| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
  
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:42 am Post subject: VOIP |
 |
|
How big is this?
http://www.canada.com/national.....mp;k=71734
Janke seems to think it is the beginning of the end of command economy in Canada, and the beginning of truly free markets. No more regulation? Disbanding the CRTC? No more Cable monopolies? |
|
|
|
 |
biggie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:48 am Post subject: Re: VOIP |
|
|
| kwlafayette wrote: | How big is this?
http://www.canada.com/national.....mp;k=71734
Janke seems to think it is the beginning of the end of command economy in Canada, and the beginning of truly free markets. No more regulation? Disbanding the CRTC? No more Cable monopolies? |
I'm completely for the reduction of responsibilities given to the CRTC. they wade into areas they should not be in - Canadian content laws being an excellent example. They basically censor our television, radio content. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to regulate the internet next. Everything they put their hands on gets bogged down in administrative red-tape and its not helpful to anyone.
They are particularly harsh to iLECs(incumbent local exchange carriers) in the landline market - yet refuse to regulate the cable companies. There should be no reason that Bell and Telus must share their landline DSL services, but cable can pick and choose (until recently they said no to everyone). If one of the iLECs wants to alter its pricing(up or down) on even the most basic of services offered they must apply to the CRTC and it takes 6-12 months in most cases to get answers. They also impose call center restrictions (known as 80/20 rules) and require specific phrases and disclosures (like a consumers right to choose any telephone company). Its pretty ridiculous how they are trying to undermine Canadian business.
I agree with fostering competition to protect the consumer - but the iLECs are falling apart at the seams (well, bell is - telus has been focusing on wireless, driving its financial results through the roof).
Basically, the CRTC to me is like the gestapo of the telecommunications world. Just look at how long it took to get Fox News in Canada... Enough with government-sponsored censorship. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: VOIP |
|
|
| kwlafayette wrote: | | How big is this? Janke seems to think it is the beginning of the end of command economy in Canada, and the beginning of truly free markets. No more regulation? Disbanding the CRTC? No more Cable monopolies? |
The Bernier decision to reverse the CRTC ruling will allow big name players to price-compete with smaller players like Vonage when offering VoIP services. The fear is that a big company like BCE will engage in predatory pricing - i.e. offer cut rate services even at a loss - in order to drive the smaller players out of the market, thus allowing it to eventually raise prices again.
In other words, the market structure will shift to a very competitive model in the short and intermediate term, but over the long term, revert back to a monopolistic or oligopolistic model.
Bernier reversed because he believes that the low barriers to entry would always permit sufficient competition in the VoIP marketplace and thus keep prices low for consumers.
Will this lead to other changes in the telecom industry? We'll see what Bernier has in mind down the road, but it is difficult for him to apply the same deregulatory/libertarian/free-market model across all industry sectors. After all, the man announced a big subsidy to Bombardier not long after he made the VoIP decision. |
|
|
|
|
biggie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: VOIP |
|
|
| cbasu wrote: | | kwlafayette wrote: | | How big is this? Janke seems to think it is the beginning of the end of command economy in Canada, and the beginning of truly free markets. No more regulation? Disbanding the CRTC? No more Cable monopolies? |
The Bernier decision to reverse the CRTC ruling will allow big name players to price-compete with smaller players like Vonage when offering VoIP services. The fear is that a big company like BCE will engage in predatory pricing - i.e. offer cut rate services even at a loss - in order to drive the smaller players out of the market, thus allowing it to eventually raise prices again.
|
Indeed, that is a common fear. Being very familiar with the industry (and the behaviour of the ILECs in particular), I don't think that this is too likely. Bell doesn't particularly play the bargain basement card these days (just look at their over-the top wireless costs. $8.95 system access fee - only guys in the country to do it). Although it is possible, I think they are also weary of the CRTC, and will strive to stay unregulated. Not to mention that VOIP is so inexpensive to provide, it is not unreasonable to expect most companies to be able to compete. Of course, we will have to wait and see...
