m3t4lw01f’s Comments

• Sep 27th, 2011 @ 3:35pm

  Re: Re: Re: To Protect and To Serve (as Brent)

  on Police Caught Tasing Teen Without Warning
  ...and then re-elected him. *shudder*
• Feb 25th, 2011 @ 6:05am

  Re: Re: (as Brent)

  on Once Again, As The MPAA Whines About 'Piracy,' It Had Record Results At The Box Office
  Except, how many people actually have a PC hooked up in their living room, where they'd actually sit down to watch a movie.
  
  Those unskippable menus infuriate me even more when my 4-year-old wants to watch a movie.
  
  It's less annoying, however, than the "you wouldn't steal a care" commercials at the beginning of movies in the theater. I just paid 12 bucks to see this movie in theater, and you're telling me how stealing a movie is bad? Seriously, fuck off.
• Feb 8th, 2011 @ 6:03am

  Saskatchewan is the place to be, I guess (as Brent)

  on Canadian Broadband Regulators Annoyed That People Are Pointing Out They Don't Understand What They're Regulating
  I live in Saskatchewan, and while I'm concerned about the implementation of UBB, I'm currently unaffected. My ISP (Sasktel - A crown corporation) has NO plans to implement any sort of usable based billing. I pay about $35 a month for my 5mbps DSL connection, with unlimited usage.
  
  The only other competitor in my area (Saskatoon) for broadband is Shaw, and with their fastest plan (100mbps) you get a cap of 250gigs, with a $1/GB charge over that. At my current usage levels, I'd be paying an extra $250 a month.
  
  I have no problem with fair, real-world usage based billing where it's billed like my electricity. A base fee to maintain the line coming in (Let's say $10 a month) then a per GB charge for whatever I use. If bandwidth costs somewhere around a few pennies per GB, then I'd be happy to pay $0.10 per GB for my usage.
  
  Everyone wins. Those who barely use their connection would save money and no longer subsidize those who saturate the pipe.
  
  What they want to implement, however, is not real usage based billing. It's just a bonus on top of an already highly profitable business. Reading the details of the CRTC's decision, the incumbents would have been able to charge indie ISP's a few DOLLARS per GB, basically eliminating any ability for them to remain competitive in the market.
  
  Adding it all up, Mike is correct: It's nothing more than a power-play to block competition. Both competition from indie ISP's charing their lines AND competition from online video services like Netflix competing with their traditional cable tv offerings.
  
  I'm sticking with my unlimited (albeit a tad slow) DSL service, thank you very much. Though in reality, 5mbps is fast enough for my needs.
• Sep 23rd, 2010 @ 12:27pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Brent)

  on Backpage Tells Attorneys General That They Won't Give In To Censorship Demand
  The "It's good for the newspaper" comment at the end sealed the deal on the sarcasm.