the integrity to reign itself in, and the uninformed morons in Congress object!

Re:Not pro-consolidation by syberanarchy · 2003-07-21 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Amazing how US governmental organizations only "reign themselves in" when massive corporations benefit as a result...
Re:Not pro-consolidation by CausticWindow · 2003-07-21 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Most people would consider it a good thing to have more than two media companies in a country as large as the US.

Mass media equals power. Concentration of power is bad.

Don't forget that a diverse and critical media is one of the pilars of modern democracy.

--
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Re:Not pro-consolidation by volkris · 2003-07-21 10:14 · Score: 1

Yes, the FCC agrees with you completely.

The entire point of the FCC ruling was that times have changed and there is no longer a real danger of that happening, what with the Internet, TV, and overwhelmingly large number of magazines available.

It's no longer a case of the family sitting around to listen to one of a very few radio stations, it's a matter of listening to one of a great many stations... or a great many tv stations... or read the paper.... or a magazine... or read on the Internet.....

Re:Canada by UU7 · 2003-07-21 07:20 · Score: 1

Ahh, fair enough. Got confused for a sec :)
In either case, this is something I know alot of my friends in the states would be happy with.

Maybe in time, with a new gov.

whats the big deal eh? by pigscanfly.ca · 2003-07-21 07:25 · Score: 1

Its not really all that big of a deal . From a competition perspective bell is allready forced to allow all of the tiny little ISPs access to there lines for ADSL equipment , we have tones of little tiny hs providers competing for our business (see http://www.canadianisp.com/ for a good list of them) . I mean I dont really want bell ADSL service , it sucks and neither do I want telus ADSL service , I want the little tiny independt companies that I can already chose from :-) .

Re:whats the big deal eh? by slagish666 · 2003-07-21 09:36 · Score: 1

whats the big deal eh?
The big deal is that a) I *hate* Bell, and b) I am forced to have Bell's local phone service while I have a smaler ISP feed me my DSL, as well as c) I would like to have Sprint for local service, Sprint for long-distance, and my smaller ISP for DSL.
In other words, I want a Bell-free existance and this ruling allows me just that.

--
"Consider the lillies of the goddamn field."

Way to go! by Mr+Joe_Somebody · 2003-07-21 07:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

A few months ago I acquired a cell phone from Rogers AT&T. Soon I realized that having a cellphone and a landline phone seem redundant. So I cancelled my landline and have all my voice calls through my mobile phone. But cancelling the landline phone (from Telus) means I cannot get their ADSL service. Have to use the alternate Cable service offered by my Cable company. The decision means ADSL service does not have to be tied to you having a landline phone account Good job CRTC

Re:Way to go! by BlackStar · 2003-07-21 11:10 · Score: 1

Duh. The wires are still into your house. They don't disconnect you from local service and rip out the lines from your building. In fact, it is still possible that the line has basic 911 service on it as mandated in the telco regulations for minimum service level. That might not be the case, but at the very least, the "dry copper" is still present. DSL is still able to be provided with a quick bix and interconnect at the CO.
You should not, as the poster pointed out, require a local phone service. Cell phones work quite well that way. The result was derived by knowing how the service is provisioned.

Re:land line telephone services = days are numbere by shadowofdarkness · 2003-07-21 07:29 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually I am in Canada and a friend only pays $25 CDN for DSL from Telus. And if this story is correct due to competition it may go down

It's really true... by cioxx · 2003-07-21 07:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

I read an article 2 days ago regarding Dismayed Americans who contemplate moving to Canada because the States had become too conservative and there was a quote which stood out from the rest..

"Canada has an opportunity to define itself as a leader," Hanley said. "In some ways, it's now closer to American ideals than America is."

And it's more evident with the recent news that we keep hearing how Canada is moving forward while the States are slipping into regress by way of draconian laws and regulations a la DMCA, Super-DMCA, Media Consolidation, etc.

Re:It's really true... by MrEd · 2003-07-21 08:01 · Score: 1

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness - Sticking to recent news, Canada gets two 'feathers in its cap' for medical marijuana and same-sex marriages right there. Neither inflicts harm on others, and both grant freedom to more fully enjoy life... what's there to lose besides fundamentalist ideals?

--
Wah!
Re:It's really true... by Target+Drone · 2003-07-21 08:08 · Score: 1

The Washington Post also had an article on July 1st (Canada day) talking about legal marijuana, gay marriage and other stuff happening up north.
Re:It's really true... by Tumbleweed · 2003-07-21 08:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

> But the biggie is socialism. Bad bad bad socialism. Socialism is authoritarian communist crap.

No. Socialism is socialism, and communism is communism. Equating socialism with communism is typical American ignorance.
Re:It's really true... by Edward+Scissorhands · 2003-07-21 11:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually if you read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms you'll notice that where the Americans believed in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the Canadians wrote "life, liberty and security of the person".

This is, in many ways, a fundamental concept of socialism. In political thought, the debate between the weighted merits of positive and negative freedoms is seen as elementary and fundamental in law. In Canada, I'm happy to say (as a Canadian) that our judiciary has more often than not interpreted the Charter in such a way so as when ruling on laws that affect the individual only they err on the side of liberty. At the same time, they understand the concept of the "greater social good" and so work to protect society as a whole and, in particular, those who are at the bottom rungs of the economic and social scale.

I think it's an excellent country that has really gotten it "right".
Re:It's really true... by mcg1969 · 2003-07-21 17:33 · Score: 1

Sorry, we can't both be middle of the road. So either you're Socialist or we're Fascist. Or both. You can bet which one I'll pick.
Re:It's really true... by mcg1969 · 2003-07-21 17:36 · Score: 1

Did you guess "both"? You got it! :-)
Re:It's really true... by Idarubicin · 2003-07-21 18:54 · Score: 1

Actually if you read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms you'll notice that where the Americans believed in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the Canadians wrote "life, liberty and security of the person".
Another excellent bit Canadian law is from the Constitution Act, 1867 , which in part grants Parliament the power to make laws for the 'peace, order, and good government' of Canada. It sounds to me to be an excellent set of goals for legislators in any nation. It also implies a great deal of trust in elected officials--'good government' is a very open-ended guiding priciple--balanced nicely by the protections afforded by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

--
~Idarubicin

Sweet! by Z0mb1eman · 2003-07-21 07:31 · Score: 5, Informative

I've had Bell ADSL in Toronto for almost 3 years now. Setup was a pain, and I had problems with it about one year later for a few days, but other than that it's been rock solid, and very reliable performance. Not FAST - 128kbps up, 1mbps down - but I know I can get those speeds any time.

Of course... 3 years later, I find myself paying more for less. Speed hasn't increased at all (why would it?), the price has gone up a few dollars, and they've introduced monthly transfer limits - 10GB combined upload/download, with absurd prices for extra bandwidth. What ticks me off is that they still advertise it as "unlimited".

There are other, smaller, local DSL providers - but the speed and prices are comparable.

Maybe this will finally help advance an industry that's been stagnant - from the consumer's point of view - for over 4 years now!

Hehehe... oh I kill myself... I really do...
*keeps looking for a way to afford SDSL*

--
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.

Re:Sweet! by happers · 2003-07-21 07:43 · Score: 1

I am a Bell High Speed subscriber and it should be noted that the poster must have the DSL basic package which does have a bandwidth cap. If you have the high speed or high speed ultra, Bell just recently (July 3rd I believe) took away the bandwidth caps for the later packages I mentioned. I have the high speed package and have NO complains since I can't get cable internet in my area. It will be interesting to see if Bell will bring back the cap on bandwidth or not after this ruling...
Re:Sweet! by Malc · 2003-07-21 07:53 · Score: 1

"Not FAST - 128kbps up, 1mbps down"

They're actually in the process of upgrading the 1 Meg service, free of charge. I think the new rates are 1.5Mbs/320Kbs, or something like that. I saw it discussed in can.internet.highspeed, but didn't pay attention to the details as I'm on the 3.5Mbs/800Kbs service (for only slight more using IStop rather than Sympatico).

"the price has gone up a few dollars, and they've introduced monthly transfer limits - 10GB combined upload/download, with absurd prices for extra bandwidth.

If they haven't already, they will be abolishing the quota shortly. I guess Rogers tricked them and never did introduce the caps themselves. The excess charges were capped at something like CAD$30 too. I get more than I need (20GB), and excess is something like CAD$2/GB.

"There are other, smaller, local DSL providers - but the speed and prices are comparable."

Uhh, no they're not. They're much cheaper.

I started off with Sympatico many years ago and got lumped with that stupid Nortel modem (960/120Kbs). I was so glad when I could ditch them and stop paying rental on a modem I could buy and pay off in under a year. DSL in places like Toronto is so straight-forward now that there really is no point to going with Sympatico... unless you like having support tell you to reinstall TCP/IP everytime there's a problem with their network.
Re:Sweet! by ShwAsasin · 2003-07-21 08:07 · Score: 1

They removed their caps the beginning of July 2003, and they've upgraded their lines to 1.5Mbps instead of 1.0Mbps, check your facts before complaining. Their website has all the details of their upgrades in english or read the forums of dslreports.com in the Sympatico channel.
Re:Sweet! by Z0mb1eman · 2003-07-21 08:28 · Score: 1

Whoops... so I noticed in other replies right after I posted.

