Newbies
@velcom.ca
| Acanac On the Acanac website on the registration form, i don't see any activation date. I cancel my connection recently, just want to try out Acanac.
+ on the middle of the year, if i decide to move to a new house, will you guys charge if i decide to change my phone number. | |
|
 
bryanviper
join:2002-10-12
Toronto, CAN |  Re: Acanac
| |
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
| Thank you for your interest in our service.
The first move is free. Every other move will cost $20.
If you have any other questions please let me know.
Best Regards,
Paul
»www.acanac.ca | |
|
Last Parade
One of the Brightest Stars
join:2002-10-07
Port Colborne, ON | I've moved once on Acanac and it was a less than pleasant experience, they didn't tell me that Bell was going to show up randomly. | |
|
 |
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
| Re: Acanac Bell is a pain. Either they don't show up at all or at odds times. This is something all the wholesalers have to deal with. I was told by one of there reps that we should shortly have control of the profiles. This should clear up well over 70% of all tickets we put in with Bell. We have been asking for this feature for years now.
Lets hope they keep there promise.
Best Regards,
Paul
www.acanac.ca | |
|
| |
oooh yeah
@videotron.ca | Re: Acanac said by Acanac Inc  :Bell is a pain. Amen. | |
|
| | 
j3richo
join:2007-12-08
Gatineau, QC
 ·Acanac
 ·Videotron
| said by Acanac Inc :Bell is a pain. Either they don't show up at all or at odds times. This is something all the wholesalers have to deal with. I was told by one of there reps that we should shortly have control of the profiles. This should clear up well over 70% of all tickets we put in with Bell. We have been asking for this feature for years now. Lets hope they keep there promise. Best Regards, Paul www.acanac.ca oh snap, that should be awesome | |
|
| | 
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC | That'll be a big step. So often we hear about Bell refusing to set profiles that a customer line can clearly support. | |
|
| |
Bellundo
@teksavvy.com | That will never happen. | |
|
| | |
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
1 edit | Re: Acanac I hope your wrong, but we should get a bit more info on the 30th of this month. Bell has called in all the ISP's to discus the new proposed user based billing system. I will be sure to bring this up at this conference.
I want to clarify that one of the Bell VP's is the person who mentioned this to me. The same one who is pushing for user based billing. It's the carrot and stick approach. | |
|
stoppingby
@phdiq.ca | hey acanac
what ever happened to this ??? has bell followed through on their promise? | |
|
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON | Re: AcanacI was never given a date, but I will ask them for one tomorrow.
Best Regards,
Paul
»www.acanac.ca | |
|
| | 
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | Re: Acanac Also tell em to stuff the usage based billing,along with the throttling  | |
|
despe
@interplex.ca | Paul, what time is the conference call with bell? I'm anxious to know what comes out of it! | |
|
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
4 edits | Re: Acanac Just got back from the conference and here is what Bell is proposing.
512Kbps service will be limited to 2GB per month
5Mbps service will be limited to 60GB per month
They did not disclose what the overcharges will be, but don't expect it to be cheap. Simply put DSL as we know it right now will no longer exist.
We find this proposal to be totally unexceptable. The only good news is that it will not affect current clients. So as long as you don't change ISP's you can keep your current unlimited connection. Bell proposes to start shadow billing in October and usage based billing in Jan of 2009.
This has given me a new sense urgency to setup our own equipment at the CO. I will be approaching a few other ISP in the next little while to see if we can come to some type of agreement. We prefer not to do this alone.
As for having control of the profile: They hope to offer us this ability towards the end of the year.
Best Regards,
Paul
www.acanac.ca | |
|
| |
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
1 edit | Re: Acanac And is control over the profile tied to the usage-based billing? I hear that they've been promising wholesalers control over profiles for several years now and have yet to actually do anything.
This would really suck for me. I'm not exactly a "heavy" user. I have a 200GB cap and tend to use 100-150GB per month. But I'd still go way over a piddly little 60GB cap...
