Slashdot Mirror
Internet Downloading Costs To Rise In Canada
An anonymous reader writes "According to CBC News, 'Surfing and downloading from the internet is about to get more expensive for many Canadians as internet companies Shaw and Primus have announced plans to impose new fees and caps on internet usage. Over the past year, the CRTC, Canada's communication regulator, let Bell and Rogers start charging extra for customers who download a lot of data. ... Primus and Shaw have said they will begin passing on higher fees to their customers beginning Feb. 1. Primus, for example, rents bandwidth on Bell's networks and said Bell is inflating the costs for everyone, including them. 'It's an economic disincentive for internet use,' said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus. 'It's not meant to recover costs. In fact these charges that Bell has levied are many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it.'"
You can always switch to other providers. That's what Capitalism says. Corporations will never get large, agree together for certain things and therefore control the market directly.
No sir-ee.
'It's an economic disincentive for internet use,' said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus.
Translation: "We are discouraging you from using our product." What VP in their right mind says that? I may disagree with them, though I understand why a company might want to get extra cash, but to come right out and say that this new change will make their service less desirable is just bizarre.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
This writeup isn't too useful without stating the caps, nor the percentage who currently exceed them.
As for the percentage who may exceed them in, say, 3 years... well, it's the future, a lot could change including the caps themselves.
I read that as:
Primus VP delivers a verbal jab at Bell, Bell having raised its rates, which Primus is going to happily pass on to its customers.
On second look, it still appears to be a bizarre, mixed message....
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
The root problem here is the monopoly on infrastructure owned by a company that also provides services. For years now, other competitors offered uncapped DSL using Bell's infrastructure, while Bell offered a fraction of the bandwidth for much greater prices (and hassles.) I guess enough people woke up and started switching away from Bell's native service and jumped to other providers. And naturally, Bell uses their governmental friends to kill the competition, instead of, you know, competing and improving their services. BELL CANADA IS THE WORST COMPANY IN ALL OF CANADA. BELIEVE IT.
For much of the most densely populated area of Canada, Bell and Rogers own both the infrastructure and provide services to end users. I don't think that should be permitted. Companies should not be able to perform both functions. This is already what happened in our electricity industry in Ontario, when Ontario Hydro was broken up into separate generation and transmission entities.) Bell continues to use the CRTC, which is an impotent and ineffectual organization that seems to be on the leash of the same politicians that decided their friends at Bell would get a monopoly, to prevent other organizations from laying down wires underground in new residential developments.
This problem would not exist if a real competitive market was in place.
I am continually surprised by the amount of energy that Bell puts in to creative marketing, customer disservice, finding ways of adding hidden fees, and downright screwing people. If they just put a fraction of their efforts into actually improving their services, they would actually be a competitive company. But wait, they aren't interested in fair competition. Bell just wants passive income through forced usage of their monopolistic network.
By the way, it bears repeating again, Bell Canada is THE WORST COMPANY IN ALL OF CANADA. I am seriously not joking. Imagine the incompetence, bureaucracy and arrogance of government incorporated into a business. Add the fact that it's their intent to screw you at every turn and "accidentally" add 48 month contracts onto every deal that to which you've never agreed, and for which they somehow lost the audio recording of that CSR's call. That's Bell. They're like government for much of the Canadian population because you pretty much HAVE TO USE THEM because they own the wires.
*Note for other Canadians: I am fully aware of the other Telus / MTS / and other monopolies outside of Ontario/Quebec.
With all due respect to the anti-conservative/capitalistic commentary (which has a lot of apparent validity) this type of situation occurs BECAUSE of government regulation... not because of insufficient regulation. At least in the US, governments have permitted and even encouraged monopolistic business practices that restrict the free market and customer choice. Whether traditional carriers (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) or traditional cable (Comcast, etc.) they all have PURCHASED - FROM THE GOVERNMENT - an exclusive territorial provider contract. That means that the very government that should be encouraging competition is in fact allowing the exact opposite. Because we consider ourselves more civilized, we no longer call this graft, corruption, bribery, etc. Instead we bury our collective heads in the sand, take the contract purchase dollars, and tell ourselves that its OK. Isn't it great that we are so good at lying to ourselves?
As a free-market capitalist, and traditional conservative, what I want to see is governments getting OUT of market control. Once there are multiple real choices in providers, with the associated competition for customers, we will see this disturbing trend reverse itself.
