8 ms·

>The telecommunications situation in Canada is terrible. Your complaint is that some rural area has poor service. Is that not the case around the globe? I've

by ergo98 16y ago

>The telecommunications situation in Canada is terrible. Your complaint is that some rural area has poor service. Is that not the case around the globe? I've had high-speed cable service since long before it was available in most urban centers in the US (much less the rest of the world), including when I lived in a mid-sized town. Here in a suburb of Toronto I've had top-notch, leading-the-bandwidth (15Mbps around the clock) high speed for a low cost for almost a decade. I think our situation is quite good, actually. Broadband penetration is very high, average caps are competitive with the world, and bandwidth numbers lean very high on the curve. There is so much misinformation about this whole situation (not helped by people making "incremental cost" calculations that assume that the infrastructure for infinite bandwidth is already in place): The best is the other post where someone talks about it being Soviet-style central control. The humorous aspect is that CRTC is essentially unwinding that central control, put in place back when Bell was the big, untouchable monopoly. It was then that many of the "unlimited cap" companies were basically given leave to leach off of Bell in the name of competition. Bell is far from alone in providing bulk bandwidth in Canada. If the economics are so straightforward, clearly Teksavvy and the like will just run a Cogent or the like to their distribution. If they don't, ask yourself why not. Ultimately this is a lot of people up in arms because they want their free lunch.

jacquesm 16y ago
Bell owns the lines, it is (or rather, was, I've left Canada 4 years ago) illegal to put lines in by other entities. > Your complaint is that some rural area has poor service. Is that not the case around the globe? No. > I've had high-speed cable service since long before it was available in most urban centers in the US (much less the rest of the world), Good for you :) I had four bonded 28.8 modems and four landlines giving me crappy bandwidth where a simple baseband modem would have done the job but Bell simply refused to remove the chokes from the lines. > Here in a suburb of Toronto I've had top-notch, leading-the-bandwidth (15Mbps around the clock) high speed for a low cost for almost a decade. Toronto is but one very small part of Canada and one of the most populous areas at that. If you run a monopoly you should provide all your customers with equal access to the system, otherwise you should open up the market and get the hell out of the way. > I think our situation is quite good, actually. your situation is quite good. > The best is the other post where someone talks about it being Soviet-style central control. That was pretty poorly worded but the author makes a much better case further on. Also, state propped up monopolies were very much a feature of communist countries. > The humorous aspect is that CRTC is essentially unwinding that central control, put in place back when Bell was the big, untouchable monopoly. It was then that many of the "unlimited cap" companies were basically given leave to leach off of Bell in the name of competition. They'd gladly put their own infrastructure in to the ground, only they're not allowed to. Just like you're not allowed to hop across the border, buy a satellite receiver that receives 'free over the air' programming and operate it legally within Canadas borders (because that would deprive the government sanctioned operators of their subscription fees that they can charge you for that same content).
- ergo98 16y ago
  Your complaint seemed to be entirely based upon the difficulties in getting broadband in a sparsely populated area. And then some big telco coming in to try to undermine it. We've seen the same story again and again, over the globe. There is nothing unique to Canada in that. As to Bell being a monopoly, that's a bit laughable of a concept now. I haven't used any Bell services for personal use in well over a decade, despite being in the center of Bell territory. As to Canada's situation, it regularly ranks in the top tier of broadband penetration and broadband speeds. It sounds like you're the one using your anecdote inappropriately, because actual metrics refute you. They'd gladly put their own infrastructure in to the ground, only they're not allowed to. You're conflating issues. Because of the in-the-ground angle, companies are allowed to terminate twisted-pairs at the switching station, providing their own voice or data services. We recently hooked up a business backup high-speed ADSL line, the line provided by Bell, with the data provided by Cogent. Our primary data service, by the way, is provided by the electric company who have a distribution network of fiber. What is changing is if Bogent terminated that line, but instead of providing their own infrastructure they simply leached off of Bell's. That was put in during the "Soviet style" control. Again, this is all a bunch of people inventing a reality where they can have their free lunch. It is a tiny percentage of people making a loud noise, trying to burn it all down to get their way. I'll happily endure the down-arrows while a rallying mob tries to construct some ridiculous perception of reality.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I don't know who keeps modding you down, you certainly are 'adding to the conversation', sorry about that. > Your complaint seemed to be entirely based upon the difficulties in getting broadband in a sparsely populated area. No, it is mostly centered around Bell playing dirty. Getting broadband in a sparsely populated area is just an example of how they use their resources. Using the legal system to put the squeeze on other ISPs is another. > And then some big telco coming in to try to undermine it. If the big telco is the only game in town then that changes matters considerably. > We've seen the same story again and again, over the globe. There is nothing unique to Canada in that. I live in a rural European area right now, where I live I can choose from > 10 broadband providers with packages up to 20 Mbit/sec. > As to Bell being a monopoly, that's a bit laughable of a concept now. Bell still has an effective monopoly on infrastructure and that is what this article is about, charges that Bell levies on ISPs that are more or less forced to do business with Bell, we're not talking about a consumer monopoly, even though they still profit plenty from their former monopoly in that field. > As to Canada's situation, it regularly ranks in the top tier of broadband penetration and broadband speeds. The situation here is somewhat skewed because a large amount of the Canadian population lives in a very small total area of the country. > It sounds like you're the one using your anecdote inappropriately, because actual metrics refute you. No, it just underscores the issue. For the record, I've also lived in Toronto (King Street) and it is the contrast between the two that strikes me as placing the rural areas at a deliberate disadvantage. If anything Bell should do everything in its power to level the playing field given the monetary advantages they've been allowed to have. > You're conflating issues. Because of the in-the-ground angle, companies are allowed to terminate twisted-pairs at the switching station, providing their own voice or data services. We recently hooked up a backup high-speed ADSL line, the line provided by Bell, with the data provided by Cogent. There is nothing changing in that. Exactly. So how much choice did cogent have in using Bell infrastructure in order to reach you? > What is changing is if Bogent terminated that line, but instead of providing their own infrastructure they simply leached off of Bell's. That was put in during the "Soviet style" control. They did not 'leach of Bells', they have very little choice. Bell owns the roads, if you want your cars on them you'll have to pay toll. > Again, this is all a bunch of people inventing a reality where they can have their free lunch. I really disagree with you there, if they were free to lay their own fiber then that would be one thing but as long as they have no way around Bell they should not be squeezed like this.
pyre 16y ago
> Here in a suburb of Toronto I've had top-notch, > leading-the-bandwidth (15Mbps around the clock) high > speed for a low cost for almost a decade. Toronto is the "New York City" of Canada. Do you look to New York City to be an exact replication of how the entire US looks, works, and functions? This reeks of "Windows never gave me a BSOD therefore all of the people that say they've had a BSOD are lying"-type of argument. Please leave your anecdotes at the door unless you promise to see them for what they really are... anecdotes. When I was living in Toronto the quality of internet service (at least with Bell) depended very much on the area. In some areas the lines/infrastructure was really crappy and rather than fix it Bell would just blame the end-user (you need to reboot your computer, that's why the bandwidth is so slow) or acts of god (I know that you've been complaining about the bandwidth for months, but it was really caused by that large storm last night. It should be fine now.). > Bell is far from alone in providing bulk bandwidth in Canada. Really? I was under the impression that Bell was just selling access to their last-mile infrastructure and companies like TekSavvy were providing their own peering arrangements for getting the customers to the internet. Would you care to explain to me what the real situation is? +------------------------------+ | THE INTERNET | +------------------------------+ || || || || <-- Peering arrangements || || +--------+ +----+ |TekSavvy| |Bell| <-- ISPs +--------+ +----+ \\ // \\ // \\ // _ ______ Bell-owned | / || \ infrastructure | / || \ <-- last-mile infrastructure |_ / || \ +--+ +--+ +--+ | | | | | | Residences/Customers +--+ +--+ +--+ It's my understanding that the infrastructure looks like the above diagram. In this case, Bell is not selling bandwidth to the internet to 3rd-party ISPs, they are just selling access to their (government-subsidized) last-mile lines.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  As far as I know that's an accurate representation of the situation.

