Ontario's severed ties with Starlink impedes access to legal services in remote First Nations
Dearche @ Dearche @lemmy.ca Posts 0Comments 412Joined 2 yr. ago
Dearche @ Dearche @lemmy.ca
Posts
0
Comments
412
Joined
2 yr. ago
I see. Didn't realize that Xplore wasn't Canadian anymore, nor that actual performance was that bad. I just saw some speed tests and those didn't look that bad.
That said, I still don't think we should be spending $100 million on Starlink. For the purpose its suppose to serve, I would think that we could meet all the proposed needs with single digit million at most, even if we have to rely on Starlink to do so. We taxpayers are being shafted hard by such a contract.
If private individuals want to get Starlink for their normal internet, I don't oppose such a decision since it's not like we have good alternatives for high speed satellite internet until the EU's version gets fully deployed. But that's a decision on an individual level. A provincial decision should minimize excess expenditure on something that's a pure luxury and instead concentrate on meeting the needs of its people first, since Ford is already pulling so much funding from public resources to pay for his vanity projects that keep getting rejected by the courts.
Do you have electricity? That probably means you have poles erected for your area. Fibre can be installed onto those same poles, and it's the ISPs' job to ensure as complete coverage as possible.
Like I said before, this is specific to Bell Fibe, not 56k modems. In the first place, DSL is still more than good enough for such a purpose, or do you not remember the early days of streaming where pretty much nobody had fiber optics and had to run dedicated cable or DSL that piggybacked on regular phone lines?
I agree its subpar. But my question is, is the solution worth 1.5% the entire province's budget?
Pretty much all of Toronto voted against him, with only rural GTA voting for.
It sucks that it's those that wanted this bastard out are the ones suffering because everybody else thought he was okay because he ignored them the entire previous term, while those who had been suffering his wrath the entire time have to suffer once again because of those completely unaffected by him.
At least Norther Ontario got the message. Too bad that was like five ridings.
What about wired, if you're in the GTA? I remember a few years back Bell offered free hookup if you signed up for Fibe. Don't know if they still do it, or what sort of restrictions there are, but it seemed to be a blanket offer at the time.
In the first place, this is an issue for legal cases, and I think that the province providing a temporary connection to those who need virtual court services makes more sense than giving Musk 100 million to give everybody permanent internet. This doesn't stop anybody who has no viable alternatives for day-to-day use from using Starlink, just that I think it's not the province's business spending so much money for a small selection's decisions. The cities already massively subsidize rural Canadians, so I can't help but feel like this is a poor way to give a much needed service to those in need.
We don't need to give all rural Canadians free internet at a cost of 1.5% of the entire provincial budget.
My bad. I guess I mixed this up with something else.
Even still, the bandwidth and latency of traditional satellite internet isn't bad enough to be an issue for this. You can still stream with latency below 1s, more than enough for streaming, just not good enough for online games.
Besides, Xplore is a Canadian provider that does this already to service these areas specifically. Why go for a foreign provider when we have a perfectly serviceable local one for such a purpose? Yes, it's not a great provider, but for this use case, it is good enough and doesn't require giving a hundred million to a guy who's helping to destroy this country.
It's just insane that he can say these things out loud during a rally as his prime talking point, and people actually support his view.
Denying rights for the sake of what? Perceived safety? This is literally how so many of the greatest trageties happened in this world, including this country.
I'm a proud Canadian, but I am also hyper-aware of the fact that my own countrymen were rounded up, had their property confiscated, and put into detention centers less than a century ago for the sake of "safety". That was the Japanese during WWII. Happened here and in the US, despite many of them volunteering to fight the Nazis the moment Canada entered the war. Some even managed to get deployed to Europe before their family members got locked up "just in case" some of them would side with Japan.
Every time someone mentions the infringement or revocation of rights, I'm reminded of that time thousands of completely innocent people got treated as cattle because of their appearances. This can happen to any group, for any reason the moment we allow the government to hold such power against us.
Would Conservative voters like it if PP got voted in and implemented such laws, then a few elections down the line, voting Conservative in the past is enough to get you locked up? Because this is exactly the sort of powers you are giving the government by agreeing with such policies. Hell, for voting for PP in general when he's so openly pushing for such laws.
I'm not for single issue voting, but I do think when someone has this bad of an idea, that single issue should disqualify someone from getting people's votes.
More affordable for high use, sure, but this article is speaking about for emergency use, which means that you'll almost never use it. Besides, the smallest version of Starlink still requires you to carry a laptop sized satellite antennae, compared to internet phone which is literally just a mobile phone the size of some of the early bar phones. One you can carry in your pocket at all times, the other useless unless if you're with your car at minimum along with any other devices needed to make it work.
Besides that, latency matters for shit in this case anyways.
The only use for Starlink that isn't serviced by more traditional means is high speed high bandwidth internet, but it doesn't make any sense why the province should give Adolf Musk any money to do so, let alone a tenth of a billion. People who want that service can pay for it themselves while the province can provide something more suited for lower level or emergency use that costs only a fraction the price and doesn't require signing with an overgrown child that manically laughs as he helps put his own country into the toilet.
Starlink isn't the only satellite phones and internet available in Canada, not to mention all the alternatives you could get.
For example, how about cell towers? If the government paid for them, then no individual company can monopolize them, so anybody could get access to their use.
