TekSavvy → Re: CNOC speed matching decision due next week

Videotron is actually the third most expensive. IIRC, Rogers gets first place at 26k$/Gbps, Bell was second at 22k$/Gbps, Videotron comes in third at 19k$/Gbps and I think Cogeco was fourth at 16k$/Gbps.

As for the CBB R&V, I would not expect rates to go lower than 8k$/Gbps... at least not without some of the costs getting shuffled back into the per-sub access fees.

Well, cutting costs by almost two thirds (in the case of Bell) on the indy ISP's biggest line item would definitely have a pretty positive effect, even if it's still vastly overinflated.

When's the CBB decision due, anyway?

There is no due date or anything..

But a bunch of us have been hearing rumors that it'll be out by end of Feb.

2013?



Mike

Last time I checked $8k/Gbps is much cheaper than $26k/$22k/Gbps...

Supposed to be in 2012-2013 for what appears to be the 703 file
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/backg ··· 2012.htm

And a review of costing for wholesale in 2013-2014 (file #??).

Ref:
»Re: The end of ####?

So I think the best we came up with, with those in the "know" and what we regular pee-ons know, was 703 being looked at in Nov-Dec-Jan with some sort of ruling coming out in Jan-Feb.

With Bell giving unlimited all of a sudden after calling their customers thieves (more or less), seems to me they may have advanced knowledge that this is completed, the decision rendered, and now just waiting for it to be released.

Best guess.

Cheaper, yes. But still nowhere near as cheap as the 1-2k$/Gbps many people here are hoping for and 8k$/Gbps is near the optimistic end of my guess range.

Holy shit! Makes you wonder how Google is offering 1Gb for $70. That Google fibre sounds sexy.

Google Fiber is 1Gbps only between the subscriber and Google's edge equipment. Beyond that, speeds vary wildly and even more so if you go beyond Google's own network.

Not quite the same provisioning burden as aggregated or dedicated links where ISPs and clients usually expect to be able to push links to full speed at any time of day for however long they need.

High speeds are much cheaper to offer when they come with minimal (if any) performance guarantees.

while this isn't really the thread for it, Google is selling it at a loss and generally all their products at a loss too as long as it enables them to collect data off you and sell it or feed you ads.

they also are very interested in disrupting current broadband markets in the US and likely just using it as a scare tactic.

Google is on the record as saying it's not being sold at a loss.

Unless they reveal all the costs associated with rolling out fiber on poles, running the into homes, installing in home, building their edge ip network, etc., it is simply just their word saying its not being sold at a loss.

And like other companies, they just reveal total profits for the company in financial reports, so those don't indicate much. Google's primary business is mining data, selling that data to advertisers and selling space to advertisers.

Look no further then Google's Android OS, they developed it and then just give it away to OEMs.

Comparing Google's fibre project in Kansas city to convential ISPs is not really is like comparing apples to oranges. I predict the Google's fibre rolling out to the masses to fizzle like Verizon's FIOS did when it first arrived in the States many, many years ago.

again it's benefitting them to say it's not being sold at a loss. assuming it is then it's likely being sold at an even cost which isn't proving anything.

the big cost from fiber to the home is the installation/last mile infrastructure (not the actual bandwidth) and the install fee cannot cover that. it could be that city of KC or some other org is funding it and Google isn't counting that as their 'cost'.

At $70/month with no speed guarantees, I think it is pretty safe to conclude that they will eventually be making a fair profit on it. Similar service in Hong Kong costs as little as $35/month and in Japan you can have it for ~$50/month in some areas.

As far as KC "funding" Google Fiber, the only conditions Google had were free access to easements and the city generally staying out of Google's way. Local incumbents did try to have GF shut down by saying free easement was an unfair advantage.