axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| that's fair
They might calculate that they won't make fabulous profits if they have to share. The government should stick to it's position, and announce plans to build out the infrastructure themselves if none springs up. I think Bell would decide they want to be in control after all. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Why should Bell invest billions in infrastructure and then have the gov't force them to sell access to others at cost. That would be a disservice to their stockholders and an extremely stupid action by their management team.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
adisor19
join:2004-10-11
·Velcom
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Radioactif
·Videotron
| said by TKJunkMail  :Why should Bell invest billions in infrastructure and then have the gov't force them to sell access to others at cost. That would be a disservice to their stockholders and an extremely stupid action by their management team. Because Bell built their current infrastructure and their current market valuation with government $$$, therefor with MY $$$. Why should they get a free ride on my $$ ?!?!? It's a god damn monopoly created with the public's $$ and at such it should server the PUBLIC's interests and NOT their shareholder's interests. And if Bell's management doesn't see it that, the government better force them otherwise. Unlike in your corporate America where corporations decide what you get, i still hold a bit of faith that our Canadian government, as bad as it is at the moment, still has a bit of cojones left to actually serve those who put them in power in the first place.
Adi |
|
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | reply to TKJunkMail
It's cost + 15%.If the competitors had access to the local loop then this would not be a problem.Its either this or unbundl the local loops like the EU did.We don't wanna be like the US and have just a bunch of monopolies,we want choice. |
|
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Acanac
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Why should Bell invest billions in infrastructure and then have the gov't force them to sell access to others at cost. That would be a disservice to their stockholders and an extremely stupid action by their management team. Um because my tax dollars pay for that infrastructure, and continue to pay for it by funding an agency that invetibly rules in favor of said company?
Here's an idea: How about you learn about Canadian Telecom before sharing your infinite wisdom on it.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
Why should Canada allow them to continue to operate in their country?
I say Canada should tell them they are sharing and they are going to continue to roll out the next generation network. And if they don't, then they will be stripped of their current network and will no longer be operating in Canada. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Why should Bell invest billions in infrastructure and then have the gov't force them to sell access to others at cost. That would be a disservice to their stockholders and an extremely stupid action by their management team. Sorry, forgot, all regulation bad, open market good, right?
If you're going to make that argument do it with fact, it's cost+ basis not just cost, that would be ridiculous. |
|
history lesson
@bell.ca
 from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to adisor19
Check your history books.
Bell only built parts of the network where the Feds gave them money to (ie: rural areas).
The rest of it was through the initial IPO and subsequent 130+ years of revenue. |
|
adisor19
join:2004-10-11
·Velcom
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Radioactif
·Videotron
| said by history lesson :
Check your history books.
Bell only built parts of the network where the Feds gave them money to (ie: rural areas).
The rest of it was through the initial IPO and subsequent 130+ years of revenue.
Excuse me ?! YOU should be the one to go back and read the history books. Bell laid out their analog POTS lines with government $$. Period.
Adi |
|
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON | reply to history lesson
Shill...
I'm sure Execs at Bell would love the Canadian public to swallow that one hook line and sinker.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
history lesson
from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to adisor19
Seriously? Did you even bother using Google first before posting a reply before I bitch slap you in front of everyone?
Ok, if you insist:
Detailed history of Bell: »www.bce.ca/en/aboutbce/history/index.php
Copy of 1880 Federal Charter:
»www.bce.ca/en/aboutbce/history/index.php
"By the end of 1880, Sise had purchased the existing telephone interests in Canada, including those of The Dominion Telegraph Company and The Montreal Telegraph Company. The company offered telephone service in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba and had interests in British Columbia."
"The telephone's success rested on creating a network. In the spring of 1881, the Company constructed the first "long-distance" line in Canada between Toronto and Hamilton. The General Manager was so committed to the project that he advanced the funds from his personal savings to ensure its completion."
"Would-be competitors pounced on the article of the law requiring that all patented products must be manufactured in the country. Sise argued that he was complying with this provision. The government disagreed and on January 24, 1885, voided the Bell patent, ending the Company's exclusive right to manufacture and distribute the telephone."
Enjoy the full article.
Like I said before, the myth that Bell's network was built with taxpayer money is mostly false. I say mostly because in typical Fed fashion, when no one wants to provide a city with a service, they either create a Crown Corp or pay an existing company to provide the service instead. Which is what happened in some cities across Canada.
However, as you can see from the link I provided, Bell got it's initial funding from it's IPO and bought other phone companies in order to expand, then ended up selling all those outside Ontario and Quebec years later when they were strapped for cash.
I hope you enjoyed today's lesson. Class dismissed. |
|
Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by history lesson :
"By the end of 1880, Sise had purchased the existing telephone interests in Canada, including those of The Dominion Telegraph Company and The Montreal Telegraph Company. The company offered telephone service in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba and had interests in British Columbia."
You know, another 2 seconds work and you could have found out that Dominion Telegraph was a department of Public Works organization. They had wire strung all over Canada, up to the Yukon.
Public works.
Government funded. Taxpayer money.
SO, you've managed to prove that from day one, Bell Canada was using taxpayer provided facilities.
quote:
The National Bell Telephone Company of Boston eventually took the patent off Melville Bell's hands. The company enlisted the aid of Hugh C. Baker, head of the Hamilton District Telegraph Company, to apply for a charter from the Canadian Parliament. On April 29, 1880, a special act of Parliament incorporated the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
A Charter from whom? Oh yes...the Canadian Parliament. This is that little piece of paper that give Bell the right to string wires all over public land. What other companies have that right? Um...hint: none of the independant ISPs.
Here's another beauty:
quote:
In 1990, however, the CRTC ruled that companies could buy time on private telephone lines in bulk from the phone companies and resell it at a discount. Within two years, the resellers had captured two to four percent of the phone companies' long-distance business. In 1992 the CRTC was expected to institute even greater changes in the long-distance market, such as allowing companies to resell discount packages like WATS. Resellers, however, wanted the CRTC to go further and allow them to own their own lines, an idea Bell Canada was fighting. Canadian Business quoted Bell Chairman Jean Monty as saying that '[the presence of resale means Canada already enjoys] a workable balance between competition and monopoly.'
Why don't we, as ISP's build out our own wire? Read that. |
|
history lesson
@bell.ca
| As far as I know, to become Incorporated you still need some level of government to issue it, so your leap of faith between Bell getting a Charter issued by the Fed as an indication of being "funded" by the Fed is completely wrong.
And although Dominion Telegraph Co was a division of the Government at the time, Bell bought them after the fact.
You and others make it sound as if Bell was 100% funded and built it's network with taxpayer money which is a complete misnomer and false. |
|
nonrevisionist
@cgocable.net
| reply to history lesson
Re: that's fair
You (Deadpool?) and TK make it sound as if Bell was 100% funded and built using private funds. It wasn't. Not even close.
You (Deadpool?) and TK make it sound as if Bell did not receive and abuse exclusive access to public works and rights of way. Absolutely false.
The well-known BCE "about us" link is hardly a source. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to andyb
then starting building out your own company. MOT will sell you some Canopy devices to start doing that. |
|
Billbo
@teksavvy.com
| reply to El Quintron
Um because my tax dollars pay for that infrastructure
Um, no, customer dollars do.
and continue to pay for it by funding an agency
Um, no, telecom companies do.
that invetibly rules in favor of said company
Um, you do realize that this article is about Bell going to Cabinet to try and get the politicians to overturn a series of CRTC rulings against said company? |
|