How much does this have to do with things like Netflix now being in Canada? Not to mention other things like slowly more and more games being sold digitally for the XBox360, PS3, PC/Mac (Steam, Mac App Store), iTunes movies, ect.. These are all using more and more data and I think they are wanting to capitalise on the digital download bandwagon. They watched Rogers do this and hey, it didn't hurt Rogers so the others are just following suit thinking "If they can do it and make more money for nothing, why not us?" And what is the caps? Anyone can say that only a small percent of users hit these caps, but that could also be based on just a rough estimate of "users typically do basic web surfing and check email, meaning they should only need 5-10 gigs max a month". Helps make gov look the other way by making baseless claims like that.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
Bell is just a terrible company. Unfortunately, at some point, pretty much every ISP has to buy product from Bell. They had it so easy for so long, and now their competition is taking them down and they are having major suck fits. They also got fined 1.3 Million dollars for calling people on the do not call registry. Looks good on them. I would rather not have a phone or internet than buy anything from Bell.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
Bell already owns the majority of pipe in Ontario, and they deliberately restrict pipe for end users of the ISPs that lease bandwidth from them. It's done entirely to make Bell's half-assed service look better.
Only difference is 4chan allows you to upload pictures (...)
It's seems you're not familiar with 4chan's text boards.
Dilbert RSS feed
The cap is pretty much universally 40GB with overage fees around CAD$3.00/GB. Some providers cap the overage fees and cut off service (possibly illegal for VoIP providers) whilst others don't and just rack up the charges. The actual tariff has not yet been finalized but that's the standard figure being pushed by providers who have started billing already. I'm with Acanac who hasn't started billing, has no caps, has declared that they have no intention to add them and is fighting Bell both at the commission and in the media.
This is a direct result of Netflix hitting the Canadian market a few months ago as it competes directly with Rogers and Bell, the two largest ISPs who happen to also be the two largest cable and satellite providers. Netflix HD movies take around 4GB each and a couple hours of TV programs is about the same. If you are in the habit of watching two hours of TV a night then you'll easily go over 100GB in a month. Bell wants to blame this on piracy but the fact of the matter is that this is perfectly legal and normal usage.
Internet connections used to be faster and cheaper and the providers were rolling in cash. We've seen price hikes, throttling, and severe curtailing of progress. The current government is clueless on the portfolio but wants the market to sort it out- the only problem is that we don't have one and the regulatory commission is stacked with former Bell/Rogers execs with active financial interests in the company. It's a blatant conflict of interest but the conservative government claims they're powerless.
As the cost of transmitting large amounts of data goes down due to new technologies, the price of access either stays the same or goes up. This is the exact same as text messaging. It costs the cell phone companies in Canada hardly anything yet they charge users a fortune to do it (0.30$ per inbound or outbound message in most cases).
That's a false dichotomy. We have the regulations necessary to prevent that abuse, it's just that the typical conservative view point is to take the government out of regulating it and to leave the regulators out of it.
The bigger issue which you're ignoring is that it's not cheap to do that last mile. The only reason why anybody did it was for a monopoly control over to guarantee that they'd be paid back for extending into territory that wasn't necessarily profitable.
You're not going to get a change by taking the government out of it, unless by change you mean change for the worse in terms of price and availability.
to make it near impossible for other competitors to get into many markets, before mocking the system you need to realize how many times it is the government which makes it not viable for competitors to enter an existing market. A great example is personal health insurance in the US, where the Federal Government has prevented people from buying insurance across state lines. Related to this article, in my locality, the larger city here is exclusively one provider because they cut a deal for the government sites screwing the people in the area. As in, we will get you excused from pole taxes and such if you provide us service to these buildings.
Welcome to byproducts of regulation.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Do you actually know if this is the situation in Canada, or are you simply spouting off without any knowledge?
Yes, stupid regulation has made the situation worse in the USA. Here in the EU, there is strong regulation and our (Portugal) bandwidth caps have risen through the years until they're not "unlimited" (well, it seems some ISPs have those undefined fair use policies), and we have *more* competition due to regulation (a huge telecommunications company was cut in two, and each offer competing services now).
Dilbert RSS feed
Why doesn't anyone call these providers on their bullshit claims of things like "five percent of users consume 95% of the traffic" and "the average user only checks their email and reads the news paper online"? If the average user consumes almost no bandwidth whatsoever, then there should be plenty of bandwidth available for the "few" heavy users to use.
There are really two Chinas. The China you hear about is the urban China. It is a few cities across their eastern seaboard mostly. They are quite developed over all, and have a good deal of modern conveniences, though their pollution and other health issues are rather severe. This is actually the minority of China though. The rest of China is rural China where people are still, in a very real way, peasants. They have no medical care, no education, and live very much a subsistence living. This is the reason people will put up with the poor health/environmental conditions in the city, because that is far preferable to rural life.