EDIT: Wholesalers forming an alliance to share colocated DSLAMs is an interesting idea, and it'd be great for me, being directly connected to the Atwater CO (one of the main downtown Montreal COs). But it'll suck for everybody on remotes... On the other hand, I guess building your own remotes would be easier as a group. | |
|
| | | 
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
| Re: Acanac said by Guspaz :On the other hand, I guess building your own remotes would be easier as a group. *IF* the CRTC forces Bell to allow placing remote xSLAMs just like the Stingers Bell puts on the side of their OPIs. | |
|
| | | |
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON | Re: Acanac Forming an alliance in my opinion is the only real longer term solution. We need to make Bell think twice before they come up with these ridiculous ideas. The only way to do this is to offer real compationtion. | |
|
| | | | | beamer69
join:2007-05-10
Burnaby, BC
| Re: Acanac said by Acanac Inc :Forming an alliance in my opinion is the only real longer term solution. While still fighting Bell against these actions in the hope at some point the last mile is broken off from the rest of Bell so everyone is treated equally. 
Right now all they are doing is moving the restrictions they have on Sympatico to wholesalers 
Keep fighting Paul this is really a joke what they are doing. Well wish it was a joke but it is not  | |
|
| | | | djweis
join:2006-04-02
West Des Moines, IA
| said by CanerisErik :said by Guspaz :On the other hand, I guess building your own remotes would be easier as a group. *IF* the CRTC forces Bell to allow placing remote xSLAMs just like the Stingers Bell puts on the side of their OPIs. We have something in the US called a field connection point as well as remote collocation. With the field connection point you physically place a cabinet or other DSLAM near the FDI (cross connect) in remote areas and pay the LEC a large amount of money to connect in a cable you provide to the cross connect field in the box.
We've done 5 of them with Qwest with pretty good success. Some are fed with multiple T1's and a couple are fed with fiber.
I don't see a wholesale/CLEC portion of www.bell.ca so I can't say for sure if that's available but it would be an option if it was. It only made sense for us in business parks that didn't have any ILEC DSL available. | |
|
| | | | |
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
1 edit | Re: Acanac said by djweis :said by CanerisErik :said by Guspaz :On the other hand, I guess building your own remotes would be easier as a group. *IF* the CRTC forces Bell to allow placing remote xSLAMs just like the Stingers Bell puts on the side of their OPIs. We have something in the US called a field connection point as well as remote collocation. With the field connection point you physically place a cabinet or other DSLAM near the FDI (cross connect) in remote areas and pay the LEC a large amount of money to connect in a cable you provide to the cross connect field in the box. We've done 5 of them with Qwest with pretty good success. Some are fed with multiple T1's and a couple are fed with fiber. I don't see a wholesale/CLEC portion of www.bell.ca so I can't say for sure if that's available but it would be an option if it was. It only made sense for us in business parks that didn't have any ILEC DSL available. AFAIK, we don't have anything like that, despite the fact that an ever increasing number of loops is served from remotes (well over 50% in certain bands now). Bell will always find excuses and nonsense to feed the CRTC to prevent CLECs and DSLSPs from accessing remotes.
Just look at the past five years.
Here's a perfect example of their blatant disregard for their ILEC obligations and CRTC, from three years ago: »www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2005/···0497.htm
BS seems familiar? | |
|
| |
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | Is that even allowed under the regulations?Somethin doesn't seem legal in all this. | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Acanac said by fatness :Just thinking out loud, that will serve to keep down criticism at the present time. Later, if the caps go into effect and the hubbub had died down, ending the "grandfathering" of existing accounts would generate less criticism. And that's why this has to be fought from the onset, whether you *think* that it directly affects you or not. Even if you *think* this won't affect you in the near future, guaranteed it will down the road. And by then, it will be too late, because the precedence will already be made. It's too easy to sit back and take a passive stance, thinking only of self, instead of as a whole. | |
|
| | Walter Dnes
join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by Acanac Inc :Just got back from the conference and here is what Bell is proposing. 512Kbps service will be limited to 2GB per month 5Mbps service will be limited to 60GB per month Let me get this straight. Bell sells X bandwidth to a re-seller. Why is it any of Bell's f***ing business whether those 3rd-party ADSL re-sellers doled out the 10 or 20 gigs at 512 kbits or 5 megabits to their customers??? If Bell's network can stand the hit at 5 megabits, why can't it stand the hit of half-a-megabit.
