 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | It's sad... I used to be proud of the CRTC. They used to protect the interests of Canadians, and really did foster a competitive telecom environment.
I used to brag to my American friends about the great broadband industry that we had in Canada, about how we could get fast speeds at great prices. Since then, the CRTC has allowed the US to fly past us into the distance while we're stuck watching helplessly as our internet bills are about to double. |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | said by Guspaz:I used to be proud of the CRTC. They used to protect the interests of Canadians, and really did foster a competitive telecom environment. I used to brag to my American friends about the great broadband industry that we had in Canada, about how we could get fast speeds at great prices. Since then, the CRTC has allowed the US to fly past us into the distance while we're stuck watching helplessly as our internet bills are about to double. I know what its like to have a good thing arbitrarily taken away. Here, when cable broadband was first popular we had a company called @home which delivered awesome speeds (5-6 Mbit/s) and literally no caps.
After they were shut down, not due to service problems, but corporate fraud, cox took them over and immediately lowered speeds to 1.5 Mbit/s. It has taken 10 YEARS for cox to catch up. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:I used to brag to my American friends about the great broadband industry that we had in Canada, about how we could get fast speeds at great prices. Since then, the CRTC has allowed the US to fly past us into the distance while we're stuck watching helplessly as our internet bills are about to double. You are in the mess you are in because of PAST CRTC policies that inhibited innovation and a ROI for coming out with enhanced infrastructure. CLECs and independent ISPs are the enemies of innovation. They drag down the profits of the companies that BUILT the infrastructure. Maybe if the CRTC was more like the US FCC in the past, companies in Canada would have invested in the improvement of the infrastructure. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Acanac
| said by Romney2012:said by Guspaz:I used to brag to my American friends about the great broadband industry that we had in Canada, about how we could get fast speeds at great prices. Since then, the CRTC has allowed the US to fly past us into the distance while we're stuck watching helplessly as our internet bills are about to double. You are in the mess you are in because of PAST CRTC policies that inhibited innovation and a ROI for coming out with enhanced infrastructure. CLECs and independent ISPs are the enemies of innovation. They drag down the profits of the companies that BUILT the infrastructure. Maybe if the CRTC was more like the US FCC in the past, companies in Canada would have invested in the improvement of the infrastructure. WoW, haven't heard such extreme capitalist propaganda in a while ! Thanks for that, it made me lol this morning.
No but seriously, the big Bell company built its network with heavy subsidy from the Canadian government, thus from us, canadians. Don't come and insult my intelligence by telling me that we should kill the small ISPs that are trying to bring competition and lower prices to market and we should instead bend over to Bell and their monopolistic prices and practises. Thank GOD the CRTC had some sort of semi good intentions in the begging for forcing Bell to sell the GAS access for their DSL service to third parties, otherwise we would be worse then we are now.
I agree that the CRTC has recently acted in the interests of Bell and not of the canadian consumers. This is bad, but it's not a reason to dismantle them.
Adi |
|
|
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012:They drag down the profits of the companies that BUILT the infrastructure. this statement is wholly untrue when you look at the fact that we're discussing bell canada, who, much like its southern counterpart, did not build out the infrastructure out of its own pocket, rather it was a government-sponsored monopoly. it was the *people* that sponsored the cost of the network - hence where there is competitive access rules.
now, if you were actually interested in following canadian broadband policy (rather than just trolling), you would understand that bce is actually building out its own adsl2+ infrastructure. indie isps are not granted access to this since (gasp) bell built the network! bell has received a large roi from the sheer number of people using their services. however, since they have throttled (and now initiated ubb), they are simply trying to limit the threat of a clec triple play using iptv. this is a money-grab, pure and simple with the crtc acting like a bell puppet organization.
now, aside from a few select markets that verizon is overbuilding fios in att land, where do we have competition? i live in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation (we were 7th the last time i checked) and its either cox cable or qwest dsl (i can only get 7meg adsl, 2+ for me). qwest wants the same price for 7/896k dsl as i pay for my 15/1.5 cable line (since i don't want (a) a contract or (b) a pots line). however, prices have been steadily going up between the two, almost within months of each other.