Makes me a bad slashdot poster... but a happy sympatico user :)

--
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
Re:Sweet! by iantri · 2003-07-21 09:04 · Score: 1

"There are other, smaller, local DSL providers - but the speed and prices are comparable."
Uhh, no they're not. They're much cheaper.
Agreed. I'm getting Business-class ADSL from IGS (www.igs.net, who services Toronto as well). 1.5mbit down and ~600kbit up (though my plan is 128, for some reason they didn't cap me right, I guess). The best part is that they allow servers and have UNLIMITED transfer (for business class). Very nice, $54.95/month! Residential (capped, no servers) $34.95/month.
DISCLAIMER: I do not work for IGS.
Re:Sweet! by Trollificus · 2003-07-21 09:20 · Score: 1

I had the exact same experience with my Bell DSL line. Except that installation was a breeze. My speeds are constant, and downtime has been less than a week over the past four years.
But this week, I am cancelling my account and going with the local cable provider. Why? These bandwidth costs are killing me. I'm paying $70/month for my internet connection because I've been going over my limit by a gig or two(they charge about $8.00 per gig over the limit). For that price, I can get an uncapped cable connection that is twice as fast along with basic cable. I have no reason NOT to switch. All of my friends who have the cable service say the cable co has really cleaned up their act in the past few years(which was my main complaint with them - Poor uptime and lousy tech support).
Now let's hope they can get it right this time. First the trencher cuts the whole in the ground and installs the box... THEN the intarweb guy comes and runs the line through the house and to the modem. NOT the other way around like they did the last time I tried their service. Poor tech guy had a hell of a time looking for the box until I told him there was none. ;p

--
"People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
- Gov. Jesse Ventura
Re:Sweet! by Malc · 2003-07-21 09:25 · Score: 1

From what I read in can.internet.highspeed, Bellnexxia recently has been upgrading all business line DSLAM ports to 1.7Mbs/800Kbs (or something like that). Maybe you had a good deal before, but now it's standard. If you have certain brands of model (e.g. Alcatel, GVC, but probably not Efficient Networks), you can find out what speed it is syncing at. Lots of people in can.internet.highspeed can advise on how to do this, or tell you what all capicitance and line noise information means.
Re:Sweet! by KFK+-+Wildcat · 2003-07-21 11:58 · Score: 1

FYI, Bell ADSL removed the bandwidth limitations last month...
Re:Sweet! by iantri · 2003-07-21 13:31 · Score: 1

Yes, GVC modem, I know how to check the speed it is syncing at. But isn't my ISP, IGS, the one who should be controlling my package and transfer rates, not Bell Nexxia?
Re:Sweet! by iantri · 2003-07-21 13:36 · Score: 1

Never mind, I just looked in to what is happening and understand now. Yes, it seems that speeds have been bumped to 1.7/800 even though IGS has not updated their pages.
Re:Sweet! by Malc · 2003-07-21 14:50 · Score: 1

Well, you've already answered the speed increase part of the equation. So for the the reason that IGS doesn't control the transfer rates: they lease a DSLAM port from Bellnexxia, which is probably $20 for the meg service (doesn't leave much for infrastructure and overheads and support and profit, etc, does it?) I haven't heard quotes for the average lease price on the 3.5 meg service. Every ISP including Sympatico gets a choice of two speeds for residential service. Some ISPs have other options too, but I believe they might have to install their own equipment. IStop for example has a 3.5 Mbs non-PPPoE service, but it is twice the price of the standard one, and it takes longer to activate. They even offer a 6 Mbs business service if you're close to the CO (1 km?) in downtown Ottawa.

I don't know what thats necessary.... by johnmearns · 2003-07-21 07:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

I work for a CLEC in the US and I really don't see why thats necessary. I'm sure we would offer a discount to customers who purchased phone service and DSL from us, the ILECs should be allowed to sell whatever packages they want as well. Allowing the little guy access to the lines is one thing, but regulating how they can sell their packages is too much.

--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." -Voltaire

Re:I don't know what thats necessary.... by Malc · 2003-07-21 07:57 · Score: 1

Huh! I don't want a discount. I don't want to give the local phone monopoly anymore money. Why should I have to have local phone service just to get DSL? Stupid. I don't want to use them for internet (I don't already), and don't want to use them for phone service (I've had no choice so far).
Re:I don't know what thats necessary.... by johnmearns · 2003-07-21 10:58 · Score: 1

I still think the weight should fall on the shoulders of the clec to provide a good enough dsl package to lure people in if thats what it should take. I just tend to be of the thinking that if you have line access you need to be able to make packages that work for your company. If its means only offering dsl if you have phone service as well that is both the ilec and clec's right. Then again they just keep me in the server room for a reason ;)

--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." -Voltaire

Telus DSL by Pejorian · 2003-07-21 07:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Telus, the big telco out here in the west, offers a good DSL service. They have not begun to enforce any capping, unlike the cable companies, and the speed is much better than many (if not most) of the US residential DSL providers...

I don't think this announcement will have nearly the impact in the west that it will have in the central and eastern parts of Canada. Out here, there really aren't any viable competing telcos, and Telus allows other companies to resell DSL under other brand names (for the same price, as far as I can tell) so who you get DSL from seems pretty irrelevant at this point.

Being able to get DSL-only service would be cool, however. I know people who really don't need a land line, but they have it just to get the DSL service.

--
- Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

Re:Telus DSL by Indy1 · 2003-07-21 08:04 · Score: 1

i'd like to also say bullshit, as telus is extremely spam friendly.

Look here.
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso? isp=tel us.com&-nothing=Search

--
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Re:Telus DSL by caulfield · 2003-07-21 08:08 · Score: 1

Out here, there really aren't any viable competing telcos, and Telus allows other companies to resell DSL under other brand names (for the same price, as far as I can tell) so who you get DSL from seems pretty irrelevant at this point.
actually, companies are free to charge whatever they like. some time ago, the crtc required local phone carriers to open their lines to other companies, and set a fixed price that the local carrier could charge other companies for the service. thus, there are many attractive options out there, such as Interbaun, who have better pricing than telus, as well as less restrictions on use.
Re:Telus DSL by GenetixSW · 2003-07-21 10:53 · Score: 1

Would somebody please start a new fully independant ISP (thats Independant Service Provider) here sometime? You will make a fortune!!!

There are plenty of small, good ISPs throughout the country, especially in the bigger cities. Lots of them offer extra features too, such as static IP and unlimited bandwidth. For example, I use a small company called CUIC, and I get unlimited bandwidth and a static IP for less than a standard Bell service (and MUCH better customer service). There are plenty of others out there.

I highly recommend you check out CanadianISP for a very thorough listing of alternative ISPs. They're kind of a watchdog site, and they include complete pricing listings and user satisfaction ratings; very informative.

Worth taking a look. Good luck!
Re:Telus DSL by Pejorian · 2003-07-21 11:52 · Score: 1

Not smoking anything... unfortunately...

When I said, "I don't think this announcement will have nearly the impact in the west that it will have in the central and eastern parts of Canada" I was, by the word "central," referring to anything east of Alberta, since Telus only lives in the two Westernmost provinces.

I've had some experience with Sasktel's dismal service. I'm glad I'm in "Canada's dreamland".

--
- Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Re:Telus DSL by Pejorian · 2003-07-21 12:33 · Score: 1

Um.

Interbaun charges exactly the same rates as Telus.

--
- Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Re:Telus DSL by caulfield · 2003-07-22 03:09 · Score: 1

Sure, but the services are different.

Also, there are many other ADSL carriers, like MTS Online, Canada Reconnect, UUNet Canada, DigitalWeb.net, etc. They all have different pricing and services. I just picked Interbaun because I like them.

Bell and Telus by hey · 2003-07-21 07:33 · Score: 1

Not only do they "lose" the case but they
get Slashdotted!
(I am joking because hopefully these guys have the
capacity to handle it.)

You must not live in Canada. by dsanfte · 2003-07-21 07:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Bell ADSL 1mbps/256k in the Ottawa area is $25/mo. In most cases, cheaper than the rest of your phone bill.

--
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb

Re:You must not live in Canada. by British · 2003-07-21 08:20 · Score: 1

And if that's in Canadian dollars, it's practically free!
Re:You must not live in Canada. by pigscanfly.ca · 2003-07-21 08:28 · Score: 1

Or he could be getting 3.5m service which tends to be priced around $60 eh? Same deal with commercial 1.5m&1.7m service service. Not everyone is happy with 1mbs .
You should not be so fast to judge people , at least check your facts.
Re:You must not live in Canada. by Iam · 2003-07-21 08:40 · Score: 1

Correction. My bill is just under 50$CAD. Check out the Prices

--
"Software is a tool, and as a toolbuilder I must struggle with the uses to which the tools I make are put." - Bil
Re:You must not live in Canada. by Supero100 · 2003-07-21 09:58 · Score: 1

You're right, I live in the US.

I was, however, comparing a 2nd tier (i.e. a step above basic) DSL service which is 1.5 down, 256 up to cable, as I've found those DL rates to be roughly the same.

Re:Canada by CableModemSniper · 2003-07-21 07:35 · Score: 1

parenthesizing it doesn't help. (America++) still returns America.

--
Why not fork?

I don't get it... by Thud457 · 2003-07-21 07:35 · Score: 1

How the hell do you expect to rip 125 channels all at the same time?!! Some sort of Beow...<CARRIER LOST>

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:land line telephone services = days are numbere by Supero100 · 2003-07-21 07:36 · Score: 1

Indeed, this is what I'm talking about. DSL has the burden of requiring the subscription of a service you already pay for (given that you have a cellphone). With cable, you at least get a non-redundant service for a similar amount of money. Hopefully, this competition will drive DSL prices down far enough so they are significantly lower than cable, and cause the price of (cable + internet) to also fall in response.

Re:It's aboot time! by tonywong · 2003-07-21 07:36 · Score: 1

Sorry mate, but Labatt's has been an Interbrew company for some time now. Interbrew is Belgian.

Molson would be a better choice. It's only 20% owned by Miller and another 20% by Phillip Morris.

Carte blanche in the Midwest by Ateryx · 2003-07-21 07:37 · Score: 1

The gov't of my town (the most conservative city in MN) decided that it would be best for the city to let Charter Communications have free reigns as the sole provider (carte blanche).

The happiness this contributes to my life is undescribable... somewhere between the lowest rates for my modem/tv and outstanding service I receive makes me actually consider Canada as someplace I might actually consider living...

"Canada is kind of like a loft apartment over a great party" - Robin Williams

-Brad

--
"The truth suffers from too much analysis"

Guess what happens when you ASSume... by LordYUK · 2003-07-21 07:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Assumption: You already pay $35 for a cellphone.
Sure, I'll take 125 channels as a perk for my decision making skills."

One. Phone providers offer a 3-10 (I forget what it was after tax) dollar a month dial tone, which is fine for DSL. If your wonderful "decision making skills" can do the math on that one, you'll realize that if you DONT need actually need the land line, its cheaper to get that instead of paying for a 30 month "DSL connector" (so to speak).

