# Canada Reverses Metered Internet Decision



## doulogos (Jul 15, 2009)

Sorry about that! Canada reverses metered Internet decision

Ars has the scoop.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I hope that knee-jerk reaction by the Government doesn't backfire.

I already notice an internet bottleneck during peak times occasionally. Someone needs to invest money to expand the infrastructure. Maybe that should be publicly funded.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> I hope that knee-jerk reaction by the Government doesn't backfire.
> 
> I already notice an internet bottleneck during peak times occasionally. Someone needs to invest money to expand the infrastructure. Maybe that should be publicly funded.


if you're noticing network slowdowns maybe you should call up Bell and tell them to stop using their network for Fibe TV as *THAT* would create a much larger drag on the network than a handful of heavy users that you seem to blame.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

krs said:


> I hope that knee-jerk reaction by the Government doesn't backfire.
> 
> I already notice an internet bottleneck during peak times occasionally. Someone needs to invest money to expand the infrastructure. Maybe that should be publicly funded.


you know, I have to admit I wondered if this being reversed will make people download more, but in the end, I don't think it will. I think we're just tired of paying more for everything.

But, maybe this will open a positive, open minded dialogue with CRTC and the rest of the ISPs, instead of listening to just one (bell). 

I think we can all agree that internet is going to be an integral part of our lives so the infrastructure going forward will need attention.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> if you're noticing network slowdowns maybe you should call up Bell and tell them to stop using their network for Fibe TV as *THAT* would create a much larger drag on the network than a handful of heavy users that you seem to blame.


I'm not with Bell..............
Why would you think the Bell Fibe TV affects my internet service - these are actually not slowdowns, that wouldn't bother me and wouldn't be very noticeable - loading of a web page just stops for a few seconds at random with large web sites like CNN, ebay, google etc. where I assume there are sufficient servers available.
Didn't have these stops and delays a year ago.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

keebler27 said:


> you know, I have to admit I wondered if this being reversed will make people download more, but in the end, I don't think it will. I think we're just tired of paying more for everything.
> 
> But, maybe this will open a positive, open minded dialogue with CRTC and the rest of the ISPs, instead of listening to just one (bell).
> 
> I think we can all agree that internet is going to be an integral part of our lives so the infrastructure going forward will need attention.


I agree.

Real time internet services like video streaming and VoIp are not only going to stay with us but are going to expand exponentially - all I'm saying "let's not stick our heads in the sand" and plan for the future.
The internet was never designed for these services, since they are not going away but will expand tremendously over the next few years the network capacity has to be expanded and that unfortunately costs money.
That money will come from the users, I think it's only fair that people who use more of the service should pay more. That's pretty much the case with everything we consume why make an exception with the net?


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

krs said:


> I hope that knee-jerk reaction by the Government doesn't backfire.
> 
> I already notice an internet bottleneck during peak times occasionally. Someone needs to invest money to expand the infrastructure. Maybe that should be publicly funded.


It already is in the form of obscene tax breaks.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> I'm not with Bell..............
> Why would you think the Bell Fibe TV affects my internet service


Bell IPTV Fibe Entertainment Service: the Results are Impressive

"Bell’s Entertainment Service uses a single VDSL line to provide a converged Internet and television service."

From what i understand Bell separates the IPTV and internet signals, but they still have to coverage on the last mile to customers. 

What i'm not 100% sure is if only Bell Fibe TV customers experience a slowdown on their internet, or if everyone who is connected to that same "last mile" hub connection would be affected (regardless of what DSL provider they use). I suspect the latter.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

krs said:


> That money will come from the users, I think it's only fair that people who use more of the service should pay more. That's pretty much the case with everything we consume why make an exception with the net?