but, i guess in your little world, you wouldn't see how bad we really are off in terms of net infrastructure
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012:said by Guspaz:I used to brag to my American friends about the great broadband industry that we had in Canada, about how we could get fast speeds at great prices. Since then, the CRTC has allowed the US to fly past us into the distance while we're stuck watching helplessly as our internet bills are about to double. You are in the mess you are in because of PAST CRTC policies that inhibited innovation and a ROI for coming out with enhanced infrastructure. CLECs and independent ISPs are the enemies of innovation. They drag down the profits of the companies that BUILT the infrastructure. Maybe if the CRTC was more like the US FCC in the past, companies in Canada would have invested in the improvement of the infrastructure. As others have said here, absolutely positively false. |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to adisor19
said by adisor19:said by Romney2012:said by Guspaz:I used to brag to my American friends about the great broadband industry that we had in Canada, about how we could get fast speeds at great prices. Since then, the CRTC has allowed the US to fly past us into the distance while we're stuck watching helplessly as our internet bills are about to double. You are in the mess you are in because of PAST CRTC policies that inhibited innovation and a ROI for coming out with enhanced infrastructure. CLECs and independent ISPs are the enemies of innovation. They drag down the profits of the companies that BUILT the infrastructure. Maybe if the CRTC was more like the US FCC in the past, companies in Canada would have invested in the improvement of the infrastructure. WoW, haven't heard such extreme capitalist propaganda in a while ! Thanks for that, it made me lol this morning. No but seriously, the big Bell company built its network with heavy subsidy from the Canadian government, thus from us, canadians. Don't come and insult my intelligence by telling me that we should kill the small ISPs that are trying to bring competition and lower prices to market and we should instead bend over to Bell and their monopolistic prices and practises. Thank GOD the CRTC had some sort of semi good intentions in the begging for forcing Bell to sell the GAS access for their DSL service to third parties, otherwise we would be worse then we are now. I agree that the CRTC has recently acted in the interests of Bell and not of the canadian consumers. This is bad, but it's not a reason to dismantle them. Adi The petition is to dismantle AND REPLACE them. You who would change ISP's over a $4.00 month charge surprise me with not wanting to replace them. |
|
| reply to DataRiker
and really what we are fighting for is access to the copper that is run to each of our residences.
Bell wants to double charge us for the small component that they provide. |
|
| reply to olebiker
Actually, yes i DO want to replace them. My comment was objecting to just simply getting rid of the CRTC and "letting the market decide" as golfsun was saying.
Adi |
|
| reply to Guspaz
The CRTC is a relic from another era. The sooner this bureaucratic monolith is shut down the better.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to adisor19
said by adisor19:Actually, yes i DO want to replace them. My comment was objecting to just simply getting rid of the CRTC and "letting the market decide" as golfsun was saying. Adi Oh good so you do support the petition. |
|
Reviews:
·Acanac
| said by olebiker:said by adisor19:Actually, yes i DO want to replace them. My comment was objecting to just simply getting rid of the CRTC and "letting the market decide" as golfsun was saying. Adi Oh good so you do support the petition. Yes, but i wold like for the petition to be more clear : replace the CRTC with more pro consumers and less corporate shills.
Adi |
|
| reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012:said by Guspaz:I used to brag to my American friends about the great broadband industry that we had in Canada, about how we could get fast speeds at great prices. Since then, the CRTC has allowed the US to fly past us into the distance while we're stuck watching helplessly as our internet bills are about to double. You are in the mess you are in because of PAST CRTC policies that inhibited innovation and a ROI for coming out with enhanced infrastructure. CLECs and independent ISPs are the enemies of innovation. They drag down the profits of the companies that BUILT the infrastructure. Maybe if the CRTC was more like the US FCC in the past, companies in Canada would have invested in the improvement of the infrastructure. Caution: Stock jockey at work! |
|
 IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
3 edits | reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012:You are in the mess you are in because of PAST CRTC policies that inhibited innovation and a ROI for coming out with enhanced infrastructure. CLECs and independent ISPs are the enemies of innovation. They drag down the profits of the companies that BUILT the infrastructure. Maybe if the CRTC was more like the US FCC in the past, companies in Canada would have invested in the improvement of the infrastructure. Truly spoken like someone with no idea what he's talking about beyond unfettered capitalism.
