[kwlug-disc] UBB CRTC decision to be reviewed ...
R. Brent Clements
rbclemen at gmail.com
Tue Feb 1 23:10:35 EST 2011
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:29 PM, <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
> There is a point at which demand exceeds capacity. We might not be there
> There is and will be a cost to retrofit from the mid-90's technology to
> 21st century technology.
> And it ain't going to be cheap.
> Please note - I am saying nothing with respect to any practices or pricing
> here, merely that bandwidth is constrained, at some point.
> Presumably, Bell is making attempts to stave that point of serious
> re-investment off as long as they can. And staving off the expense if they
> don't have to expend it.
This is my point exactly. Not giving us the bandwidth that is
available to us right now because someday we might run out of
bandwidth? Seriously this seems normal to you? It isn't like we can
bank it. The extra room in the existing fibres now cannot be used
If we use up the exisiting bandwidth and nobody does anything to
increase it then everyone will slow down. So what. making me wait
til next month to download a movie vs. making it take two days instead
of one? I know which one I would chose.
> You can argue that they are nefariously also taking advantage of such
> positions to also stave off competition and maximize their revenue, but
> that is what any reasonable conglomerate would do in today's commercial,
> competitive, and capitalistic environment. Bell is carrying out their
> mandate - maximize profit to shareholders.
So Microsoft's leveraging of control of the desktop operating system
to gain monopolies in other markets is just what any large
conglomerate would do? Manipulating their operating system to make
competitors software less functional or unreliable is staving off
competition? Making people sign contracts that force compliance on
software upgrades whether or not the new software is appropriate to
the application or the hardware it is installed on is maximizing
revenue? Did you ever make any of the above claims in support of
In the USA everything that Bell has done in this country would have
been declared illegal. They had their Bell. It was even called Bell.
And the government took action against them. Of course we don't have
anti-trust legislation in this country apparently.
>They are operating within the
> monopolistic environment they were handed by the government.
> It is up to the government to hold their feet to the fire.
> *They*, to Brent's and other's points, haven't been doing what we perceive
> as a very good job of it. (No doubt Bell thinks they've done too good a job
> of it.)
> But that's a public policy issue, not a Bell, UBB, or Teksavvy issue.
And that is why we are signing petitions to send to the government,
not to the complaints department at Bell.
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
More information about the kwlug-disc_kwlug.org