Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GamerKnight]

Oh. Next weekend I'll make a thread for an internet image hunt. See who finds them all first.

[Willfor]

It's not about internet censorship, it is about having our every download scrutinized by people who have no legal authority to do it. People who are stuck in a dead-end job, and sometimes know very little about the subject matter will have the authority to turn your internet activity over to the courts if they suspect you might be doing something wrong.

[Phmcw]

It's no about internet censorship (because lol censoring the internet), it's about using it as an excuse to allow the corporation to tax you.
And to spy on you. And generally to give them every benefits they dare to take (which mean a lot).

[Neonivek]

The only thing going for Canada and this bill is its technological inertia especially regarding the internet.

[Dwarf]

Jesus Max White and GamerKnight, stay on the fucking topic.

[Tilla]

I'm gonna say that this law isn't quite AS bad as the DMCA however there is the matter that it is poorly written - leaving a few things a bit too loose. I wouldn't have much problem with it if the wording was more solid.

What I do have a problem with? The CRTC (our FCC for you filthy southern neighbours) has approved Usage Based Billing for ISPs, allowing companies to charge exorbitant fees for going over your bandwidth caps - up to $2.50 a gigabyte. Ouch.

[GamerKnight]

Fine. I'll stay on topic. But its more fun my way.

[ein]

Spoiler: I just found this on /g/. (click to show/hide)

Now the only issue is to find someone willing to take your money transfers, purchase the drive, download all your shit onto it, and mail it to you.

[Neonivek]

At my house we have a 95 gig limit

Though it is $5 dollars for each gig over the limit with a maximum of $50 dollars.

As for why Canada doesn't do anything. It is because for the most part Canada actually believes in the Market a bit more then the USA for the most part in this specific situation.

Just ask any economist and they will likely say: "If it was that important another company would just offer a better deal and take their buisness, but that doesn't happen"

[Tilla]

The Economist in this case would be missing some major facts: the new precedent set by the CRTC allows the big telecoms to force anyone using their lines at any point even if it's for a smaller ISP to pay the same per-gig rate. Any company that wants to compete with these megacorps would thusly have to pay the billions to install their own cables, assuming they could even get approval.

[Earthquake Damage]

Any company that wants to compete with these megacorps would thusly have to pay the billions to install their own cables, assuming they could even get approval.

In more fun words:  Their barriers to entry laugh at your puny market forces. 

[Neonivek]

The Economist in this case would be missing some major facts: the new precedent set by the CRTC allows the big telecoms to force anyone using their lines at any point even if it's for a smaller ISP to pay the same per-gig rate. Any company that wants to compete with these megacorps would thusly have to pay the billions to install their own cables, assuming they could even get approval.

Are you arguing monopoly?

[Tilla]

The Economist in this case would be missing some major facts: the new precedent set by the CRTC allows the big telecoms to force anyone using their lines at any point even if it's for a smaller ISP to pay the same per-gig rate. Any company that wants to compete with these megacorps would thusly have to pay the billions to install their own cables, assuming they could even get approval.

Are you arguing monopoly?

Absolutely. The barrier to entry is impossibly high for anyone to compete.

And worse yet, the last major news station not owned by one of these scummy companies is now being bought by Telecom Bell. So we won't even hear about it on the news most likely.

[Dwarf]

At first you almost laugh at the mental image of evil bourgeois capitalists with top hats and fancy pocket watches meeting to arrange further extortion of the people. Then, you realize that it actually holds quite true, minus the top hats and pocket watches.
The point I'm trying to make isn't one against capitalism, that would start far too great a shitstorm.
However, come on. Multi-national corporations are devoted to capital and capital alone, and finance capitalism
probably the most illegitimate way to make money ever.

That being said, physically building and maintaining a huge network like the Internet would be hugely complicated if you haven't got few large companies doing just that.
Infrastructure really ought to be handled by the state.

[Willfor]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/03/crtc-committee.html

"Industry Minister Tony Clement said Wednesday that if the CRTC didn't reverse its decision, the government would."

I enjoy this turn of events.