 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to mlerner
Re: All This UBB , Usage based BS was such a waste said by mlerner:It's not really a failure if three of the big ISPs are now offering unlimited options in advance of new wholesale rates. Seems like they're afraid of the 'failed' indies.
It not competition either. This whole thing is "created" by the regulator. It's fabricated, just like you would fabricate a widget. In this case the fabricating unit is wholesale. Really no different. It's a forced thing. A created thing. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:said by hm :What it also proves is that there is no competition in Canada. Resale or wholesale is a bandaid, and a failure. Wholesale was just something to try and kick start (or pretend there was) competition. Even KvF stated this. His words were, "It's a failure". When faced with *true* competition, prices drop from 50$/month to 9.95$/month (unlimited 200-meg speed. As was the case with Novus). You have to keep in mind that TekSavvy, as with all resellers & wholesalers, are not *true* competition. It's just a phenomena placed there by force by the CRTC to give people a minor choice. Nothing else. True competition would see 2 cable companies in the same area. All we have is 1 cable and 1 DSL. And Keep in mind Rogers and I believe it was shaw divided up a section of Ontario so as not to compete. Status quo, collusion, price fixing, no-compete pacts = Happy share holders + Money in political party coffers. It's actually no different than the construction corruption hearings going on in Quebec with the percentage of the money funneled to the political parties. I'll be dead before a hearing like this for telecom ever happens. But it's no different, and one day it will happen. hum. so... when you talk about true competition.. text books point to 5 or more. the idea that 5 or more would lay a wire to all homes does not exist anywhere in the world. It's like asking for a unicorn for Christmas. It's not something they tried. Wholesale is the *only* way to have any competition at all. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
5 or more wouldn't happen here.
The argument of passing 3 different cables is as weak as the argument that Canada is to vast to supply proper service to everyone.
You yourself saw what true competition did to your fibre project (which wasn't a resale as far as I know). Rocky spoke about it and the price drop from the competition.
It's no different than the Shaw & Telus territory that saw Novas move in and prices dropped to $9.95 from about 50$. Then both of them started competing for the customer for 10$ internet with crazy speeds.
Do you think that could ever happen in Ontario and Quebec with the pseudo competition created by the CRTC that we have now?
I'm not sure what you are getting at or trying to state, but I doubt we would see 5 players in any one given area. Money isn't there, and one or two out of the 5 would go bankrupt (even the CRTC stated we will likely see one go bankrupt or sold anyhow). But, that is part of competition and part of who supplies the better competing product (or value).
When wholesale was first forced by the CRTC it was so that it could grow to become more, but it never did. Nothing ever materialized from it, as the CRTC stated. They called it a failure.
Maybe a failure from their own myopic view of wholesale becoming more due to costs. Or the control the incumbent has to prevent competition (or both). Who knows.. Either way the only competition we have now is as you stated. Wholesale. But costs are controlled. You can't really and truly compete. You get what the regulator will give you and that's the extent of it. And you innovate your given and mandated business model based on that. You could never get into a price war like Novus and Shaw for the customer when Bell, Rogers, videotron, telus and cogeco control your costs. Just like this case here where Bell under-cut you for business internet. You can't compete, as you stated. |
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3
 ·Start Communicat..
| reply to hm
said by hm :It not competition either. This whole thing is "created" by the regulator. It's fabricated, just like you would fabricate a widget. In this case the fabricating unit is wholesale. Really no different. It's a forced thing. A created thing. Considering that the regulator created the monopoly in the first place, it's only fair that they create the competition as well. |
|
 TSI MarcPremium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:14 | reply to hm
yeah sorry. I could have explained better.. my point is that there is only one way to create competition in the wireline space.. it's through regulation. that's why it's mandated.
so to expand on that, the thought of 3 wires to most homes, let alone 5. (not in a small area either where it may be possible to sustain something if say, one of the other two weren't really servicing the needs that well, I'm talking generally available) is like wishing for unicorns... it doesn't exist. not anywhere.
I'm not aware that there is a thought that it's been a failure. If anything it appears to me that they always thought that by allowing us to exist at all was enough to create a vibrant competitive market. i.e. that somehow there would be no down side for the incumbents. so they could have the best of both worlds.. giving the incumbents what they want and allowing independents to do their thing.
the problem of course is that it's not possible to please both. the CRTC necessarily has to take something away from one and give it to the other. that's their job.. and they haven't been willing to do it.