Sorry, KRS, I do not agree. I picked and pay for a package because it had unlimited data! It is the same as TV. I pick what package I want then pay for it. They do not limit how many shows I can watch then charge me more after that point. If they turned around and started to limit how many shows I could watch I would be just as angry. I have an agreement to pay so much and get a certain amount for a service, now they want to change that. What has changed, did they stop making money? The answer is no, it seems alot of companies have forgotten that you have to "spend money to make money". Instead the will suck their customers dry, then think about it.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

DR Hannon said:


> Sorry, KRS, I do not agree. I picked and pay for a package because it had unlimited data! It is the same as TV. I pick what package I want then pay for it. They do not limit how many shows I can watch then charge me more after that point. If they turned around and started to limit how many shows I could watch I would be just as angry. I have an agreement to pay so much and get a certain amount for a service, now they want to change that. What has changed, did they stop making money? The answer is no, it seems alot of companies have forgotten that you have to "spend money to make money". Instead the will suck their customers dry, then think about it.


That isn't an argument against pay per use as not being fair - it's just an argument saying Bell should honour their customer agreements. Unlike TV, it costs more to deliver more bandwidth to you. With TV, the bandwidth is allocated and delivered whether you watch it or not. This isn't the case with Internet data - it costs more to provide more. Now since they advertised and sold you unlimited, then they should honour it, but they shouldn't have offered it in the first place because it's unreasonable to expect to be able to provide it.

Pay per use is fair, just as it is with water and electricity. The unfair part is the ridiculous rates Bell expects to charge. They are raking in billions and abusing their monopoly position. They are selling it to other providers at "15% below retail" when they know is costs far far less than that to provide the service.

The infrastructure was built on tax payer money. The government should allow pay per use, but regulate prices. If Bell doesn't like it, then the government can buy the portion of funds that Bell put into the infrastructure (very little, comparatively) and take control of the networks, and sell it to Bell at the same price as everyone else. Although I'd have to laugh if they sold it to Bell at "15% below retail."


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

So from what I have read the reversal will not allow Bell and Rogers to impose data caps on 3rd party sellers, so do you think that this will force them to rethink their own caps? A 25gb cap is just ridiculous in my opinion, and I seem to be hitting it every month now.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

andreww said:


> . A 25gb cap is just ridiculous in my opinion, and I seem to be hitting it every month now.


What does "ridiculous" mean in this context? My wireless modem limit is 5 gigs, for which I pay $65 plus taxes and charges per month = $ 780 per year plus, after which I must pay $ 0.15 per meg = $ 150 per gig plus taxes etc. Yes, $ 150 per gig. I have no choice, the corporations all charge the same here. I go with Telus because, among other things, they are more reliable. I have no choice of broadband or anything like that, even though I live halfway between the city centres of Vancouver and Victoria, a scant 50 km from either.

Would you like to lend your indignation to my situation? I petition Telus -in person or by phone- every month and ask then for an improvement. The answer is always a version of - You are SOL you Schmuck...


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

klokeid said:


> What does "ridiculous" mean in this context? My wireless modem limit is 5 gigs, for which I pay $65 plus taxes and charges per month = $ 780 per year plus, after which I must pay $ 0.15 per meg = $ 150 per gig plus taxes etc. Yes, $ 150 per gig. I have no choice, the corporations all charge the same here. I go with Telus because, among other things, they are more reliable. I have no choice of broadband or anything like that, even though I live halfway between the city centres of Vancouver and Victoria, a scant 50 km from either.
> 
> Would you like to lend your indignation to my situation? I petition Telus -in person or by phone- every month and ask then for an improvement. The answer is always a version of - You are SOL you Schmuck...


There is a huge difference between low caps in a remote/undeveloped area and low caps in a heavily developed and very urban area. The two cannot be compared.

Your situation does suck, but you do have options available - you could move to an area with better service.

Have you looked at other ISPs in your area? I quick Google search found a WSIP that services part of Salt Spring Island - Imagen Communications Inc Home Page.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

John Clay said:


> There is a huge difference between low caps in a remote/undeveloped area and low caps in a heavily developed and very urban area. The two cannot be compared.
> 
> Your situation does suck, but you do have options available - you could move to an area with better service.
> 
> Have you looked at other ISPs in your area? I quick Google search found a WSIP that services part of Salt Spring Island - Imagen Communications Inc Home Page.


Yes, you choose where you live. I'd much rather live here with poor internet service than anywhere else. 
Imagen provides only slow dial up service to my hovel. I know, as I used their service for many, many years.

My point seems to be supported by your response - it's all about self-interest, and forget the rest. There is no concept of fairness. The noisy masses in urban areas will demand better service for themselves, but do not care about those of us with much poorer service to start with.