China has a massive divide, and as you accurately point out is hardly communist at all. It is a major capitalist system, and in some ways a fascist system in that the government has major stakes in many companies.
China is, if anything, an example of a failure of communism and a success of capitalism, though to what extent you consider it a success may vary depending on your perspective and priorities.
Now what is there to stop [cable companies] to decrease that usage cap to 2GB?
The fact that even cell phone companies offer 5 GB/mo, and you don't even have to be at home to use it.
I agree, in concept, but do you really believe any broadband companies would have laid all that cable if it hadn't been subsidized by the tax payers? I doubt even one would have, much less enough to generate actual competition. I don't know what alternatives there may have been, given that.
Regulatory Capture is the name for what is going on here. The USA suffers from it in many industries and Canada is not far behind. Lobbying is how it started and now you have organizations like the RIAA basically writing their own laws. The government is supposed to step in and put their foot down when a provider (especially since the providers are virtual monopolies in most places) begins to charge the "many, many, many" times more rate than their cost. We're being fleeced and our government is complicit in it.
Shh.
This has been happening for years. Long before the Conservatives wrestle the country away from the Liberals. Just take a look at the state of the Canadian cell phone market. Makes me want to move to another country in Asia or Europe where I can get fiber pulled right to my door for half of what Bell or Rogers charges for copper here.
I remember when we had unlimited internet a while ago. Yet companies had throttling.
Then people complained about throttling. Today we have all these bandwidth caps.
Yes I work in networking... I know about peering costs and the limits of bandwidth.
Yes, you cannot have everyone maxing out their data all the time.
However, having dealt with ISPs many times at the vendor level, I had a very bad feeling when throttling fell out of favor for bandwidth caps.
I would rather have had them keep throttling. It keeps consumers paying a fixed rate. And networks can compete with their network management.
I remember people would switch if Bell was throttling, but Rogers wasn't... or they'd go to TekSavvy... or something.
I would dare say the government should step in and ban bandwidth limits. Every internet plan should be unlimited... and the ISP can throttle the USER... not on type of data... but the user.
That way networks that are managed well will attract more users.
But that would be a simple 1 line piece of sensible legislation. :P
Can't happen in any country
I don't think that's the situation in Canada, but it doesn't matter, Internet access is a natural monopoly: it doesn't make economic sense for some other competitor to come in and build a big fiber network in the hopes of stealing business from the established players. The free market makes sense in situations where there are low barriers to entry, because in those cases, if profits are high, more competition will enter the market. It's obviously not going to be efficient to have e.g. competing fiber networks, so free market capitalism is not an efficient way to facilitate investment in network infrastructure. Governments should recognize this and deal with it accordingly.
I am sick to death of how horrible the industry is in Canada, and the CRTC is not our friends either. I pay $150 per month for satellite internet as I live in rural Canada and don't have any other options...well dial-up, but I don't consider that an option. When I first heard of Netflix coming to Canada I was excited, but not anymore. I won't be able to use it. That's with a $150 per MONTH plan! This plan I'm on is xplornet's second best offering (Kabang). I recently received information from them about how they control are bandwidth usage, through what they call Fair Access Policy (FAP). Here is an excerpt:
I apologize for not formatting this table below in a better fashion. It appears I can't use tables in Slashdot's HTML.
It gets better....
I'm completely disgusted by this whole industry and their price gouging. What's worse, there is no competition really. I can't even tell xplornet to shove it and go elsewhere.
I may respond to future replies of my post here, but you'll have to excuse me for at least an hour or so until I wait out 'Recovery Mode'! ;)
That's nice, but what I'd like to know is: when did Primus get back together? Why wasn't I informed? Are they bringing back Tim Alexander on guitar?
And why do they need a vice-president of network services? Or is that just a euphemism for the roadie who goes out to score weed?
with there cellular customers. You get a phone call that you are paying to much on your phone bill and they need you permission to change your plan to cut you cost in half because you are a valuable customer (btw I own my own BB no contract). You say "hey awesome". next months statement your bill triples. You phone Bell and say "what the hell I want my old plan back" they say "sorry sir your old plan no longer exists but if you sign a new 3 year contract we will lower your bill to what it used to be". Bell does what ever they want in Canada and unless you live in a major city you have no options other than Telus and they do the same damn thing.
You keep hearing about how they want to raise prices for all those lousy bandwidth hogs. I guess thats fair, on some level? So what about all the people who use much less than the average amount of bandwidth?
If they want to charge the hogs more, then they should also proportionally charge the non-hogs (mice? sippers?) less!
