Anyways, I don't mean to be heated, I just worry about corporations controlling the internet like they control T.V. deciding what we look at when we look at it.

I'm not 100% against UBB, I'm not a network analyst, I don't know the implications. "Unlimited" seems dumb at face value, bandwidth is simply not unlimited. They should never have offered it in the first place.

However, I've heard multiple times how little it costs for them to deliver a GB, the MOST I've heard is 5 cents. So to markup 5 cents to 2-5$ is just greedy, and it flies due to lack of competition.

Also. Bell lied to my mommy. Case in point.

@deathcow

>> ^deathcow:

> No they're not. Bell/Rogers/CRTC would like everyone to think so, but they're not.
I'm telling you, with absolute 100% certainty, that a small percentage of people are using up the largest percentage of your ISP's bandwidth. That's a fact. Probably 80% of your ISP's costs (their costs), are due to 5% or 10% of the users. This stuff is all fact. Not everyone wants to download gigs of warez and movies. Perhaps everyone should get as much Netflix as they want, and the ISP should just be forced by law to continue to haul more bandwidth, and prevented by law from charging for it? Or, cap limits?
The general philosophy (by people who manage ISPs and administrate networks...) is that 5% of subscribers use 80% of bandwidth.


The telecomm people repeat that 5 year old stat like a mantra. It's fucking old. It's not 5% of users using 80% of the network. Bullshit.

2gb a day is two hours of hd on demand streaming video. What's at risk here? The average internet user updating facebook, or bell/rogers duopoly on T.V.

Do you work for Bell or somethin'? You're awfully sympathetic...

>> ^deathcow:

> Everything except their networks seems to increase in size and capability, which is an odd thing.
All the ISP's I'm aware of have RADICALLY increased bandwidth and package offerings. It's called survival.


Sorry, you're way outta line here, deathcow.

What are they surviving from? The deadly competitive world of telecommunications? What a joke. There are TWO networks in Canada, TWO. That's a duopoly. Bell and Rogers. That's it. They don't need to have illegal closed door meetings whereby they can be accused of collusion. No, all Bell needs to do is release a statement saying hey, we're capping our lines at 25g/b a month, Rogers will quickly follow suit.

Furthermore, they've only slightly increased the speed of their lines. And what's the point of increasing the speed of your lines if you put in place a deterrent so strong that no one maxes out their speed. It's a fucking joke,

"Oh good news insects! We've increased the speed of your lines from 750kB/s to 3MB/s! We're so first world, we make Ugandans faint. Oh, but remember, though we've quadrupled your speed, if you actually use your connection at the speed we've sold you, for more than 12 hours in a month, your bill will increase eightfold." That's just spitting in our faces.

Lastly, increasing the number of available packages is a scam. I know firsthand it's a scam, because when they first started rolling out UBB about a year ago, they unsolicitously called my mother to discuss some new plans.

You see, it turns out that even though they were allowed to go forward with UBB, they weren't allowed to impose it upon customers who already had agreements.

So they called my mother and told her they have greatly improved plans, they told her they could switch her to a plan where her connection would be more reliable, faster and her computer would get infected with fewer viruses. You tell me of an ISP who can eliminate viruses from the internet. Yeah, that's right, they threatened her with viruses. So, she says,

"Why thank you kind sir, I really appreciate the time you've taken to call me with the aim of improving my internet experience. I'd love this new package."

The scum never told her that in doing so she forfeits her "grandfathered" unlimited account and would go from an infinite amount of download, to 60gb/month. I haven't yet succeeded in calculating infinity, but I can say with infrangible certainty that it is A LOT more than 60gb/month.

My mother has lived in Canada her whole life, and thus has been a paying customer of Bell for over 40 years. They spit in their customers' faces as if we should be writing them thank you notes for providing us with phone and internet, when we subsidized the infrastructure they now dangle in front of us.

And you wanna talk about surviving competition? Businesses that are in competition for customers, don't shit in their customers' faces.

Bell's Motto? "You don't like it? Fuck you, we'll cancel your shit. You can write a fucking letter to Rogers.

*canada ?

I liked Kevin O'leary as an entertainer on Dragons Den, but I will never again in my life watch that show.

Smartass fucking cocksucker, so smart, so wealthy, a business mogul, I'm going to teach him about fostering brand loyalty.

Fucking pig piece of shit cunt.

...

Fucking traitorous, parasitic, scum sucking, hopeful monopolist tyrant.

For him to claim a duopoly is good for the people, I hope he survives a plane crash only to slowly die hours later of 4th degree burns.

Two-thousand percent. That's their markup from cost. We won't stand for this.

What's the FCC rules on Net Neutrality? In Canada throttling is legal, for now, as long as the provider documents that they throttle.

http://internet.bell.ca/index.cfm?method=content.view&content_id=12119%3E

I think I'm actually going to attend this rally on Saturday: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=174967459212532

http://www.barrettgarese.com/post/3050001320/in-canada-isps-are-limiting-monthly-data-to-25gb

>> ^residue:

I don't get why these are popular I can understand the ones with the neat camera tricks, but watching shirtless men in towels talk about how sexy they are isn't really my thing. (I prefer the towel off)


Sorry but monocle smile is fucking HISTORICAL. That is all.

