🚀 go-pugleaf

"zeez" <blinkingblythe01@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ee6bd418-aa44-4465-8c37-e74ddbe12820@o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 3:03 pm, Lil Abner <@Daisey.Mae> wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...
#
# I've always wondered why Canadians have it about as bad as Austraiia
# when it comes to net access. Australia is phy$icaly isolated so it
#  somewhat understandable for them but Canada?

Same is true for Canada
Other than for a couple of urban centers, many people are out in the 
boonies. 

On Feb 4, 5:50 am, zeez <blinkingblyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 3:03 pm, Lil Abner <@Daisey.Mae> wrote:
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...
>
> I've always wondered why Canadians have it about as bad as Austraiia
> when it comes to net access. Australia is phy$icaly isolated so it
> somewhat understandable for them but Canada?

Because the companies given huge sums by liberal (and democrat in the
U.S.) governments for infrastructure improvements pocketed the cash,
did almost zero improvements and as a result, we fell from number #1
in the early 1990s to around #15 in-terms of internet infrastructure
and cost.

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323328-668738232-1296843531=:3818
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, zeez wrote:

> On Feb 1, 3:03=A0pm, Lil Abner <@Daisey.Mae> wrote:
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...
>
> I've always wondered why Canadians have it about as bad as Austraiia
> when it comes to net access. Australia is phy$icaly isolated so it
> somewhat understandable for them but Canada?
>
Because too many bozos came late to the party.  They all rushed to the Big=
=20
ISPs, because by the time they got here, most of the small ISPs that
had pioneered had been sold to something bigger, and of course by then
the telephone and cable companies had gotten into it.  So people decided
to go with the big companies, rather than the ISPs that represented the
internet of the old.

Those same people have no real clue of what the internet once was, because
they came late enough that they saw something else.  The old was still=20
there, but it was hidden, and the later arrivals didn't look.

Those are the people who believe in "Web 2.0", who think giving things
away was invented with "freecycle", who think gmail is swell and can't see=
=20
anything wrong with facebook.  There's is a very different internet, and=20
they've helped to change it by being ignorant of what came before.=20
They've let commerce run things.

I was with my first ISP for nine years.  It was the oldest local ISP and
happened to be non-profit (likely for the simple reason that circa 1991
nobody could see making any money from it all).  When they finally sold=20
out, to a bigger non-profit, I moved to the second oldest local ISP which=
=20
is now one of the few small ISPs remaining.

When my first ISP dropped newsgroups, I started accessing them via the=20
Ottawa Freenet, a concept most people are unaware of.  They have no clue
of what it was like to know about the internet and not have access because
there was no way on locally.

ONce the masses came to the internet, it changed for the worse.  I thought=
=20
at the time it would mean people would change as they came to the=20
internet, but sadly they simply decided things should be the way they want=
=20
it.

Once they gave power to those big commercial outfits, they set the stage
for what came later.

   Michael

--8323328-668738232-1296843531=:3818--

On 04/02/2011 02:50, zeez wrote:
> On Feb 1, 3:03 pm, Lil Abner<@Daisey.Mae>  wrote:
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...
>
> I've always wondered why Canadians have it about as bad as Austraiia
> when it comes to net access. Australia is phy$icaly isolated so it
> somewhat understandable for them but Canada?

Collusion, a few big companies control the market... Bell, Rogers, 
Telus, Shaw

You forget the always anti-consumer CRTC.




Kevin
"g"  wrote in message news:iihg5b$hd7$3@speranza.aioe.org... 

On 04/02/2011 02:50, zeez wrote:
> On Feb 1, 3:03 pm, Lil Abner<@Daisey.Mae>  wrote:
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...
>
> I've always wondered why Canadians have it about as bad as Austraiia
> when it comes to net access. Australia is phy$icaly isolated so it
> somewhat understandable for them but Canada?

Collusion, a few big companies control the market... Bell, Rogers, 
Telus, Shaw

g wrote
> 
> On 04/02/2011 02:50, zeez wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 3:03 pm, Lil Abner<@Daisey.Mae>  wrote:
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...
> >
> > I've always wondered why Canadians have it about as bad as Austraiia
> > when it comes to net access. Australia is phy$icaly isolated so it
> > somewhat understandable for them but Canada?
> 
> Collusion, a few big companies control the market... Bell, Rogers, 
> Telus, Shaw

They funded the infrastructure, not like so many other countries where the taxpayer 
did.    At one time it was 1 phone company per region and one cable provider.

That's capitalism for you.   In most European countries the government subsidized 
the infrastructure.  In the US it's the economy of scale, so it invited more 
competition, which is what you expect in a country with that large a population.

Infrastructure isn't cheap when it comes to setting up wireless and internet.

Michael Black wrote
> zeez wrote
>> Lil Abner <@Daisey.Mae> wrote

>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...

>> I've always wondered why Canadians have it about as bad as
>> Austraiia when it comes to net access. Australia is phy$icaly
>> isolated so it somewhat understandable for them but Canada?

> Because too many bozos came late to the party.

That happens in every country, stupid.

> They all rushed to the Big ISPs, because by the time they got here, most
> of the small ISPs that had pioneered had been sold to something bigger,

That is a pig ignorant lie. There are HUNDREDS of them.

> and of course by then the telephone and cable companies had gotten into it.

Just like everywhere esle. Wota surprise.

> So people decided to go with the big companies, rather
> than the ISPs that represented the internet of the old.

> Those same people have no real clue of what the internet once was,
> because they came late enough that they saw something else.  The
> old was still there, but it was hidden, and the later arrivals didn't look.