Yet I have never heard anybody seriously suggest anything of the sort.
I wonder why...
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
Wrong the caps here check them out yourself: ROGERS http://goo.gl/s4Guu Additional Usage Charge Monthly Fee Monthly Usage $5.00/GB* $27.99 2GB $4.00/GB* $35.99 15GB $2.00/GB $46.99 60GB $1.50/GB $59.99 80GB $1.25/GB $69.99 125GB $0.50/GB $99.99 175GB Bell Canada http://goo.gl/NOfae Keep in mind they are "Discounted" Bundle prices 21.95 (in the Bell Bundle) Included monthly Internet usage 2 GB 31.95 (in the Bell Bundle) Included monthly Internet usage 25 GB it goes up from there but you get the idea And its only getting worse in Canada with the pricing. TheCanadianCoward
This is all about tv streaming. Internet providers in Canada are also cable and sat tv providers. They aren't happy with netflix and all the integrated streaming tv thruogh the Internet that the latest tv's have. The fact that they will be the transport for their competition doesn't make it easy for them, but them having tv and internet doesn't give much competition a chance and they're playing on this for sure as any healthy corporation would. This is the reason that the CRTC exists, to set rules so that these details cannot be abused... or at least I thought....
This is a direct result of Netflix hitting the Canadian market a few months ago as it competes directly with Rogers and Bell, the two largest ISPs who happen to also be the two largest cable and satellite providers. Netflix HD movies take around 4GB each and a couple hours of TV programs is about the same. If you are in the habit of watching two hours of TV a night then you'll easily go over 100GB in a month. Bell wants to blame this on piracy but the fact of the matter is that this is perfectly legal and normal usage.
Full Disclosure: I previously worked for Shaw Cable in Technical Support: Specifically in AUP for some time, dealing with this exact topic.
First off, the largest ISP is very relative to where you are. Here in Western Canada, Bell and Rogers are not even true options. Shaw Cablesystems is pretty much the only company that owns any Coax out here, and Telus is the local incumbent telephone and DSL provider. Shaw has had the same caps for the past like 5 years, and the current ones are clearly listed for all to see right here:
http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/newdatausage?utm_source=shawca&utm_medium=textlink&utm_content=extremelanding&utm_campaign=datausage.
Aside from the limits not changing much in at least 5 years, possibly more, they have had some form of limits in place for well over 10 years. Before they implemented the DOCSIS network, the maximum speed offered per modem was 5 Mbps, with a monthly cap of 20gigabytes. When they introduced Docsis, they also introduced faster plans for 10 dollars more, up to 10 Mbps, and 60gigs per month. Those limits themselves have gone up over the years (I'm sure along with inflation of the prices), to now be sitting at a monthly cap of 60 gigs and 100 gigs respectively.
Not liking monthly caps is one thing, but trying to claim this is a new phenomenon is just inaccurate.
It's the government allowing this. The summary says: "Over the past year, the CRTC, Canada's communication regulator, let Bell and Rogers start charging extra for customers who download a lot of data." It even links to the previous article about it.
Internet access isn't a right. They can charge higher prices if they want to. But hey, you're bashing capitalism on Slashdot, so instant "+5 Insightful" for you.
I'm sorry Canada. I didn't realise 65GB/month was a lot.... I guess I'll have to pay through the nose now.
Well, I'm now switching to Telus, good job Shaw.
The difference is that companies like Shaw/Bell are sometimes directly publicly supported (tariffs/taxes/etc.), and always indirectly supported, i.e. right of ways, gifted infrastructure, etc.
Here's what I received yesterday from Bell (I have their 25 mb/s "Fibe" fibre optic service) - I love the "extreme usage" bit: "Effective March 2011, an extreme usage fee of $1.00 per GB for usage exceeding 300GB per month will apply. This change will not likely affect you given your current usage level. For more information, visit bell.ca/usagepolicy. If you wish to modify or cancel your service as a result of this change, please call 310-SURF (7873). Sincerely, Jim Myers Senior Vice-President Customer Service" I'm going to downgrade one tier on general principal (it'll still be more than fast enough for my purposes, but will reduce my payment to Bell). That's strike two against Bell - strike one was the STBs they gave me, which don't include a FireWire socket (unlike the US, a FireWire socket is not mandated in Canada).
I have never, EVER found that the CRTC has done anything to protect the Canadian television production industry or the interests of Canadian consumers. They seem to be a 4-letter acronym for "fucking over the country in the name of big business".
Right and all I need to do to achieve this is is pay 52 cents of every euro I earn to those who aren't working. Sounds completely fair.
Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
Its another of their little statistical manipulations. If you live in one of their compounds (like 10,000 people in a compound) each highrise will have one pipe going into it. The gov't reports that as the speed the people have access to. In reality you're getting 15kb down.
Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
I got the latest bill from Yak "high-speed Internet" (in Ontario) two days ago. It says that my "unlimited downloads" subscription will be capped at 60GB starting Feb 1, even though they don't seem to offer any way of tracking usage, and (so far) no way to upgrade; indeed, their website doesn't mention the change in policy at all and still encourages unsuspecting consumers to sign up for the Internet provider that has "Unlimited downloads, yes, really!". Capped data reminds me of the 1990s. Not cool. I share a house with five others, so I will have to ration my downloads of Linux ISOs and media files severely.
Welcome to Israel: Your American tax dollars at work.
Is returning to an internet drain to you, like the good old days. It's one sure way to kill off the golden goose.
Still reminds me of drug dealers. Make it almost free until you get used to it, then stick it to you. You cant convince me for a second that the telcos didn't have this planned a decade or 2 ago, once society and commerce was nearly reliant on data.
And regardless of the scam, how can one honestly charge when you cant control what is coming in? Its like charging for a art magazine differently each month depending on who took the pictures that time, and not even telling you until after you have been billed. Internet should be considered a public utility at this point due to its importance to the very infrastructure of the country. The price fixed and regulated and service monitored. ( and i hate government intervention )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But in any event, why would you be upset that someone else's business is running the way that they want it to run? The only people who can rightfully be upset are those who based their business on those prices. And yeah, for those providers reselling another ISP's service, sure raised prices are a problem. But having a supplier change their prices is nothing unexpected -- especially when your entire business model is based on under-cutting your supplier's from selling exactly the same thing.
Big surprise.
I ran an ISP in the early 90's here in Canada... This is before Shaw, Telus, Rogers, etc, got into the ISP business... We billed customers on a usage basis and were transparent about everything. It was a simple cost+ arrangement. Then the big companies all got into the Internet game. Since we were buying phone lines from Telus, they jacked up our contracted phone line rates well in advance of our contract running out... They all came in with their own dialup plans and had big bus advertisements touting "UNLIMITED USAGE!". We complained to the CRTC and the competition bureau but they just said "nope, looks like there's plenty of competition and the market is thriving..." Eventually, the big 3 drove the rest of us out of business... Once they had the market to themselves, they conspired together and added bandwidth limits and then eventually usage caps... So yes, I'm upset that they're running their business the way they want because the way they want was to use the regulatory bodies against their competition and form a monopoly to the disadvantage of the average consumer who now has no choice...
I'm not sure if I am pissed on or pissed off. Maybe I really should be pissed off about being pissed on.
That is why we have to adopt the republican idea that the minimum wage should be set at about $0.15/hr so that we can regain our economic strength and become more competitive with the Chinese.
Yeah, and they've also spent countless dollars effort and expense to build infrastructure that no one else built.
The government didn't choose to build it all, and then put someone in charge of it. Instead, the companies built it all themselves.
Bullshit.
The infrastructure was built by Bell and the "old monopolies" like SaskTel/MBTel/etc using tax-payer dollars, and Saskatchewan was the only province with the foresight to ensure the citizens would see a positive return on that investment by regulating their telecommunications monopoly with a primary obligation to provide service to the people of the province (read SaskTel's charter - they have no obligation to profit and a single primary obligation to servicing the people).
US = Capitalism Canada = Coporatism
So local companies, with all sorts of incentives and tax breaks, built last mile infrastructure. Once the risk was reduced, and it became a rental income game, big telco bought out the local companies, and inherited all the perks. These networks have been taxpayer subsidized forever, and these companies have done little or nothing to contribute.
example: http://www.alts.net/ns1625/telephone.html
Bell, for example, doesn't actually do much of anything. All the line maintenance is contracted out anyways. The essentially act as general contractors. Risk, innovation, etc... are alien. It's all about milking clients for all they are worth, while maintaining the poorest infrastructure they can get away with.
Any new provider would ought to have access to the same advantages as Bell did, but the fundamental economic problem is that bandwidth is like roads. The most efficient number of roads between two points is 1. Competition by duplicating infrastructure is fundamentally inefficient, and is the fundamental barrier to competing with incumbents.
