4 ms·

This doesn't explaining what's going on very clearly. Small Canadian ISPs are allowed to use the infrastructure of Bell Canada at wholesale rates in order to f

This doesn't explaining what's going on very clearly. Small Canadian ISPs are allowed to use the infrastructure of Bell Canada at wholesale rates in order to foster competition. This has been reasonably successful. What has happened now is that the CRTC ruled that Bell is allowed to impose the same per-user bandwidth caps on its wholesale customers as it does on its own users. Since the smaller ISPs should simply be getting bandwidth from Bell, this is totally ridiculous. Their ability to compete with Bell on price or levels of service is almost totally eliminated. When my friends and family in Ontario were explaining this to me I kept having to ask them to repeat themselves because it boggled my mind how ISPs using bell's infrastructure could be subject to those sorts of restrictions.

jacquesm 16y ago
The Canadian government has a long history of propping up the monopolies operating inside its borders, especially when it has a stake in them. For additional entertainment read up on the LCBO and the Egg Board (no, that's not a joke).
- cal5k 16y ago
  Not to mention the Canadian Wheat Board, perhaps the most egregious of all monopsonies (apparently it's not a "monopoly" because it is the only BUYER of wheat).
  - derefr 16y ago
    Monopsony.
    - cal5k 16y ago
      I... believe that's what I said?
- falldowngoboom 16y ago
  And the dairy board. And the turkey board. And the beer store.
  - jarek 16y ago
    Don't forget Tim Hortons.
neilk 16y ago
Thank you. I'm Canadian but I have been out of the country for a longish time now. The whole debate made no sense to me. Yeah it sucks to be charged per byte, but surely Bell has the right to charge however they like. In the linked article, The Tyee's conspiracy theory that they wanted to force people back to television seemed inane. But if it's about imposing a user-based rate structure on Bell's competitors that use them as a bandwidth provider, that makes perfect sense.
- MikeCapone 16y ago
  > but surely Bell has the right to charge however they like. In the linked article, The Tyee's conspiracy theory that they wanted to force people back to television seemed inane. Bell infrastructure (phone lines) is basically a regulated monopoly the same way that a water utility is. They certainly shouldn't have the right to charge whatever they like and crush competition as they please, making things worse for everybody except themselves. There was this quote in the Globe & Mail today (national paper): "download caps in Canada have become so low that they are beginning to look less like traffic management measures and more like a defensive manoeuvre, by which companies such as Bell, Rogers and Shaw try to protect profits at their TV distribution and broadcasting units." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/internet-usage-caps-draw-ire-of-business/article1887223/page2/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/int...
  - nkassis 16y ago
    My bandwidth cap is almost the same now on Bell as it was when I first got a cable modem back in 2000 on Videotron. It's ridiculous. 25GB is a joke.
  - neilk 16y ago
    Well, I left Canada in 2000... before Harper et al. Forgive me for being behind the times. And when I said Bell has the right to charge whatever, I was making a distinction between their consumer packages and their wholesale rates, both of which are regulated but obviously the wholesale rate should be as close to the actual cost of bandwidth as possible.
mustpax 16y ago
The situation is much more complicated than that. Smaller ISPs only piggy back on Bell's telephone lines only in the so-called last mile of the connection. The resellers have their own DSLAM equipment at the switchboards and they have to make their own peering arrangements to the rest of the internet. Bell's telephone lines have been (still are) heavily subsidized by the government, which is why the government is requiring Bell to share the last mile in the first place. This last bit of regulation nullifies any pro-competitive effects of sharing the last mile. Owning critical communications infrastructure is not Bell Canada's god given right.
- ergo98 16y ago
  The parent sits at 38 points while being almost entirely wrong. I want endless bandwidth as well, but this is absolutely the decline of this site, with "what I want" and "the way I present the world to support my bias" crowding out "what is real" and "actual fact". Isn't that sort of tactic best left on reddit?
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    1. It is within the realm of technology to profitably provide unmetered bandwidth at standard rates, with minimal shaping during peak use hours. To borrow the phrase seen used on here with reference to nuclear power, bandwidth is almost "too cheap to meter." That's what is real. 2. What the ISPs and/or infrastructure owners are charging is orders of magnitude beyond covering costs. Bandwidth is getting cheaper as technology advances and old lines are paid for, and yet they are raising prices. 3. Many of the hackers on this site are developing cloud-based solutions to computing problems, solutions which can advance the well-being of the human race and provide new value to the marketplace. ISPs' greed has stifled and will continue to stifle this economic and societal growth. Given these three points, I think it's clear why commenters are arguing against ridiculously overpriced Internet access.
    - ergo98 16y ago
      Arguing against "ridiculously overpriced internet access" is not bolstered by, pardon the expression, bullshit. 99% of what has been written here, and in the mirror ravings on Reddit, is just pure, unadulterated crap. It's factless nonsense that immediately makes the speaker just look like a selfish twit, desperately trying to spin a reality where only their needs are served. This is not the standards for HN. It is, if anything, the antithesis of HN.

