|reply to travisc |
Re: TekSavvy - glorified reseller, not ISP
said by travisc:And assuming the CRTC isn't going to ride to the rescue any time soon, what do you propose TSI do about this, other than what they've been doing?
I said in another thread, and I'll say it again, TekSavvy's business model is broken. You can't be the the customer-facing entity whose business depends on the goodwill of a hostile oligopoly like Rogers or Bell or any of the other big telecoms. They can, and will, screw with you relentlessly and there's no fixing it unless you can get the CRTC to put firm rules in place to help solve these types of issues.
Well, I don't think you should write off the CRTC just yet. At least try... Every time there's a situation like this where they get screwed over by Rogers or Bell, file a complaint with the CRTC. Inundate them with paper and hope they finally pay attention.
In a perfect world, I'd say TekSavvy should start slowly building out their own infrastructure or acquiring smaller telecoms. It's expensive and slow, but it's something to build on over the years. I think with the network fully under their control they can do it right and make a tidy profit competing against the big players. That profit you roll into further expansion. If you get large enough, hopefully you can attract some bank financing or a venture capitalist who could finance faster expansion. Honestly, it's really not that hard to compete against Bell or Rogers, if you can manage to get the network built. Yes, I am fully aware this is easier said than done.
There's not much else I see that they can do. It's not the best way to run a business, but it's a way. But I think the fans need to accept that if this is the way TekSavvy is going to exist, then there are going to be posts by disgruntled customers who have gotten badly screwed by getting caught in the middle of the relationship with the incumbent. And I don't think it's going to get better - the larger TekSavvy gets, the more pushback they'll get from Rogers and Bell who will view them as more of a threat than an annoyance.
I'm going to play devils advocate here.
What small telcom player could they purchase (assuming they can afford it) that will allow them their own infrastructure?
You're in Uxbridge and you've got Compton for your TV and internet, A little further east is Nexicom.
So lets focus on Ontario, let assume they can buy the Nexicoms and the Comptons, great so they got small regions that they control, but the "gravy" is Toronto,Ottawa, Montreal, etc.. and they're locked up the incumbents.
I can remember a time where there were so many cable companies in Toronto it wasn't funny, Rogers assimilated them all, starting with Maclean Hunter.
That's cable, now for xDSL, you have the large telcoms and nothing else.
So please tell me how they are going to build their own infrastructure by buying smaller players. (and lets be honest if Rogers got wind that TSI was after those playes they'd sweeten the offer).
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......
|reply to travisc |
I think you're trying to simplify things so it fits nicely into a sentence or two. Its no more broken now then it has ever been. I'd even say that it's the opposite and the big difference is that people are more aware. These discussions are important.
Let's be clear. *nobody* will build a third network. It's not a matter of somebody being able to afford it, it's because building a third network means you have to compete for one third of the market but you have to build for all of it. Even in the states where there's ten times the population, it doesn't exist.
This is why the CRTC has to mandate access to their networks. Getting the incumbents to play nice is not an option. it's a must. We need to get everybody saying the same thing and I guarantee you it will change. We all witnessed it with UBB.
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy
British Telecom had the same power in the UK. A rival infrastructure was impossible.
In the end, they were forcibly seperated from their infrastructure.
The National Infrastructure is managed seperately now (still a private company), and they "charge out" that infrastructure to the multiple ISP's who wish to provide service over it, using whatever differentiation they wish to market to customers.
I'm not privvy to anything special information-wise, but I've been talking to Vic Fidelli (great guy, Provincial MP up here) about this issue for years... and he's very much in favour I believe.
Unfortunately telecommunications is a federal responsibility, and until Harper is gone, nothing is going to change.
Right, I see.
We didn't have that issue of course, not having the provincial/federal distinction.
It was the Conservatives who did it in the UK. They did it to introduce the free market into telecom service delivery. It's all still private company operated, just without the monopoly.
It was a huge improvement over the previous years, where it was a National utility.