DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
clubs:
 ·Bell Sympatico
| reply to canucklehead
Re: Details...
said by canucklehead :
FALSE. the provincial governments of alberta and BC poured billions of tax dollars into their infrastructures, then sold out to telus. i would assume bell was at one time a govt/crown operation as well. there is simply no way telus would exist today if they had to start from scratch. exactly when was AGT/BC tel/ EDtel pubically traded?. they were NEVER TRADED, just funded by the citizens via taxes (like CBC is now).
ALBERTA has a huge quasi govt network - SUPERNET - paid in part by my taxes, my dads taxes, my sons taxes. you really should pull you head out of your ass before typing, it just might help
No, you don't know the facts. This story is about BELL CANADA. It has not ever built infrastructure using government money. Telus is not part of this story. 
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
tiger9
join:2005-08-01
Ont,Canada
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to hottboiinnc
With what, pray tell? Unless you go cable or DSL, infrastructure is HORRIBLY expensive. Fibre costs too MUCH to be practical. WiMAX Equipment is horribly expensive TOO - $$ for TONS of Base Stations, PLUS $$$ for fibre backhaul to Central Office. Plus, WiMAX is controlled by (guess what) Rogers and Bell TOO!
Let's face it - Rogers and Bell are FREAKING monopolies, that control consumer access to the internet using their monopolies' power.
Listen, American - Here in Ontario, the only MAIN ISPs are both rogers and bell. Rogers controls the Cable links, Bell controls the DSL links. This constitutes a MONOPOLY/DUOPOLY. There are also a bunch of small ISPs, using Bell's regulated, forced-to-share last mile, with their own backbone, forcibly bullied by Bell, using their monopolistic power, into using throttling, uncompetitive speeds and plans, and now forced caps. THIS CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION of CANADIAN ANTITRUST LAW ( Price Discrimination - Bell refuses to offer REGULATED 16Mbps links (previously) to DSL providers TO COMPETITORS, Abuse of Dominant Position + MARKET RESTRICTION ( Bell shoves down throttling and caps to other ISPs, EVEN UNDER REGULATED GAS, which cannot do a s*** about it because BELL owns ALL DSL LINES. BELL ALSO PREFENTIALLY PUTS SYMPATICO CUSTOMERS ON DSL REMOTES, RESTRICTING THE MARKET TO COMPETING DSL ISPS to the 5km radius around a CO. (e.g teksavvy customers do not get on to a remote unless they call to Bell). They also restrict DSL access to "unwanted consumers", by refusing them signup, even if they sign up to another DSL ISP (see Teksavvy forum) )
American, please know what you're talking about before you post. Its easy, sitting in Toledo, with uncapped cable service, to criticize us Canucks (hint) with c$ap for internet. Its also easy to criticize us when we try to fix it. Its also easy to criticize us when you know nothing about the ISSUE.
Please learn, by moving to CANADA (hint,hint), before talking about how our Internet providers, AMERICAN.
THANK YOU. |
|
lurker
@bell.ca
| reply to R0CKY
Quote from Bell Wholesale DSL Gateway Access Service (GAS) sales pamphlet:
"80 percent of Canada’s Internet traffic is on our network."
»www.wholesale.bell.ca/pdfs/GASDSL.pdf |
|
Malovech
join:2007-05-30
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | reply to hottboiinnc
And why do you have those options? Because your government has mandated competition amongst your ISPs. Sure you still have jerks like Comcast and AT&T that want too much of the pie, but it isn't anywhere near as bad as the Bell/Rogers/Telus stranglehold.
It is also ridiculous to assume that every company under the sun will have unfettered access to the public infrastructure. If we followed your model, then there would be masses of cable laid on top of cable, networking appliances clustered in an unwieldy mess and then you would have a logistics nightmare for technicians (not to mention the guerrilla warfare between companies screwing with each others' gear).
What our government should do, is take back the last-mile infrastructure, maintain and license it. Replace it all with fibre and then everyone is on an even playing field. If they don't want to deal with maintenance they could even subcontract that out, but in the end, the public owns the lines.
Sure, a company could build a WISP as you say, but they would a) need access to the infrastructure first (not as easy as you'd think) and b) they shouldn't have to. It is unhealthy for innovation and the economy for a small number of companies to hold all the cards. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to alphaz18
I actually work for a large company. The largest Home Improvement Store in the world. The Home Depot.
And it is possible to build a WISP for an entire city. It's done all the time.
But why should i waste my time and money? i'm fully covered with Internet. I don't need wireless. I have my option between cable and DSL. And use cable. Other wise i have EVDO-RevA by Sprint, or GSM by ATT and T-Mobile or EVDO by VZW.
Here we actually require companies to build out if they want to offer services to compete if the Telco's don't want to allow them to use the copper. Canada should as well.
There are many people on this site every day building out city wide WISPs; just the people on this news story about Bell do not think its possible because they don't like Bell. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to adisor19
It means ONE. NOT TWO. In Bell area there are TWO!. Rogers and Bell!
