Topic 'could someone explain this situation here?' in forum 'TekSavvy' - dslreports.com

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:15:26 EDT

dm1336 posted : Rogers and Shaw also signed an agreement in 2000 which resulted in Rogers swapping their operations in Vancouver and surrounding areas for Shaws operations in southern Ontario (such as Toronto, Barrie, Orillia) and New Brunswick

At the time Shaw was the winner by gaining the most customers. But Rogers also got control of their home city (Toronto)

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:01:22 EDT

sbrook posted : Even going digital won't provide enought bandwidth on the cable for multiple providers with even partially overlapping service offerings.

Doing it on Fibre is another matter ... and what I see is a star offering instead of a daisy chained offering. You're plugged into "your provider" at a local node. More miles of cable on the local loops (node to subscriber), but cheaper than a whole new infrastructure.

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:16:09 EDT

vikingisson posted :

Plus if everyone went fibre, multiple providers all paying for the same infrastructure. Much cheaper in the long run.

It sure does. Revenue coming in isn't higher in general but the overhead cost is fractional so the consumer price is lower and the choices are much greater. In a wholesale owned infrastructure it becomes much easier to retrofit and future proof. The other services such as hot and cold water (district heating is suddenly possible) , heat, electricity, gas, wireless, etc are all part of the system. The aesthetics can be a whole lot better. Make it low or non profit with the tax revenue as the cream that incentivises Public Corp to do it right while making all the bits cheaper to the consumer.

A case study I looked at added FTH to the whole city and burbs for half the build cost that we can do. And this was done in a country with high wage and real estate costs. Plus several service providers were available on day one. More choice, higher performance, lower cost. That's the theory.

A pipe dream for us but is what I would plan for down the road.

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:35:41 EDT

mlerner posted :

said by vikingisson:

Dump the analog and you can. And multiple lines without the jurisdictional nonsense is always possible. A common base service is provided by the wholesaler with providers offering their added value. And that fibre.... Imagine the fibre. When I see how easily and cheaply a wholesale fibre can be made available I have to wonder why we are so archaic.

Plus if everyone went fibre, multiple providers all paying for the same infrastructure. Much cheaper in the long run.

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:13:21 EDT

vikingisson posted : Dump the analog and you can. And multiple lines without the jurisdictional nonsense is always possible. A common base service is provided by the wholesaler with providers offering their added value. And that fibre.... Imagine the fibre. When I see how easily and cheaply a wholesale fibre can be made available I have to wonder why we are so archaic.

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:57:00 EDT

sbrook posted : That doesn't work for cable with the virtually entire cable spectrum filled by one cable provider. You couldn't fit 2 cable providers on a single cable.

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 07:24:12 EDT

vikingisson posted : "someone has to own it".
The way it works in some countries is that the someone isn't also the retail provider. The wholesaler owns/maintains the cables and sells access to many companies. Sometimes the city/state/public owns it (it is on public land after all) and sometimes not. But you would have several companies to choose from and would probably have FTH in many areas. No overbuild needed and no fighting/buying access between coax/copper/fibre/wireless.

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:25:22 EDT

brad posted :

said by NytOwl:

False. Videotron does operate in certain an areas within Prescott-Russell County in Ontario (about 25-30 minutes East of Ottawa), where Rogers does not.

Shaw operates in the former Mountain Cable areas in and around Hamilton. They purchased Mountain not long after Edward "Ted" Rogers died breaking the agreement the two companies had to not operate in each others respective regions.

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:14:29 EDT

brad posted :

said by sbrook:

What it boils down to is that the cost of running more than one cable into an area is too expensive. (Called over-building)

There were a few areas for example, in Colorado, where there were 2 cable operators running side by side, but in the end it just wasn't economically viable.

RCN is an overbuilder in the US. They cover portions of Allentown, Boston, Chicago, Washington D.C., New York City, and Philadelphia. But they don't overlap with 100% of the coverage of each respective cable provider they're competing with in each area or even close to it.

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:55:10 EDT

NytOwl posted :

said by vientito1:

...I believe Videotron does not operate in ontario neither.

False. Videotron does operate in certain an areas within Prescott-Russell County in Ontario (about 25-30 minutes East of Ottawa), where Rogers does not.

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:59:23 EDT

sbrook posted : What it boils down to is that the cost of running more than one cable into an area is too expensive. (Called over-building)

There were a few areas for example, in Colorado, where there were 2 cable operators running side by side, but in the end it just wasn't economically viable.

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:49:40 EDT

The Mongoose posted :

said by vientito1:

Cogeco is in both ontario and quebec. Rogers does not operate in quebec territory and I believe Videotron does not operate in ontario neither. How do we get into a situation like this?

I personally believe if they crisscross each other's territories then they will have to compete with each other so service standard will be higher.

There's only one physical cable per household. Someone has to own it. There's never going to be cable vs. cable competition in any one place. Competition has to come from other transmission media (phone lines/DSL, fibre, wireless, etc).

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:26:01 EDT

mlerner posted : In some cases, the cable cos got a large monopoly because they bought up the smaller providers that no longer exist. Like Rogers bought almost a handful of cable cos in Ontario. I can't remember the other ones but I think Cogeco also bought some.

End result, few own a large portion of conduits and cables in many neighborhoods, the infrastructure has been there for so long and so much market share bought up that setting up shop in an area like that would be financially and bureaucratically impossible.

Re: could someone explain this situation here?

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:44:18 EDT

anon posted : All three of the companies DO NOT have overlapping territory. Each cable company is a local monopoly.

could someone explain this situation here?

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:00:44 EDT

vientito1 posted : Cogeco is in both ontario and quebec. Rogers does not operate in quebec territory and I believe Videotron does not operate in ontario neither. How do we get into a situation like this?

I personally believe if they crisscross each other's territories then they will have to compete with each other so service standard will be higher.