the free market :{

the free market is designed to **** people over, and companies compete amongst themselves to find the best way to **** the most people over the most efficiently to get the most money out of them

so yes, this is the free market working as it is supposed to :/

ah
yes

deregulate utilities

good chap!

the free market is blatant economic eugenics

what in the ****


and this position is held by a bell corporate exec or vp or manager


and now u know why our country gets ****ed

Pagy I usually appreciate your blunt honesty and levelheaded ness

But seriously? It's like ur completely ignoring the monopoly part of the whole equation

Goods/services don't work the same way in a monopoly

If everyone decides **** shoes are too expensive and they've had enough, they can buy Adidas, puma, Asics, et

If everyone decides telus is too expensive, they have no choice, because everyone runs off of them. In eastern canada it's a bit diff cu each one has their own network I think, but when they work together it's an identical situation. The consumer is in a lose/lose situation, your bias because your work for these guys is just shocking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kerosene31

It is 2014. Having access to the Internet is not a "luxury". When you have one and only one option, the market is ****ed. If some of us had alternatives for ISPs at least competition might limit them from doing anything evil, but here in the US if you don't have access to fiber, Comcast probably owns your ass.

of course it's a luxury...and even if comcast is your only option, there are different speed packages to choose from when you can't afford the best, or don't think the best is worth it.

if comcast decided to charge a million dollars a month for internet, do you suppose it would mean the end of the world, or the end of the internet?

Originally Posted by Ztir

nobody is asking for free internet

this. We already PAY for internet use, why should they be allowed to decide what internet we can and cannot use?

its the same as my previous electricity example. should PGE be able to decide whether or not you can have electricity to you bathroom or hallway after you already pay for power in the first place?

Originally Posted by Pagy

of course it's a luxury...and even if comcast is your only option, there are different speed packages to choose from when you can't afford the best, or don't think the best is worth it.

if comcast decided to charge a million dollars a month for internet, do you suppose it would mean the end of the world, or the end of the internet?

Speed packages are fine, but I pay my ISP for bandwidth, NOT CONTENT. I pay Netflix, etc for content. How fast my chosen content gets to me is limited by how much bandwidth I have, not who pays Comcast.

Comcast also just happens to offer content too... just a coincidence that they want to limit access to their direct competition?

If Comcast only did Internet, they would never care what content came through. They care because they want to hang on to their dying cable TV business as long as they can. It is backwards and stupid. They want to force us to pay for 200 channels, 190 of which we probably never watch.

I like how these corporations fail to remember that we the tax payers payed the bill for their "infrastructure"

Originally Posted by Ztir

Pagy I usually appreciate your blunt honesty and levelheaded ness

But seriously? It's like ur completely ignoring the monopoly part of the whole equation

Goods/services don't work the same way in a monopoly

If everyone decides **** shoes are too expensive and they've had enough, they can buy Adidas, puma, Asics, et

If everyone decides telus is too expensive, they have no choice, because everyone runs off of them. In eastern canada it's a bit diff cu each one has their own network I think, but when they work together it's an identical situation. The consumer is in a lose/lose situation, your bias because your work for these guys is just shocking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

over here, it's just rogers/bell.

as a consumer, a monopoly is an inconvenience; so are price-fixing oil companies. as a consumer, i would love to have choices.

i'm just opposed to govt handicapping business with regulations. canada's laws barring foreign ownership of our communication infrastructure is exactly why we're in this ****ty position.

the truth is, our country is too big, too cold and too ****ty to warrant other canadian companies joining the marketplace. and foreign companies aren't even allowed. i don't see how these facts constitute a reason to interfere with private enterprise.

shut up dropsquad!
IT SHALL NOT BE NAMED!

wtf


ya great idea we sold our oil to china instead of nationalizing it too

Pagy, you do realize that the government(s) subsidize about 70% of the cost of Internet infrastructure?

Originally Posted by Pagy

i don't see how these facts constitute a reason to interfere with private enterprise.

Allowing ISPs to limit content would kill any private enterprise that tried to provide an alternative to Netflix, Youtube/Google, etc. You hurt the market because smaller content providers have no chance to outbid the big players.

Originally Posted by DropSquad

I like how these corporations fail to remember that we the tax payers payed the bill for their "infrastructure"

you contributed to the bill, you didn't pay the bill. and if you didn't, then rural areas would never be serviced.

i'm in 100% agreement tho, **** subsidies and regions that can't produce the amount of demand for service to warrant a company to move in.

ya **** basic rights

internet being upheld as a basic human right as of 5 years ago or so iirc
get ****ed pagy jesus christ

Originally Posted by Kerosene31

Allowing ISPs to limit content would kill any private enterprise that tried to provide an alternative to Netflix, Youtube/Google, etc. You hurt the market because smaller content providers have no chance to outbid the big players.

looks like content providers would need to charge more for their content...or generate better content.

maybe digital distribution has its limits because of the amount of traffic it generates on the toll bridge that they don't own and operate.

ah yes, the internet pipes
they're clogged
too many dump trucks

are you ****ing hearing yourself

Originally Posted by Pagy

looks like content providers would need to charge more for their content...or generate better content.

It is the same payola scheme from the music industry back in the day. The best doesn't rise to the top, the ones who pay to get their stuff on get to the top. You don't need a hit song, you just need to pay the right people to play your song.

Pagy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8XSo0etBC4

Originally Posted by Kerosene31

It is the same payola scheme from the music industry back in the day. The best doesn't rise to the top, the ones who pay to get their stuff on get to the top. You don't need a hit song, you just need to pay the right people to play your song.

i want less **** music too, but i dont need music and buy music i like. as a consumer, that's my power.