I think its a pretty good move. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject: Re: VOIP |
|
|
| biggie rection wrote: | | kwlafayette wrote: | How big is this?
http://www.canada.com/national.....mp;k=71734
Janke seems to think it is the beginning of the end of command economy in Canada, and the beginning of truly free markets. No more regulation? Disbanding the CRTC? No more Cable monopolies? |
I'm completely for the reduction of responsibilities given to the CRTC. they wade into areas they should not be in - Canadian content laws being an excellent example. They basically censor our television, radio content. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to regulate the internet next. Everything they put their hands on gets bogged down in administrative red-tape and its not helpful to anyone.
They are particularly harsh to iLECs(incumbent local exchange carriers) in the landline market - yet refuse to regulate the cable companies. There should be no reason that Bell and Telus must share their landline DSL services, but cable can pick and choose (until recently they said no to everyone). If one of the iLECs wants to alter its pricing(up or down) on even the most basic of services offered they must apply to the CRTC and it takes 6-12 months in most cases to get answers. They also impose call center restrictions (known as 80/20 rules) and require specific phrases and disclosures (like a consumers right to choose any telephone company). Its pretty ridiculous how they are trying to undermine Canadian business.
I agree with fostering competition to protect the consumer - but the iLECs are falling apart at the seams (well, bell is - telus has been focusing on wireless, driving its financial results through the roof).
Basically, the CRTC to me is like the gestapo of the telecommunications world. Just look at how long it took to get Fox News in Canada... Enough with government-sponsored censorship. |
Very well said and - when all is said and done - do they monitor the points they aught to?
Such as - have you noticed how much louder commercials are - over the programs they are placed in? It's been a serious problem for about six years now - one cannot be expected to buy an audio/volume regulator to deal with this very irritating practice - where is the CRTC to stop this practice?
Additionally - they try too hard to regulate programs but nothing to stop the commercial saturation we see on TV today - corporations who can afford the air time in huge chunks can bug you with thier nonsense ADs - dozens of times in a span of a few hours - again - where is the CRTC?
One last point on adverts and the CRTC - aren't there rules to govern content in adverts? How often do too many of the adverts show things they aught not - like speeding cars doing idiot things etc., [with nano sized disclaimers flashing the bottom of the screen for a mirosecond to cover this irresponsibility] - where is the CRTC?
They are too busy trying to do other useless things....
Deregulation of communications is a good thing - we pay too much and in places like Saskatchewan there is too little choice as it is...
:) |
|
|
|
|
FF_Canuck
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem as I see it, Don, is that encouraging regulation of commercial content will eventually end up with us back where we started. I personally don't think they should have any ability to regulate what people watch in the privacy of their own homes, or what broadcasters choose to air over privately owned networks.
If ads are too annoying, the market will eventually eliminate or minimize them. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FF_Canuck wrote: | The problem as I see it, Don, is that encouraging regulation of commercial content will eventually end up with us back where we started. I personally don't think they should have any ability to regulate what people watch in the privacy of their own homes, or what broadcasters choose to air over privately owned networks.
If ads are too annoying, the market will eventually eliminate or minimize them. |
I'm not inclined to agree and - on the contrary - the market hasn't eliminated or minimized them - the bending of acceptable standrards has become a standard practice - but the content issue is secondary - to the saturation and volume issue. I think that the Conservtives could dump the CRTC and come up with something better.
:) |
|
|
|
|
FF_Canuck
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem isn't the organization, so much as the concept of a regulatory board that determines 'acceptable' versus 'nonacceptable' content. Why should the government be involved in choosing what the citizenry is 'allowed' to see or hear?
