[commanderkai]

Brenda Brenda:

I can leave it off the hook too, but I can not talk to someone that is not local for free.

You do have the option to get a flat rate for long distance though, correct? If you choose to pay as you go, then fair enough.

However, if you chose to pay extra to have long distance(with their flat rate plan), and THEN be charged for the minutes you use, would you be upset?

[Curtman]

I guess I'm limited to 1000 "international" minutes. I could call anywhere in Canada and leave the phone connected for an entire month. I've never been charged for any "usage". I woudn't expect a bill if I left my TV on either.

[Brenda]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Brenda Brenda:

I can leave it off the hook too, but I can not talk to someone that is not local for free.

You do have the option to get a flat rate for long distance though, correct? If you choose to pay as you go, then fair enough.

However, if you chose to pay extra to have long distance(with their flat rate plan), and THEN be charged for the minutes you use, would you be upset?

Of course I would be. I am not going to pay for something I am already paying for.
But that is not what Shaw is contemplating. From what I understand, they are contemplating on adding your usage to your subscription you already have, like a phone bill. Then give you the option to pay a flat rate, instead of your usage, like ANY cellphone provider does.
I pay for the use of the phone on their towers, I pay for my text pack, I pay for my data plan (if I had one) etc etc. ALL on top of the $25/120 local minutes.

I agree with you that they shouldn't (even contemplating, I mean), but hey, paying $52/100mb on your phone, by freaking accident, doesn't make me happy either... (which has nothing to do with what shaw is contemplating on, but I had to throw it in )

[Curtman]

Brenda Brenda:

I agree with you that they shouldn't, but hey, paying $52/100mb on your phone, by freaking accident doesn't make me happy either...

So don't let it happen on your Internet bill! It doesn't cost them that!

[Brenda]

Curtman Curtman:

Brenda Brenda:

I agree with you that they shouldn't, but hey, paying $52/100mb on your phone, by freaking accident doesn't make me happy either...

So don't let it happen on your Internet bill! It doesn't cost them that!

That goes for everything... Your medication doesn't cost what it is sold for either. Just sayin.

(just an addition... I agree with the sentiment, just not with the argument. If it is none of our business what kind of money the Timmies owner walks away with, then it is also none of our business what the base cost of a product is...)

[Curtman]

Brenda Brenda:

Curtman Curtman:

Brenda Brenda:

I agree with you that they shouldn't, but hey, paying $52/100mb on your phone, by freaking accident doesn't make me happy either...

So don't let it happen on your Internet bill! It doesn't cost them that!

That goes for everything... Your medication doesn't cost what it is sold for either. Just sayin.

(just an addition... I agree with the sentiment, just not with the argument. If it is none of our business what kind of money the Timmies owner walks away with, then it is also none of our business what the base cost of a product is...)

The argument is that Timmies isn't charging you for someone else's coffee. The ISP's are.

[HaRdLy]

Brenda, please please tell me your not supporting the oligopoly that is Bell/Telus/Shaw/Cogeco/Rogers/Videotron...

[DrCaleb]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

You can ask Peter to be charitable to the consumer but he is responsible to the shareholders first. I have a good idea of what that means, I think.
Cable based internet is affected by use in terms of speed (more users = slower service overall). Does it not make sense to charge for use when all are affected by large users in order to diminish that use through charges and to also use the revenue to upgrade the infrastructure to benefit all?

I pay for 10Mb/s download, 2Mb/s upload. I don't get near those figures.

They are a business providing a service. How they deliver what I pay for is not my problem. If they want to provision a 20Mb line to carry 5 10Mb subscribers, then none of us are getting what we pay for. I have a big problem with that. I agree to pay a certain amount for a certain service. If they can't deliver, then they should renegotiate our agreement, or upgrade their infrastructure.

Not charge me more because I've exceeded an arbitrary limit.

[uwish]

while my internet speeds are ok from Shaw, in the last 5 years I have removed:
-movie pack
-5 selected digital channels

just to maintain the cost without increases. Now, those $25 /month options are gone because the basic service has gone up by that amount. Every time they raised their rates, I cut a digital channel or two that equaled the rate increase. Now, my bill went up $4 /month again in April and I can't cut anything else, I have no additional services other than HD and internet.

We need more competition in the industry, and not an east vs. west mandated and CRTC authorized monopolies.