----------



## hbp (Apr 18, 2007)

klokeid said:


> Yes, you choose where you live. I'd much rather live here with poor internet service than anywhere else.
> Imagen provides only slow dial up service to my hovel. I know, as I used their service for many, many years.
> 
> My point seems to be supported by your response - it's all about self-interest, and forget the rest. There is no concept of fairness. The noisy masses in urban areas will demand better service for themselves, but do not care about those of us with much poorer service to start with.




You sacrifice a lot more than internet by choosing to live in a rural area. It seems like you're making that decision (educated), so you really have no reason to complain. It's not self-interest. It would be ideal if service could be provided everywhere in Canada equally... but that would just be optimistic to the point of ignorance. This UBB nonsense was being shoved down the throats of consumers, without choice. Clearly it was unfair.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(a) why is this in the iOS forum, rather than "everything else"?

(b) interesting comment at the Globe & Mail today:

*Paying so much for bandwidth, getting so little*



> But take a closer look and something far more insidious is going on. If bandwidth were actually billed like electricity or water, that might be fine. But what the CRTC approved is something different. Claiming that its profit and consumer welfare are exactly the same thing, Bell wants to remake Internet billing. It wants to make use of the most lucrative tricks from the mobile and credit-card industries by preying on consumer error to make money. And this ought not be tolerated.
> 
> Any rule that asks the consumer to guess at usage, and punishes you if you’re wrong, is abusive. Imagine being asked to guess how much electric power you need every month, with a penalty for mistakes. Yes, that’s what cellphone companies do – or get away with – but that hardly makes it a model. It’s a system of profit premised on human error, and this begins to explain Bell’s deeper interest in usage-based billing. Bell wants to make the horrors of mobile billing part of the life of Internet users. And that’s a problem.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> Bell IPTV Fibe Entertainment Service: the Results are Impressive
> 
> "Bell’s Entertainment Service uses a single VDSL line to provide a converged Internet and television service."
> 
> ...


VDSL is just the latest higher speed DSL technology - between the Central Office or Central Office remote and each persons house. The transmission medium is the normal telephone cable which isn't shared with anyone unless you're still on a party line.
From that last point (CO or remote) back into the network the pipes could be anything that provide the required bandwidth. From that point back, traffic on the pipes is shared but if these are engineered correctly they should be able to handle the traffic.
So my DSL line can't be affected if one of my neighbours subscribes to IPTV but there could be (but shouldn't be) a bottle neck further back beyond the DSL point.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

DR Hannon said:


> Sorry, KRS, I do not agree. I picked and pay for a package because it had unlimited data! It is the same as TV. I pick what package I want then pay for it. They do not limit how many shows I can watch then charge me more after that point. If they turned around and started to limit how many shows I could watch I would be just as angry. *I have an agreement* to pay so much and get a certain amount for a service, now they want to change that. What has changed, did they stop making money? The answer is no, it seems alot of companies have forgotten that you have to "spend money to make money". Instead the will suck their customers dry, then think about it.


I understand your point.
However, did you check how long your agreement is valid? Or what the termination clauses are?
I'm sure you didn't get an agreement with your ISP that locks them in forever.
In fact, I don't think you even have an agreement, at least I never heard of anyone who does - you can switch to another provider tomorrow with maybe a month notice or so. In the same way your ISP can terminate or change your agreement with the appropriate notification - for my ISP it was one month.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Globe & Mail article -



> *Any rule that asks the consumer to guess at usage, and punishes you if you’re wrong, is abusive.* Imagine being asked to guess how much electric power you need every month, with a penalty for mistakes. Yes, that’s what cellphone companies do – or get away with – but that hardly makes it a model. It’s a system of profit premised on human error, and this begins to explain Bell’s deeper interest in usage-based billing. Bell wants to make the horrors of mobile billing part of the life of Internet users. And that’s a problem.


What is this guy babbling about?
I can look up my current internet usage with two clicks of the mouse - and I sometimes do, especially when it gets close to end of my monthly billing date.
If I'm close to my cap I just wait a few days to the next month and then do my large downloads if I don't want to go over my cap.

