El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Acanac
| reply to ssherwood
Re: Canada's slipping position on net access cost & speed
said by ssherwood  :Sounds like CC material to me. -- SS Read the article in the link I posted... they're a Crown in everything but in name, they're basically the "Preferred Government Provider" of Ontario Eastwards...
No amount of paid opinion-making can change that.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
jat
join:2008-04-28
Burlington, ON
| The text you quoted says nothing about Bell's network being funded by the government. The fact that they were granted a monopoly does not make them a crown corporation, nor does it mean they were subsidized by our tax dollars, which are exactly the claims you and others were making that were being disputed. I'll agree that the public has some right to the network (and not just because of the monopoly -- they're profiting off of the cables they're burying under our property!), but I've yet to see anyone back up their claim that Bell's network was paid for by Canadian taxpayers. And I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to show your research proving it was. |
|
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Acanac
1 edit | quote:
Bell was given a number of requirements in exchange for this privileged government intervention. Historically the most often discussed was rural access, where Bell was mandated to offer phone services to rural locations — even at what might otherwise have been a loss, except for the fact that they were given practically guaranteed profits in other markets by the government, as well as massive government subsidies over the years. More recently the condition discusses more often is competitive access to the facilities which the public sector made possible (through right of way and subsidies) to allow services built upon this last mile to be provided by a competitive private sector.
That pretty much sums the situation up...
To be honest with you I don't really see what's unclear about this.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
jat
join:2008-04-28
Burlington, ON
1 edit | What's unclear is how Bell's lines were "paid for with [you] and [your] parent's tax dollars," as you suggested. I'm not arguing your overall point. I actually agree with it. But a civil debate should be based on facts, and from everything I've seen, the "Bell's network was paid for by taxpayers" claim is nothing but an oft repeated myth. If you have a credible source saying otherwise, I'd be happy to accept it. But until someone comes up with one, can we lay off "paid for by us" talk? You can still back up your point with the whole monopoly/right of way issue.
Edit: I guess you could say it was paid for by us with our phone bills, since the monopoly meant we had no alternative. It's just the "tax dollars" bit that I take issue with. Monopolies, right of way, etc. has nothing to do with tax dollars, and I haven't seen anything to show that the government gave Bell our money. |
|
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Acanac
| reply to decx
I'd also like to quote the following from the same article by the author:
quote:
As part of the other work I do I look for electronic versions of older government documents (Bills and summaries, statutes, etc). While the 1987 version of the Bell Canada Act is online, earlier versions are not. It would be interesting to have adequate online references for the history of Canadian telecommunications, given how quickly people forget and then believe the “we own it, and we can do what we want with it” rhetoric from the phone and cable companies.
Information about BCE's true financing may not be available or difficult to aquire.
(someone with more experience my want to file a few FOI requests...)
But its obvious that competition isn't getting a fair shake, and the fact that companies like TSI, Acanac, Velcom are still in business goes to show our government should be more supportive and protect their access.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
cacruden
join:2008-03-18
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to decx
Actually, the tax dollars continues this year - the feds are subsidizing addition buildout to bell lines for "rural" (i.e. underserved areas). [don't have the piece in front of me - but it was a couple of months ago]
Additionally, when the lines are put down - there is work paid for by the city to put the road back the way it was before - cities were complaining about being forced to subsidize telco's line construction. |
|
An_Onymous
@teksavvy.com
| reply to jat
>It's just the "tax dollars" bit that I take issue with.
Until recently, BCE is the "sole supplier" for everybody who wants telephone service in the past 100+ years. They are given a monopoly status to assure their survival as a business and allow to grow without having to face any competition like the rest of the business world in return for being regulated.
In a sense, they "owe" Canada their current status. Now they turned around and abuse their monopoly status to hold the consumer hostage, do you think they don't deserve at least a few slaps?
All this argument of Crown Corporation is just semantics to distract away from the main topic. |
|
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Acanac
| said by An_Onymous :
All this argument of Crown Corporation is just semantics to distract away from the main topic.
+1
I can get behind that...
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
jat
join:2008-04-28
Burlington, ON
| reply to cacruden
said by cacruden :Actually, the tax dollars continues this year - the feds are subsidizing addition buildout to bell lines for "rural" (i.e. underserved areas). I'd heard about that, but my understanding was that it was an open contract which Bell won, which isn't quite the same thing. I could be wrong though. Either way, I don't think that's quite the same thing as financing the whole of Bell's network. The government does a lot of that kind of thing.
said by cacruden :Additionally, when the lines are put down - there is work paid for by the city to put the road back the way it was before - cities were complaining about being forced to subsidize telco's line construction. Now that's a new one. I just assumed Bell had to pay for all of that cleanup work. Happen to have any links on the subject? |
|
jat
join:2008-04-28
Burlington, ON
| reply to An_Onymous
said by An_Onymous :
Until recently, BCE is the "sole supplier" for everybody who wants telephone service in the past 100+ years. They are given a monopoly status to assure their survival as a business and allow to grow without having to face any competition like the rest of the business world in return for being regulated. Correct, but it's not the same thing as funding them with taxpayer money.
said by An_Onymous :
In a sense, they "owe" Canada their current status. Now they turned around and abuse their monopoly status to hold the consumer hostage, do you think they don't deserve at least a few slaps? I very much do. But I thought I'd already made it clear that I agree with the overall point.
said by An_Onymous :
All this argument of Crown Corporation is just semantics to distract away from the main topic. You're absolutely right that it's just semantics, but I'm not trying to distract from the main point. I just think if the subject is going to be discussed, we should all agree on the basis for our arguments. It bothers me when someone makes an otherwise good point, but makes it with claims they can't back up. Especially in this case, where there are so many other good reasons why we should be granted access to Bell's lines that don't rely on the assumption that their network is funded by our tax dollars. |
|
An_Onymous
@teksavvy.com
| >Correct, but it's not the same thing as funding them with taxpayer money.
I am just pointing out that we as Canadian certainly paid more than our fair share from our pockets in our after tax dollars on lining BCE's pocket.
Noted that I have not stated one way or the other that BCE has or has not received money directly as a grant from the government. That remains something that needs to be looked up, but should not be a distraction in this matter.
I don't think anyone can argue that BCE at least is a Clown Corporation with Bozo working for them. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| reply to jat
said by jat :said by cacruden :Actually, the tax dollars continues this year - the feds are subsidizing addition buildout to bell lines for "rural" (i.e. underserved areas). I'd heard about that, but my understanding was that it was an open contract which Bell won, which isn't quite the same thing. I could be wrong though. Either way, I don't think that's quite the same thing as financing the whole of Bell's network. The government does a lot of that kind of thing. If you knew anything about government contracting, you'd know that the contract *likely* excluded just about everyone else in Canada by means of Statement of Work or adding a clause that says you have to have a fiber backbone to connect to or a presence in all of these communities already.
This is another handout for work that has already been paid for by the taxpayers in the form of government granted monopoly. |
|