And I really don't think its the government's job to protect me from too many, 'too loud' commercials. Change channels if you don't like them, or turn off the TV. Why invent an unnecesary bureacracy to take care of something everyone can do for themselves, if they so choose? |
|
|
|
|
Craig
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
votes: 36
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FF_Canuck wrote: | | And I really don't think its the government's job to protect me from too many, 'too loud' commercials. Change channels if you don't like them, or turn off the TV. Why invent an unnecesary bureacracy to take care of something everyone can do for themselves, if they so choose? |
The very presence of a liberal bureacracy allows them to take credit for all that is good. In fact, it allows them to take credit for what is (whether it is good or not because we don't know if it could be better). That is the basis of liberalism. Throw some dollars at Canadian musicians and then take credit for Celine Dion. Throw some dollars at Canadian businesses and then take credit for Bombardier. Liberals like to create agencies so that they can say to Canadians "look what you have because of us". |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FF_Canuck wrote: | The problem isn't the organization, so much as the concept of a regulatory board that determines 'acceptable' versus 'nonacceptable' content. Why should the government be involved in choosing what the citizenry is 'allowed' to see or hear?
And I really don't think its the government's job to protect me from too many, 'too loud' commercials. Change channels if you don't like them, or turn off the TV. Why invent an unnecesary bureacracy to take care of something everyone can do for themselves, if they so choose? |
All i was saying is that 'bureacracy' called the CRTC has long been there and they don't do anything - not even the things i mentioned. As for the volume issue - turn the channel - that's poor excuse - because all the channels are doing it - are they collecting exctra cash to turn 'em up? I guess we'll never know.
Look at it like this too - we should not have to mute or change the channel because of obnoxious advertisers - the onus aught to be on them. Also where does it stop - should there just be no limits? How about sex and nudity in commercials - why not tobacco ads on TV - so as you can see - there are limits and the government has 'some' responsibility in this connection.
As you've noted our need is "a regulatory board that determines 'acceptable' versus 'nonacceptable' content" - that is what is needed and it isn't there and if it is it isn't doing its job. It doesn't have to be puritanical as that seems to be the 'fear' of naysayers in this connection. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | | FF_Canuck wrote: | | And I really don't think its the government's job to protect me from too many, 'too loud' commercials. Change channels if you don't like them, or turn off the TV. Why invent an unnecesary bureacracy to take care of something everyone can do for themselves, if they so choose? |
The very presence of a liberal bureacracy allows them to take credit for all that is good. In fact, it allows them to take credit for what is (whether it is good or not because we don't know if it could be better). That is the basis of liberalism. Throw some dollars at Canadian musicians and then take credit for Celine Dion. Throw some dollars at Canadian businesses and then take credit for Bombardier. Liberals like to create agencies so that they can say to Canadians "look what you have because of us". |
I agree - so let's hope we can see the conservatives scap that CRTC and replace it with an effective agency that isn't going to be conducting this regulatory business in the same ineffectual fashion. |
|
|
|
|
FF_Canuck
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Look at it like this too - we should not have to mute or change the channel because of obnoxious advertisers - the onus aught to be on them. |
They own the stations, they get to choose what goes on them. I get to choose whether I watch it or not. Say I have a choice of two resteraunts, that server the same food, for the same price. One plays light amnbience music in the background while I dine, the other blares rap music and death metal. So I choose the first one. If everyone chooses the first one, the second one fails. If a majority choose the first one, than it expands while the other doesn't.
| Quote: | | Also where does it stop - should there just be no limits? How about sex and nudity in commercials - why not tobacco ads on TV - so as you can see - there are limits and the government has 'some' responsibility in this connection. |
I won't find many allies in this, but I think all of the above should be allowed. With the assistance of a standardized channel rating system, consumers would be intelligent enough to make their own decisions about what channels to watch and when. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FF_Canuck wrote: | | Quote: | | Look at it like this too - we should not have to mute or change the channel because of obnoxious advertisers - the onus aught to be on them. |
They own the stations, they get to choose what goes on them. I get to choose whether I watch it or not. Say I have a choice of two resteraunts, that server the same food, for the same price. One plays light amnbience music in the background while I dine, the other blares rap music and death metal. So I choose the first one. If everyone chooses the first one, the second one fails. If a majority choose the first one, than it expands while the other doesn't.