Which mean there is not a monopoly. You can't have a monopoly when there are TWO companies providing the same services. Just because one is copper and DSL and the other is HFC and Cable modem doesnt mean anything.
They both offer services that are in each others coverage areas. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to LoyalCanadian
wearing the flag doesnt mean anything.
What Bell is doing should be legal. If someone else wants to compete agains them tell them to start building out some wireless network. If they can't or won't do it then tuff luck.
And actually i don't like bush. Sorry. I'm a dem.- but that doesnt have anything to do with this. |
|
canucklehead
@shawcable.net
| reply to DKS
FALSE. the provincial governments of alberta and BC poured billions of tax dollars into their infrastructures, then sold out to telus. i would assume bell was at one time a govt/crown operation as well. there is simply no way telus would exist today if they had to start from scratch. exactly when was AGT/BC tel/ EDtel pubically traded?. they were NEVER TRADED, just funded by the citizens via taxes (like CBC is now).
ALBERTA has a huge quasi govt network - SUPERNET - paid in part by my taxes, my dads taxes, my sons taxes. you really should pull you head out of your ass before typing, it just might help |
|
LoyalCanadian
@shawcable.net
1 edit
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail 
| reply to hottboiinnc
Dude, who the hell are you to tell Canadians what they do and don't know. Take your American attitude and go play with your friend Bush south of our border. It's people like you that make Americans look egotistical, arrogant and self grandizing to the rest of the world, thus causing the U.S. to be the most hated country in the world. At least I can wear my Canadian flag in many trouble countries and get treated like royalty, and not be killed. Can you say the same for the American flag? I highly doubt it, because of Americans like you that give your country a bad name.
Cheers to Rocky and his fight!!!! |
|
DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
clubs:
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to pfak
said by pfak :You do realize that Bell Canada's network was paid for by the gov't, right? Why is it acceptable for Bell to have a free ride, but not allow others on the governments network even though they're paying for the service? That is nonsense. None of Canada's (or Rogers, for that matter) networks have been publicly funded. Both are publicly traded corporations.
And the only "government" network is DNET, which is run by the Canadian Forces. And you ain't going anywhere near that, ever.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
alphaz18
join:2005-02-26
CANADA
| reply to hottboiinnc
mr highhorse. i have a proposal. if you can build a wisp for a single city. do it. if its so simple as you claim. if you do, i will forever change my views and will bow down to your mentality aknowledging that your views are indeed correct. But until you do or can, dont just bark your mouth off just becuase you think you work at a big company or whatever. hows this, imagine the company you work at goes under, because some random guy decided to do stupid stuff like sue them for some random patent trolling and sued your company until bankrupcy.. what would you think? oh too bad? my company was stupid for not killing the guy first? are you going to wish the law is suppose to protect the company in these circumstances? it works both ways, just becuase you're at the top right now doesn't mean you should be able to do anything you want and get away with it, becuase what goes around comes around.. eventually you'll just get screwed the same way you screwed others as the big guy. and then you'll be wishing the gvn't or the law comes to save you. or what? you dont care, you'll just take up "arms" and kill whoever opposes you? what if they think the same way and kills you first? too bad? is that how you think? |
|
adisor19
join:2004-10-11
·Velcom
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Radioactif
·Videotron
·Look Communications
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :well here is an idea- DON"T OFFER DSL OR CABLE! You won't have to use them. Also what about Sprint Canada, Teleglobe, Cogent. They all offer backbone access. You can easily toss their backbone services behind a network and start with a WISP and start to build out. The more you build out slowly the better off the ISP is to get away from the provider who has the network others want. Again, what the hell are you smoking ?! YES YOU DO HAVE TO USE THEM AND THEIR LINES. No compamy out there built their copper infrastructure with their own $$$. The government gave it to them as they were a monopoly and as such, they have to play by some rules like : share the copper lines with other companies.
Seriously, is someone paying to spew such corporate crap on these boards ?!!
Adi |
|
adisor19
join:2004-10-11
·Velcom
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Radioactif
·Videotron
·Look Communications
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :They're not a monopoly because they have competition. Rogers and Bell both compete against each other. Both offer TV, Internet, and Phone. Look up the word "monopoly" on Wikipedia or your favorite dictionary.
Bell and Rogers are freaking MONOPOLYS.
Adi |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Capharnaum
said by Capharnaum :If they bill by the byte though, then they shouldn't charge up front as well. They're still going to need to have some fee, but it should be lower then their current base fee. This fee covers the cost of providing the head-end port, including the engineering staff, circuit maintenance, and opportunity cost of the line (ie, if you occupy a router port it can't be sold to someone else). |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to jubangy
the same way they do about the US. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to tiger9
well here is an idea- DON"T OFFER DSL OR CABLE! You won't have to use them. Also what about Sprint Canada, Teleglobe, Cogent.
They all offer backbone access. You can easily toss their backbone services behind a network and start with a WISP and start to build out.