Just like in EVERY other country. Guess again.

> Those are the people who believe in "Web 2.0", who think
> giving things away was invented with "freecycle", who think
> gmail is swell and can't see anything wrong with facebook.

Its what they prefer to use. You get to like that or lump it.


> There's is a very  different internet,

Just like in EVERY other country. Guess again.

> and they've helped to change it by being ignorant of
> what came before. They've let commerce run things.

Just like in EVERY other country. Guess again.

> I was with my first ISP for nine years.  It was the oldest local
> ISP and happened to be non-profit (likely for the simple reason
> that circa 1991 nobody could see making any money from it all).

Thats a pig ignorant lie.

> When they finally sold out, to a bigger non-profit, I moved to the second
> oldest local ISP which is now one of the few small ISPs remaining.

Thats another pig ignorant lie. There are HUNDREDS of them.

> When my first ISP dropped newsgroups, I started accessing them
> via the Ottawa Freenet, a concept most people are unaware of.
> They have no clue of what it was like to know about the internet
> and not have access because there was no way on locally.

Yeah, yeah, only you knows that it was like.

> ONce the masses came to the internet, it changed for the worse.

No one is holding a gun to your head a forcing you to use the bits of it you dont like, fool.

They do however provide the cash flow that sees the facilitys you want to use.

> I thought at the time it would mean people would change as they came to the internet,

More fool you.

> but sadly they simply decided things should be the way they want it.

And you get to like that or lump it.

> Once they gave power to those big commercial outfits,

They ddnt.

> they set the stage for what came later.

Nope, the hordes of naive users did.

You get to like that or lump it. 

g wrote
> zeez wrote
>> Lil Abner<@Daisey.Mae>  wrote

>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...

>> I've always wondered why Canadians have it about as bad as Austraiia when it comes to net access. Australia is 
>> phy$icaly isolated so it somewhat understandable for them but Canada?

> Collusion, a few big companies control the market...

No they dont in australia.

We have in fact forced the biggest to resell their hardware to anyone who wants to use it.

> Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw 

Rod Speed wrote
> 
> Liberals are vermin wrote
> > zeez <blinkingblyth...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Lil Abner <@Daisey.Mae> wrote
> 
> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...
> 
> >> I've always wondered why Canadians have it about as bad
> >> as Austraiia when it comes to net access. Australia is phy$icaly
> >> isolated so it somewhat understandable for them but Canada?
> 
> > Because the companies given huge sums by liberal (and democrat in the U.S.) governments
> 
> You've got that backwards, the Libs are the Repugs in the US, cretin.
> 
> > for infrastructure improvements pocketed the cash,> did almost zero improvements
> 
> That is a pig ignorant like with the NextG network alone.
> 
> > and as a result, we fell from number #1 in the early 1990s
> 
> Pigs arse we ever were.
> 
> > to around #15 in-terms of internet infrastructure and cost.
> 
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
> actually have a fucking clue about the most basic stats.
> 
> And Labor is planning to piss $50B against the wall themselves, anyway
> when most already have a very decent net service and dont need that. 

Canada and Australia are similar in that they have a small population spread over a 
great expanse.   It's a situation where the taxpayer should play an integral role.   
Canada has ended up with monopolies for good reason.  It was left to the stake 
holders to create the infrastructure to the tune of $billions, and the government 
did not underwrite the loans nor did it provide subsidies.

Unfortunatley, though doing it that way saved the taxpayer an fortune, it did not 
open the doors to competition due to how the stake holders paid for it in a small 
market where there simply wasn't a population big enough to invite competition to 
create multiple competitors with their own infrastructres.

And though I know it doesn't sound good.  In a situation like that, the only way to 
encourage competition is to make it like electricity.   It should be metered so 
that those who use a lot, pay for a lot.  And those who don't use a lot, pay less.

Or, the government should be involved and create an infrastructure that will allow 
smaller competitors to be in the game, without relying on the monopoly.

Rod Speed wrote
> 
> zeez wrote
> > Lil Abner <@Daisey.Mae> wrote
> 
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...
> 
> > I've always wondered why Canadians have it about
> > as bad as Austraiia when it comes to net access.
> 
> That is a pig ignorant lie.
> 
> > Australia is phy$icaly isolated so it somewhat understandable for them
> 
> Nope, the real reason it can cost a bit more is because its by far the
> lowest population density first world country around. Canada too.
> 
> > but Canada?
> 
> See above. 

Canada's government controlled communications corporation Telesat gave the world 
the first domestic communications satellite.    Sure, it was built by Hughes 
Aerospace and lauched by NASA, but the idea of commercial use of satellite tech 
instead of miliary or scientific use was a Canadian idea that the USA wasn't doing!


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anik_%28satellite%29

That's what needs to be done when a country has the second largest size and remote 
communities.

zeez wrote
> On Feb 1, 3:03�pm, Lil Abner <@Daisey.Mae> wrote:
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...
> 
> I've always wondered why Canadians have it about as bad as Austraiia
> when it comes to net access. Australia is phy$icaly isolated so it
> somewhat understandable for them but Canada?
> 
> 

90% of Canadians are huddled within 200 miles of the US / Canada border.

But that's just so we can keep them out. It has to do with the War of 1812 and the 
Fenian League when they tried to annex us as well.  


Heck, the Superbowl is on Sunday and we don't even allow their damn fancy TV 
commercials in!


NFL is stupid.  Why do they need 4 tries for a first down when all we need is 3?