Not to mention that Spain's setting up their own satellite internet services as well Starlink style, so why pay the Trumpist when we can pay an actual ally that hasn't blatantly betrayed all their alliances and agreements?
I don't agree that's the point of DV shelters. The entire point of them is to be a way for victims to be separated from their abusers. It's entirely a short term solution to a long term problem, but it's a step that is needed to be able to have a long term solution, regardless of the gender of the victim. Not being separated from the abuser means that the victim is primed to further abuse, or be convinced that escape is impossible.
All the other services are available to both genders for sure, but that's because most of it isn't DV specific in the first place (putting aside divorce lawyers at least).
The issue I'm saying is that the first step is the most crucial and virtually a prerequisite towards a solution, yet there are zero facilities for men in the entire country? Maybe it's different now, but at least it wasn't in 2013, though I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to know. But you would think that at a minimum, there should be at least one such facilities in every major city in the country, right? Even if can only handle two or three people at most, with a part-time assistant to help the victims.
There's a massive difference between being underfunded, and having zero resources, and that's what I think is the biggest problem. It's not about being poorly funded, or poorly serviced, but a complete absence that's the same as saying that this isn't an issue, despite police reports themselves saying that it certainly is.
Apparently in some parts of that state, prices have dropped by half already. The same is happening in Texas, and a few other states, though admittedly the trend had started last year. Hard to imagine how bad it is right now after Trump.
I'm not arguing against the idea that shelters should be gender specific, or that most shelters should cater to women. Statistically, 80% of all DV reports are made by women, though studies suggest that only 50% of DV cases the woman is the victim.
But even ignoring that, it's major problem that there are zero shelters for men in the entire country. 20% of all reported cases have no system in place to protect the victim of DV. That's insane. It's like a city having a boil water advisory, but bottled water not being available because all the shipments were diverted to another larger city.
No amount of equipment or expertize matters when there's no money to do work. Evergrand was billions in the hole and many of its employees hadn't been paid in months before going bankrupt. Not only that, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of condos that are unfinished due to the bankruptcy, and that means that tens or hundreds of thousands of people who are more than a million in the hole with nothing to show for it. Their entire life savings, along with their retirement plan is gone, along with thousands instantly out of work.
This is the sort of things that major recessions are built from, and has repeatedly in the west. Unless if you can pinpoint a specific reason why China is immune to such disruptions, it is only willful blindness that can explain China as not being in a recession because of it.
And as for the factories, they're not being built, they're being abandoned. For example, Foxconn city (forget its actual name) shut down and moved to India. A city of close to a million people disappeared and was abandoned because the only employer moved out of the country.
You're the one blindly following propaganda if you're ignoring such obvious signs of an economic downturn, because "the government said things were good", like how Trump's been saying that the "tariffs will make everything better".
Well, capitalism itself is an incentive structure. Profits over everything else, and all that.
But because capitalism fundamentally doesn't incentivizing making life better (in fact, it's so short sighted that it benefits more from misery than happiness), you need external forces to force incentives that align with benefiting humankind. To maximize happiness rather than misery is part of the role of government, as governments are beholden to its population, and its population is most incentivized to strive for happiness.
This is why things fall apart and become dystopic when governments stop fearing its population and instead fear the corporations that line the pockets of politicians.
Argue all those points. Each one hits a different group, so cater your message to the group you're talking to. Parents to the withdrawal of public school and daycare funding, climate change to young voters, the privatization of healthcare and how private healthcare is several times more expensive wherever public healthcare doesn't exist to older people and those with illnesses like diabetes, the fact that they hate non-standard heteros for LGBT.
The Cons only exist for hypercapitalists, so simply tell people the thing that they're worried about the most and how the Cons will actively hurt their greatest interest. They even hate resource workers, because despite Alberta being the richest province in the country, the people are some of the poorest because all the money gets taken away from the workers and put into the pockets of billionaires due to having some of the lowest tax rates in the country.
To be honest, it's all about incentives. If you shift regulations to make the most incentivized system to be based around the greatest amount of pleasant housing, they would do that. But they didn't in the early days, and now the strongest forces to prevent such regulations from being implemented are property owners that fear anything that'll devalue their property that they expect to double in value every ten years, many of whom are betting their entire retirement fund on that outcome.
If regions did something like, say, give a tax break for every housing unit built in every project, you'd get a city with nothing but 50 story studio apartments/condos. Not like this is good, but the theory itself is sound.
It was, but that was also, what, 20 years ago? Sentiment has changed massively and now the numbers are closer to 30%. The Bloc doesn't even talk about separation issues anymore because it tends to reduce support whenever they do. Though it is still part of their mandate last I heard.
Turns out that it was a shelter for domestic violence, not sexual assault.
Looks like I was a bit off. Looking it up again, it was a men's shelter for domestic violence. The only one in the entire country was shut down due to a lack of funds over a decade ago. I do remember reading that there was pressure from some feminist groups to shut it down and helped to pull funding, but I can't find articles that mention that, so either I'm remembering wrong, or the article was pulled.
Isn't the the sort of thing you're supposed to complain to the CRTC if the providers refuse to deliver their services within the city? You said you're in the GTA, right? So it's well within their official coverage range.
And even if not, cell coverage according to their maps, extend to almost the whole of Southern Ontario. Together with a decent plan, you could piggyback on that (though I suppose speed would vary on location).