O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > TSI R&V and Stay for UBB now in....

reply to R0CKY

Re: TSI R&V and Stay for UBB now in....

reply to rollaster

And where is TSI going to get the hundreds of thousands to millions needced to launch this lawsuit?

Oh, and apart from the errors in law request to take an appeal to the courts re the CRTC and its legal ramifications, just where are the laws of the land being broken that you CAN launch a suit against Bell and other major corporations?

Remember a law must be broken to launch a lawsuit. Not agreeing with how the CRTC is enforcing the law is one thing doesn't make what Bell's doing illegal.

Remember Bell have far deeper pockets when it comes to lawyers than any of the TPIAs.

reply to brad
If an ISP was a small town one, lets say Sturgeon Falls Ontario, then FTTH might be possible, especially if Bell is dragging its feet in deploying ADSL.

Why ? Because first, a small town is more amenable to giving you the contstruction permits to deploy FTTH, and the government will be more amenable to giving you grants and logistical help to get the permits etc.

And more importantly, with a target of only your city, all your customers will be relatively close to your facilities.

Compare this to an ISP like the one using this forum who has customers spread out throughout Bell's Ontario and Quebec territory. To convert your customers to FTTH would require HUGE investment because you need to do a whole lot fo cities and small towns in rural areas to get to all your customers.

If such an ISP decides to deploy FTTH in its home town, it will still need GAS service to get to the rest of its customers. And this is why it is important to keep on fighting for GAS like service.

In the end, competition in just one neighbourhood of Toronto isn't enough. You need competition everywhere, even in Sturgeon Falls.

reply to sbrook
>Remember Bell have far deeper pockets when it comes to lawyers than
>any of the TPIAs.

Bell doesn't have deeper pockets. It has hands that fetch the money from my and your pockets

reply to jfmezei

reply to jfmezei

reply to lester
As it is the cost of laying cable to a home is phenomenal ... the rights of way charges, the legalities of easements across your lands, the charges to dig up and block roads. It's just phenomenal. The more urban the area, the higher the cost. the fibre itself is cheap!

The only way to get fibre deployed is if one of the big boys decides to do it ... and then you're still in the dilema of the telco won't if the cable co won't and so nobody will.

reply to brad
Deploying FTTH in rural areas is far easier than in highly urban areas like Toronto. (both phyically and politically/(municipal/provincial/federal levels)

You may need longer strands of fibre to reach homes, and you may need more "nodes" if you choose a technology with limited fibre lengths. But it is easier to deploy and your service offering will be very welcome by citizens and the city who are likely to have been begging for high speed internet for over a decade.

If you choose a highly lucrative market like Toronto, expect lawsuits from Rogers and Bell to prevent the city from giving you the rights to deploy. (this happened in a Louisianna city where neither telco nor cableco wanted to deploy high speed internet, so the city went ahead with its own project, and the telco/cableco sued the city to prevent it from doing so, but I read that the city did win and finally deployed FTTH network). This took years.

reply to jfmezei

reply to lester

Like an incumbent did is the key. Today, Bell has no ROI guarantee. Before, during the regulated era, Bell got to adjust it's prices based on the return threshold that was set. If they became more efficient, the price went down. It they got less efficient, the price went up. Today, the price is what the market will bear, with a floor to prevent them from undercutting competitors.

So since they're operating two services, one regulated, one somewhat unregulated, over largely the same infrastructure, should we assume that they still stiff us for 100% of the shared infrastructure costs through the regulated services?

I don't think Bell has come clean in terms of how much of their internet (and cell?) stuff is running through/on their legacy rights of way, copper plant, backbone, easements, COs, etc. but paid for through regulated services (local tel mainly). If Bell is going to start using these spaces for non-tariffed products, they should have to "sell" or "lease" it to these other divisions, and pay us back with the proceeds (how to come up with a price is another story).

1970s: CO 100% utilized for local phone service - All CO expenses recovered through local phone tariffs
1980s/1990s: COs digitized, CO now half empty - All CO expenses recovered through local phone tariffs
Today: CO 1/2 local phone, 1/2 free-market IP services - All CO expenses still recovered through local phone tariffs?

Since you'll need at least the dry pair or a working POTS line to have DSL, the cost of the copper wire outside of the CO/Remote is covered.

Now $20 is *A LOT* just to cover the DSLAM rental and use of Bell's internal network for my packets. TSI pays for the network connections on those GiE links on the rest of that trip to Front Street .

reply to rollaster

It is no secret that Teksavvy and I and like water and oil. We don't mix well, and if there are sparks, it tends to ignite into a full fledged war of words. (if we were in a restaurant, it would probably degenerate into a bona fide highschool food fight like this:
»/showpic/teksa···5934&p=3