Two. I wouldnt trade my land line for a cell phone any day. I can call anywhere I want in the US, I dont pay long distance, and the calls are crystal clear. I dont have to worry about charging my phone, or is it "off time (night/weekends)" or is the call going to be disconnected. I can hear the other person, the phone isnt the size of a used bar of soap so I can cradle it without holding it to my ear (and I have a headset too, in case I need "hands free", ie, gaming). Plus I'll never be tempted to drive with the fucking thing stuck to my ear.

--
This is my sig. Its pathetic.

Re:Guess what happens when you ASSume... by Supero100 · 2003-07-21 07:57 · Score: 1

I may be wrong, but I'm not sure if all phone companies offer the "connection dial tone." I'm pretty sure at least Verizon doesn't offer this, which for many people, would mean the $30 cost as a "DSL connector". CIP, I talked to a Cust. Serv. manager at Verizon a few weeks ago to try to get a cheaper "DSL connector," and he never mentioned or offered the "$3-10 dial tone," which clearly would make DSL a smarter decision.

Anyway, I think you're in the minority of people who prefer land lines to cellphones. Cellphones are...simply a better product - all the benefits of a land line with far fewer of the geographical limitations - you mention lack of long distance costs, charging your phone, etc. features that are obviously available with current cellphones, and are being improved both performance-wise and economically with time. I suppose land lines have their place in a number of uses, but I think in the future their advantages over mobile phones will become fewer.

It certainly is worth the time to see what services are available to you, but at least where I am (which, a poster correctly identified as not canada - i'm in the US), dsl faces a difficult future for the reasons I've mentioned. I suppose I must admit that my posts include a degree of jealousy of the Canadians over having a relatively rational government.
Re:Guess what happens when you ASSume... by tomhudson · 2003-07-21 08:01 · Score: 1

wouldnt trade my land line for a cell phone any day.
Well, I know I'm not the only one who's done it. One of the other guys here bought 2 of them, and cancelled Bell's landline to his house, because he lives just outside the local calling area, so most of his calls were long distance. He now pays less, has the convenience of 2 cell phones, and with rogers' unlimited w/e and eves, and 350 min/day package for $40.00 Cdn,, + $15 for the second phone and number, he's way ahead.
We're all using Motorola V60s, and the calls are as good as a land line. The battery is good for 2 hours of talk time per charge, and it's really convenient (especially when you're in the can and somebody interrupts your business).
The only people I have a problem with are those who subscribe to Fido. Crappy phones, crappy signal, dropped connections, missed calls.
Re:Guess what happens when you ASSume... by tomhudson · 2003-07-21 10:36 · Score: 1
You won't know about all your missed calls, but the people who call you will. I've called people on their Fido phones 6-7 times, and when I finally get through to them (several days later) they complain that I never tried to call them. I've got one friend who has been through 7 (count 'em) VTech phones from Fido in the last year. He just wants his money back on the phone, because it spends all its' time "out for service". He's not even asking for a rebate on his monthly fees. No dice. He's looking out to get the same deal I've got the next time it comes on promo.
We've tested half-a-dozen (actually, more) different phones from 6 people who use Fido - none of them can send or receive calls from my home, and most of them have to go outside when they're calling from their own homes if they want to get a clear signal. I go to their place, and it's "no problemo" for me.
People here are satisfied with Bell, Rogers and Telus. Nobody I know is satisfied with Fido. The reasons they give for not switching:
1. They don't want to loose their phone number and have to call up everyone and give out their new number
2. They don't want to have to buy a new phone (the SIM cards aren't compatible between Fido and Rogers, but they CAN sometimes be swapped between Fido and Telus)
3. They don't want to commit to a 2-year plan
Look, you're happy with Fido, fine. You must be living in one of the few areas where they have good reception/transmission. I was considering them, but their network coverage (by their own admission - look at the maps posted on their site) is tiny. They don't cover where I work, they don't cover some of the places I go on weekends,and the places they do cover, it sounds like you're talking on a cell phone ... it's just not worth it.
Re:Guess what happens when you ASSume... by alexburke · 2003-07-21 18:29 · Score: 1

I've just given up the chance to mod down both of your comments, choosing instead to post a rebuttal to your FUD.

Are you ready? Here we go:

I've got one friend who has been through 7 (count 'em) VTech phones

That's your buddy's first mistake. If I want to buy today's equivalent of the Speak and Spell, I'll buy Vtech. Otherwise, I'll give my money to a company that's been making cellphones for more than two or three years.

We've tested half-a-dozen (actually, more) different phones from 6 people who use Fido - none of them can send or receive calls from my home,

Oh my God! Do you mean that your house actually sits in a dead spot for Fido's coverage? That couldn't possibly be the case!

Give me a moment to extract my tongue from my cheek... Okay, thanks.

Back in 2000 or so, I had a problem along McLaughlin Avenue in Mississauga, a road I frequently drove along when living there. Every single time I was on a call, there was a one-block area (without tall buildings, even -- just south of Matheson, if you know the area) that the call would get dropped due to a tiny, but very much dead, dead spot. I called them and told them about it. Two weeks later, it was gone, never to return -- my calls were never dropped there again.

Did you or your friends bother calling Fido to let them know? I didn't think so.

and most of them have to go outside when they're calling from their own homes if they want to get a clear signal. I go to their place, and it's "no problemo" for me.

Then their places are apparently better served by Rogers' cell layout than Fido's. In this case, perhaps Rogers would be the better choice for them. (However, Rogers TDMA and GSM coverage are not equal, even though the antennae for both are usually on the same towers. They'd want to make sure of their choice before switching.)

They don't want to loose their phone number and have to call up everyone and give out their new number

Indeed, probably one of the most common reasons for not changing your local loop provider or cell phone provider, period. Local number portability would cure this, but it's not here... yet...

They don't want to have to buy a new phone (the SIM cards aren't compatible between Fido and Rogers, but they CAN sometimes be swapped between Fido and Telus)

The whole point of GSM is that the subscription is held in the SIM, not the phone. Simlocking aside, if you take a GSM1900 phone that's being used by a Fido (Microcell) subscriber, pop out the Fido SIM and pop in a Rogers SIM, the phone will work on the Rogers network, period. I have a Nokia 6310i GSM900/1800/1900 handset, and switch between my Fido and Rogers SIM cards regularly. Even though the sticker on the faceplate says Rogers, the phone is not simlocked and therefore will accept any SIM, period.

Indeed, if your friend moves from Fido to Rogers, they'll have to get a new Rogers SIM for something like $25. As for the phone, if your friend has been with Fido for more than 12 months, they will provide the two 10-digit (for Nokia, in this example) SIM unlocking codes at no charge -- or even after 6 months if his bill is consistently more than $100/month before tax. How do I know this? Because I've done exactly that.

Last I heard, Bell and Telus, the two big CDMA carriers in Canada, were thinking of going GSM, but hadn't launched their GSM service yet. Even if they had, a Fido SIM absolutely CAN NOT be used to activate another provider's service on, just like you couldn't activate Rogers GSM service on a VoiceStream/T-Mobile SIM -- the first ten digits of the SIM card number tell you, and the network, what your home network is (for authentication and billing purposes). Every Fido SIM card number starts with the digits 89302 37010 -- 302 is the MCC (country code) for Canada, and 37 (or 370, depending on who you ask) is the MNC (network code) for Fido. (Rogers is 302 720.)
Re:Guess what happens when you ASSume... by tomhudson · 2003-07-22 02:51 · Score: 1
Okay, here we go (but this is just a friendly rebuttal, okay?)
1. Quote:Last I heard, Bell and Telus, the two big CDMA carriers in Canada, were thinking of going GSM, but hadn't launched their GSM service yet.
  My Rogers phone is a GSM - Motorola V60. They have agreements all through the states for GSM coverage, so it's no big deal :-)
2. Quote: If your friend wants a cheap unlocked GSM1900 handset, I recommend checking eBay. Rogers wanted $500 for the 6310i without a contract, plus $275 to unlock it, plus 15% tax. I paid under $600 all-in on eBay from a guy in Alberta that unlocked it and shipped it to me, and haven't looked back.)
  Rogers actually paid me to take the phone (my up-front cost was $180, - $50 in-store credit, $50 credit on first bill, $100 credit on 3rd bill, for a net profit of $20.00). And the phone is great - Motorola V60 GSM. For that sort of deal, I don't mind signing up for 2 years.
  Besides, none of Fido's plans would suit me. I never go below 1500 minutes a month, so their $40/month pkg of 1000 evening and w/e minutes and 300 daytime minutes would be eaten up, leaving between 200 and 300 extra minutes @ $0.20/min, for another $40-$60. Or I could take their $100/m package, which is double what I'm paying now. Just not worth it.
3. Quote:That's your buddy's first mistake. If I want to buy today's equivalent of the Speak and Spell, I'll buy Vtech.
  He's been willing to pay for a better phone, but they won't admit that the VTech is a sorry POS. They sell it, but they won't stand behind it. And they're still pushing it as the prefered phone for their monthly packages on their web site.
4. Quote: Do you mean that your house actually sits in a dead spot for Fido's coverage? That couldn't possibly be the case!
  Ok, you're being sarcastic, but it's strange how people on Microcell's network are always complaining about dead spots, dropped connections, etc. They don't change because of the number poratbility issue, which we all agree sucks, but such is life.
5. Quote:Rogers has known about the delayed-VMWI-notification problem, has said they're looking into it for months, and still hasn't fixed it.
  You're right on that, I've noticed delays of up to 15 minutes on voice mail notification. But I've not had any problems since they gave everybody the same voice-mail plan (what used to be k nown as their enhanced voice-mail package), so it was probably something to do with trying to artificially make it a 2-tier product. I hope, anyway ...
I also don't like the way Fido sets their "free time" between 7am and 7pm (at least that's what it was last summer when I bought one, couldn't get the damn thing to work, and returned it the next day), whereas mine starts at 6pm and ends at 8am. Or that they charge to receive text messages ($0.10 per) whereas I can receive 2500/month free, and sending is dirt cheap (I'm paying 7cents each, but if I wanted more, I can go as low as 2c/ea). If they want to expand people's use of SMS, they should make it sender-pay, not recipient-pay, which is an invitation to spam :-( >p>Well, gotta get some work done.
Re:Guess what happens when you ASSume... by alexburke · 2003-07-22 04:22 · Score: 1

I'm not going to correct every point, but here's what sticks out the most:

Your 6pm to 8am unlimited-local-calling window is grandfathered. Change your plan and you lose it (8pm to 8am now -- or you can have 6pm to 8am for $5/month more). You're probably billed by the second, too -- that's also no longer offered.

