Alpha Bits
@alphared.com | FTTH when?
If bell wins at the end of the months, will there be an option to get FTTH, or something like soon? |
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON | FTTN perhaps (ADSL2+) but Bell is also trying to stop access to remotes and disallow third party providers from co-locating in CO's.
FTTH when hell freezes over, Bell has no intention of wholesaling fiber. |
|
Alpha Bits
@alphared.com | is there a provider who offers fiber in Canada? |
|
theninjasqua
join:2007-09-26
Oakville, ON | Some of the hydro companies have seperate fiber broadband divisions that offer this. Usually it is geared towards businesses, but if you've got the cash they'll probably run you a line if its feasible.
--
-theninjasquad |
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Alpha Bits
For residential there are a few providers but it's scattered. Telus does offer fiber to the cityplace condos in Toronto and there's another in BC that offers it to downtown locations.
There's also a trial going on in downtown Ottawa (I only live in the suburbs of the city though)
Other than that, the only option is commercial providers or your local hydro company, some of them offer fiber as well. |
|
shepd
join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON | reply to Alpha Bits
I used to say "When HBO comes to Canada", but I can't say that anymore.
We'll get FTTH when Cinemax comes to Canada, then. |
|
pfft
@techentrance.com | sorry this is off topic.. but what channel is HBO? |
|
shepd
join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| »jam.canoe.ca/Television/2008/09/···sun.html
HTH. It's on it's way, anyways, with lots of censorship as usual. Perhaps they'll call it "HBO-C"? :-D (in joke, if you were into the scene at the time you'd be laughing) |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC | reply to pfft
One of the big cable channels in the states. They make quite a few popular shows. Some of their best known in recent times are "The Sopranos" and "Sex and the City" |
|
Bellus_1
@cia.com
| reply to mlerner
Falsehoods all around: Bell is in the process of standardising ADSL2+ wholesale GAS services, including an up to 16Mbps tier. They will be bit-capped, and there may be other restrictions or guidelines made in order to manage issues such as crosstalk, CPE/dslam interoperability, etc.
I don't think anyone has applied to the CRTC for sub-loop unbundling access, so you can't say it isn't allowed. And given the CRTC's desire for facilities based competition, I think it would have a good chance at success. What will likely not be mandated is that Bell provide the competing company with a concrete pad, power, shelter and metro fiber backhaul from the FTTN device.
Lastly, around the globe and in Canada and the US, FTTP/FTTH is going to be the new standard for greenfield buildouts. No doubt about it. For less than 10% more initial capex compared to copper (network only, no CPE/ONT/UPS), going with fiber you end up with ongoing maintenance costs that are up to 50-70% lower than copper. Bell, Aliant, AT&T and others are all or will be done their validation and integration by H2 2009, including provisions to provision CLEC voice over fiber loops. I have been to visit people in Montreal who are in a FTTP technical technical trial to iron the kinks out... it is Alcatel GPON gear, 7342 OLT's, with GLT2-A line cards. |
|
HoboJ
join:2008-03-27
Trenton, ON | I think I'll give hydro one a call and see what it'll cost for FTTH. Not sure what to expect, but I'm curious.  |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Bellus_1
What exactly is to standardize? A customer is either capable of getting ADSL2+ service or they're not (as in, are they on an ADSL2+ DSLAM (to qualify for 7 meg service), and is it fibre-fed (to qualify for 16 meg service)). Beyond that, and different pricing, there should be very little difference from Bell's current wholesale operations, and no difference from Bell's current retail operations.
Heck, Bell often (usually?) puts wholesaler customers on ADSL2+ ports simply because they're more and more numerous, and sometimes accidentally puts wholesale customers on ADSL2+ profiles. And some of their equipment can also be tricked into syncing to an ADSL2+ profile. |
|
Bellus_1
@cia.com
| Guspaz,
Good work on MLPPP. Anyways, standardize in this sense means make the product tariff ready for a regulated product, and develop internal processes to interface with clients and complete orders/changes/migrations/repairs for the new product. It probably involves a lot of flow charts and tense meetings.
Take a look at the CRTC google search for context:
»www.google.ca/search?hl=en&clien···ch&meta=
and
»www.google.ca/search?hl=en&clien···=10&sa=N
Pretty much means introduce/deployed and discontinued/obsolete.
Outside of regulatory, the terms are also used to refer to approved configurations/specs for products and network equipment in telecom.
And heavens, we wouldn't want to change something with the customer without going to the CRTC would we, even if it's positive change like DPI, bitcaps and ADSL2+ products. |
|
ultracat
join:2008-01-30
Toronto, ON
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by Bellus_1 :
And heavens, we wouldn't want to change something with the customer without going to the CRTC would we, even if it's positive change like DPI, bitcaps and ADSL2+ products.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. A little help? Whether it is or isn't sarcasm, I can't figure out why you're calling DPI, bitcaps, and ADSL2+ prodcuts positive change in the same breath? In other words, if you're being sarcastic (i.e. these things are actually bad) why include ADSL2+ products? If you are not being sarcastic, why on earth would you say DPI and bitcaps are positive change? |
|
ultracat
join:2008-01-30
Toronto, ON
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to mlerner
said by mlerner  :FTTN perhaps (ADSL2+) but Bell is also trying to stop access to remotes and disallow third party providers from co-locating in CO's. FTTH when hell freezes over, Bell has no intention of wholesaling fiber. Regional Definitions: Canada
FTTN = Fiber To The Never-gonna-happen
FTTH = Fiber To The Hell-freezin'-over |
|
avernar
join:2002-05-23
Mississauga, ON
clubs:
| reply to Bellus_1
said by Bellus_1 :
Falsehoods all around: Bell is in the process of standardising ADSL2+ wholesale GAS services, including an up to 16Mbps tier. They will be bit-capped, and there may be other restrictions or guidelines made in order to manage issues such as crosstalk, CPE/dslam interoperability, etc. What's the point of the higher speed then? I'll be sticking with ADSL1 then.