Full disclosure... I recently switched down from 5 megabits to 512 kbits on Teksavvy, saving $5/month in the process. I don't do P2P. Here's a dirty little secret. I find the half-meg speeds perfectly sufficient *FOR MY NEEDS*. YMMV. With the exception of a few really graphics-heavy sites, webpages load just as fast as at 5 megs. The usual roadblock is an overloaded ad-server on the other side of the planet. Even 128-kbit radio streams on Live365 come in fine, thank you.
Here's what I think happened. Bell is like a Detoit auto company, which lures in customers with basic cars, but generates its biggest profit margins by bait-n-switching buyers to more expensive models. With the recent upgrade of the "Lite" profile to 512 kbits SDSL, I believe that many people have come to the same conclusion as me, i.e. 512 kbits is perfectly sufficient. The result is that many new signups are going for 512K, rather than 5 or 6 megabits, and quite a few people are downgrading their 5 or 6 megabit connections to 512 kbits. This will result in reduced profits, and more importantly, reduced bonuses for the Board of Directors.
The usual reaction would be to cripple Sympatico's "Lite" service to the point of uselessness, to drive subscribers to Sympatico's more expensive options. Sympatico was probably telling the truth that the average user uses 10 gigs/month or less. Therefore, the bandwidth had to be reduced to something utterly ridiculous, like 2 gigs. However, the marketeers remembered that last time they tried such a stunt, people left in droves for Sympatico's competitors, which hadn't made followed Sympatico's footsteps. Sympatico realized that they would have make their competitors' Lite offering just as unattractive as Sympatico's. Hence the limits on reseller users' bandwidth. | |
|
Jaggie
join:2007-08-09
Mississauga, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Wow Wow Wow what a bunch of scumbags bell is.
There trying to limit there Wholesalers to the same low *** caps they impose on there own customers but at a slower speed. Don't see what give them the right to do so since u guys don't buy your bandwith off them.
If this was to go though the only difference between Wholesalers and Bell would be Tech Support and slower "UP TO" then what bell offers atm.
Also seeing how there 7Meg DSL is now $42 and 10Meg With 100GB is $52, These steps bell is taking look more and more anti-competitive everyday as they try to kill off Wholesalers something needs to be done. | |
|
|
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | Re: Acanac Thats why I asked if it's legal under the regulations inplace now.May need to launch a lawsuit or somethin. | |
|
Jaggie
join:2007-08-09
Mississauga, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
2 edits | Bell's Next Step:
Telling wholesalers the have to offload there call support to India so bell can compete with Acanc/Teksavvy/Ebox etc... far Superior call centers.
This seems to be bell's new line of thinking in competing with there wholesale brotherins. THROTTLE/CAP/CRIPPLE so they offer roughly the same service as sympatico does or til wholesalers fizzle out and fade away leaving only Bell.
You can bet if bell had it's way there would be no wholesalers just Bell and a few Resellers like Robbers. | |
|
| 
dataiv
join:2002-02-25
Ottawa, ON
 ·Cogeco Voip
·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Acanac Jaggie, hate to nitpick, but you have a few posts in this thread already and you keep using "there" in every single post ...
said by Jaggie :Telling wholesalers the have to offload there call support to India so bell ... ... Telling wholesalers they have to offload THEIR call support ...
said by Jaggie :You can bet if bell had it's way there would be no wholesalers just Bell and a few Resellers like Robbers. You can bet if bell had ITS way there would ... (if you write "it's", just think of it as meaning "it is" ... so does "if bell had it is way there would ..." make any sense? not really.
But basically,
The boy went over there. The boy pointed over there. The boy lived in the Arctic. It was cold there.
vs.
The boy pointed at their house. Their office is too small. Bell tries to mess with their customers... etc.
Use "there" when referring to a concrete or abstract object, or when referring to a place.
Use "their" to indicate possession. So in the case of bell offloading "their" call support .. it is their call centre, so use "their".
End rant... Please, please, please try to use there/their/they're correctly. | |
|
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON | So this idea has to go before the CRTC first before bell can do it right? They may tell bell to fork off on the idea. | |
|
jam_bongo
join:2002-07-17
Toronto, ON | you're saying it doesn't affect current customers, does that include people who signed up for service this month? | |
|
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON | Re: Acanac From my understanding it will only affect new clients as of Jan 1 2009. | |
|
| | mr_hexen
join:2007-08-02
Brampton, ON
1 edit | Re: Acanac said by Acanac Inc :From my understanding it will only affect new clients as of Jan 1 2009. lets not forget how Bell likes to accidently change your account and then claim the "old deals" are no longer available.
you can bet THERE  will be some of those cases. | |
|
| | |
| | |
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
1 edit | Re: Acanac As for the legality that's for the commission to decide. I hope they will refuse it, but from the legal opinion's I have gotten it does not look good.
They will track the usage based on the circuit ID. We pointed out some potential problems with this method. One for example would be if a user where to get a second user name and password from a second provider. The primary provider would have no way to tell how much bandwidth this client would be using through out that specific month. The primary provider would only get a bill at the end of the period. Then the provider would have to pass on the bill to the client or absorb the cost.
In the end this entire scheme if approved will be a logistical nightmare. Bell's billing system is from stone ages and I don't expect it to get any better. | |
|
| | | | 
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
1 edit | Re: Acanac They put down anything on paper yet for the unwashed masses to sift through? | |
|
ancodia
join:2006-07-10
·Cogeco Cable
3 edits | doesnt it strike anyone as odd that ALL the big providers are pushing a 60 gig cap? You can't tell me that with all the different infrastructures in place from various providers they all can only support 60 gig per customer. There is something going on behind the scene that is driving all this.
That said, the DSL providers need to join together, look at where all your customers are and get serious about installing your own equipment. I'd be more than willing to sign a 1 or 2 year deal with whatever provider can deliver using there own equipment. It's time to start driving in the final nails into the Bell coffin. | |
|
|
An0nym0us
@host36-server.com
| Re: Acanac said by ancodia :doesnt it strike anyone as odd that ALL the big providers are pushing a 60 gig cap? maybe 'typical' (read 'low usage') bandwidth statistically peaks at 60gb/month (and some higher value for people that use p2p and stream things often). so they figure that browsing/email/etc is the 60gb peak and that's what they want their currently priced service to be used for. the new stuff: streaming/p2p/etc they want people to pay a premium for. | |
|
|
GyroCaptain
@teksavvy.com
| quote:
doesnt it strike anyone as odd that ALL the big providers are pushing a 60 gig cap? You can't tell me that with all the different infrastructures in place from various providers they all can only support 60 gig per customer. There is something going on behind the scene that is driving all this.
EXACTLY what I was thinking as well. And the more I ponder this, the more I suspect that what a few posters above have said will eventually come to fruition: they want to eliminate P2P, Usenet binary groups, free youtube, and the like since it competes with their "movie download" service. Just look at the whole Utopia thing..charging dsl prices with a 50 gig cap! W..T..F!
TekSavvy/Acanac absolutely have to band up and fight Goliath (bell) otherwise we'll be at their mercy forever. This whole fiasco reminds me of the opening scene from Saving Private Ryan. You can guess who the Nazis are. | |
|
j3richo
join:2007-12-08
Gatineau, QC | paul, did they say anything about ADSL2+?
also maybe each ISP can "change" the current agreements to "lifetime contracts with no cancellation penalties" with their customers, I wonder if that would work lol | |
|
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
2 edits | Re: Acanac 7Mbps service was briefly brought up, but I don't recall any ETA. I believe a questions was asked if user based billing would be implemented with this upcoming service. If I recall correctly the answer was yes. | |
|
tiger9
join:2005-08-01
Ont,Canada | Goddammit, at this rate, Rogers will be competitive compared to Bell. That's sure not a good thing. | |
|
grayfox
join:2007-12-10
Whitby, ON | Any ETA on the 16meg service.
Also for users like me with 2 connections in ml-ppp, can bell accurately track are usage ?. | |
|
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
| Re: Acanac said by grayfox :Any ETA on the 16meg service. Also for users like me with 2 connections in ml-ppp, can bell accurately track are usage ?. We were given no ETA on the 16Mbps service. As for the two connections. I don't think it will matter. They don't plan on tracking the usage based on the user ID. The will do it on the circuit ID. So if you have two connections they will track it for both. Technically you should have 120GB of monthly bandwidth over the two lines. | |
|
| | |
Gnaraktol
join:2008-03-18
Gatineau, QC
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| I think the next fight should go to court and not CRTC... this last move HAS to be illegal... Too bad Bell has lots of lawyer money...
The amount of data that passes through a pipe in a month is irrelevant to them, they may have an argument about the speeds because pipes can only handle so much at a time (not that I agree with throttling) - and that's what their fight at the CRTC is about, but total bandwidth passing in a month is ridiculous... it becomes another subject.
it's not like after 1 million gigs the DSLAM craps and they need to buy a new one or the wires wear out due to "bandwidth", sigh!
this last one is not about congestion, it's about control/monopolizing... The current tarrif contracts must say something about them being able to make changes to the traffic going through, if it's allowed only as a result of "network management to prevent blah blah blah" they can't use congestion on this last one... | |
|
theninjasqua
join:2007-09-26
Oakville, ON | Did they give any reasoning as to why they wanted to do this?
--
-theninjasquad | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
MisawaGQ
Divi Filius
Premium
join:2002-12-19
Mississauga
| What is it going to say about this country if Bell is allowed to so blatantly use their position as a monopoly to cripple their competition? This is a fairly clear-cut case of anti-competitive behaviour, yet I can't shake the feeling that it's going to be met with a sympathetic response from the CRTC.
--
"Let them hate, so long as they fear" -- Lucius Accius | |
|
|
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Acanac said by MisawaGQ : yet I can't shake the feeling that it's going to be met with a sympathetic response from the CRTC. *Sympathetic* my a$$ ..... if the CRTC allows any of this to happen, then we will all know for sure that the left hand is feeding the right and vice-versa. | |
|
| |
| | |
| | | elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON
| Re: Acanac said by mazhurg :» www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s···=SciTechPrentice does not appear to have an issue with stuff he does not use or understand(as In internet and throttling) ; but try to charge him $0.15 per txt message? Bah, just as crooked as the other ones. The Internet is just a series of tubes to him | |
|
|
theninjasqua
join:2007-09-26
Oakville, ON | Was there any mention of allowing for the option to purchase more quota? Or is it everyone is locked at 60 regardless, and going over means paying overage fees?
--
-theninjasquad | |
|
|
MisawaGQ
Divi Filius
Premium
join:2002-12-19
Mississauga | Re: Acanac If they locked everyone at 60, how could they charge users for additional bandwidth at a 2000% markup over cost? | |
|
TFArchive
Premium
join:2003-02-03
Gloucester, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | Isn't a gig-e capable of 640TB a month? A 10Mbit can do 3.2TB each direction, 100mbit 32TB each direction, 1000mbit should be 320TB each direction.
Of course you can only expect max 80% usage before issues could start occurring but that is still a lot of bandwidth. | |
|
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
1 edit | Re: Acanac said by TFArchive :Isn't a gig-e capable of 640TB a month? A 10Mbit can do 3.2TB each direction, 100mbit 32TB each direction, 1000mbit should be 320TB each direction. Of course you can only expect max 80% usage before issues could start occurring but that is still a lot of bandwidth. Thank you for the correction. I have now updated the above post. The per GB prices do remain the same.