The VMWI issue is still a problem as far as I know. Their voicemail is still a two-tier product, with $4 and $7 versions (the $7 version includes VMWI among other things).

Rogers does NOT have agreements "all through the States" for GSM coverage. Notably, they still have no roaming agreement with T-Mobile, which serves much of the eastern USA. And the nasty Battle Creek-style surprises make me cringe at the thought of ever needing to make a call in the US on my Rogers SIM card unless I'm in some metropolis where they'd never get away with charging their clients US$4/min.
Re:Guess what happens when you ASSume... by tomhudson · 2003-07-22 04:50 · Score: 1

Rogers sent everybody a notice last month saying they were upgraded to the enhanced voice-mail at no extra charge.
The same notice included their announcement extending GSM coverage to more of the states, but since I'm not affected, I didn't bother reading it.
Yep, my 8am-6pm is grandfathered, which is why I'm happy I signed a 2-year contract. I expect that, when it comes up for renewal, since we are in a competetive market, that won't change. And they still give out free phone upgrades when you renew.
Re:Guess what happens when you ASSume... by alexburke · 2003-07-22 07:02 · Score: 1

The fact that you signed a contract isn't why your preferential package details are grandfathered, it's because that's what your plan was, period. If we're thinking of the same "Build Your Own" plan, I was on the same plan, with the same details, without a contract -- until about a week ago when, being fully armed with all the details, I decided to switch plans to the new "Easy 4 U" Family Plan because I was adding another phone to my account, and couldn't do the add-a-phone-for-$15 since the rep wasn't able to add my existing package to the new phone since it was no longer offered. In so doing, I lost per-second billing and two hours of free local calling in the evenings. To make up for the loss, the CSR (which wasn't the average CSR, because I was speaking directly with the Loyalty department) gave me three months of unlimited local airtime 24x7 for three months, as well as two free months of enhanced voicemail and Caller ID. This sounds like a nice perk for people that sign a two-year contract, but what's nicer is that she did it without making me sign any contract whatsoever.

So to sum up, even if you were a month-to-month customer with no contract, you wouldn't lose your plan as long as you didn't change it. Once you change plans, you can't have the old one back if it's no longer offered.
Re:Guess what happens when you ASSume... by tomhudson · 2003-07-22 08:02 · Score: 1

No, my plan was one of those $40, all-you-can talk we/evenings, 350 minutes daytime, free Motorola V60 phone & charger (free after the credits, anyway), unlimited everything for 2 months (voicemail, web browsing, text messaging, anything you wanted). Rogers lets you take any option free for 2 months on a trial basis, no charge, which is pretty decent of them. Don't like it after 2 months? Just call 611 and cancel it.
The to-the-second billing always struck me as a bit of a scam, because of the fine print: If you don't answer the phone, there's no charge. If you do answer it, the clock starts ticking from the time your phone began ringing, not from the time you picked it up. So if your phone rang 10 times, then you talked for 5 seconds to tell the person they had a wrong number, you still accumulated 1 minute of charges. Fido has the same terms, which is why I laugh when I see their "Why should I pay a minute if I only talked for 12 seconds" commercials.
One of the things I've noticed (maybe you have, too) is that these plans seem to repeat, with small variations, on a cycle that seems to center around three time periods: Summer vacation, Back-to-School, and Christmas, and that if Rogers has it, Telus will match it if you show them the ad, and Bell will try to come up with something close to it a month later. Anyone else noticed that?

Re:land line telephone services = days are numbere by ebuck · 2003-07-21 07:38 · Score: 1

More like +$30 for DSL service.

Yes, it WAS +$60, but prices keep dropping every day.

Re:land line telephone services = days are numbere by Dr+Caleb · 2003-07-21 07:39 · Score: 1

Who wants to pay for local phone service (if you're already paying for it with your wireless plan) if you just want DSL, which would then be an additional cost to the local line?

Some changes to your math:

$24.95 local phone
+$24.95 DSL service
-----------------
$49.90

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain

Re:too bad for the bells by Neil+Watson · 2003-07-21 07:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Bell Canada has been a thorn in my side for years. During the dailup years Bell was late to recognize the Internet. In an attempt to catch up it is rumoured that Bell tried to heavly increase the cost of the phone lines owned by ISPs. I believe there were some court cases and the business plan was dropped. Later, I found myself using a new TV system called LookTV. Just when things where going well for them (including a blazing fast wireless Internet access plan) it is rumoured that Bell bought out Look's biggest financial backer and cut their funding. That was a few years ago and Look has yet to recover. The final straw is ADSL. No matter who your ISP is (and there are a few) Bell owns all the lines. At one point it is rumoured that Bell was leasing it's lines to it's own ISP branch at cost in order to drive the other ISPs out of business. I think there was a court case.

--
UNIX/Linux Consulting

Re:land line telephone services = days are numbere by Bruce+Hollebone · 2003-07-21 07:42 · Score: 1

Your prices are way high for Canada:

I pay:

$24 Local line
+$30 1.7/0.4 Mb ADSL
==================
$55 /mo. for phone

Compare that with cable 1.5/0.2 Mb service at $44/mo with TV service, or $54 without.

--
Kind Regards,
Bruce

woo by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-21 07:45 · Score: 1, Interesting

After some nasty customer service from Bell I switched to Sprint for my local phone service. Was I ever surprised to find out that I was unable to get DSL after the switch. IGS is a great little DSL company but because they lease lines from Bell I was still unable to get service.

I had to go with Rogers Cable, which isn't a whole lot different then Bell sympatico

Someone else offers local phone service? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-21 07:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

Maybe I is dumb, but I live on the canadian east coast, where there is only one phone company, no dsl, and no cable modem service at all. What good does this actually do? Telus can't even sell cellular phones right, I doubt they can do DSL effectively.

Re:Someone else offers local phone service? by GarthSweet · 2003-07-21 08:13 · Score: 1

If you truly live on the Eastcoast that must mean Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI or Newfoundland. In Nova Scotia and PEI at least there is full competition for phone and internet services from Aliant and Eastlink.

Both offer a great service I get
- Local Phone Service
-- (Digital answering Machine)
-- (2nd phone number)
-- (100 free LD minutes in Canada)
- High Speed Internet (120 KB/sec)
- Cellular Service
-- (200 free daytime minutes)
-- (unlimited Evenings and weekends)

all for $79.00 a month. (That's $53.00 usd). This includes all access fees, etc except the 41 cent 911 fee.

I could also choose to get Local Phone service, High Speed Internet (even faster then what I am getting) and Digital Cable for $99.00 (no cellular).

There's plenty of good choices on Canada's east coast and most things are well priced.
Re:Someone else offers local phone service? by GarthSweet · 2003-07-21 13:36 · Score: 1

Geesh. Get your head out of your ass and leave the Toronto city limits for once in your life. You might be surprised.

So... by autechre · 2003-07-21 07:51 · Score: 1

Just for the sake of argument, why would I _not_ want to move to Canada? (I currently live in the U.S.). I've certainly considered living in other countries, if only just for a while to see more of the world, but I don't want to fall victim to the "grass is always greener" illusion.

As background, let's say that I'm a moderate with a bit of a leftward bent (Kucinich is looking surprisingly good for a Democrat), and I don't think national healthcare is such a bad idea at all. What might I find to be worse were I to relocate to Canada?

--
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.

Brain drain from US? by Unknown+Poltroon · 2003-07-21 07:52 · Score: 1

How much longer is it going to be before eveyone in the US smarter than a brick has left for some other country with sensible laws? Or maybe its already happened and im too dumb to know it?

--
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.

Re:Brain drain from US? by thebigmacd · 2003-07-21 08:31 · Score: 1

More accurately, medical doctors come to Canada to train and and everyone goes to the states to make money. In my city, London, ON, there are literally ZERO family practitioners who will take new patients and several leave for the US every year, even some who have practised here for ages. We have the best equipped hospitals in the world and several wards are closed for lack of staff. The waiting list for locals for most types of surgery is at least a year for first consultation, up to two years for actual surgery. Oh wait, I just turned a comment on brain-drain into a commentary on our health-care funding...oopsie :)
Re:Brain drain from US? by valkraider · 2003-07-21 08:44 · Score: 1

There are people in the US smarter than Bricks?
Re:Brain drain from US? by Richthofen80 · 2003-07-21 09:04 · Score: 1

``For me, it's a no-brainer,'' said Mollie Ingebrand, a puppeteer from Minneapolis who plans to go to Vancouver with her lawyer husband and 2-year-old son

Best. Article. Ever. A PUPPETEER? No wonder she wants to move to canada. you can't make a living being a puppeteer! If all we lose are freeloaders to canada, I say, let them leave.

--
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism

Re:land line telephone services = days are numbere by Tokerat · 2003-07-21 07:53 · Score: 1

I have it even better here in the US:

$50/mo Cable Modem with admins too stupid to catch me running a web server
+$60/mo cell phone with Unlimited SMS, nights&weekends, & free long distance within continental US
=================
Watch TV over a friends house since nothing is on that makes it worth buying cable.

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?

better and better by August_zero · 2003-07-21 07:55 · Score: 1

Between stuff like this, and Coffee crisps, Canada keeps looking better and better.

Now if they would just do something about the GST...

--
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?

Re:better and better by iantri · 2003-07-21 09:07 · Score: 1

Eh, it's the price you pay for free health care and other niceties.

Bell Sympatico ADSL by Cheffo+Jeffo · 2003-07-21 08:00 · Score: 1

When Sympatico kicked in the bandwidth cap I was a little ticked, but then they offered their Ultra service with 3 times the speed (3Mbps down and 640kbps up) and double the bandwidth (40Gb instead of 20). The additional cost was less than my excess bandwidth charges, so it was a no-brainer upgrade.

Then, after 3.5 years of month-to-month contracts, I figured that I wasn't going anywhere so I agreed to sign a 12 month contract to make my bandwidth caps go away.

So, I have a reliable 3Mbps down, 640kbps up, no bandwidth caps for C$70/mo (ignoring discounts).

Rogers is 1.5Mbps down, 192k up, no bandwidth caps for C$45/mo (ignoring discounts).

If you compare the "standard" broadband offerings, Rogers may have the edge (but they still have "heavy traffic" slowdowns), but for a bit more money (less than a case of beer or 3 packs of smokes) Sympatico blows their doors off.

As always, everything subject to geographic availability, etc.

Not a good reason to do that by atrader42 · 2003-07-21 08:02 · Score: 1

An ADSL line is, essentially, a very nice phone line. Given that it's not the phone service that's expensive, but the line and the ADSL service, that doesn't make much sense. Cable makes only marginally more sense. The result is that while you can choose to get cable internet without cable TV, the price difference is marginal.

Re:Not a good reason to do that by tomhudson · 2003-07-21 08:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Sure it is. Bell still gets 2/3 of the $$$ when you go to a non-Bell service for ADSL, so they're getting their money anyway --- but what the hell, once wireless service gets a bit better, I'll probably go for that instead. For the really big d/ls, I'll just shell into the box at the office. Oh, BTW, Bell also get their cut when you use an alternate voice service.

Re:"Good riddance" I say! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-21 08:03 · Score: 1, Interesting

That's just that many fewer people here who will vote socialist Democrats into office.

But that means more people (relatively) to vote for even more socialist Republicans.

The rate of incrase in social spending is 50% higher now than when Clinton was in. And that doesn't include the perscription drug program.

Pay attention by raygundan · 2003-07-21 08:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think you missed the gist of the ruling from the FCC in the last big mess over DSL. It is an ugly, ugly mess. They did NOT back away from regulation as you suggest-- the ruling *requires* the telephone companies to share their networks for local phone service. However, they did end the requirement for linesharing of the "last mile" for alternative DSL companies.

If you had to regulate one or the other, which would you have picked? The one that requires the telcos to allow competitors to use their entire network to sell phone service? Or the one that allows companies with their own nationwide backbone infrastructure (like Covad) to use JUST the last-mile portion of the lines?

I REALLY don't understand why they picked what they did. It's not pro-consolidation OR anti-regulation. It's the worst possible combination of choices. It's no wonder there is widespread objection. Although most of the "nerd news" reporting painted the decision as one that was bad for nerds (no more DSL competition)-- mainstream press widely reported it as a terrible loss for the telcos (because they have to basically do all the infrastructure for their POTS competitors). Now, if a decision screws everybody (dsl users, dsl competitors, AND the telcos)-- it can't possibly be doing any of us any good. What the hell was the FCC thinking?

Re:Pay attention by volkris · 2003-07-21 10:16 · Score: 1

We're talking about radio spectrum here.

The whole business with the phone system is so screwed up there's really no hope of fixing it.

Overregulation got us in this mess, and now we're really pretty stuck. Dropping regulations tremendously would probably be the best, but it will mean some tough times before being better in the long run. And small lessenings of regulations would only make things worse for the shortterm without making them better in the long.
Re:Pay attention by lotus87 · 2003-07-21 11:49 · Score: 1

(because they have to basically do all the infrastructure for their POTS competitors)

Let's not forget the fact that all of the POTS infrastructure was built by government subsidies (i.e. our taxes) prior to the break up of the Baby Bells. Without those subsidies, the Bells would not have such extensive networks or infrastructures.
Rather that legislate that telcos have to share the networks that taxpayers built, we should reclaim the networks and make all of the service providers compete fairly. They each pay the same for use of the wire, and compete based on how well they provide services.
Some industries should not be privatised (electricty, gas, water, telephone, and, yes, broadband). In these cases it is better to place universal service and reliability above profit, and no company listed on any stock exchange would ever do that.

asbestos underwear time by Jucius+Maximus · 2003-07-21 08:06 · Score: 1

USA != America

Re:Telus DSL _SUCKS_ by kcurrie · 2003-07-21 08:06 · Score: 1

First off - they only provide dynamic IP addresses.. they refuse to provide static addresses, even though they charge more for them.. (They claim the IP addresses are static, but you must use DHCP to get them - anyone care to tell me what the 'D' in DHCP stands for?)

While the D stands for Dynamic, just because you get your IP via DHCP doesn't mean you don't get a static IP. You often configure DHCP servers to give our the same static IP to hosts. Why? Because it makes it much easier to reip the host/network later-- you have 1 config file to change instead of 10,000 hosts to reconfigure, and don't have to worry about the misconfiguration of those hosts.

--
-- I speak only for myself.

Re:Canada by CableModemSniper · 2003-07-21 08:10 · Score: 1

Its not the equality check thats the problem, its the nature of the postincrement operator. here is a function that works exactly like post-increment for integers:

int postincrement(int & value) { int tmp = value; value = value + 1; return tmp; }

so canada == (postincrement(america)); You see the problem now? You should use pre-increment if you want that exspression to evaluate properly, ie canada == ++america;

--
Why not fork?

Derr, of COURSE they dont "OFFER" it... by LordYUK · 2003-07-21 08:10 · Score: 1

I know for a fact that Verizon offers the "cheap" line... before they offered their "freedom" package, I had MCI's Neighborhood, which unfortunantly couldnt have DSL (stupid ILEC). So I called verizon and pressed and pressed and pressed and finally they admitted that they had a "dial tone" which DSL could be run through.

A CSR Manager is NEVER going to offer that, because its bad for their bottom line... but they DO offer it, I know for fact.

--
This is my sig. Its pathetic.

Poor fools.. by Darken_Everseek · 2003-07-21 08:14 · Score: 1

"Green all year, no mosquitos." .. *cough cough* .. Well, I suppose if you count them as helicopters...

Honestly though; I'm quite happy in Canada, even if I'm in the most conservative province in the country (Alberta) .. We've got privatized health care, and the Klein gov't intends to use the nothwithstanding clause to duck the same-sex marriage issue (stupid on Klein's part, IMO) The education system is great; especially the tax breaks; I've made $22,000 in a year as a student (8 months work); and been given back -everything- I paid in taxes. As for Chretien; between him and Bush, I'd say we have the lesser of two evils.

Re:Poor fools.. by Darken_Everseek · 2003-07-21 08:52 · Score: 1

I do pay my fair share; My finances just happen to work out that after the 'educational expenses' deduction to my tax return, I have very little taxable net income.

As for your 50% figure; I'm not sure where you pulled that out of. I get my refund at the end of the year; I still pay regular taxes on every cheque .. typically in the neigbourhood of 17%. Even with a straight addition of 7% for GST, that puts me at 24%. There's no provincial tax in Alberta; so theres nothing additional there.

I may end up paying more in taxes after I graduate; but it's still a percentage; and when the difference is between a $35,000 per year job with 25% tax, and a $70,000 per year job with even 50% tax, I'm still coming out ahead by roughly $9000/year. Divide that by four (for the number of years I get an education deduction) to get $2250 per year; which isn't too far off what I get back in refunds now. So even with a ridiculously high 50% income tax on the better job, and a comparitively low paying job for my field (engineering construction management) after a little over a year, I still come out ahead in the long run. But hey; I'm young so I must not know how the world works, right?
Re:Poor fools.. by SpaceCadetTrav · 2003-07-21 09:23 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight... you ended up paying almost zero taxes, and you claim that this is your fair share?
Wow. Your last sentence sums it up.

--
Life in Orange County
Re:Poor fools.. by Darken_Everseek · 2003-07-21 09:50 · Score: 1

Hmm.. almost zero net income, almost zero taxes? .. Seems fair to me.

Pricing/Math differences by Supero100 · 2003-07-21 08:15 · Score: 1

True, my math is different -

I've found that for comparable DL rates on DSL (vs. Cable), I had to buy a 2nd tier DSL plan - 1.5Mbit down and 256K up, thus the $60. Also, I should mention I'm in the US, so we're all relatively screwed anyway.

DSL @ $49.90 reaches many, many more people's budgets.

Re:Pricing/Math differences by Dr+Caleb · 2003-07-21 08:42 · Score: 1

Telus offers 2.5 down/512k up for that price, tier 1. I've got a fiber connection 10M/10M at work for $750 per month from Telus.
I'm in the US, so we're all relatively screwed anyway.
I feel your pain man...

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain

I've not earned my MBA yet, but... by Supero100 · 2003-07-21 08:23 · Score: 1

You'd think it'd be worse for business to lose a customer entirely (as with my case) to a competitor and as a result take $0/month from them than it would be to offer the "service of last resort" and then take $70/month from them.

I suppose nobody has accused Verizon of brilliance, either.

Either way, a good bit of info!

Re:I've not earned my MBA yet, but... by LordYUK · 2003-07-21 08:26 · Score: 1

You'd think, but then they have to service the line... which means both physically as well as pay for you to call Customer Service, ya know? :(

They are bastards. I hate them all. :)

--
This is my sig. Its pathetic.

Damn Canada, you've almost convinced me by asscroft · 2003-07-21 08:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

to emigrate. The real land of the free. Issues like this seem to always favor the consumer and small business rather than the conglomerate. Pot is not-illegal. Gays are free to marry while in the US they have to fight to keep the police out of their bedrooms. Not everyone is considered a terrorist until proven otherwise. Unfortunately you are still amazingly too anti-gun for my tastes.

Seriously, why didn't the big guys win? They always win here. Are your politicians not for sale? Or are your corporations too cheap to buy them?

--
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre

Re:Damn Canada, you've almost convinced me by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2003-07-21 09:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anti-handgun. They've got more rifles (per capita, obviously) than we do, right?

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

A couple of things.... by Ian_Bailey · 2003-07-21 08:28 · Score: 1

Things to consider...

Taxes (GST, propertry taxes, income taxes, they're all much higher than the US, with few exceptions)
Colder Weather (although it depends on where you live)
Current trend towards privatization (depends on your beliefs)
While individual freedoms are rarely infringed upon in Canada, they are not necessarily guaranteed by law (Talk of a National ID card)

If you just move across the border (say, from Detroit to Windsor), you would notice very little differences, but everything varies from city to city. For instance, Alberta is still fighting homosexual marriages, but Toronto now weds couples daily.

