 RexterYeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9 | Keep Government out fo this. The Rogers market is prime for another company to come in, and do it better. Oh this is Canada, government intervention will prevent that from happening.
Never mind......
--
I'm with the Central Government. I'm here to help you. Now bend over, really, I'm helping you, just, just stay still. You'll feel better in a moment. |
|
 MM
@shawcable.net | Fios would dominate in east Canada after the abuse of bhell/rogers and their insane overage fees and pathetic caps. Not to mention the mobile markets.... |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | And the communists in Canada would promptly LLU the FTTH plant killing any chance of private interests ever investing in it. |
|
|
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by patcat88:And the communists in Canada would promptly LLU the FTTH plant killing any chance of private interests ever investing in it.
LLU = Local Loop Unbundling; I assume.
And yes, if a private company was to spend all that money to install FTTH and then be forced to open it up to competitors who had not invested 1 dime, that would certainly kill any interests in investing in FTTH.
But isn't that what the "gov't always knows best crowd" wants - force the gov't in to installing FTTH at taxpayer expense. Except that the gov't is in deficit and won't spend the money either. Catch 22 - Canada doesn't get FTTH either way. |
|
MM
@shawcable.net | Maybe, not sure if it would apply to a none copper network that the public had not invested millions in already. Even so verizon could merely do what bell/rogers do to teksavvy and charge the wholesaler a per gig fee.
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-802.htm |
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| reply to Romney2012
and that is why Bell has agreements with CTRC that they do NOT have to share their Fiber network. Why allow Indie ISPs on (like TekSavvy) when they're not spending a dime to build the new network but want a free ride via wholesale access? ISPs need to start steping up and building out something to keeping their customers happy if they want to keep going on- ISPs as in Indie. |
|
| Teksavvy is building fiber in Perth. |
|
| reply to Romney2012
Ironically Bell didn't invest a dime in the majority of the existing copper infrastructure. The taxpayers did. |
|
| said by Jika :Ironically Bell didn't invest a dime in the majority of the existing copper infrastructure. The taxpayers did.
an often overlooked detail apparently. |
|
RexterYeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9 | reply to Jika
Heh, that explains a lot about why things are the way they are. You guys are screwed. You'll just have to deal with it. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Jika
said by Jika :Ironically Bell didn't invest a dime in the majority of the existing copper infrastructure. The taxpayers did.
That's a myth. Bell issued an IPO to raise funds 130+ years ago and bought other telco's in Canada that had built their own copper infrastructure (without taxpayer's money).
The only time Bell was given money from the government was when they were paid to build copper in some areas of Canada (low population areas, for example). It was that, or the Government creates a Crown Corp to do it instead. But then they would have eventually just sold it off to Bell anyhow.
By your logic, any company that's paid to do work for the government is being subsidized with taxpayer money.
Even Teksavvy get's tax breaks from various levels of government. So, I guess their fiber build in Perth is being funded by taxpayers as well? |
|
| Except there is a big difference between direct and indirect funding.
Oh, and you forgot the Monopoly part with regulated service rates. |
|
Reviews:
·Bell Sympatico
| said by backness:Except there is a big difference between direct and indirect funding.
Oh, and you forgot the Monopoly part with regulated service rates.
Taxpayer money is taxpayer money. What difference does it make if it's given directly or indirectly (whatever that means), if the end result is the same?
And a monopoly? Yes. But only because no one else wanted to do it. How does that relate to tax payers though? |
|