@blankfist

I just don't understand how you can have more faith in people being able to govern themselves than faith in people being able to govern one another.

People can justify anything to themselves. Anything. They need to be held accountable to others for their actions. I mean... especially if there's no god. If there's no god, which there isn't, and there's no laws at all... Shame on me maybe, but I'm doing some pretty awful fkn things, I think.

If a government for the people by the people is possible, then that's the best option. I'm not asserting that it is possible, I don't know. I'm just saying if it is possible, it would contribute the most utility to society.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Matthu:
>> ^blankfist:
fear
Government. People ruling other people.

I don't see government as people ruling other people, I see government as people ruling themselves.
And given how many savage compulsive instincts we have left over from caveman days, people NEED to govern themselves. Or else it's just rape and murder.
The truth is, what I perceive as your ideal world, is more people ruling other people than government.
Your ideal world, as it seems to me, I haven't read your book yet, is you saying to other people, "You cannot rape my wife, if you do, I will punish you severely", whereas my idea of government is people forming social contracts with other people to not rape each others wives.
Also, there is no god, enjoy your life.

People ruling themselves is called "self-governance" and that's exactly what I want. You seem to conflate the idea of self-governance with our current statist system with the rich class at the helm which is a ridiculously misguided notion. It's good to know our Prussian-modeled educational indoctrination system is working as expected.
The truth is, what I perceive as your ideal world is the ruling class controlling the poor. Your ideal world, as it seems to me, I haven't read your book yet, is a world where benevolent oligarchs give favors to the ruling class while placating the majority. See, I can condescend to you too.


I knew you'd throw that back at me, haha. I'm sorry. I really didn't mean to condescend. I was just trying to express my uncertainty in my understanding of your views, being that my understanding of your views comes only from these sporadic comments.

>> ^messenger:

Another word about biased reporting: Shooting locations and backdrops are carefully chosen by journalists to give context to what the interviewees are saying. It was by design then that all the scientists were interviewed with equipment and charts and scientific machines and such behind them (to show their scientific backing), and the homeopathic people were interviewed in offices with blank drawers behind them, or in a completely empty room (their backing). Cheap shot. The content itself was enough to make a very damning report without all the trickery.
The only pro-homoeopathy interviewee who wasn't discredited with the camera shot alone was the mother, who the reporter chose not to ridicule as much, possibly because the audience might identify with her.


It's not her fault a homeopath works out of a sales office and scientists work out of labs. Although, I get your point, I just don't think she chose the locations for the interviews.

>> ^messenger:

For such an opinionated journalist, she didn't make any scientific effort to prove that they don't work. That there's no active ingredient left is very, very compelling evidence against it, and I strongly doubt that homeopathic medicines have any effect at all, but none of this report proves that they don't work.


How could she as a journalist make any effort other than visiting scientists and talking with them? Should she have obtained a degree in chemistry? What else could she have done?

There being no active ingredient in the medicine doesn't need to prove they don't work, it proves flat out that they CAN'T work. Water doesn't cure cancer.

>> ^blankfist:

fear
Government. People ruling other people.


I don't see government as people ruling other people, I see government as people ruling themselves.

And given how many savage compulsive instincts we have left over from caveman days, people NEED to govern themselves. Or else it's just rape and murder.

The truth is, what I perceive as your ideal world, is more people ruling other people than government.

Your ideal world, as it seems to me, I haven't read your book yet, is you saying to other people, "You cannot rape my wife, if you do, I will punish you severely", whereas my idea of government is people forming social contracts with other people to not rape each others wives.

Also, there is no god, enjoy your life.

>> ^undefined:

>> ^undefined:
Too bad alternative medicines have advanced to an article of faith. And too bad that people are so unwilling to admit that they may be wrong.
To the mother who said "To each their own": If you ruin your own life, I don't have a problem with that. As soon as you endanger anyone else, I do have a problem. If your kid infects my kid or anyone in my family with an infectious (and potentially deadly) disease you're at the very least guilty of gross negligence in my book, if not worse.

If you have all the vaccines and shoot your kids with all the vaccines, why should it bother you if I dont shoot my kid up?
And also, mind your own business!
If your little retard walks out in front of my kids car and she has to swerve and hits a tree, that would be awful! and I will be upset! Therefore you shouldnt let your little retards out! better yet you shouldnt be allowed to have little retards. Its better if you just go and cut yer dick off, ya busybody.
I'm gonna have another drink.


You're a bad, ignorant person.

Also, your children do not belong to you. They are not objects with which you may do as you see fit.

People like you are why we need a patriarchal government.

I truly hope you die a painful death, cunt.

>> ^TheFreak:

Big upvote.
I am completely exhausted with being concerned over the crazy BS going on in US politics. My coping mechanism now is to just say, "fuck it".
So let the teabaggers elect inexperienced morons who are too stupid to know when they've become corporate shills. Let the conservative right try to return this country to the social and economic dark ages. Let it happen. If this country is really overrun by so many mindless conservative sheep and self styled "patriot" lunatics that they actually succeed in taking over the government...well...it's going to be one hell of a ride.
I'm going to be laughing my ass off as the train flies off the tracks. And if there's one ounce of life left in my after it all comes crashing down, I will pull my broken body across the ground just to point and laugh in the face of any of my fellow survivors.
Bring it.


Enjoy your checkpoints n' shit.