I don't see how any ISP could not provide that usage information to each customer in a real time basis. How could they otherwise ever prove that one went over the limit? 

Cell phone companies don't do it either - one gets a detailed bill every month, with the plan I have I can check how many minutes I have used at any point in time and even if that's not available, one can keep a track of that on the cell phone itself.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> *Bell Admits Their Usage Meter Is Broken*
> Who Exactly Ensures These Meters Work Properly?
> 
> by Karl Bode
> ...


Bell Admits Their Usage Meter Is Broken - Who Exactly Ensures These Meters Work Properly? | DSLReports.com, ISP Information

"Nobody ensure the meters work or are accurate.

Industry Canada's own division responsible for the accuracy of all sorts of devices used in commerce, (scales, gas pumps, etc...) have washed their hands of this by saying that no industrialized country does this hence neither should they.

There is no public disclosure of exactly what Bell actual methodology is."


How does a consumer know if the metering is accurate?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Ottawaman - 



> Bell Admits Their Usage Meter Is Broken


Glad you brought that up.

I was just reading about this a bit elsewhere, not sure how Bell gets away with that AND then can charge for overages.

The first time I received a notice from my ISP that I went over my limit, I started checking their usage reports with mine on the Mac.
Although the usage wasn't identical it was close enough for all practical purposes so after a few month I stopped double-checking it.

If Bell can't demonstrate that their usage meter is accurate how can they p[ossibly charge anyone overages? It probably makes sense for anyone who is with Bell Sympatico to keep a track of their own usage each billing period and kleep that information for a few months.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

*Globe & Mail Article*

I read a number of the replies to this Globe & Mail article - that was a real eye opener.
It's amazing how many people have no clue how the internet works.
What really got me are the number of people who actually think the internet is "free". Even if one knows absolutely nothing about the technology, how can anyone possibly think that being able to access servers all over the world in fractions of a second with a few taps on the keyboard can possibly be "free".

If you think about it, the internet is much more valuable than people think and are willing to pay for. One can accomplish many tasks in minutes that otherwise would have taken hours or days or could not be done at all, to say nothing of the money people save. 
In a sense I think the internet should qualify for one of the seven wonders of the modern world.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

krs said:


> What really got me are the number of people who actually think the internet is "free". Even if one knows absolutely nothing about the technology, how can anyone possibly think that being able to access servers all over the world in fractions of a second with a few taps on the keyboard can possibly be "free".


Never seems to amaze me how you can come up with one dumb argument after another. Like radio (which is free), television (which is free), and many local newspaper (that are free), the internet is an advertising drivin service that is and should be free. You do have to pay and access fee, but everywhere else in the world the internet is free once you've paid that access fee.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

andreww said:


> Never seems to amaze me how you can come up with one dumb argument after another. Like radio (which is free), television (which is free), and many local newspaper (that are free), the internet is an advertising drivin service that is and should be free. You do have to pay and access fee, but everywhere else in the world the internet is free once you've paid that access fee.


Your mixing up price and cost.
All of these services cost money to provide, nobody in thopse industries works for free.
Yeah, some of these services recover their costs through advertising, some charge a fee - actually even a fee based on usage. Just because you don't pay for something doesn't mean there is no cost involved providing it. You just pay for it indirectly in other ways.

And the internet is not an advertising driven service in the same sense as radio or TV or newspapers are. With those services I can't turn off the advertising - I can chose not to listen to it or not to look at it, but it's still there - with the internet people use an ad blocker and they don't even see the advertising.
But that is really irrelevant - this discussion is about *the cost of delivering the service to the end user* not about the cost of the information itself. When was the last time you saw a Bell advertisement popping up in the middle of your download or while streaming a video? Like "Thanks for using Bell to connect to the internet. You are now using our Basic Service, For just $5.- more you can upgrade to our Premium service which will blah, blah, blah........"