jacquesm 16y ago

The Canadian government has a long history of propping up the monopolies operating inside its borders, especially when it has a stake in them. For additional entertainment read up on the LCBO and the Egg Board (no, that's not a joke).

cal5k 16y ago
Not to mention the Canadian Wheat Board, perhaps the most egregious of all monopsonies (apparently it's not a "monopoly" because it is the only BUYER of wheat).
- derefr 16y ago
  Monopsony.
  - cal5k 16y ago
    I... believe that's what I said?
falldowngoboom 16y ago
And the dairy board. And the turkey board. And the beer store.
- jarek 16y ago
  Don't forget Tim Hortons.

neilk 16y ago

Thank you. I'm Canadian but I have been out of the country for a longish time now. The whole debate made no sense to me. Yeah it sucks to be charged per byte, but surely Bell has the right to charge however they like. In the linked article, The Tyee's conspiracy theory that they wanted to force people back to television seemed inane. But if it's about imposing a user-based rate structure on Bell's competitors that use them as a bandwidth provider, that makes perfect sense.

MikeCapone 16y ago
> but surely Bell has the right to charge however they like. In the linked article, The Tyee's conspiracy theory that they wanted to force people back to television seemed inane. Bell infrastructure (phone lines) is basically a regulated monopoly the same way that a water utility is. They certainly shouldn't have the right to charge whatever they like and crush competition as they please, making things worse for everybody except themselves. There was this quote in the Globe & Mail today (national paper): "download caps in Canada have become so low that they are beginning to look less like traffic management measures and more like a defensive manoeuvre, by which companies such as Bell, Rogers and Shaw try to protect profits at their TV distribution and broadcasting units." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/internet-usage-caps-draw-ire-of-business/article1887223/page2/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/int...
- nkassis 16y ago
  My bandwidth cap is almost the same now on Bell as it was when I first got a cable modem back in 2000 on Videotron. It's ridiculous. 25GB is a joke.
- neilk 16y ago
  Well, I left Canada in 2000... before Harper et al. Forgive me for being behind the times. And when I said Bell has the right to charge whatever, I was making a distinction between their consumer packages and their wholesale rates, both of which are regulated but obviously the wholesale rate should be as close to the actual cost of bandwidth as possible.

mustpax 16y ago

The situation is much more complicated than that. Smaller ISPs only piggy back on Bell's telephone lines only in the so-called last mile of the connection. The resellers have their own DSLAM equipment at the switchboards and they have to make their own peering arrangements to the rest of the internet. Bell's telephone lines have been (still are) heavily subsidized by the government, which is why the government is requiring Bell to share the last mile in the first place. This last bit of regulation nullifies any pro-competitive effects of sharing the last mile. Owning critical communications infrastructure is not Bell Canada's god given right.

ergo98 16y ago
The parent sits at 38 points while being almost entirely wrong. I want endless bandwidth as well, but this is absolutely the decline of this site, with "what I want" and "the way I present the world to support my bias" crowding out "what is real" and "actual fact". Isn't that sort of tactic best left on reddit?
- nitrogen 16y ago
  1. It is within the realm of technology to profitably provide unmetered bandwidth at standard rates, with minimal shaping during peak use hours. To borrow the phrase seen used on here with reference to nuclear power, bandwidth is almost "too cheap to meter." That's what is real. 2. What the ISPs and/or infrastructure owners are charging is orders of magnitude beyond covering costs. Bandwidth is getting cheaper as technology advances and old lines are paid for, and yet they are raising prices. 3. Many of the hackers on this site are developing cloud-based solutions to computing problems, solutions which can advance the well-being of the human race and provide new value to the marketplace. ISPs' greed has stifled and will continue to stifle this economic and societal growth. Given these three points, I think it's clear why commenters are arguing against ridiculously overpriced Internet access.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    Arguing against "ridiculously overpriced internet access" is not bolstered by, pardon the expression, bullshit. 99% of what has been written here, and in the mirror ravings on Reddit, is just pure, unadulterated crap. It's factless nonsense that immediately makes the speaker just look like a selfish twit, desperately trying to spin a reality where only their needs are served. This is not the standards for HN. It is, if anything, the antithesis of HN.