dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12021
share rss forum feed


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 :

said by mlerner:

Proved my point

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.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
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 Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
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:2

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.


mlerner
Premium
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.


alienzzz
Kill Bell

join:2011-02-17
Verdun, QC

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.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
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.

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1
Makes sense to join together and build the last mile together considering they are already partners in gouging us all at the same time.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
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

graniterock
Premium
join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
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.


alienzzz
Kill Bell

join:2011-02-17
Verdun, QC
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.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
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.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
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.

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1
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.


er um

@videotron.ca
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.

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1
Bell, Rogers, Videotron, shaw and telus should have Second tier access as they have proven they can not play nice. Priority should be given to those ISPS who will not abuse the privilege.


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to DanteX

Re: All This UBB , Usage based BS was such a wa coulste

said by DanteX:

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.

You have to give them a reason to act for you though. It's not nice I know, but its how it works If the company's revenue and profits drop, shareholders start selling to send the message they have lost confidence. Disgruntled customers complained on forums yet remaining customers paying them month after month sends the message that you're still willing to pay. When they know for sure you're not willing to pay, thats when they will accommodate. Hence a whole department dedicated to retentions. Of Course a threat of cancellation here or there won't force a business like Rogers to change, thousands switching to other providers (voting with their wallets) would send a clear message to them.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
reply to LastDon

Re: All This UBB , Usage based BS was such a waste

When you have 2 million customers, disgruntled customers are less than churn (those who leave because of moving etc). That means that a few customers leaving is not something they worry about, but they want to stop a mass exodus hence retentions. After all, when retentions gives somebody a deal and they report it here, a disgruntled customer here says "I wonder if I can get that instead of going to " So, they've kept a few customers.

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1
reply to LastDon
I have just been looking at ISP services in the UK and found you can get 76Mbps down and unlimited usage for 26GBP try to get that here and your looking at close to 100 dollars or more and a limited cap.

How is it Canada is like one of the only developed countries with such lackluster services with sky high prices.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to alienzzz
said by alienzzz:

This doesn't change the fact that even before the buyouts there were no overlapping territories between providers.

Rogers does have a license to operate in Halton Region simultaneously with Cogeco. They've just never acted on the license by building their own duplicate network.

They also had one for Aurora back when Aurora cable was around, but Rogers just ended up buying the entire company instead.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13

1 recommendation

reply to DanteX
Actually, try getting that in the UK ... it may be offered, but few can actually get it.

And the US isn't a lot better than Canada any more

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1
reply to LastDon
Canada Per capita has the highest internet usage among Developed countries yet it lacks speed usage and affordability . We really need Google fiber to set up shop in Canada 70 dollars a month for upto 1Gbit up and down with no cap.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to sbrook
said by sbrook:

And the US isn't a lot better than Canada any more

Other than a few significant exceptions, they never really were better as a whole than Canada at all.


last_mile

@cogeco.net
reply to LastDon
So if all incumbents have access to every last mile of copper/fiber, who is going to pay to maintain them?

Who is going to pay some guy in a van for 20 hours while he splices fiber back together that a tractor trailer tore down?

Every ISP will look and say "sorry that's not ours" and back away from it, guaranteed.

Who will pay to maintain all the taps/splitters/battery backup systems, node splits, infrastructure upgrades?

If I have 0(zero) customers on that node for my ISP , why should I have to pay for something to be upgraded or fixed that I am not utlizing?

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
The point was that the last mile would be nationalized, and all ISPs who wanted access to it, would pay in for said access, upgrades, and repairs.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP