Go Back   XplornetSUCKS > News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-05-2015, 05:32 PM
buttitchi buttitchi is offline
offline "Global Moderator" Retired
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 213
Default Bell whines again, but Netflix is awesome. june 2015

Bell has a new head. Same twisted views as the old head.
Whines about how Canadians are exercising their Right to access media all over this planet. Calls her VPN using teenage daughter a thief for accessing U.S. Netflix.

Bell, whom is being sued for 3/4 of a billion dollars for unlawfully intercepting and selling their customers privacy protected data to third parties. Customer opt-out is not legal justification for data theft.
As soon as some Bell executives are sent to prison for their crimes, justice will be served. Until then, any small fine is just pocket change to them.

Michael Geist

Turcke’s claim that the minority of Canadian subscribers who access U.S. Netflix through VPNs are “stealing” simply does not withstand legal scrutiny. Those subscribers might be breaching the Netflix terms and conditions, but that is not breaking the law.

Similarly, arguments that the subscribers violate copyright law are very weak. There might be a claim that subscribers circumvent geographic restrictions (thereby violating new rules against circumventing technological protection measures), but there are no damages involved and it is up to Netflix to enforce its rights to counter the circumvention. Since there is no chance the company will sue its customers, the focus on legal remedies is misplaced.

Bell’s insistence that VPN usage creates a problem is not very convincing. Under the current system, consumers pay for content, Netflix is paid for its service and Netflix compensates creators in multimillion-dollar licensing deals. If content owners were seriously concerned with VPN usage, they could simply refuse to license their content to Netflix until it cracked down on the practice.

Moreover, Bell and Netflix employ different business models (Bell’s CraveTV requires a broadcast subscription) and feature little overlap in content. Given the differences, Canadians accessing U.S. Netflix are not doing so to access content that is otherwise available on Bell’s service.

Bell’s emphasis on VPNs also fails to acknowledge that the technology has multiple uses. Privacy protection is among the most important uses, since VPNs allow users to conduct secure communications away from the prying eyes of widespread government surveillance. Bell’s comments may leave some Internet users thinking that VPNs are “socially unacceptable” when precisely the opposite is true.

Bell's business model is dead. Forcing your "customers" into overpriced products is borderline criminal.
Below the line fees, that allow one price to be displayed and another higher price at billing, is called fraud.

Shaw is raising rates again in August. Is any money being spent on infrastructure? Plenty being spent on executives salaries.

Teksavvy for internet. DSL and Cable. Shaw is doubling rates on the independent ISP's soon. Making the independents cost more than Shaw's own internet packages.
Fair market does not exist. Corrupt politicians have seen to that. Those who have been forced to use Xplornet because of tax payer broadband funding having "conditions" that block anyone else from coming to your area.

Those on Xplornet, you would like to go to a VOIP product, but does your connection have the quality to allow that. You can get a VOIP phone number and minutes for $5 a month and make plenty of calls(local and long distance) in that cost frame. Pipe it through your always on computer(soft phone) or buy a ATA(analog telephone adapter) and use you current phone hardware. 911 fee separate($1.50 a month) and your account should be registered to your current address.
If you have good cellular reception, do you even know how many voice minutes you use on either? How many people use/need the home phone? Why have both a land line and a cell phone?

Think cancelling services is easy?

When you cancel a company on good standing, no money owed, is it really needed to put blocks on any payment methods to the company? Yes, blocks are needed.
Auto payments are one of the most dangerous forms of paying for services. There really needs to be a law that gives a choice between receiving a bill, paying it and auto payment.
The worst is when the company will sell your suddenly delinquent account(you owe nothing, but here is random charges) to a collection company within two months, without properly contacting you.
Hi Diddly Ho, Good Neighborino

Last edited by buttitchi : 06-05-2015 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2015, 05:33 AM
Shjinta Shjinta is offline
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 44

Those who have been forced to use Xplornet because of tax payer broadband funding having "conditions" that block anyone else from coming to your area.
That right there. That's the speel I got from the idiots who run things in my town. They booted everyone out except Xplornet, so we're stuck with it.. Forced practically the whole town onto One tower, and they refuse to repair the tower when it's damage, and It's like last on the list to get the LTE upgrade.. Yay for Canada... We bend over all the time.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.