The father you move from where you are, the more things are different, regardless if you go to a different country (Los Angeles -> Montreal) or not (Los Angeles -> New York).

Re:A couple of things.... by Kombat · 2003-07-21 09:03 · Score: 1

Taxes (GST, propertry taxes, income taxes, they're all much higher than the US, with few exceptions)

This is an incomplete comparison. While some aspects of Canadian taxation are higher, others are comparable, or even less. Our income tax is less than in some areas of the US. Also, you must consider that while you may be paying a little more in taxes, you are also paying far, far less for education and healthcare. Tuition at the most expensive undergraduate university in Canada runs about $6000 per year (2 semesters). You don't need to shell out $300/month for health insurance. These things add up.

Colder Weather (although it depends on where you live)

This is a good thing! Don't you get tired of hot, sticky 95+ degree weather day after day? Where I live (Ottawa), there are only a few days per year where it goes above 85 degrees F. That's the way I like it. Cooler temperatures means you can spend more time outside, fewer bugs, and no dangerous/poisonous snakes or whatever.

Sure, the winter's are a little colder, but so what? Wear a hat and a coat. You're not outside for very long unless you're skiing, snowboarding, snowmobiling, sledding, skating, etc., and in those cases, you just dress for it.

While individual freedoms are rarely infringed upon in Canada, they are not necessarily guaranteed by law

We have a charter of rights and freedoms, just as the US does. And while there are a few invasions by the state (eg., national firearms registry), in general, the freedoms enjoyed up here outweigh them. For example, the drinking age here is 19, as opposed to 21 in the US. The age of sexual consent is 14, vers 18 (depending on jurisdiction in the US). Prostitution is legal. Drug laws are much softer. Things are, in general, more liberal up here.

--
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Re:A couple of things.... by MKalus · 2003-07-21 09:47 · Score: 1

Things are, in general, more liberal up here.

Not to forget more relaxed.

I agree that the US promises a lot but for the average person doesn't really deliver, Canada on the other seems to just deliver without any promise.

I have lived in the US, I grew up in Europe and I think Canada is a great compromise, cold weather not withstanding ;)

M.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Re:A couple of things.... by MarkCollette · 2003-07-21 11:48 · Score: 1

The drinking age varies from province to province. Here in Alberta it's 18.

Socialist State ? by Cheffo+Jeffo · 2003-07-21 08:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't know about Canada being a socialist state (have always wondered why people would think that ... ), but I have lived in both countries (and have family living in both countries).

The truth is that the Canadian government is happy to infringe upon the freedom of corporations in order to enhance the lives of the individual. (e.g. decrimilize pot smoking, legal gay marriage and broadband for the people).

The US government, on the other hand, is too happy to curtail the freedom of the individual and let big corporations (and their campaign contributions) do whatever they want. (e.g. Patriot 1/2, DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, etc.)

Cheers.

Re:Socialist State ? by gobbo · 2003-07-21 08:38 · Score: 1

Oh, Canada's gov isn't happy to protect corporations? How about Ethyl Corp. and Chapter 11 in the NAFTA?

There are many ways in which the Canadian government has (and must) put collective rights before that of the individual, we only got a Charter of Rights 20 years ago. But corporations also enjoy huge benefits over the individual in Canada, including enormous debt in unpaid taxes and large resource extraction rights without due local process.

No, regulated market capitalism is alive and well in Canada, despite ridiculous statements by propagandists.

--
Damn those pesky terrorists
Re:Socialist State ? by Cheffo+Jeffo · 2003-07-21 09:49 · Score: 1

Uh ... RTFP (oh, wait this is /.) ... I never said they weren't protective ... I said that they were happy to interfere ... the two are not mutually exclusive.
Re:Socialist State ? by gobbo · 2003-07-21 14:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Uh ... RTFP
You're right, I equated freedom from interference with a kind of protection. In fact, that is what Chapter 11 of NAFTA is all about -- expansive new rights for investors [corps, really] wildly beyond the rights of individuals, neighbourhoods, municipalities, regions, civil powers, and even nation states. A lot of people are freaked out by this trend of non-interference.
On the one hand, they regulate (er, interfere), on the other they protect from interference (er, award radical new freedoms). Splitting hairs, I guess.

--
Damn those pesky terrorists

Re:"Good riddance" I say! by gobbo · 2003-07-21 08:29 · Score: 4, Informative

Can't resist a good troll...

Taxes aren't that bad here, especially when you factor in the cost of medical insurance. (I make ~$60k/yr CDN and pay about 28% taxes without loopholes, so duh!) For some, they're better than having an equivalent position in the USA, as they discover when they move down and experience user-pays-for-everything, and they move back to Canada for economic reasons. It all depends on cost-of-living in various regions, and even the region of Canada or US one moves to, as well as the income bracket you're in. I've found that the moderately wealthy complain about taxes consistently, if they're from a somewhat socialized industrial nation.

If I get cancer, I can still change jobs or provinces without losing my medical benefits or paying disproportionately. That's not commie, that's humane, you twit!

One other thing... gross disparity of income leads to other extremely expensive social ills, like massive prisons, health problems, badly educated populace, violence and insecurity, drug use, despair, riots, and extreme cultural stress. It's a hidden cost, and we canucks have our share of these problems. I think it's hilarious that 'Americans' consider us socialized pinkos!

Besides, isn't Robin Hood a hero? You presume that the rich never steal from the poor.

--
Damn those pesky terrorists

ugh by Tumbleweed · 2003-07-21 08:31 · Score: 1

Why is there no "too stupid to live" mod? Even better, "retroactive abortion needed"...Hmmm...I sense a fork of Slashcode coming...

We Don't Need Guns by Cheffo+Jeffo · 2003-07-21 08:35 · Score: 1

The US Constitution included the right to bear arms so that the people could rise up against an oppresive govenment.

In Canada, private citizens are typically better armed and better funded than the government, so we could rise up if we wanted ... we're just too busy enjoying our beer, pseudo-legal tokes and cheap broadband ...

Re:We Don't Need Guns by gregmac · 2003-07-21 10:10 · Score: 1

The US Constitution included the right to bear arms so that the people could rise up against an oppresive govenment.
This kind of seems silly to me (as a Canadian). First of all, I think it's pretty well established now that the democratic government works, and isn't oppressive. (I'm sure theres people that would argue that, but overall, we're much better off than, for example, countries that have dictatorships).
Second, it seems to me that one person with a sniper rifle is a lot more effective than a group of people with guns. Espessially when that group is a bunch of rednecks with pistols, going up against well-trained and well-funded police, SWAT teams, and the various military forces.
Really, all that right does is provide many households with a gun that ends up robbing a liquor store, or being stolen and then used to rob a liquor store.
Of course, I'm Canadian, so maybe I just don't understand, eh?

--
Speak before you think

Re:blame Canada... by TobyWong · 2003-07-21 08:37 · Score: 1

"11) No littering or cursing allowed in Canada. Also, please be kind; rewind"

What the fuck are you talking about?

--
- Toby

It's about time! by gagy · 2003-07-21 08:39 · Score: 1

Bell's Sympatico service is honestly the worst. I switched to Rogers cable because I absolutely despised them. Not to mention the 10GB cap on transfers which Rogers doesn't have. I'm really hoping some of the local DSL providers will step up to the plate and force Bell to change their ways. This deregulation should force Bell to drop the 10GB limit, or at least up it to something more reasonable. A SuSE distro can be 7 CD's and there goes 1/2 of your transfer.. WTF? It should also give their customers a choice, because Cable is unbearably slow in some areas and technically isn't a viable option. Another strike for the good guys. Now if the CRTC could only deregulate Cable TV so I have a choice where my money goes and allow me to watch US Network TV over the web via services like jumpTV and then I'll be completely happy.

--
-I DDoSed your mom.

Re:It's about time! by jbabco · 2003-07-21 16:22 · Score: 1

For what it's worth, Sympatico has dropped it's bandwidh cap as of July 4th.

Ah Canada... by Mupp252 · 2003-07-21 09:04 · Score: 1

Is there anything they can't do?

Huh? by Loki_1929 · 2003-07-21 09:13 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, I'm from the US. What is this "competition" you speak of? Is that a new service offered by Verizon? Something from Comcast perhaps? How much does it cost on top of all the other charges that make my monthly billing statement thicker than the King James Bible?

--
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Re:"Good riddance" I say! by goldspider · 2003-07-21 09:17 · Score: 1

"One other thing... gross disparity of income leads to other extremely expensive social ills, like... badly educated populace"

I think you've got the cart before the horse. An uneducated populace is unable/unwilling to go out and provide for themselves, hence you have income disparity.

But when you have a government that tells people that even if they are unable/unwilling to earn themselves a living, there are always others who DO work that will pick up the tab. That kind of system rewards laziness and punishes hard work. A funny bumper sticker I once saw speaks the truth: "Work harder! Someone on welfare is counting on you!"

I also find the assertion of socialists that the government knows what's good for me better than I do insulting and extremely condescending. Many socialists proclaim to be educated, but have no problem with letting a parental government run their lives for them.

Is capitalism perfect? Far from it. There are always those who live off of the hard work of others, under any economic system. But government adaptation of that practice is an unacceptable alternative. I'll take my chances because I'm smart enough to not let anyone take advantage of me, and that I can and always will be able to take care of myself.

"Besides, isn't Robin Hood a hero? You presume that the rich never steal from the poor."

Not if you're the rich guy :) Of course, now you don't have to be rich to be bent over the proverbial barrel. But then I guess this is the same reason why folks like Jesse Jackson are also perceived as heroes by some.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy

Re:too bad for the bells by paladin_tom · 2003-07-21 09:23 · Score: 1

In Canada, each province used to have a publicly-owned telephone system (SaskTel, MTS, etc.). In the past 10-20 years (roughly, since NAFTA), they've been going private (I think SaskTel is the exception). So huge telephone companies are a bit of a new thing up here. :-)

--
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."

I live in Ontario... by Trollificus · 2003-07-21 09:34 · Score: 1

...and I wish I was only paying $25/month for a 1mbps/256k connection. I'm paying $44.00(plus $7-something for every gig over 10) for the same connection with Bell Sympatico(DSL). The parent poster may have one of the faster connections. Bell offers an "Ultra" edition for around $60-70/month. But that is a complete waste, since you'll only burn your download cap a lot faster.

