3 ms·

> The big telecom lobbying argument vs CRTC about how urban markets need to subsidize rural infrastructure costs is not something 95% of canadians like to hear,

by munk-a 5y ago

> The big telecom lobbying argument vs CRTC about how urban markets need to subsidize rural infrastructure costs is not something 95% of canadians like to hear, but it kinda makes sense For some groups (especially reservations where their location to practice independent governance is government mandated) I can absolutely sympathize - but for most of the rest of rural Canada - uh why? Urban centers like Toronto and Vancouver are already paying property taxes far exceeding rural areas - with the residents paying those taxes also being hit by bigger income tax proportions due to the higher wages in the cities. There is no allowance for rural Canadians to get subsidized access to live operas and plays - choosing to live in a rural area comes with a general acceptance that those sorts of live performances are always going to be inconvenient and expensive since you'll need to travel to the city to get them. Why are we treating internet significantly different? If you choose to live in the middle of nowhere you can pay the actual cost for a company to maintain a line to your cabin in the woods while enjoying the scenery you're immersed in. On Monday I've got a hookup guy coming to my place to switch our condo over from Telus to Novus - this will drop our price from 100G/$80 to 300G/$50 along with removing data limits and throttling and probably actually getting closer to the advertised rate (we often get about 15-20 down from Telus right now - I've heard much better things about Novus). Part of the reason Novus can do this is indeed the fact that it doesn't offer service outside of very dense urban areas - and I'm personally quite okay with that.

908B64B197 5y ago
> If you choose to live in the middle of nowhere you can pay the actual cost for a company to maintain a line to your cabin in the woods while enjoying the scenery you're immersed in. When competitors are stopped at the border for dubious pretexts it means that the local monopolies can effectively decide not to wire your property. Wouldn't it be nice to see an ultra-competitive European carrier laying fiber out there?
neom 5y ago
Because if we didn't since the 90s, the socioeconomics of Canada would have gotten insanely out of whack? Think of it in terms of access to education and information. As someone from the sticks, I can even grok how it would have played out, it would have been a nightmare. The kids from the pulp and paper towns (that I will remind you, very much helped build the Canada you live in today, the woods are nice sure, but the towns are there because of economics Canada is built on, not just because people want nice scenery) would have been drastically disadvantaged comparatively. I understand this is somewhat less true today, but I still think serving the rural infrastructure is disproportionately expensive, and I don't think we should start asking Canadians to move.
lhorie 5y ago
I think Novus, Fibrestream and friends are good examples that support the idea that the market is healthy and oligopolies don't have the ability to use their position to choke out smaller players. I'd wager that Canada is still largely a wild west when it comes to physical copper coverage. Meaning big players do project long term profit from rural markets and actively invest in them, but that the projections aren't sustainable below some price threshold, hence butting heads with CRTC to make the math work out. As for the notion that country bumpkins ought to be satisfied with inconvenience, I'm not sure how to respond other than more and more they expect modern things to be available to them. A customer is never in their right mind going to shoulder a 100k upfront cost to lay fiber to a town, so if someone wants to make the cost benefit analysis, it's most likely going to be one of the big players, IMHO
frosted-flakes 5y ago
Are you really comparing live operas and plays to Internet access? One is a luxury. The other is a necessary utility (that also facilitates other luxuries, but that's beside the point, because there's a lot of things you need the utility for).

by munk-a 5y ago

908B64B197 5y ago

> If you choose to live in the middle of nowhere you can pay the actual cost for a company to maintain a line to your cabin in the woods while enjoying the scenery you're immersed in. When competitors are stopped at the border for dubious pretexts it means that the local monopolies can effectively decide not to wire your property. Wouldn't it be nice to see an ultra-competitive European carrier laying fiber out there?

neom 5y ago

Because if we didn't since the 90s, the socioeconomics of Canada would have gotten insanely out of whack? Think of it in terms of access to education and information. As someone from the sticks, I can even grok how it would have played out, it would have been a nightmare. The kids from the pulp and paper towns (that I will remind you, very much helped build the Canada you live in today, the woods are nice sure, but the towns are there because of economics Canada is built on, not just because people want nice scenery) would have been drastically disadvantaged comparatively. I understand this is somewhat less true today, but I still think serving the rural infrastructure is disproportionately expensive, and I don't think we should start asking Canadians to move.

lhorie 5y ago

I think Novus, Fibrestream and friends are good examples that support the idea that the market is healthy and oligopolies don't have the ability to use their position to choke out smaller players. I'd wager that Canada is still largely a wild west when it comes to physical copper coverage. Meaning big players do project long term profit from rural markets and actively invest in them, but that the projections aren't sustainable below some price threshold, hence butting heads with CRTC to make the math work out. As for the notion that country bumpkins ought to be satisfied with inconvenience, I'm not sure how to respond other than more and more they expect modern things to be available to them. A customer is never in their right mind going to shoulder a 100k upfront cost to lay fiber to a town, so if someone wants to make the cost benefit analysis, it's most likely going to be one of the big players, IMHO

frosted-flakes 5y ago

Are you really comparing live operas and plays to Internet access? One is a luxury. The other is a necessary utility (that also facilitates other luxuries, but that's beside the point, because there's a lot of things you need the utility for).