I'm hoping that now that they've nearly made us extinct, they can clearly see that we were never the problem to begin with and so I really hope that this decision comes out really positive for us. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. If they dont.. we all know how to revert back to our old discourse pretty easily.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy |
|
 elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1
1 edit | Apparently the Rogers boss said "Rogers’ wireless division represents about 65 per cent of its business, cable about 25 per cent and media 10 per cent, Mohamed said."
If you figure of the 25% cable, that half is TV and only 12.5% is internet then for Rogers to take such a predatory stance against TPIA really demonstrates what kind of business mentality Rogers presents.
Canada would be far better off to ban businesses like Rogers from operating within it's borders. Who would want to invest here knowing Canada approves of such anti-competitive practices? |
|
|
|
TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| said by elitefx:Canada would be far better off to ban businesses like Rogers from operating within it's borders. Who would want to invest here knowing Canada approves of such anti-competitive practices?
And with its ban would go ALL the Cable TPIAs and Bell/Telus would be left to impose far higher rates one everyone.
I gotta wonder something elitefx, you rail on Rogers pretty hard yet you are a stoic customer of theirs, always posting in a TPIA outage thread. Why stay with a company you so loathe? Start & TekSavvy are there as alternatives. Start offers $0 activation if you already have cable internet. |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | reply to LastDon
Just something to remember though, in the 90's there were multiple cable companies than companies like Rogers and Shaw bought them all up, with that the infrastructure and cabling. The Government did not attempt to stop it at all. So multiple parties are to blame for it and that's primarily how we got into this. |
|
 alienzzzKill Bell
join:2011-02-17
Verdun, QC
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX
1 edit | This doesn't change the fact that even before the buyouts there were no overlapping territories between providers.
Cable (as phone) infrastructure should be considered separate from the provider company and every currently existing cable company should be able to offer services (whether TV or internet) over it. So for example, both Toronto and MTL should be able to be serviced by any choice of Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco, Videotron, TSI, whatever, regardless of who owns the infrastructure.
That's the only way to fix the system. The mafia-style territory division should not be allowed to exist. |
|
 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
·Cybersurf Intern..
| reply to sbrook
said by sbrook:All the municipal fibre networks that I'm aware of sold themselves out of the business.
Yep, Comrade Miller sold Toronto Hydro Internet to Gougeco , no doubt for pennies on the dollar. |
|
TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to alienzzz
said by alienzzz:This doesn't change the fact that even before the buyouts there were no overlapping territories between providers.
Cable (as phone) infrastructure should be considered separate from the provider company and every currently existing cable company should be able to offer services (whether TV or internet) over it. So for example, both Toronto and MTL should be able to be serviced by any choice of Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco, Videotron, TSI, whatever, regardless of who owns the infrastructure.
That's the only way to fix the system. The mafia-style territory division should not be allowed to exist.
I agree that is the most ideal situation, last mile access into homes should be owned by a body regulated by all ISPs and they conneect their back-end networks into entry points.
Unfortunately the current state of ownership of last mile access would make that kind of scenario complicated. You have the copper PSTN network and HFC network. All the incumbents owning these infrastructures would need be reimbursed for their investments in building them to begin with (minus any subsidies they got from the government). The government couldn't just snatch them up and give everyone access. This would scare away a lot of international investors from wanting to invest capital in Canada, in all industry. A government that seizes assets from private organizations would destroy its own economy.
A more viable option would be to have all ISPs wanting to participate invest together to roll out a new last mile network based on fibre, starting with large urban cores first (where FTTH isnt already present). This would create 1 last mile infrastructure and almost fresh start so no one can claim they need to be reimbursed for decades of prior investment.
One can dream I guess. |
|
| Makes sense to join together and build the last mile together considering they are already partners in gouging us all at the same time. |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to TypeS
said by TypeS:The government couldn't just snatch them up and give everyone access. This would scare away a lot of international investors from wanting to invest capital in Canada, in all industry. A government that seizes assets from private organizations would destroy its own economy. And how is this different from the formation of, say, HydroQuebec? The government bought out all the many private hydro companies in Quebec and merged them into a single crown corporation.
I'm not advocating nationalizing any telecom services, mind you, just pointing out that we've done exactly this sort of thing before.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
Reviews:
 ·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:so to expand on that, the thought of 3 wires to most homes, let alone 5. (not in a small area either where it may be possible to sustain something if say, one of the other two weren't really servicing the needs that well, I'm talking generally available) is like wishing for unicorns... it doesn't exist. not anywhere.