That's like the government raising the speed limit to 200km/h on the 401 but making the largest gas tank allowed in cars to be 20 liters. And the gas stations along the way are all 10x the price if you go over your allotted 20 liters. |
|
Bellus_1
@cia.com
| reply to ultracat
Ultra, yes, it was tainted by sarcasm. If you look at it from their perspective, increasing bandwidth requires increasing control of the "experience". To an extent, this applies to other things as well: as the potential of something (or risk) increases, so does the regulation/standards for that something.
avernar: a lot of analogies are bad, a more accurate one would be government allowing you to buy a car that can go 200Km/h but not allowing you to ever drive it at that speed except on closed courses, but even that isn't very good.
All manners of product have usage-based pricing and I think it's a very "american" (perhaps north-american) thing to believe in the concept of unlimited. In Europe, landlines are billed per minute, all cell phones are "long distance" from landlines and most broadband has some sort of cap or fair use restriction. Even here, if you're a big user, hydro charges you a premium for energy over a certain amount, as do water utilities and waste collection in some cities. I'm not saying this is the ideal for the consumer, but a reality to better reflect the cost of service. |
|
pnjunction
Teksavvy Premium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
edit:
October 8th, @11:51PM
| said by Bellus_1 :
If you look at it from their perspective, increasing bandwidth requires increasing control of the "experience".
Why? Electronics are constantly getting faster and cheaper. Computers and TVs, for example, get better every year and the manufacturers don't feel the need to 'increase control of my experience'.
The reason Internet (and cell phone) providers feel so entitled is because of the lack of competition. We have to deal with Bell or Roger's bullshit, there is no real alternative.
I wouldn't go comparing cell phone service between here and the rest of the world. We are getting raped. I think the per-minute rates are about 1/3 of what they are here, and you can get decent rates on pre-paid (compared to ~0.30/minute here) rather than always being locked into a contract in which they are allowed to change the terms and increase rates whenever they want (and they do). |
|
Bellus_1
@cia.com
| The issue is that those advancements lead to a lower price-point for say a gig-e, the speed to the customer demands/is offered increases as well. If Bell was still selling 1.5Mbps products, there wouldn't be a need for application control and less of one for usage based billing. While I personally think that usage + shaping is redundant, they both work in different ways; one by encouraging the user change their habits and the latter by imposing a change.
I also want to point out that the amount you use your TV doesn't impact the cost to provide that TV. Nor does it cost Dell or Intel more if you use your computer for intensive applications vs. web browsing. It does cost a carrier more to serve a customer using 100 gigs vs. a user consuming 20 gigs, although not in terms of wear and tear but the need to increase capacity, which includes both a capital and ongoing operating cost. There is also a point where the cost of a capacity increase becomes exponential rather than linear, such as when you need to add more fibers, DWDM, or replace major equipment because it can't be expanded further. ILEC's also fear that their ADSL2+ wholesale products will be used by competitors to offer TV which is a substantial burden on their networks, much more so than IPTV is due to bandwidth (multicast) efficiencies in the carrier IPTV architecture.
As for european telecom pricing, I was just showing an example of a place where usage-based pricing is more prevalent in products and not a new thing as it is here. People here hate the concept of their all you can eat buffet being limited, but it doesn't seem that unreasonable on the whole. |
|
pnjunction
Teksavvy Premium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
edit:
October 9th, @12:30AM
| said by Bellus_1 :
The issue is that those advancements lead to a lower price-point for say a gig-e, the speed to the customer demands/is offered increases as well.
I also want to point out that the amount you use your TV doesn't impact the cost to provide that TV. ... It does cost a carrier more to serve a customer using 100 gigs vs. a user consuming 20 gigs, although not in terms of wear and tear but the need to increase capacity, which includes both a capital and ongoing operating cost. I understand that the days of unlimited are short. I think it's more the content available than the DSL sync speeds that has the potential to put pressure on aggregation networks. I'm sure if everyone was finding a way to saturate their 1 meg connections back in the day things would've choked.
My point is that the transfer offered should scale with the decreasing cost of the technology. If a 10 Gbps connection costs the same as a 1 Gbps did a while ago, the caps should reflect that. They don't.
60G, for example, is a ridiculous cap. Do you think that will rise to 600G when 100 Gbps connections cost the same as 10 Gbps do now in a few years? Not likely. They'll pocket the savings and leave us to do our whining on message boards while our country falls further behind. |
|