Somehow people can't get it in their head that providing more bandwidth costs money. The pipes that carry the internet traffic and the nodes do not have infinite capacity as people seem to think. There is just a finite amount of information that can be transmitted, then one either needs another pipe, another node or some other way (which also costs money) to increase the capacity on the existing pipes.
The actual day-to-day operating cost which is what Teksavvy and everyone else seems to be focusing on is not the issue.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

krs said:


> I read a number of the replies to this Globe & Mail article - that was a real eye opener.
> It's amazing how many people have no clue how the internet works.
> What really got me are the number of people who actually think the internet is "free". Even if one knows absolutely nothing about the technology, how can anyone possibly think that being able to access servers all over the world in fractions of a second with a few taps on the keyboard can possibly be "free".
> 
> ...


i'm one who doesn't believe it's free, but I'd really like to see some research and proof on the costs. My understanding is that the infrastructure is already paid for and that companies such as Teksavvy who piggy back on Bell's infrastructure have already paid Bell for using it so Bell wants them to pay more.

I agree with you that the amount of data is finite and it's demand will only increase, but I truly question whether or not we're hitting the capacity now and/or how close are we to hitting it.

To me, it's much like a conspiracy theory similar to electricity rates.
We had that big blackout years ago. Gee, electricity prices went up b/c they said the demand for power was so great blah blah blah. Turns out it was a computer software error that loaded the system and crashed it. Plus, Ontario as an example, is actually producing so much energy that they feel it's ok to raise our prices b/c of the demand, yet there's enough power to sell to Quebec and some US states. How does that add up?

And I don't mean to digress about power, but hopefully my point is made.

I see the internet as the same thing right now...unless I see proof otherwise of course. I could be wrong. I admit that possibility, but it sure sounds fishy to me.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

keebler27 said:


> i'm one who doesn't believe it's free, but I'd really like to see some research and proof on the costs. My understanding is that the infrastructure is already paid for and that companies such as Teksavvy who piggy back on Bell's infrastructure have already paid Bell for using it so Bell wants them to pay more.
> 
> I agree with you that the amount of data is finite and it's demand will only increase, but I truly question whether or not we're hitting the capacity now and/or how close are we to hitting it.
> 
> ...


Very well put.

As to the cost - Bell submitted a cost study as part of these CRTC hearings and I assume CRTC accepted it and found that the profit margin fell within the range allowed for a regulated business, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to approve the rate change. 

As to internet capacity - there is really no "internet capacity" that is a real hard number like with electricity for instance. That's because of the inherent nature of the beast.
With electricity the capacity is determined by the generating capacity of the power plants that generate the electricity. They can pump out so many Megawatts and that's it. Electricity has to be delivered in real time - when I switch on a stove or whatever, the stove consumes electricity right then and there.
The only control power companies have to reduce demand is either artificial brownouts (devices use less current at lower voltages) or regional blackouts.
We have had both.
So for electricity there is a hard number when it comes to capacity.

The internet is basically a huge distributed packet switching network. Data is sent in relatively small chunks with a header and trailer and this is inherently inherently not a real time system. If a pipe is blocked or at capacity, the delivery of the packet is either delayed or the packet is rerouted. This makes the internet very resilient against outages but it also means that there is no inherent fixed maximum capacity - things will initially just slow down when things become overloaded. 
As long as the overload is temporary, that fine. You see that sometimes when you access a website and it takes a while for the website to respond. This could be a server problem with the site itself but for large sites like google or CNN, it's more likely that it's a bottle neck somewhere in the net.
The problem is when traffic reaches a level when the overloads becomes more permanent, then packets get dropped and servers and nodes can just shut down. 
Some Hackers use that to compromise certain websites by just bombarding them with traffic.

So...I'm not really sure how anyone can actually measure how close we are to capacity on the internet as a whole, it's just with the real time services that are being offered right now, we are going to reach the point where these services can no longer be delivered sooner than later.

Just to be clear - capacity on one of the pipes that carry internet traffic can be measured and the total capacity on that pipe is a finite number, but that is not the same as the total net capacity - ie you can't just take the capacity per pipe times the total number of pipes in the net to come up with a number - the net will die long before you reach that.

As to individual pipes that have a maximum capacity and where utilization can be measured. We had an outage with my ISP who of course uses the Bell infrastructure to deliver DSL to the enduser. Interestingly enough, their connection to the net from Kingston to Toronto is provided by Sprint, not Bell - sort of surprised me.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

krs said:


> Your mixing up price and cost.
> All of these services cost money to provide, nobody in thopse industries works for free.
> Yeah, some of these services recover their costs through advertising, some charge a fee - actually even a fee based on usage. Just because you don't pay for something doesn't mean there is no cost involved providing it. You just pay for it indirectly in other ways.
> 
> ...


