O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > Damn, have to leave Teksavvy in about a year

Damn, have to leave Teksavvy in about a year

reply to LittleStone
These exclusivity deals seem like a crock and anti-competitive.

I would challenge it.

Interesting.

The new Rogers' commercial touts their services as being $25/mo cheaper than Bell.

Which I suppose would make their service in the neighbourhood of $10 a month? Heh heh.

reply to LittleStone
More likely than not, Bell was shutout under some exclusivity contract with Rogers.

I'd bet that Bell would be very unhappy to hear that potential customers were being told that Bell refused to provide service.

If they're close to an urban area, a high-bandwidth wifi network may be marketable

reply to LittleStone
I feel for you, but at least you knew before hand - it wasn't sprung on you later before you moved in.

Now that you have signed on the dotted line, you have to live with the consequences.

Curious, why did you sign if you knew this was going to happen?

reply to LittleStone
And this is how competitors feel when Bell tells them they can't have sub loop access or reasonable wholesale ADSL in an area served by remotes.

Just because the competitor didn't have 100 years to build an access network in order to have service available everywhere, shouldn't mean they're shut out of servicing an area.

the dirty tricks developers play to shut Bell out of a development are as unacceptable as Bell's resistance to truly opening up their access network.

reply to LittleStone
I would have walked away and bought elsewhere.

reply to sux

reply to HeadSpinning

>the dirty tricks developers play to shut Bell out of a development are as
>unacceptable as Bell's resistance to truly opening up their access
>network.

It is no different than grocery stores who are told by manufacturers what to put on shelves and where to put it. The stores get paid to do this and if they don't do it, their prices will be higher than Loblaws and others do who do it on a massive scale.

If a contractor developping a new subdivision gets paid by Rogers to get "exclusive" Rogers-only in that subdivision, they will shut out Bell because the contractors makes money from that deal. It doesn't care that the end users have less selection.

reply to jfmezei

reply to LittleStone
I know some of the builders have agreements with Rogers. Bought a house and got 2 free months of Rogers Internet..Sounds familiar?

reply to LittleStone
Just a tought:

If this is a new neighbouhood being built, you might want to talk to the builder to see if they couldn't string fibre from your home to the nearest Bell central office.

reply to LittleStone
Seems like it's Bell's decision
»www.mintohomes.com/Ottawa/whatsNew/bell.asp

I think it's mostly a cost issue. If the suburbs, if the cost to extend/install the network is going to be high, you need to decide if you can get ROI in a decent time frame. Builders pay the city to extend water/sewer and perhaps other utilities to the area, why shouldn't other service providers have the same treatment or the right to refuse if the economics aren't there.

Also, I can't tell from the Minto site but in many cases, the build doesn't occur because Bell wasn't given trench access during construction and utility work. That is certainly the case in FCI areas I believe.

reply to Mike2009
This is the only sane decision, imho.

Who wants a "newly built" home anyways? Everyone knows that building materials and craftsmanship have gone down the drain. POTS access and who will provide your broadband is the least of your potential concerns/problems!

Exactly. I live in a less than perfect 30 year old home in a nice neighbourhood with great proximity to the CO and resulting excellent DSL. I wouldn't have it any other way.