--

"People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
- Gov. Jesse Ventura

Re:I live in Ontario... by CKW · 2003-07-22 01:42 · Score: 1

The download caps were totally removed this month!!!

http://forums.sympatico.ca/WebX?50@179.GKHmaFgJY3D .2@.1de43fc8

Re:Telus DSL _SUCKS_ by 0xA · 2003-07-21 09:42 · Score: 1

It sounds like an ok idea doesn't it? They actually even go farther than the other poster explained, when you recive a DHCP lease it actually builds your route at the same time. Makes for a very interesting and tough to fool network structure.

Problem is, it doesn't work. They use these stupid non-rfc compliant Nortel boxes to run it all and it fucks up all the time. Their support people don't understand how it works, all they know is release and renew your IP, etc.

I thought it was neat at first but let me tell you it's a nightmare. Complete garbage. I consult for small companies and I absolutely refuse to set them up on Telus. I acutally fired a client over it once, he inisted on Telus so I told him I wouldn't do it. Guess who was back in 3 months?

Help! Is there cheap local service in Ontario? by mriker · 2003-07-21 09:50 · Score: 1

I realize this is a bit off-topic, but my girlfriend is getting her own apartment for school in the fall, and I've been trying to find the best deal for local phone service. I haven't had much luck, and right now it looks as though Bell might have the cheapest service (their website says $20-28). Is there cheaper service to be found in Ontario?

She's also looking for Internet access, which is why she didn't just go the cell phone route. I was hoping to find a local phone service provider with a promotion or discount for buying both local phone and Internet service, but haven't found anything. Thanks for any help/advice in advance! =)

And another thing by 0xA · 2003-07-21 10:19 · Score: 1

I have this story I don't like to tell non-technical people because it makes me look like a fool but I think you might understand.

Once upon a time I was working for a retail company with stores all over the country. We decided to put a new concept into a store in Edmonton, network POS system with an encrypted tunnel to the head office in Calgary. We got Telus Not-So-Static-IP DSL installed in the store and it was good.

3 months later it was bad, DSL would work for 15 minutes afeter IP lease and then die. The store manager tried to talk to Telus and got no where. I talked to them, they sent out a tech. 3 times this happened. They started telling me there was a bridge tap on the line so it might not ever work. It _had_ worked for months of course. I demanded a manager, got him to send out a tech, nothing. They replaced some piece of equipment in the COLEC that cost upteen thousand dollars. I go out and replace the computer in the store, still doesn't work.

By now a month have gone by, we got no DSL, everything is crap. I have spent about 10 hours on the phone with these guys. My boss (the company prez) is breathing down my neck, he doesn't understand why I can't get this going. Neither do I, all I can do is point a finger. I look like an idiot here but it gets worse. One day the store manager gets fed up and calls Telus support, whoever she talks to somehow fixes the problem in five minutes. Bang, it's back. it works everybody is happy. Except me. Talk about embarassed, I looked like a complete asshole. Nothing I could have done differently either. Telus set me up and made me thier bitch.

Re:And another thing by satterth · 2003-07-21 11:01 · Score: 1

Everything at Telus depends on who you talk to. I do it all the time, if the first guy/gal can't or doesn't want to help, call the next guy/gal. usually after a few phone calls you get someone who know's how to fix it, but isn't supposed to, but does it anyways. Most likely this is how most of their problems start.
My favorite quote from Edmonton is "Hey look, the Londonderry router is out again". For a while there you could almost depend on it.

--
Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.

Re:It's aboot time! by Zalgon+26+McGee · 2003-07-21 10:23 · Score: 1

Bah. Try some real beer!

I'm a particular fan of Blanche de Chambly.

--

---

Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman

Re:land line telephone services = days are numbere by satterth · 2003-07-21 10:23 · Score: 1

$25 is a promotional deal for the first year, after that it goes up to $34.95 and if you don't have telus long distance it goes up another $3.00. And thats on top of basic phone service.

--
Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.

Re:"Good riddance" I say! by freeweed · 2003-07-21 10:26 · Score: 1

Taxes aren't that bad here, especially when you factor in the cost of medical insurance. (I make ~$60k/yr CDN and pay about 28% taxes without loopholes, so duh!)

The rate for income between $30k and $60k in Manitoba is a combined 37%, give or take. It only gets worse from there. I haven't met many Americans paying $1000 a month for health insurance.

Tack on 14% sales tax, several HUNDRED percent alcohol and tobacco tax, entertainment tax, gasoline tax...

There's a reason our 'tax-free' day is in July, and this is for the *average* taxpayer.

Never mind the costs involved with our so-called 'free' healthcare: ambulance fees, prescription fees, room fees, fees for crutches... there's a reason most working Canadians have supplementary medical insurance. Healthcare simply isn't free here.

Having said that, I'm very happy to know that if I get smacked up on the freeway tonight, they won't let me die based on my bank account. (does this actually happen in the USA, or is this propaganda?)

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.

Re:"Good riddance" I say! by gobbo · 2003-07-21 10:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

"An uneducated populace is unable/unwilling to go out and provide for themselves, hence you have income disparity."

I'd like to test that theory, but don't have the time right now to do the literature search. My experience (hanging and working with millionaires and entrepeneurs, hanging and working with ne'er-do-well artists and slackers, living and working with the homeless/street kids/multi-generation impoverished) suggests to me that there are many educated loafers, and that many of the wealthiest are not there by merit; and that an education can often lead to pursuits other than the acquisition of personal wealth.

I've seen lots of folks who work their asses off doing fundamentally crucial work, and make $22K/yr, and I know plenty who make +$100K but mostly cruise, or put in long hours but it isn't really crucial work. This is the old problem of exchange value (for labour) not being rationalized with use value... never mind danger pay.

No-one's disproved the industrial theory of skimming surplus value of labour for profits to my satisfaction, if you know of such disproof please direct me to it.

"I also find the assertion of socialists that the government knows what's good for me better than I do insulting and extremely condescending." I couldn't agree with you more, except that I see that it is primarily 'conservative' governments who tell me what substances I can put in my body, who I can sleep with or marry, what I can watch or read, and who I can worship (or not).

On the other hand, since any society is implicitly interdependent, we share some of the costs of idiots who dump PCB's in their back yard or can't drive properly, so I'm glad that there's at least some regulation, e.g. the rules of the road! Stay on the right of the yellow line, eh! It's good for you!

--
Damn those pesky terrorists

Doesn't this bother anyone else?? by apchar · 2003-07-21 10:46 · Score: 1

After all, the wire is private property owned by a private company. How do you justify some sanctimonious twit in parliament (or whatever you canuks have) just stepping in & forcing them to provide a service they'd rather not?
Doesn't anyone in that godforsaken ice-pit believe in property rights?

--
---Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

yeah right! by rebelcool · 2003-07-21 11:06 · Score: 1

AT&T used to charge over a quarter a minute for long distance. This was way back when 25 cents was worth alot more money.

Service? The service was crap because AT&T controlled everything. So you wanted a repair done, might take weeks. At least today you have a choice if you hate the company.

The problem most countries have when they de-nationalize a service is they don't do it right. You can't simply declare 'well you're not longer nationalized' and pretend that things will get better. For it to work right, you have to do that, and then split the company apart into competitors. Most dimwitted countries fail to accomplish part B.

--

-

Re:blame Canada... by jez9999 · 2003-07-21 11:10 · Score: 1

OK, this is clearly a troll/joke, but I still feel a rebuttal coming on.

1) You'd start talking funny, eh.
Canadians sound positively normal compared to most Americans.

2) You'd have to use weird words - your dollar currency would be called a "Loonie" (there's a Loon on the dollar coin), and your two-dollar currency would be called a "Twoonie," eh.
American currency is stupid, too. 'Nickel', 'dime', 'quarter'???? 25 cent piece??

3) You'd have to start making fun of people from Newfoundland ("Newfies"). I don't know why, you just would.
Major problem there.

4) You'd have to pretend there's a really big cultural difference between Canadians and Americans. To everyone who asks, or doesn't ask.
What?

5) You'd have to listen to Canadian radio and watch Canadian tv, which would basically be American radio and American tv if it weren't for Canadian laws which require a certain portion of broadcast content be native Canadian. Which means you get to hear a LOT of Loverboy, eh.
So, you DON'T have to suffer American crap. Why's that bad?

6) You'd have to claim William Shatner as your own.
Eh? Isn't shatner American? Anyway he's an idol to some (Trekkies) ;-)

7) You'd have to laugh at Jerry Lewis. Oh wait, that's France. Nevermind.
Enough said.

8) Hockey.
What?? Ice hockey is the BEST SPORT IN THE WORLD! Better than any American crap. God, at least I can actually understand how it's played! (as a Brit)

9) Curling. (and I don't mean irons)
You don't have to watch it. Still, it's better than ad-infested money-grabbing American sport.

10) That stupid Labatt(sp?) Blue spokesbear.
No idea what you're talking about there.

11) No littering or cursing allowed in Canada.
I somehow doubt that noone curses in Canada. And no littering is bad, how?

12) If it weren't for Canada, all you Europeans would be speaking German right now! Oh, wait, that's America...
If it weren't for America, thousands of Iraqis/Vietnamise/Americans would still be alive.

13) The inevitable McKenzie Brothers comeback movie, "Dude, Where's My Beer, Eh? (Hoser)"
Not knowing Canadian culture much, I have no idea about this.

14) A pound of Canadian bacon a day keeps the doctor away, eh.
And many people swear by the stuff.

15) All the nice imported American acid rain.
Because it never falls in America.

16) Americans can't find your country on a globe or a map.
I know, but I thought you were listing disadvantages?

17) That damned South Park song.
South Park rules.

18) Having to bow and scrape to the "Queen of Canada."
Except that Canada doesn't really recognise the Queen as the head of state anymore.

19) Your socialized health care means you get to wait a _very_ long time to see a doctor. (But at least you can afford it.)
I doubt they have to wait as long as us Brits (our healthcare is a *joke*), or an American who can't afford healthcare.

20) Your money ain't worth shit.
Eh? The exchange rate of a currency is totally irrelevant, unless it's collapsing (which Canadian $ aren't).