You talk a lot and don't really say too much. You a politician? Yes, bandwidth costs money. Does it cost more that $2/GB? Of course not, in fact it costs a minute fraction of that. Don't you realize how detrimental this all is to society? The ever increasing cost of data is only going to suck more money out of the pockets of the struggling middle class, and completely leave the lower class out in the cold. Companies like Rogers and Bell are taking a huge amount of money out of the pockets of Canadians already. Their profits continue to skyrocket, yet they continually find new ways to shove it up the a$$es of consumers. Unlike you, the vast majority of Canadians have had enough and have decided its time to take a stand.

I really don't know what your agenda is, but your constant "counterpointing" is getting very tiresome.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

I Love coming back here when **** like this hits the 'news'. 

Get a great laugh out of reading the replies posted by those that truly have no clue as to the real issues at hand, but love to put up long-ass rambling and deriding posts in an effort to appear knowledgable and well, let's just say it shall we - Superior. 



'_are you a politician_?' :lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

krs said:


> Ottawaman -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good point. Several hundred thousand people are getting refunds on their speeding tickets where I live because the machines were giving impossible speed readings of like 140 km/h in heavy traffic, so the judge had to throw them out, along with all other tickets measured with the same equipment going back a couple of years. Here, we have to rely on the assumption that the t
ISP's numbers are even accurate, let alone when we go "over."


----------



## Paradime (Jan 24, 2006)

A few comments as an existing Bell Internet customer:

1) There definitely is something to Bell's Fibe service. When I had Bell DSL, I couldn't get more than 3.5 Mbps speeds because of my distance to the CO. When I switched to Bell Fibe 6, I'm actually getting the full 6 Mbps!

2) Whenever I've called to complain about the overage charges, I've always had them reversed. I'm not sure if they're just scared to lose a customer or if they know they have issues. Maybe it's an issues of why bother arguing with a client since I've never racked up more than $5 in overage.

3) I'm looking switching over to Tek Savvy mostly out of principle. Like (almost) everyone else, I'm disgusted by Bell's move to push UBB onto resellers and their obvious misinformation campaign. I also use to be a Rogers client but they're just as bad as Bell. OK, maybe not as bad but pretty darn close. 

On a side note, I also have to say as I've had both that Rogers cable Internet is clearly superior to both Bell's DSL and Fibe in terms of performance...at least in the test that I've done.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Paradime said:


> A few comments as an existing Bell Internet customer:
> 
> 1) There definitely is something to Bell's Fibe service. When I had Bell DSL, I couldn't get more than 3.5 Mbps speeds because of my distance to the CO. When I switched to Bell Fibe 6, I'm actually getting the full 6 Mbps!


That "something" is newer technology - a lot of the Fibe service is using VDSL2, which gives better speeds at further distances than ADSL/ADSL2 could.

Unfortunately, you likely won't get those speeds with TekSavvy DSL.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Paradime said:


> A few comments as an existing Bell Internet customer:
> 
> 1) There definitely is something to Bell's Fibe service. When I had Bell DSL, I couldn't get more than 3.5 Mbps speeds because of my distance to the CO. When I switched to Bell Fibe 6, I'm actually getting the full 6 Mbps!
> 
> ...


If you can have access to cable in terms of Max available speed, cable blows DSL out of the water every time. I get 30Mbps with Videoton and it is only middle of the pack in terms of the speeds they offer. It tops out at 120Mbps (ridiculously expensive at $150/mnth) but still...  fast...


----------



## johnnydee (Feb 10, 2004)

polywog said:


> It already is in the form of obscene tax breaks.


Yes we need more taxes and more Government intervention in our lives!
Yes the CRTC should restrict internet access!
Imagine people thinking the internet should be free and unregulated!
Down with free thought and unrestricted access!

Scary isn't it!


----------



## flowin (Feb 17, 2011)

Success! We won the battle of the internets!


----------