by ergo98 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

Bell owns the lines, it is (or rather, was, I've left Canada 4 years ago) illegal to put lines in by other entities. > Your complaint is that some rural area has poor service. Is that not the case around the globe? No. > I've had high-speed cable service since long before it was available in most urban centers in the US (much less the rest of the world), Good for you :) I had four bonded 28.8 modems and four landlines giving me crappy bandwidth where a simple baseband modem would have done the job but Bell simply refused to remove the chokes from the lines. > Here in a suburb of Toronto I've had top-notch, leading-the-bandwidth (15Mbps around the clock) high speed for a low cost for almost a decade. Toronto is but one very small part of Canada and one of the most populous areas at that. If you run a monopoly you should provide all your customers with equal access to the system, otherwise you should open up the market and get the hell out of the way. > I think our situation is quite good, actually. your situation is quite good. > The best is the other post where someone talks about it being Soviet-style central control. That was pretty poorly worded but the author makes a much better case further on. Also, state propped up monopolies were very much a feature of communist countries. > The humorous aspect is that CRTC is essentially unwinding that central control, put in place back when Bell was the big, untouchable monopoly. It was then that many of the "unlimited cap" companies were basically given leave to leach off of Bell in the name of competition. They'd gladly put their own infrastructure in to the ground, only they're not allowed to. Just like you're not allowed to hop across the border, buy a satellite receiver that receives 'free over the air' programming and operate it legally within Canadas borders (because that would deprive the government sanctioned operators of their subscription fees that they can charge you for that same content).

