Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,022 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We are reinstating the Unlimited package but the 200GB package will be changed... to 300GB!* UBB is about Internet Costs, and as a result of lower costs with our providers (Peer1, Lime Light, etc...), costs outside our relationship with companies like Bell, we are extending the savings on to you, the clients... Enjoy!
Got this email this afternoon...should help the ongoing CRTC discussions and shed some truth on Bells real motivations!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
^^^ I think it's more likely a marketing campaign. Now that they are in the news a lot with the UBB debate, I'm sure their web site traffic is way up as Bell & Rogers customers are being made aware of the higher caps they are offering. They are using this as an opportunity to attract even more converts.

I hope they are able to use this momentum to gain marketshare, which is going to make them a stronger company.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
They certainly might wait... it still remains to be seen what in fact happens as this discussion continues on the political front.

But even if people switched now, there really isn't any harm in that Teksavvy doesn't have contracts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I thought I'd post the whole email since it touches on some of the points this forum has been involved with over the past few weeks.

Dear TekSavvy Customer,

Because of your support and participation in reaching out to the
various MPs and the Minister of Industry we're pleased to announce
that the March 1st UBB implementation date has been suspended indefinitely.

With over 460,000 signatures having been sent to Parliament Minister
Clement and the Industry committee requested the CRTC review its
recent decision in full, which it has obliged and are now doing.
Until this review has occurred UBB over DSL has been completely
shelved. Minister Clement also added they would overturn the review
should it resemble in any way to the previous outcome!

So, congratulations to all who've spoken up about this issue, you've
made a huge difference. As a Canadian, today, I can honestly say it's
refreshing to know politicians do listen and will affect change when
the public at large shows concern!

Effective March 1st we are going to move forward and make changes to
the Usage, but we're going to make it a positive one!

We are reinstating the Unlimited package but the 200GB package will be
changed... to 300GB! UBB is about Internet Costs, and as a result of
lower costs with our providers (Peer1, Lime Light, etc...), costs
outside our relationship with companies like Bell, we are extending
the savings on to you, the clients... Enjoy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Yeah,
suck on that Bell! And you Rogers, too.

I don't care what the non-believers say here either since close to 500,000 citizens of this country has agreed, too:

Enough is enough.

If you can't work/provide the service get out of business.
These backdoor deals must stop.

Thank you Teksavvy from one of your loyal customers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,239 Posts
It's a little irresponsible of Teksavvy considering this UBB issue isn't over.

-Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
it only wont be over if people just forget about the issue and bend over and take it like good little sheeple.

I'm tired of hearing Bell crying about spending 8 Billion on its network one day...the next day he says its 10 billion...never once mentioning the huge amounts of government grants they receive to build these infrastructures. All the while saying it will only affect 1% of the overall users....oh really...gee if it such an insignificant amount of people why do they care about this so much. Are these 1% of people really that much of a drain on resources? Bah...

Another point which has not been touched upon is that indy ISP's only have access to Bells below 5mbps services while they are keeping the better speeds for their own users.

Wish that Bell would try to compete on pricing and value instead of crying poor and asking Daddy CRTC to punish the bad man taking their huge profits away.....booo hooo.

Stick it to em....and dont forget to vote with your wallets people :)...down with this oppressive regime....ok i think i have been watching the Egypt thing too long :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,239 Posts
No need to restart the UBB thread here. I'm just saying that some form of UBB may still be implemented, and it's irresponsible of Teksavvy to increase quotas before the final ruling.

-Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
I think Teksavvy is making the point that networking costs are continually going down in spite of Bell's assertion that costs are too high and consumers must be penalized for using high bandwidth services. Bell already gets paid a fair wholesale rate for the data that it carries for Teksavvy and other independents. If Teksavvy's customers use more, Bell gets paid more. Why does Bell need to double dip? If wholesale rates are too low to expand capacity, then rate needs to be raised so Bell can expand infrastructure. Bell has no business monitoring or metering Teksavvy's customers' internet usage patterns. For starters, it's an invasion of privacy since many of them don't want any type of business relationship with Bell (or Rogers.)

Personally, I don't think Tony Clement went far enough. I would be asking for the resignation of Finckenstein and appointing a panel to investigate the anti-competitive practices of Bell, Rogers and the role of the CRTC in their actions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,239 Posts
If Teksavvy can do whatever they want, then why can't Bell do whatever it wants as well? Your point is not made - obviously neither can do whatever they want and that's not a bad thing. If we had a free market, Teksavvy wouldn't even exist as Bell wouldn't open their network to any competition. The CRTC does serve a purpose, but it needs more oversight and a different mandate.

-Mike
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
629 Posts
Good job by Teksavvy! They've been such a strong voice during this whole UBB fiasco that I will be moving to them once cable comes to my area (they say before then end of 2011).

This is definitely not irresponsible of them to raise there own cap. UBB has been shelved. The plan that was initially approved will ever see the light of day. I would have liked to have seen the decision completely reversed, but at least we're headed in the right direction. Teksavvy is now back to its original policies and can do whatevery they want. If some form of UBB is finally accepted, it will be something they are forced to do, which Rocky has made very clear that he doesnt like, and therefore things will change at that point. Up until then, ENJOY!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
If Teksavvy can do whatever they want, then why can't Bell do whatever it wants as well?
You know that is the million dollar question isn't it. I mean there is no regulatory reason why Bell cant compete directly with the indy ISP's in terms of both price and cap room.

They themselves boast about the fact that their customers are such good angels that never go over their cap so it would not even affect them....according to Bell not even 2% do. So why not offer unlimited and squash these wannabe's piggy backing on their network? If Bell offered reasonable caps and fair prices they would not have an issue. Its all about collusion and using their friends at the CRTC to pad their profits.

Reason no other ISP's can create a network is because it has been regulated as such and Bell gets paid handsomely for renting out their networks. That is why Bell gets all the development grants and others don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
then why can't Bell do whatever it wants as well?
Because Bell is engaging in anti-competitive practices that go directly against government policy. The CRTC was told, in no uncertain terms, to promote competition in the telecommunications sector. The recent UBB ruling does the opposite. Bell and Rogers would never get away with this in the US. It would be shut down immediately by the FCC, in part due to tough business regulations that prohibit anti-competitive behavior and agencies that monitor the actions of large companies. (Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working there as well as it once did.) It's about time the Canadian government instituted similar laws to prevent anti-competitive behavior by companies with market dominance or duopolies such as Bell-Rogers. That way things like the UBB ruling could be fought in the courts and not be subject to the whims of the CRTC and the current government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,239 Posts
ScaryBob, re-read what I wrote, not just the few words you quoted.

-Mike
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top