| Quote: | | Also where does it stop - should there just be no limits? How about sex and nudity in commercials - why not tobacco ads on TV - so as you can see - there are limits and the government has 'some' responsibility in this connection. |
I won't find many allies in this, but I think all of the above should be allowed. With the assistance of a standardized channel rating system, consumers would be intelligent enough to make their own decisions about what channels to watch and when. |
I don't agree - because if we apply your logic to this situation then going to 'resteraunts' is out - because they all play the tunes too loud - that's what is happening on TV today - and some adverts are worse than others in the volume abuse and of course - these ads appear in all programs and on all channels - so with that - the idea of 'choice' regulating it - it just doesn't apply.
Here is an example - say that you are watching TV and you're in another room and one of these loud ads come on and there it is [huge noise] - if you have neighbors they shall hear it [especially if one is hooked up to a home theater system - which most people are - then there is the issue of those with small kids being awakened by these loud ads.
Anyway I think that most people are annoyed by this volume issue and they just choose to try to ignore it - that isn't the way to deal with it. There are big bucks behind all this - big bucks [corporations with the extra cash for saturation advertising] to get into your space - the government has 'some' responsibility to enforce the rules that already exist in this connection.
I won't find many allies in this, but I think all of the above should be allowed. With the assistance of a standardized channel rating system, consumers would be intelligent enough to make their own decisions about what channels to watch and when.
Oh God I would hate to see the day that that was the case - for example - here is a poke at programs themselves - 'puppets who kill' and 'family guy' - who watches this trash? Adults? Children? It is chilling to see the soul killing civilization that kids are growing up with now - even our generation [1970's] didn't have the 'media pressures' that kids have today - you cannot deny that - so what was wrong in the 1970's - did people not watch TV because it wasn't nasty enough? Of course they watched - they watch no matter what is on the box - so - choice didn't bring things like 'puppets who kill' on the air - it was the systematic downgrading of the standards that we don't really have too many anymore. Just my opinion.
Choice may have an effect on TV broadcasters with more and more TV shows on DVD - that is the way to go - and prices shall come down!
:) |
|
|
|
|
BBS
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3
Location: Windsor
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| don muntean wrote: | All i was saying is that 'bureacracy' called the CRTC has long been there and they don't do anything - not even the things i mentioned. As for the volume issue - turn the channel - that's poor excuse - because all the channels are doing it - are they collecting exctra cash to turn 'em up? I guess we'll never know.
Look at it like this too - we should not have to mute or change the channel because of obnoxious advertisers - the onus aught to be on them. Also where does it stop - should there just be no limits? How about sex and nudity in commercials - why not tobacco ads on TV - so as you can see - there are limits and the government has 'some' responsibility in this connection.
As you've noted our need is "a regulatory board that determines 'acceptable' versus 'nonacceptable' content" - that is what is needed and it isn't there and if it is it isn't doing its job. It doesn't have to be puritanical as that seems to be the 'fear' of naysayers in this connection. |
If you want to get rid of the noise problem, start a "Mute" campaign. Target the biggest advertisers and most popular programs. Give them an incentive to stop the practice.
How about commercials that only feature healthy food, 'safe' sporting practices, 'happy only news'...
Yes there are limits and they should be on the government, not on the individuals and businesses. The CRTC got to where it is today by "protecting Canadians interests". Give a bureaucracy an inch and they'll take 500 miles. Another good example is the old Ontario Censorship Board.
Canada needs to move away from the collective responsibility and back to personal responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BBS wrote: | | Canada needs to move away from the collective responsibility and back to personal responsibility. |
:lol: :roll: :lol:
You cannot have one without the other really...
Last edited by don muntean on Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