I would be a lot happier if bandwidth were a municipal service, like water, and it came to a local CO where various ISP's could install their PoPs and maybe local termination. Optionally, the city could even negotiate with wholesale ISP's for bandwidth, or just stay out of it and only work on the last mile. What is important is that the last mile stuff would be neutral, and guided by citizen interests (ie. ever more bandwidth) and not conflictual corporate ones (Bell as ISP and phone company, and Cable operator.)
http://www.muninetworks.org/content/lafayette-offers-100mbps-residential-tier-and-ruminations-bandwidth-caps
See these guys? talking over terabit limits? far cry from 20 G's.
At the very least, there should be laws against "convergence" which clearly puts Cable companies in a conflict of interest when dealing with NetFlix, and other network based streaming services. A pure play ISP would be thrilled, converged cable/content providers are deeply conflicted.
Because EVERY ISP has the money to lay down their own cable network. Brand new ISPs everywhere will enjoy their freedom of not having to buy access from other companies and begin their multi-billion dollar network projects. I can just imagine it now. Thank you, free market.
As many other posters have pointed out, selling internet access is not a type of business which lends itself well to capitalism, because I cannot simply go to another provider. My choices are Bell (DSL) and Videotron (cable), and a slew of small ISPs which need to lease lines from Bell. These small ISPs are being forced by Bell through the CRTC, which is basically the government, to charge the outrageous fees it charges on its own customers, making them uncompetitive. I'm not sure what this is supposed to be, but I can tell you the free hand of the market has very little to do with the price for internet access in Canada. I don't know what line of business you're in, as you have not said it, but I think it is unlikely that the comparison you make applies.
You honestly think that if Bell hikes their prices to ten-times what it is today, that the Internet would die-out in Canada?
Sure you have fewer than five options today, but that's because it's today and prices aren't that high.
So many other options appear in the sky the moment those prices cross a threshhold. Stop thinking about the consumer trying to save a weenee $10/month switching from one stupid ISP to another. Start thinking about other businesses purchasing the service on your behalf.
Start thinking about the coca-cola bottle cap code giving you one day access -- so you'll buy a bottle of coke each and every day. Start thinking about the best part of waking up being foldger's on your screen.
Think about private healthcare, and how most businesses provide it for employees at a deeply discounted price.
The real concept of a free market is not to encourage additional competitors -- it's to encourage new ways of competing.
Think of new ways. Then spend your life-savings and start a business. Then take all of the tax breaks, tax credits, grants, research dollars, and loans. Fight the everyone who tells you that it's a bad idea -- everyone including family, friends, investors, banks, consultants, and advisors.
Then, when it works out, and you're happy with your business -- having worked crazy hard for years -- someone will think that you don't deserve it. More specifically, they'll think that it's theirs. And then someone somewhere will tell you to set your prices differently.
Because that's what it means to start your own business.
Good luck.
As for how my business could compare to that one -- it's a simple distributor-reseller relationship. And yeah, reseller's need to worry that prices will change. I've been on each side of that relationship -- I've also been on both sides of that relationship when I own both business: the distributor and the reseller. And even in that case, prices need to change for a wealth of reasons.
If you had told me in 1999 that my Internet connection in 2011 would in fact be more limited than my current connection I would have laughed. It's difficult for me to accept, but in 2011, I'm now actually envious of the cable Internet connection I had in 1999 (truly unlimited bandwidth). I long for the wild west days of the Internet :(
Joe the plumber is getting more calls than he can handle, so he hires an employee - under the table, calling him a subcontractor. This new subcontractor, unable to get work for over a year (and disappearing off the Unemployment statistics because they ran out, making it look like employment is better), accepts the deal Joe offers even though it sucks: He will be paid a little over minimum wage, and use his own truck, putting magnetic stickers advertising Joe's business on the side every time he goes on a job. He doesn't have a pension plan, he only contributes to it if he voluntarily does so, and although he makes some money, its not really enough. As a result he sticks with this situation until he can find something better.
The reality is that Big Government costs too much, but also that a lot of these incentives to businesses to hire new people etc, never trickle down to the people actually working. Corporations get bigger, the people in charge make their bank, but the folks on the bottom end still have major problems.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
As a Canadian, I have always had mixed opinions on US foreign policy. Sometimes I agree completely with decisions made south of the border, sometimes I think you are all a bunch of wingnuts, and can't understand your government at all. Generally, the US seems very right wing in its political perspectives, what you folks call "Liberals" down there would often be conservatives up here in Canada, although our political leanings are moving more and more to the right as well (our one time "Liberal" party is now as conservative as our old Conservative party, which has moved farther to the right).