21) You'll develop very little sense of humour about your newfound (Newfie!) country, and lists like this one will really piss you off. Eh.
Where's your evidence? Americans have no sense of humor.

22) When you get candy called "Smarties" at the local food jobber, you won't get the tasty treat you're used to in the U.S. Instead, you'll get a bunch of things that look like M&Ms. They don't, unfortunately, taste like M&Ms. They taste like *STALE* M&Ms. And that's the way they're supposed to taste. When an American brings up this fact, you have to pretend to like them, anyway.
Hmm. Mewonders if that's the same as the smarties we're

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.

Re:Canada by ShieldW0lf · 2003-07-21 11:42 · Score: 1

I suppose I could have said that Canada is to C++ as America is to C, but I was busy coding, so I just threw up the first thing to come to mind...

Americans still suck the sweat off a dead mans bag, though...

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth

Re:Telus DSL _SUCKS_ by Pejorian · 2003-07-21 12:20 · Score: 1

I shouldn't reply to an AC flamebait post, but...

Telus certainly has had tech problems, especially when Telus and BC Tel were combining... There were lots of outages and tech support got a bit hellish there. And they have this stupid one-number tech support policy that is supposed to be helpful (you can get tech support in BC or Alberta on the same number) but is a serious pain for those of us trying to manage businesses with branches in both provinces.

But Telus is, compared to most tech suppliers that I've worked with, not bad at all. They rarely hassle me if I have some serious tech problems. They NEVER EVER have multi-hour holds. Usually 3-5 minutes. You must have been calling an airline's air miles line. They boost me to "level 2" with one call, and when you've got the magic level 2 key, you don't wait on the phone and they queue you to get to-your-door service on a pretty tight timeline. The most annoying thing is that they often have to send someone out to discover what I've been telling them all along -- it's not MY problem, it's YOURS.

Their pricing is good, too. Most of the (western) branches of the company that I put on DSL are paying residential rates, even though Telus knows they're businesses. Other provinces have to pay Mafia-extortion rates for business DSL, which usually is the same service as Telus' residential, just with a different label.

And as for the whole DHCP thing -- My static machines have their IPs hard-coded into them. They don't even ask Telus anymore. Seems to work fine. My "dynamic" machines almost never change their addresses, by the way. That could be considered a bug in Telus' system, but it's very nice for me as a "power user"... When used with a service like no-ip.com, I can get a low-maintenance solution without paying for "static" IPs.

Now, Bell out in Ontario -- there's a nightmare. What's up with the virtual network card and the dialler you have to run every time you restart the computer!? And they charge the same price for ONE business DYNAMIC IP that Telus charges for TWO STATIC ones.

--
- Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

Re:land line telephone services = days are numbere by antiMStroll · 2003-07-21 12:32 · Score: 1

....we'll all be wireless before too long....

I doubt it. Where's the bandwidth coming from? Point to point won't work for most so I don't see how this is at all technically feasible. Given the ever increasing demand for bandwidth, we're far more likely to finally see fiber to the end user than universal wireless.

We can only hope by jchristopher · 2003-07-21 12:41 · Score: 1

wish we had this in California... I'm tired of paying Verizon for a voice line (that I don't use) just so I can get DSL service.

Re:Fucking Finally... Telus ADSL blows by Ankle · 2003-07-21 12:43 · Score: 1

Atleast you can get their ADSL, over on vancouver island your lucky to get dialup which runs like 33k and is limited to 100hr/month for almost as much as the cost of ADSL... Telus said ADSL is comming here soon, that was three years ago.

Warning: Bell retaliates. by emaveneau · 2003-07-21 13:39 · Score: 1

If you switch then get ready for some pain.

Bell Cancelled my service early, pulled the card from the local office (only to put it back 3 days later), cut my phone service for a day and a half, and further messed up the line for 5 days until Echo complained directly to Bell.

Switching DSL service providers should be as simple as changing your authentication (username + password). Well Bell doesn't like making things easy.

I switched to Echo online's DSL service because on the 26th of June Bell Sympatico started blocking all inbound port 25 connections.

I was wondering if anyone else has similar problems, is anyone annoyed enough to start a class action? (I have no interest in investing the time, but if you want to rant try class.action at marks.______.net)

FWIW: I thought it was funny to mention Echo Online does not have OS myopia, they ackowledge, Linux, *BSD and even Sega Dreamcast as possible client OSs.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-07-21 14:02 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:"Good riddance" I say! by swillden · 2003-07-21 14:34 · Score: 1

I'm very happy to know that if I get smacked up on the freeway tonight, they won't let me die based on my bank account. (does this actually happen in the USA, or is this propaganda?)

No, it doesn't happen. Hospitals provide emergency services regardless of your ability to pay. Whether or not you'll be able to get expensive reconstructive surgery is less certain, but you probably will. And physical therapy afterward, if you really need it. Actually, this situation is at the root of one of the biggest problems with our system: Because emergency care is effectively free, but preventative care is not, many people end up needing expensive emergency care for something that could have been prevented much more cheaply.

The obvious followup question is: If emergency care is free to the recipient, who pays for it? The hospitals, basically. They try to collect what they can from the patient, but that's often not much, and they do get some help from governments and charities, but mostly it's just an added operating expense for them, which means that it gets added to the bills of the patients who do have insurance, or other means of paying their bills.

However, despite all of the flaws in the system, I can't think of any way more certain to make it worse than to turn it all over to the government. Many health care professionals I know point to the existing Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security-related medical programs as the source of many of the existing problems.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Bad decision. by EEGeek · 2003-07-21 15:02 · Score: 1

I think the CRTC's decision is a bad one. In my area, the telco is a Crown Corporation, which is owned by the people(SaskTel). We paid the money to lay the telecommunications infrastructure via taxes, and cost of service, and now some other company can come, and capitalize on our expenditures. This is ludicrous. If the CRTC was truly all for competition, it would allow our television over DSL (SaskTel MAX to be packaged separate from the broadband internet service. They would also force cable companies such as Shaw Cable and Rogers Cable to open up their broadband infrastructure to competing cable companies. Broadband prices are a drop in the bucket in Canada compared to other parts of the world, including some areas of the United States, where a 384kbit/s connection costs someone as much or more than a 3mbit/s DSL connection would cost me here in Canada. ($99CDN/mo), or a 2mbit/s DSL connection ($60CDN/mo).

Re:"Good riddance" I say! by Beek · 2003-07-21 16:58 · Score: 1

You know, if you want people to take you seriously, tone down the Hitler stuff.

Re:"Good riddance" I say! by MrEd · 2003-07-21 17:08 · Score: 1

Stay on the right of the yellow line, eh! It's good for you!

Unless you're the premier of a very squirrely province!

--

Wah!

Actually... by HiggsBison · 2003-07-21 17:16 · Score: 1

The only part of the North American continent which is not actually part of North America would be Quebec, but don't ask me to try and explain it, eh?

So it gets tricky when you try and point out that Canadians/Canadiens might be Americans

(Ok, so I better get home before I throw up, then. Bye.)

--
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.

Bandwidth what? by HiggsBison · 2003-07-21 17:21 · Score: 1

Bell was losing hundreds of subscribers a day due to their bandwidth capping earlier this year,

Did anyone else read that as bandwidth crapping ? Anyone? Beuller? Ok, it's late.

--
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.

Canada not like US by sbwoodside · 2003-07-21 19:07 · Score: 1

They'll just bypass this edict by pricing it ridiculously high.

Ahh, well you see, Canada is not like the US. In Canada, people can call shenanigans on corporations and actually get somewhere.

simon

--
home page

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-07-22 00:40 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

regulation is not socialism by Stu+Charlton · 2003-07-22 01:40 · Score: 1

We have the case of a government chartered monopoly becoming a regular business. When they own the common infrastructure, how else can you foster competition but through regulation?

Markets are not created by God or magically. They're an effective social and political construct used to allocate goods. And they don't always work.

All of this stuff just seems to be be a means to ensure competition for consumers. I fail to see how this has anything to do with economic planning, full employment, or proletarian revolution.

--
-Stu

Re:"Good riddance" I say! by renehollan · 2003-07-22 02:02 · Score: 1

Hitler is actually quite significant, in that Nazi history shows that it is relatively easy to subdue a nation into accepting the commission of horrible attrocities.

While anything else pales by comparison, for the very same reason, it shows that lesser attrocities are that much more likely to occur.

The "it can't happen here" mantra might have legitimacy when applied against an emergence of extreme Fascism or Naziism somewhere, but loses force of likelihood precisely because "even worse" things DID happen elsewhere.

Hitler contributes much to the effective use of propaganda and serves as a useful case study for that reason -- those that do not remember the past are bound to repeat it.

It is quite useful to be able to recognize a particular propaganda technique, trace it to it's origin, and, with authority, legitimately compare the past to the present within the context of that propaganda technique.

--
You could've hired me.

Re:"Good riddance" I say! by swillden · 2003-07-22 03:36 · Score: 1

EFFECTIVLY FREE? EM is most certainly not that way when you can kiss goodbuy the hope of ever having credit because you had Asthma and no insurance.

The system certainly has its flaws. However, it's also not fair to say that you'll never be able to get credit again after such a situation. It'll take a few years, though, and you'll pay through the nose for credit for a while.

So your followup questions are meaningless.

Eh? I only asked one followup question (who does pay for the free emergency medical services?) and it's certainly not meaningless.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Very true by raygundan · 2003-07-22 04:30 · Score: 1

You're absolutely right, and it's something I should have made clearer in my first post. I agree with you completely in that the networks should be publicly maintained, rather than privately owned. I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that things are entrenched enough that we're not getting out of this easily. We at least had a way for competition to build itself in prior to their "worst of all worlds" decision, but now all we have is a mess.

REPOSTING WITH +2 by shepd · 2003-07-23 19:44 · Score: 1

Due to some really shitty (and VERY late -- who the hell mods 3 day old discussions?) moderation:

Not when the corp. in question is Bell (or one of its subsidiaries), they can't.

Then again, it is a funny story, in a sad "we just want to ruin the industry for everyone, and don't care if we go down the shitter too" sort of way.

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC

Slashdot Mirror

Canada Splits Local Phone, DSL Services

292 of 445 comments (clear)