ergo98 16y ago
Your complaint seemed to be entirely based upon the difficulties in getting broadband in a sparsely populated area. And then some big telco coming in to try to undermine it. We've seen the same story again and again, over the globe. There is nothing unique to Canada in that. As to Bell being a monopoly, that's a bit laughable of a concept now. I haven't used any Bell services for personal use in well over a decade, despite being in the center of Bell territory. As to Canada's situation, it regularly ranks in the top tier of broadband penetration and broadband speeds. It sounds like you're the one using your anecdote inappropriately, because actual metrics refute you. They'd gladly put their own infrastructure in to the ground, only they're not allowed to. You're conflating issues. Because of the in-the-ground angle, companies are allowed to terminate twisted-pairs at the switching station, providing their own voice or data services. We recently hooked up a business backup high-speed ADSL line, the line provided by Bell, with the data provided by Cogent. Our primary data service, by the way, is provided by the electric company who have a distribution network of fiber. What is changing is if Bogent terminated that line, but instead of providing their own infrastructure they simply leached off of Bell's. That was put in during the "Soviet style" control. Again, this is all a bunch of people inventing a reality where they can have their free lunch. It is a tiny percentage of people making a loud noise, trying to burn it all down to get their way. I'll happily endure the down-arrows while a rallying mob tries to construct some ridiculous perception of reality.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I don't know who keeps modding you down, you certainly are 'adding to the conversation', sorry about that. > Your complaint seemed to be entirely based upon the difficulties in getting broadband in a sparsely populated area. No, it is mostly centered around Bell playing dirty. Getting broadband in a sparsely populated area is just an example of how they use their resources. Using the legal system to put the squeeze on other ISPs is another. > And then some big telco coming in to try to undermine it. If the big telco is the only game in town then that changes matters considerably. > We've seen the same story again and again, over the globe. There is nothing unique to Canada in that. I live in a rural European area right now, where I live I can choose from > 10 broadband providers with packages up to 20 Mbit/sec. > As to Bell being a monopoly, that's a bit laughable of a concept now. Bell still has an effective monopoly on infrastructure and that is what this article is about, charges that Bell levies on ISPs that are more or less forced to do business with Bell, we're not talking about a consumer monopoly, even though they still profit plenty from their former monopoly in that field. > As to Canada's situation, it regularly ranks in the top tier of broadband penetration and broadband speeds. The situation here is somewhat skewed because a large amount of the Canadian population lives in a very small total area of the country. > It sounds like you're the one using your anecdote inappropriately, because actual metrics refute you. No, it just underscores the issue. For the record, I've also lived in Toronto (King Street) and it is the contrast between the two that strikes me as placing the rural areas at a deliberate disadvantage. If anything Bell should do everything in its power to level the playing field given the monetary advantages they've been allowed to have. > You're conflating issues. Because of the in-the-ground angle, companies are allowed to terminate twisted-pairs at the switching station, providing their own voice or data services. We recently hooked up a backup high-speed ADSL line, the line provided by Bell, with the data provided by Cogent. There is nothing changing in that. Exactly. So how much choice did cogent have in using Bell infrastructure in order to reach you? > What is changing is if Bogent terminated that line, but instead of providing their own infrastructure they simply leached off of Bell's. That was put in during the "Soviet style" control. They did not 'leach of Bells', they have very little choice. Bell owns the roads, if you want your cars on them you'll have to pay toll. > Again, this is all a bunch of people inventing a reality where they can have their free lunch. I really disagree with you there, if they were free to lay their own fiber then that would be one thing but as long as they have no way around Bell they should not be squeezed like this.

pyre 16y ago

> Here in a suburb of Toronto I've had top-notch, > leading-the-bandwidth (15Mbps around the clock) high > speed for a low cost for almost a decade. Toronto is the "New York City" of Canada. Do you look to New York City to be an exact replication of how the entire US looks, works, and functions? This reeks of "Windows never gave me a BSOD therefore all of the people that say they've had a BSOD are lying"-type of argument. Please leave your anecdotes at the door unless you promise to see them for what they really are... anecdotes. When I was living in Toronto the quality of internet service (at least with Bell) depended very much on the area. In some areas the lines/infrastructure was really crappy and rather than fix it Bell would just blame the end-user (you need to reboot your computer, that's why the bandwidth is so slow) or acts of god (I know that you've been complaining about the bandwidth for months, but it was really caused by that large storm last night. It should be fine now.). > Bell is far from alone in providing bulk bandwidth in Canada. Really? I was under the impression that Bell was just selling access to their last-mile infrastructure and companies like TekSavvy were providing their own peering arrangements for getting the customers to the internet. Would you care to explain to me what the real situation is? +------------------------------+ | THE INTERNET | +------------------------------+ || || || || <-- Peering arrangements || || +--------+ +----+ |TekSavvy| |Bell| <-- ISPs +--------+ +----+ \\ // \\ // \\ // _ ______ Bell-owned | / || \ infrastructure | / || \ <-- last-mile infrastructure |_ / || \ +--+ +--+ +--+ | | | | | | Residences/Customers +--+ +--+ +--+ It's my understanding that the infrastructure looks like the above diagram. In this case, Bell is not selling bandwidth to the internet to 3rd-party ISPs, they are just selling access to their (government-subsidized) last-mile lines.

jacquesm 16y ago
As far as I know that's an accurate representation of the situation.