Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
This is just simply false. If I think my water meter for example is not correct, I can contact Measurement Canada. I know of no such service for Internet usage. |
If you think your Internet usage is false, you can measure it yourself, just like you can weigh your chocolate bar yourself.
Why do you think there's laws for how to measure gas and water and no such service for bandwidth monitoring?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
Most commodity items we buy are regulated. When you buy produce, the scales used are regularly tested and certified. Same with gas pumps etc. No such model exists for bandwidth.
|
Why isn't there? This model of paying for bandwidth usage is prehistoric in Internet years, I've had to do it for as long as I can remember. So why hasn't it come up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
You live in a fantasy world if you think you will get anywhere with "advocacy groups" or the BBB.
|
I didn't say those would be effective, I said those were options. The only true option is the law, which you seem to agree with since you pointed out Measurement Canada which enforces laws. EDIT: Well not really enforces, establishes and measures compliance with?
Didn't we just see the CRTC's decision get overturned in response to a bunch of advocacy groups?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
That's why the CRTC being overturned is so critical, we get competition.
|
What's stopping all the competition from increasing your usage too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
I can move to a provider that does not cripple my bandwidth and punish me for being a normal internet user.
|
I thought the issue was Shaw illegally padding the usage stats for all users, not them having a cap that
you find unreasonable. Shaw thinks 100GB is fine for a normal user, Telus thinks 125GB is fine, Shaw charges $1 per GB if you go over, Telus charges $2 per GB.
Overturning this ruling doesn't directly change any of that.