Once again thank you for caching that mistake. | |
|
| |
riojew04532
@cia.com
| Re: Acanac Thank you Paul for your replies. I really appreciate hearing the ISP's take on how they would like costs to change if they need to (CRTC finds that proposed costs & billing models are ok and needed).
I would also like to clarify that when talking about GAS or wholesale xDSL in general, I use transit to mean the carriage cost of whatever system I describe, although I guess internal transit is more accurate. And it is a big number; if there really was 5Mbps for each user, the total internal transit would be 10Tbits downstream. I don't think all the wavelengths combined Bell has between Toronto and Montreal (ie. TO-Ottawa-Mtl + TO-NYC-MTL X 36 wavelengths X 10Gbit) could carry that much, nor could 40Gbps upgrades furnish that. I know that's not realistic use today, but in future it could be... 3Mbps iptv unicast, 10Mbps for HD. I also think that capacity has an exponential cost; 40Gbps is more expensive to buy than 4 X 10Gbps in some cases. And every element in the chain needs to be upgraded to support an upgrade at any one point.
Disclaimer: I'm formerly from the business side of IT consulting for telecoms and am pretty familiar with the ILEC infrastructure in north america in broad terms. Lots of experience in OSS, FTTN and legacy to IP network transformation (DS/OC/ATM/Sonet/T1/ISDN/DMS to IP/Ethernet/DWDM/ROADM/xDSL/metro ethernet/VoIP). I guess I sympathize with big carriers to an extent, and KNOW that their labour/integration/maintenance/support costs are absurdly high. But I'm also a consumer, and an advocate of open networks, avid P2P user and youtube fan. And I use the only non-throttled providers in both areas I live in, which means FiOS and 3web.
My dream infrastructure is that everyhome has a decent last mile link to enable a triple play, provided by VDSL2 or GPON (rural clients might suffer with bonded ADSL2+ and more limited options), where each element of the triple play has a wholesale and retail component. For example, providers can buy a 5Mbps ip/internet pipe, a 128K ultra-high QoS VoIP pipe, a business could have a 10Mbps IP/MPLS VPN and so on as discrete elements within the last mile. It reduces cost and port usage because all providers can share a single port/line/etc for the last mile, instead of say having Bell IPTV over one pair, and the ISP (Acanac/TSI/Sympatico/XYZ) over another: 2 ports, 2 modems, 2 copper pairs all mean more $ spent by everyone. This is very much like utopia in Utah: every service is provided over a single fiber regardless of provider, with each provider paying a portion of the cost of providing the link and internal transit.
Lastly, regarding FTTH: I think the big driver for FTTH for ILEC's is that they can guarantee retail-price levels of return on investment and avoid wholesale integration costs by being exempt from open access requirements. In many countries, FTTH infrastructure is exempt from resale requirements & regulation. Perhaps Bell et al are holding out for that. Or perhaps its still that the costs in the short term for FTTH are much higher than xDSL. | |
|
theninjasqua
join:2007-09-26
Oakville, ON
| It is really mind boggling seeing the way Bell is digging themselves a hole this past year. This company has really taken a dive bomb.
If in a terrifying world and the CRTC denies the CAIP injunction, and allows Bell to get away with these new shenanigans, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot. It would drive a lot of people to cable I think. I know I would consider it, that is of course until cable starts being just as limiting as Bell is.
Our country is seriously in distress when it comes to internet.
--
-theninjasquad | |
|
| HeadSpinning
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
| Re: Acanac said by theninjasqua : It would drive a lot of people to cable I think. I know I would consider it, that is of course until cable starts being just as limiting as Bell is. Cable already caps and throttles. | |
|
| |
theninjasqua
join:2007-09-26
Oakville, ON
| Re: Acanac said by HeadSpinning :said by theninjasqua : It would drive a lot of people to cable I think. I know I would consider it, that is of course until cable starts being just as limiting as Bell is. Cable already caps and throttles. I know, but the throttling is no where near as invasive as Bell is. Plus the price/speed ratio is much better, and they do have some options for more bandwidth tiers.
--
-theninjasquad | |
|
|
|
|