While the US might look at Mexico and take over at least the northern part to provide a secure buffer state which they can then police heavily to limit the drug and human trafficking trades, I suspect a new RightWing USA First! government would look north and decide to absorb Canada first. Mexico almost certainly has a larger armed forces than Canada, and we are only 1/10th the population, with probably double the resources of the continental US, including a fair amount of oil in Alberta and the north.
I don't think it bodes well for the future of Canada to have the US economy tank in another depression - and I think that China is going to surpass the US as a geopolitical and economic power some time in the next decade (while remaining far weaker militarily), which bodes poorly for future peace as well.
I expect a war between the US and China over Taiwan soon. They want it badly.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Reading too much Marx lately? The "rich" aren't a cancer. Yes, they do need to pay more taxes, but killing them isn't going to magically improve society, and in fact would be a giant disincentive to anyone wanting to improve themselves.
There's tons of poor people who are a big drag on society too: the ones in prison, the ones on welfare (who are content to stay on it forever instead of looking for a job), etc., but killing them isn't the answer either.
Don't worry little Canuck, we don't want your whole country, just the oil sands! Can't expect to run M-1s on ethanol you know. But if push comes to shove as long as you smile prettily and sell us cheap oil we'll leave ya alone. After all we American HATE the fucking snow! As for Taiwan? Never gonna happen, and here is why: my guess is we'll happily "trade" Taiwan to China in return for them STFUing about us taking Mexico, and probably South America while we are at it.
Lets be honest little Canadian friend, the next war will NOT be fought for land, ideology, or any of that bullshit, it will be fought for resources! Hell of a lot of oil and raw materials south of the border ya know. Look at the USA pre WWII, we had a piss poor little military and crappy little tanks. what we DID have was raw materials and plenty of bodies to work in the factories, kinda like...well now. So my guess is here is how it will go down: First we get the "America First!" isolationist (which will help when we fuck over the EU and Taiwan, as he will sell it as "Not worth losing American boys over!") followed by a HELL of a lot of flag waving nationalism and jingoism. Right about that time our great leader will quietly pull whoever is running Canada at the time and tell him/her "Look, you can smile, shake hands, and sell off the oil, or we can crush your ass like bug. Which is it friend?" which will be followed (since Canadians don't strike me as suicidal OR stupid) with a nice little ceremony showing support for the USA and some exclusive contracts.
Right about this time you will have Nancy Grace and all the little talking heads pushing what a "lawless country" Mexico is, complete with lots of rape and human trafficking stories. We will then roll the tanks and by the end of the month Mexico will be divided into a half a dozen new states. It will be at this point the deal with China will be made, we will tell them "You keep selling to us? Hell help yourself to Taiwan friend!" which will be followed by a MASSIVE ramp up in USA military capability. everyone will think it is over Taiwan but only the US brass and the Chinese will know better. Meanwhile we will have already sat down with our new friend Mr. Putin, and sold out the EU to the new USSR, which I'm sure he'll be elected President for Life of. Then will come the final move on the board...
Using our bases in the former Mexico as well as our carriers on both sides we will take south America, while China snatches up Africa. as I said earlier I think the EU will STFU, because they will have enough on their plate without the USA covering their flank with NATO. Sure they'll be some UN condemnation, like we care, a few threats of sanctions, which again with all those resources we won't care, and what you will end up with is this: The "new" United Continent of America, the "new" USSR, and the "new" Asian Prosperity Sphere. Canada will be left because frankly they'll continue to sell us what we want, and frankly with so much power you'd have to be insane to say boo to us anyway. the big difference between this and the cold war will be the three superpowers happily trading with each other, because each will have enough power and resources that it would be suicide to fuck with each other.
Scary? Hell yes, but as I said I bet those on the ground in Europe in 1932 never thought shit would end up like it did by 1943. And the USA simply has too many weapons, resources, and bodies to throw at the front to simply go out with a whimper. With Putin controlling the oil, gas, and making sure there is food on the shelves and the trains run on time I doubt seriously the old Soviet states will say shit, which leaves the old EU standing alone. As I said Britain will STFU if we agree to play nice and share the wealth a little, Germany will be more concerned with its own position, and frankly the French and Italians just aren't powerful enough to tip any scales one way or the other. Hell if the USA plays it right, maybe with a few false flag incidents? We might even come off looking l
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The internet is turning into 4chan. /. is ahead of the curve, digg is already there, reddit is close behind, and the MSM are going to be next (starting with Wired).
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Come on. Either they'll reduce their prices again, or business will provide their employees with free internet, or a new provider will see a big huge opening -- which is most likely.