It's not the infrastructure that's the problem in Canada, it's exactly the kind of unfettered capitalism that you get so horny about that's the problem. Thanks to no robust regulation there is an effective cartel of ISPs in Canada offering similarly poor services at similarly high prices.
You appear to think that if you allow companies to do as they please they'll invest, generally they won't as there's no incentive to. Why bother to spend money on infrastructure when you can wring every last drop out of the existing infrastructure and collect the profits without the CapEx?
The only reason why Verizon et al have invested is because they want to keep up with the cable companies, that's it. Saying that though Verizon are the only one who is making the significant investment.
In Canada it's not such an issue, HSI services being expensive and restricted the relatively limited investment by BCE in remotes is more than enough. More amusing is that these remotes are limited to 16Mbit ADSL2+ services (Bell retail only).
In short do go away corporate shill, or alternately go and get a clue what you're talking about, it has always been the case that companies invest in infrastructure until it is required to preserve their market share and profits, which in your world of unfettered capitalism (Canada under the CRTC) isn't needed. Oh yes, the exception being when they get government money, just as Bell did to build the original plant.
Of course they are entitled to an ROI on their investment since, what they are not entitled to do is create an environment which preserves their retail domination and prevents other ISPs who rent their infrastructure from differentiating themselves.
Look at Canada's markets, services are expensive, capped, throttled, or all of the above. Virtually all products in Canada are bandwidth capped and expensive per GB with very little differentiation between the cable companies and the ILEC, so little differentiation it stinks of collusion. That's what your corporate nirvana produces. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to backness
said by backness:and really what we are fighting for is access to the copper that is run to each of our residences. Bell wants to double charge us for the small component that they provide. Your arguing for the copper, and middle mile/backhaul fiber. GAS is not the same as 3rd party DSL in the USA. GAS is pretty damn socialist. With GAS its a circuit from your house, from one coast to the other of Canada to your 3rd party DSL over Bell's long haul network. GAS is the direct opposite of Local Loop Unbundling. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| reply to DataRiker
There is more to the story than that.
@Home was the ISP for Cox. They were the ISP for MANY cable companies. it was always Name@home or something like that. Comcast, cablevision, Cox, etc.
What did you want Cox to do? shut your Internet off and then let you go back to dial-up?
|
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by hottboiinnc:There is more to the story than that. @Home was the ISP for Cox. They were the ISP for MANY cable companies. it was always Name@home or something like that. Comcast, cablevision, Cox, etc. What did you want Cox to do? shut your Internet off and then let you go back to dial-up? Cox took @home and immediately lowered established speeds which where working fine.
Please explain to me why cox, who took over @home and their equipment was unable to offer the same level of service for a decade?
Please give us the missing part of the story........... |
|
| Cox started to offer you the service that @home could no longer.
And as far as lowering the speed? What else did you have available? Dial-up? ISDN? IDSL? Market talks |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
3 edits | said by hottboiinnc:Cox started to offer you the service that @home could no longer. And as far as lowering the speed? What else did you have available? Dial-up? ISDN? IDSL? Market talks Yea Market talks.
More like non competitive Monopoly talks ( with numerous local and state tax incentives).
And please we are all waiting for the "more" to the story part you eluded too ( the whole story of which I'm very very familiar with ), like it somehow matters.
Point is, a Monopolistic minded company took over my internet and I lost, literally a decades worth of speeds over night. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| They don't hold a monoploy. You and everyone is free to compete. The fact is YOU DON'T and NOBODY else wants to either. So you're stuck with what they give you. You either like it or you don't and go some where else.
And what "more" do you want? That is the fact of the story. They either kept providing you the service or they could have shut you off and let you go back to dial-up. In my case, If i was them. I surely would have left you go back.
Be thankful you actually had cable modem that long instead of being on dial-up until 2003 when TWC finally talked your family run "cable" company into selling to them. |
|
