|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:18 pm
I don't know if it's only for Canada , British Columbia, or Vancouver or what not. But I heard that starting from June you need to pay for the internet based on the amount of time your on it o____o
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:54 pm
I heard that's false. Or that it could be for just some of the companies. :/
I also heard it was based on bandwidth - or amount of Internet - not time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:55 pm
People get free internet????????/
Crikey!!! I have to pay for mine........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:37 pm
Shady-chan I heard that's false. Or that it could be for just some of the companies. :/
I also heard it was based on bandwidth - or amount of Internet - not time. isn't tat the same thing o___o LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:40 pm
its only for downloads, and i dont think they will even pass the bill lots off people oppose it sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:44 pm
SmileUponMyStar Shady-chan I heard that's false. Or that it could be for just some of the companies. :/
I also heard it was based on bandwidth - or amount of Internet - not time. isn't tat the same thing o___o LOL  No, it's not. "Time" would be that they're limiting to how many hours you get to use, not how much.
Meaning you can download large files, but not get in trouble. Like those AOL CDs that say "1400 hours free."
"Bandwidth" would be the amount, therefore limiting what sites you go to and what you download.
So as long as you don't hit the monthly limit, you can be on as much as you like.
Click my Pokemon, please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:45 pm
 Here in the states some companies will make you pay for a certain amount of bandwidth. I have heard that they are also trying to make an internet tax. Although I highly doubt it would pass, how in the bloody hell can you tax the internet? I didn't know they were doing the same thing in Canada. o,o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:53 pm
That would require the government controlling the Internet. Which will never go down well if this happens. Net Neutrality ftw.
Click my Pokemon, please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:27 pm
The Government stepped in opposing the internet cap, since it would hinder smaller companies offering internet services as well, I believe.
But it looks grim for the cap. No one aside from the larger internet providers want the cap. So I highly doubt the bill will be passed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:44 pm
that would totally suck. evil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:50 pm
Lol, actually:
the government is stop to control big internet tycoon companies from charging their users, by internet use anyhow.
Because it would basically drive up revenues for sites like YouTube and Facebook, making it almost impossible for smaller sites to make a reasonable profit...(monopolies.)
So the big government is trying to ban internet usage at all..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
