Macleans recently published an op-ed discussing the issue of usage based billing entitled The Internet should be fair—not free—to everyone.
I was really surprised at the op-ed because Macleans is owned by Rogers and the op-ed is heavily slanted towards explaining why UBB is fair and how it's a travesty that the CRTC is back tracking as a result of political pressure.
If the issue was actually debatable the op-ed wouldn't be so bothersome. Yet the very crux of the issue - selling something that costs 3-cents per gig at a cost of $1.50 per gig (a markup that is truly mind boggling and excessive) - is totally ignored in the editorial. UBB as a concept makes sense but UBB in a duopoly market does not (and making the independent ISPs charge based on what Bell is charging - minus a 15 per cent discount - isn't competition at all if the service is already being marked up 400 per cent).
Op-ed's are opinions, so at least Macleans published this from an opinions perspective and didn't wrap it up as a fact-based story. Yet, it's definitely surprising to see them back UBB so publicly and forcefully when there is clearly a conflict of interest given Rogers is their parent company.
In the grand scheme of things though, this kind of thing hurts Rogers' brand. They are taking the exact opposite approach to this issue that Shaw is taking. Instead of evolving with their customers, they are attempting to convince their customers that what they are being charged is fair.
The problem with trying to push back against your own customers is that all you really end up doing is taking short-term damage your brand has suffered and you turn it in to long-term damage. When it comes to the internet Canadians (under 40 anyway) understand the issues and they understand the math, so 'public opinion' is what it is at this point (you're never going to get people to support the notion that $1.50 a gig is reasonable or fair).
Perhaps it's a function of a generation of university-educated citizens, but if you are going to sway public opinion today you have to do so based on hard facts, not selecting facts that support your stance and then hoping that your audience is uneducated enough to simply buy your argument without critically assessing whether what you are saying is correct or not.
The comments section to the editorial was loaded with over 500 comments most of them pointing out facts that were omitted in the op-ed. And kudos to Macleans for not removing those comments.
This is a great example also of why the internet is so essential to democracy. If you simply buy the magazine the only thing you'd read is the op-ed itself. But when you read it online you get to see 500+ responses to the op-ed, which helps people formulate a more rounded perspective on the issue.
So all-in-all a strange op-ed for Macleans to publish but as long as they allow readers to comment it will in the end only server to further bring to light the truth behind UBB.
I was really surprised at the op-ed because Macleans is owned by Rogers and the op-ed is heavily slanted towards explaining why UBB is fair and how it's a travesty that the CRTC is back tracking as a result of political pressure.
If the issue was actually debatable the op-ed wouldn't be so bothersome. Yet the very crux of the issue - selling something that costs 3-cents per gig at a cost of $1.50 per gig (a markup that is truly mind boggling and excessive) - is totally ignored in the editorial. UBB as a concept makes sense but UBB in a duopoly market does not (and making the independent ISPs charge based on what Bell is charging - minus a 15 per cent discount - isn't competition at all if the service is already being marked up 400 per cent).
Op-ed's are opinions, so at least Macleans published this from an opinions perspective and didn't wrap it up as a fact-based story. Yet, it's definitely surprising to see them back UBB so publicly and forcefully when there is clearly a conflict of interest given Rogers is their parent company.
In the grand scheme of things though, this kind of thing hurts Rogers' brand. They are taking the exact opposite approach to this issue that Shaw is taking. Instead of evolving with their customers, they are attempting to convince their customers that what they are being charged is fair.
The problem with trying to push back against your own customers is that all you really end up doing is taking short-term damage your brand has suffered and you turn it in to long-term damage. When it comes to the internet Canadians (under 40 anyway) understand the issues and they understand the math, so 'public opinion' is what it is at this point (you're never going to get people to support the notion that $1.50 a gig is reasonable or fair).
Perhaps it's a function of a generation of university-educated citizens, but if you are going to sway public opinion today you have to do so based on hard facts, not selecting facts that support your stance and then hoping that your audience is uneducated enough to simply buy your argument without critically assessing whether what you are saying is correct or not.
The comments section to the editorial was loaded with over 500 comments most of them pointing out facts that were omitted in the op-ed. And kudos to Macleans for not removing those comments.
This is a great example also of why the internet is so essential to democracy. If you simply buy the magazine the only thing you'd read is the op-ed itself. But when you read it online you get to see 500+ responses to the op-ed, which helps people formulate a more rounded perspective on the issue.
So all-in-all a strange op-ed for Macleans to publish but as long as they allow readers to comment it will in the end only server to further bring to light the truth behind UBB.
Comments
Post a Comment