The more you build out slowly the better off the ISP is to get away from the provider who has the network others want. |
|
Bellundo
@teksavvy.com
| reply to hottboiinnc
Bell and rogers used to compete against each other. Now you can add telus to that list. The three companies got smart and all got together and worked things out. Now all three collude for the purpose of extracting the most money from the Canadian public for the least amount of service. |
|
tiger9
join:2005-08-01
Ont,Canada
2 edits | reply to hottboiinnc
Technically, while Bell does NOT have an internet monopoly, IT DOES HAVE A FREAKING PHONE LINE MONOPOLY/DSL LINE MONOPOLY. EVERY FREAKING ISP THAT RUNS OVER DSL MUST USE BELL! |
|
Bellundo
@teksavvy.com | reply to st7860
But you just recently lost your binary newsgroups so everything that happened in Ontario will happen to you only 3 years later. |
|
Latency
@netspectrum.ca
| reply to R0CKY
Give them Hell Rocky...
This is some info to add for the misinformed...
When Rogers wanted to get into the phone business back in the 1990's the CRTC said (simplified version for the sake of brevity) "let's see what Bell says"... Bell said "sure, but we want into the TV business".. They basically agreed at the behest of the CRTC..
Sounds fine, eh? Too bad Rogers had a number of years head start (handicap) to get their fledgling phone service off the ground before Bell was even allowed to enter the TV space.
This is Fredrick von Shitenstein and the other ivory tower no-minds at the CRTC creating dual-monopolies and protecting them from each other at the same time. The goal of the CRTC/govn't at the time was not to financially impact or cause massive sell-offs in the stock market of either Bell or Rogers' shares.
Rocky: You must face one fact; The CRTC is a country club filled with ex-monopoly (Bell/Rogers) employees.
If you are the biggest Bell/Rogers corporate shill in history you get rewarded with a position at the CRTC. Because the CRTC (using circular logic) must fill its' ranks with experts and those all must work for Bell/Rogers in the eyes of the government.
Complicating this matter is Bell's (BCE) attempt to keep their profit projections strong enough to land the investment from the Teachers Pension Fund. Bell needs this investment or they could be in very serious trouble financially, yes I said they are in trouble. So the CRTC which is run by our fine Tory government are not about to let this happen, not in our lifetime.
And yes these are the same fine folks who allowed the sale of our forestry industry (too many to mention, but now just Weyerhaeuser), our steel industry (Stelco and Dofasco), our mining industry (Inco/Falconbridge), and of late apparently our highly govn't funded space industry.
Anything to make sure the monopolies stay strong and most important stay monopolies. The government doesn't care who makes our toilet paper, our car parts, our metals, or our space ships just as long as no-one else (other than our Tory government) tells us what to think. Telling Canadians what to think is the sole monopoly of the Canadian federal government.
They are (CRTC) far more concerned about foreign investment, I mean keeping foreign investment from swallowing us whole than they are about effecting the livelihood of a couple smaller companies. We do need to worry about the likes of SBC, Verizon, AT&T, etc.. in addition to our own domestic monopolies. All of the American telco's are freakin huge and their draconian business style does not bode well for our quasi-socialist ways here in Canada.
IMO Unless something was about to change for BCE (foreign investment) the Teachers Pension Plan wouldn't be seriously interested in a company that is so dependent on government hand-outs. These investors types do not like government involvement, it slows them down and gets in the way of them making money. Ergo, get ready for the announcement of a major portion of Bell being sold off to some big foreign entity. As likely from Europe or Asia as from the USA...
Oh that's right, the Teachers Pension Plan IS the vehicle for foreign investment in Bell while carefully side-stepping our current laws.
Aside from your micro-economical views ie. the plight and future of your business and its' employees.
Cogeco did it and so can you! They put in their own fiber and other required infrastructure, and wired customers right to the home. Even if they ran crap old PDP-11's in the beginning. Do the same as them buy up all of the old(er) telco gear you can find, start wiring and give them hell.
Cogeco Cable should be looked upon as the model for succeeding in the face of stiff opposition in Canada.
Shouldn't you guys be pissed off that Toronto Hydros' IP network is being sold to Cogeco? This is even more of the tax-payer's dollars hard at work. Muni-telecom was supposed to be the answer to thwart the Bell/Rogers monopoly. Now it seems "muni-telecom" was a clever way for other players (all cable co's) to get a finished working system without paying for all of the mistakes made during the projects' life cycle.
MONTREAL - Toronto Hydro Telecom Inc. is an under-utilized gem that will provide great growth opportunities for its new owner, Cogeco Cable Inc. (TSX:CCA) president Louis Audet said Thursday.
The Montreal-based cable company is buying the Toronto Hydro Corp. subsidiary for $200 million in a deal that will give Cogeco Cable an important foothold in the lucrative Toronto market.
Rocky I would suggest you partner with your local muni-fiber guys as they can and do/have run new infrastructure all over the place. Hydro has right of ways also, and they can be utilized for telecommunications infrastructure in addition to power as they have been doing for years.
Perhaps, you can partner with Cogeco the third head of the Hydra...
Rocky in all seriousness I applaud your determination and efforts on behalf of all of us. Regardless of what a bunch of mis-informed piss ants say..
I say hat's off to Rocky for having a spine. He must be a Canadian, eh?
L@tency |
|