I totally agree with what Marc has to say, but as a thought experiment there is more internet available than I sometimes think. Thing is most areas there's only a few options that are the most economically feasible and it would be foolish to compete with a more expensive technology.
While maybe not wires, most urban types likely have 3 or 4 ways to access the internet already. However, DSL and Cable are really the only cost effective way for most who want affordability and any significant amount of usage. However from a competition standpoint DSL and Cable have a leg up
Available to most already:
1. DSL
2. Cable
3. Cell signal
4. Satellite (although due to cost most will not use if DSL or cable is in their area)
Available to some, or available with investment:
5. Fibre Optic (some smaller towns have this)
6. Microwave tower
7. Wi-fi (many flavours, publicly or privately offered)
Abandoned?
8. Large scale Powerline internet
9. Google TiSP |
|
TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to Guspaz
Re: All This UBB , Usage based BS was such a wa coulste said by Guspaz:said by TypeS:The government couldn't just snatch them up and give everyone access. This would scare away a lot of international investors from wanting to invest capital in Canada, in all industry. A government that seizes assets from private organizations would destroy its own economy. And how is this different from the formation of, say, HydroQuebec? The government bought out all the many private hydro companies in Quebec and merged them into a single crown corporation. I'm not advocating nationalizing any telecom services, mind you, just pointing out that we've done exactly this sort of thing before. Well I was talking about seizing (ie, just taking ownership for Roger/Bell's last mile infrastructure without paying them).
The government could buy out the infrastructure but it would most likely have to mandate it, I sincerely doubt incumbents would voluntarily sell their consumer broadband networks unless they're paid a king's ransom. And that would serve that Canadian tax payers no purpose. Plus we can see how badly crown corporations are run, just look at Air Canada, VIA and Canada Post. As you said, nationalizing would be a bad idea, not in principal, but because it has never worked out well for the tax payers. |
|
alienzzzKill Bell
join:2011-02-17
Verdun, QC Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX
| They don't have to seize, they can force them to cooperate, just like roaming on incumbent networks for new mobile carriers.
The government can force incumbents to share their infrastructure with other incumbents and indies alike, thus bringing a greater choice and better competition to the customer, not just for internet but also TV. |
|
TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by alienzzz:They don't have to seize, they can force them to cooperate, just like roaming on incumbent networks for new mobile carriers.
The government can force incumbents to share their infrastructure with other incumbents and indies alike, thus bringing a greater choice and better competition to the customer, not just for internet but also TV.
The government has already done this, sort of, by forcing them to sell access to TPIAs, but the situation is less than ideal. Forcing them to share without paying, or enforcing all sorts of rules such as rates, maintenance, etc, would scare off any future investment. And nationalizing is never executed well.
A brand new infrastructure that all ISPs would share the costs of rolling out and maintaining would be the best route. ISPs are businesses in the end, responsible to their investors and/or shareholders. |
|
| reply to hm
Re: All This UBB , Usage based BS was such a waste said by hm :True competition would see 2 cable companies in the same area. All we have is 1 cable and 1 DSL. And Keep in mind Rogers and I believe it was shaw divided up a section of Ontario so as not to compete.
True competition would be 2 net-neutral fiber companies selling capacity to any and all ISP/telco/content providers, who in turn compete for end customer business with a huge variety of features/prices.
Or maybe just one regulated fiber utility selling at-cost + 5% markup. |
|
| reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:said by sbrook:All the municipal fibre networks that I'm aware of sold themselves out of the business.
Yep, Comrade Miller sold Toronto Hydro Internet to Gougeco , no doubt for pennies on the dollar. THT sale was profitable to Toronto Hydro. They made something like $30MM net. |
|
Reviews:
·TELUS
| reply to TypeS
Re: All This UBB , Usage based BS was such a wa coulste See thats where I disagree if a company is offering services to its customers they should be just as important as shareholders and not disposable. I mean after all its in a companies best interest to keep its customers please even the so called 10 percenters who use near or above Bandwidth caps. |
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
Re: All This UBB , Usage based BS was such a waste said by MaynardKrebs:True competition would be 2 net-neutral fiber companies selling capacity to any and all ISP/telco/content providers, who in turn compete for end customer business with a huge variety of features/prices.
um, I don't think we have even one of those. Where would we find two?
oh wait, I know, the CRTC can create it to pretend there is competition again. Bell, Rogers, Videotron and Telus can control it. |
|