And then all they have to do is spend untold millions to make their own infrastructure, or rent from Bell/Rogers (which gets us back to the same start point). Probably unlike your company, Bell/Rogers have what is known as a natural monopoly, which is also seen with roads, power lines, radio stations, etc. There is a prohibitive startup cost, and/or land may not be available for it. Therefore, no one can say "Well, I'll just start my own infrastructure and charge reasonable rates for my service," because then Bell/Rogers just drop their prices to where they're making a nice profit instead of an unbelievable profit, the new company goes bankrupt (because they need to make some kind of profit and pay for all that infrastructure), they buy any beneficial infrastructure at fire sale rates, and prices go back to where they were before.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
But that's exactly the point. That's how it works. That's what Bell/Rogers did. That's what the new guy is going to have to do.
And, by the way, what you've described is your own fault. When you say: "...because then Bell/Rogers just drop their prices...the new company goes bankrupt..." that presumes something. It presumes that when Bell/Rogers drop their prices, consumers will switch back to them.
If you, as the consumer, switch back to a provider that you know is playing you, then you deserve to lose the new guy that tried to help you.
That's the market speaking, saying something very simple: they like the evil Bell/Rogers over the nice new guy. That's it.
That's your fault, not Bell's, and not Rogers's. Yours. Stop being stupid with your money.
So, quick question. When was the last time you chose to pay more for the same product or service just because you preferred the vendor? HAve you ever said "I'd rather pay for it, than take the free one and give up my personal information", or do you use google maps? Or google in general.
Are you like the guy who was here yesterday, who loves his ipad, but can't take a video that I'm watching on this computer in a $50'000 computer office and have any way of getting it onto his ipad because his ipad has no way of connecting to another machine -- not even with a floppy drive. Or do you say "hell no, I'm not buying a computer that can't connect to other computers."
You vote with your dollars. It costs additional dollars to vote correctly.
But hey, when there's a political election, do you vote for the candidate that best supports your desires, or do you vote for the candidate that you believe will serve the city best, independent of your current desires?
Democracy only works when people know how to think responsibly, and decide accordingly.
Free markets are the same way. If consumers want to be stupid, and want to support their own stupor, then they get what they request -- an environment that doesn't support their future.
You're operating on a single premise, one which I and a significant part of the world doesn't agree with. That is that monopolies and captive markets are alright (what some laughably call a 'free market'). I don't agree with them, my country in general doesn't agree with them, and it invalidates pretty much every statement in your comment. So make your sacrifices on the altar of the free market, and I'll make mine on the altar of socialism and the regulated market.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
But you, as the consumer, along with everyone who agrees with you, are actually causing your own problems with intentional actions. It's your own fault. And what's worse is that you've never been on the other side. So your entire opinion is based on totally one-sided experience.
I'd never trust someone's limited experience. So start a business, and experience the other side. Then you can make an actual decision. Until then, you're simply making the short-term selfish decision to opt for what saves you money in at the moment, and you're completely screwing yourself out of your own future.
It's your choice to do so, but not to then complain about getting what you want. You've got it.
And what's even worse is that one day, you'll find out what you've done. One day, you'll force some company to do something that they really don't want to do, and they won't do it. Instead, they'll simply close up shop -- which they can do at any time. Think about what would happen if Rogers, tomorrow, decided to close, because they don't like your rules and they've got enough money. Aside from the jobs lost, you'd have a huge group of consumers with zero access to so many things.
Notwithstanding the argument posted by others about the large amount of government funding in our phone network infrastructure (I don't know about any funding for cable companies), there's the simple fact that these situations have happened before. I don't need to experiment, or rely on my admittedly limited experience running a communications backbone provider (quick, everyone raise your hands who have). I can just look at other examples where newcomers have tried to move into an area to see how that works. One example is a (relatively) small wireless ISP that encroached on Telus's territory. Now they're going bankrupt.
On a side note, I've always felt the path to greater wisdom wasn't doing it yourself first, but seeing if and how others had tried the same, and how they fared. The school of hard knocks is best attended by those who can't learn any other way.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
First, those smaller ISPs went bankrupt not because they couldn't provide the infrastructure, but because consumers went back to the evil big guys just on price alone. You, as a consumer, tend to choose the lowest immediate price point, with zero regard for past or future experience. That's stupid, but that's what you do. As a result, you get the provider you requested -- the one capable of providing the lowest price, whether or not they actually do. That's what you wanted, that's what you got. Quit complaining about it.
Second, you said "...seeing if and how others had tried the same, and how they fared." You didn't look closely enough, because you didn't see the inner-workings. Which means that you saw the if and the how, but you didn't see the why. Without the why, you can't learn any more than they revealed. So you can't interpolate anything new.
lol i trol u!!