Advertisement
by WA Delegacy for NATO » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:58 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:18 pm
by Blackgrass » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:43 pm
by Arkiasis » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:58 pm
by Auralia » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:33 pm
Arkiasis wrote:Come to Canada and try to dare defend tiered service, our telecom companies screw us over by throttling internet, ridiculous data cap limits, and terrible package deals. And in many areas of the country you no choice but to use Bell, Rogers, or Telus, all of whom seem to have some sort of agreement to continuously screw over customers.
by Hittanryan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:06 pm
Auralia wrote:Arkiasis wrote:Come to Canada and try to dare defend tiered service, our telecom companies screw us over by throttling internet, ridiculous data cap limits, and terrible package deals. And in many areas of the country you no choice but to use Bell, Rogers, or Telus, all of whom seem to have some sort of agreement to continuously screw over customers.
I live in Canada. I use Teksavvy, which gives me 10Mbps down and 300GB for $36.95/month. I think that's a fair price.
by Lumeau » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:13 pm
by Allinlia » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:38 am
by Pacifist Chipmunks » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:01 am
Yes, but eliminating tiered pricing does not simply extend this amazing deal to rural areas: it makes the deal extinct in any area.Hittanryan wrote:Auralia wrote:
I live in Canada. I use Teksavvy, which gives me 10Mbps down and 300GB for $36.95/month. I think that's a fair price.
Ever consider the possibility that your deal isn't available in all locales? How many times to I have to bring it up, tiered service will hurt Internet access in rural areas with low competition.
by Eireann Fae » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:34 am
Auralia wrote:I live in Canada. I use Teksavvy, which gives me 10Mbps down and 300GB for $36.95/month. I think that's a fair price.
by Blackgrass » Wed Nov 27, 2013 6:27 am
Eireann Fae wrote:Auralia wrote:I live in Canada. I use Teksavvy, which gives me 10Mbps down and 300GB for $36.95/month. I think that's a fair price.
(OOC: I think $50/mo [I checked, USD/CAD is close enough to talk about this] for 15/5 with no cap is fairer - or $70/mo for 75/35 and still no cap. Basic service at a more affordable $37/mo isn't that bad at all, though, if you're not in a family of streamers like me, where a 300gb cap would be hit within two weeks :-)
by Dzhumabaev » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:20 pm
by Auralia » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:16 pm
Dzhumabaev wrote:Against.
OOC: Have seen the effects of oligopoly, results in tiered services where there was once a standard. Data caps implemented across the major providers. Internet throttled unfairly based on type of traffic. This extends beyond internet to the other telecom services - like cell phones and cable TV. Major providers reach silent agreements where none offer unlimited service - as once one offers it, they all will have to and ultimately it will be less profitable for all of them than the ridiculous data cap pay schemes currently in place.
by Auralia » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:20 pm
by Hittanryan » Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:20 pm
by Auralia » Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:35 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Tiered pricing is good for massive media producers, middlemen content providers (such as iTunes), and the richest consumers. It is garbage for everyone else. Arguments that it is better for the average consumer are based in woolly-headed idealistic right-libertarian claptrap about rational self-interest driving markets. Markets don't work that way.
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:This means class differences in the ability to consume information - which is specifically the most toxic possible poison for democracy. Once ordinary people are priced out of full and unlimited access to information, they are effectively castrated. If voters cannot access the same (or same amount of) information as the media class, they will inevitably vote badly and against their own interests. Tiered pricing of internet service is the modern equivalent of 1920s newspapers charging ten cents for the front page and ten dollars for every additional page - the only people who benefit are the people who already have all the benefits.
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Only fools, dictators, and plutocrats can possibly be in favor. We must consider not merely voting against this garbage, but also the formation of a general slush fund or foundation dedicated to building secret pirate internet cables in nations that fall victim to this leprous strain of the "free" market dogma as regards their telecommunications policy. We shall hold a ceremonial burning of this resolution on the floor of our legislature, live webcast (and archived), as our public libraries state on their front doors, free to all.
Blackgrass wrote:...as Auralia has one of the most highly inflated, distorted, and corrupted economy that we have yet seen.
by Auralia » Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:38 pm
Lumeau wrote:First, I believe I misunderstood your comment about the difficulty in linking an ISP's expenses with the cost of service. I took it to mean something akin to "passing the cost on to the consumer," but it appears you meant something else.
Lumeau wrote:In any event, I reviewed your draft of your proposed replacement resolution. Overall, it looks reasonable and well-thought-out. I will contribute a thought or two in that thread and will most likely be supporting it if it reaches quorum.
by Dzhumabaev » Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:52 pm
Auralia wrote:Dzhumabaev wrote:Against.
OOC: Have seen the effects of oligopoly, results in tiered services where there was once a standard. Data caps implemented across the major providers. Internet throttled unfairly based on type of traffic. This extends beyond internet to the other telecom services - like cell phones and cable TV. Major providers reach silent agreements where none offer unlimited service - as once one offers it, they all will have to and ultimately it will be less profitable for all of them than the ridiculous data cap pay schemes currently in place.
I think it's worth noting that tiered service and a lack of competition are two different things.
Also, the move away from unlimited plans is largely due to the advent of Netflix and other bandwidth-hungry services.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:17 pm
Auralia wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Tiered pricing is good for massive media producers, middlemen content providers (such as iTunes), and the richest consumers. It is garbage for everyone else. Arguments that it is better for the average consumer are based in woolly-headed idealistic right-libertarian claptrap about rational self-interest driving markets. Markets don't work that way.
Real life seems to disagree.
Auralia wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:This means class differences in the ability to consume information - which is specifically the most toxic possible poison for democracy. Once ordinary people are priced out of full and unlimited access to information, they are effectively castrated. If voters cannot access the same (or same amount of) information as the media class, they will inevitably vote badly and against their own interests. Tiered pricing of internet service is the modern equivalent of 1920s newspapers charging ten cents for the front page and ten dollars for every additional page - the only people who benefit are the people who already have all the benefits.
Uh, no. The most basic broadband Internet plans are still capable of visiting news sites.
Auralia wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Only fools, dictators, and plutocrats can possibly be in favor. We must consider not merely voting against this garbage, but also the formation of a general slush fund or foundation dedicated to building secret pirate internet cables in nations that fall victim to this leprous strain of the "free" market dogma as regards their telecommunications policy. We shall hold a ceremonial burning of this resolution on the floor of our legislature, live webcast (and archived), as our public libraries state on their front doors, free to all.
Is this nation a parody of the far left? Because you're doing an excellent job.
by Retired WerePenguins » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:29 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:In net-neutral countries, sure. Under tiered pricing, once you've streamed so much video of analysis, reportage, Frontline, and Jon Stewart, either you're done for the month or you pay a stiff penalty. Such a model makes participation in the political process more expensive the more responsible you are at it, plain and simple. And that is the road to oligarchy.
FURTHER DEFINES network discrimination as intentionally blocking, interfering with, discriminating against, impairing, or degrading the ability of any person to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the Internet or imposing a fee beyond the end user fees associated with providing the content, service, or application to the consumer.
by Roski » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:09 am
by Retired WerePenguins » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:25 am
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:28 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement