dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
77538
share rss forum feed


creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to TSI Marc

Re: Major CRTC decision next week. - CBB

If cable rates do go an extraordinary amount I'll just wait out the transition to APOI at the higher rather on my 28/1 account and then downgrade to 25/2 when APOI is live. I'll get all the download speed I could ever care for and more upload which is what I actually want. Hopefully this reduction in the package will compensate for whatever increase we have coming with the new CBB pricing.


Gruesome

join:2007-10-18
Milton, ON
reply to TSI Marc

How long before they are all in front of the CRTC again?
As speeds rise the situation becomes unsupportable.
Soon the incumbents will be able to offer speeds that the independents can't because they won't be able to afford the traffic that comes with them
Around and around


bbhog

join:2010-07-05
North York, ON

@Gruesome I think you are right. This will have to be fought by CNOC and IISPs again in a couple years.


d_source

join:2011-01-18

I doubt it will even take a couple years before they realize it's not supportable.



AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
reply to TSI Marc

Perhaps at that time they will nationalize the incumbent's network so that all ISP can use use it. It is possible that it could be purchased by the gov enhanced and shared out.
--
BHell... A Public Futility.


The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

said by AkFubar:

Perhaps at that time they will nationalize the incumbent's network so that all ISP can use use it. It is possible that it could be purchased by the gov enhanced and shared out.

The only thing worse than Bell and Rogers running the last-mile network would be the government running it.

koreyb
Open the Canadian Market NOW

join:2005-01-08
East York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by The Mongoose:

said by AkFubar:

Perhaps at that time they will nationalize the incumbent's network so that all ISP can use use it. It is possible that it could be purchased by the gov enhanced and shared out.

The only thing worse than Bell and Rogers running the last-mile network would be the government running it.

I disagree a little.. I think local government (city, town etc) could install dark fibre to each lot as they do for water and sewage hookups. It's something that I feel really would level the playing field. It also would allow each provider to run their own last mile.

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

said by koreyb:

I disagree a little.. I think local government (city, town etc) could install dark fibre to each lot as they do for water and sewage hookups. It's something that I feel really would level the playing field. It also would allow each provider to run their own last mile.

I love the idea in theory. In practice, I fear corrupt and incompetent governments would screw it up through bad contracting practices and mismanagement. You could wind up with a very expensive and unreliable network maintained entirely by unionized government workers. Governments simply can't be trusted not to try to gain political leverage from something like that.

d_source

join:2011-01-18
reply to AkFubar

With the current Guv of ON dumping/selling resources to create quick cash to pay off provincial debt, it's highly doubtful they would buy anything, especially something that will require a lot of money for constant upgrades.



AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSI Marc

Well i don't entirely agree that nationalization would be a problem a change in gov, the correct "arms length" agency with the proper planning and input could make it a possible solution. I agree the current system is unsupportable in the longer term, pretty well the only way to do it will be an industry shared network. Nationalization is ONE option.
--
BHell... A Public Futility.



tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto
reply to AkFubar

said by AkFubar:

Perhaps at that time they will nationalize the incumbent's network so that all ISP can use use it. It is possible that it could be purchased by the gov enhanced and shared out.

Be careful what you wish for. Government should regulate things, not own them. Government owns highways. Government owns Canada Post. Are you happy with how these services work? Are you happy with all the innovation happening there?


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by tom_tom:

said by AkFubar:

Perhaps at that time they will nationalize the incumbent's network so that all ISP can use use it. It is possible that it could be purchased by the gov enhanced and shared out.

Be careful what you wish for. Government should regulate things, not own them. Government owns highways. Government owns Canada Post. Are you happy with how these services work? Are you happy with all the innovation happening there?

And your solution to this issue would be....
--
BHell... A Public Futility.


tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto
reply to AkFubar

said by AkFubar:

Well i don't entirely agree that nationalization would be a problem a change in gov, the correct "arms length" agency with the proper planning and input could make it a possible solution.

Can you give us one example when that worked fine in the long-term?


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

We now live in a world of firsts. There is nothing to say that it could not work under the proper conditions. This is all hypothetical stuff as I said it is one option. If your gonna dream outside the box go all the way out and throw it out there.
--
BHell... A Public Futility.



tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto
reply to AkFubar

said by AkFubar:

And your solution to this issue would be....

The current situation in Canada wouldn't be bad if CRTC had teeth. Had their decision last week been what we have expected, we would have a pretty good situation now in Canada. We lost the opportunity here, but we might have another one in a year or two. Look how Rogers and Bell reacted when they got scared of CRTC - they offered unlimited packages! So that means they can offer good packages and still turn profit. And that means this is the best way to go in Canada - through government regulation.
This is the model that works well in Europe.


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSI Marc

Might be but you still use the incumbents network at their pleasure. The unsustainable part is not the regulation but the fact that indie ISPs lack the $ to have their own last mile. Go back every 2 years for a new reading is ridiculous after a while. Every 2 years because the incumbents will not share willingly when the market changes.
--
BHell... A Public Futility.



TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to tom_tom

said by tom_tom:

said by AkFubar:

And your solution to this issue would be....

The current situation in Canada wouldn't be bad if CRTC had teeth. Had their decision last week been what we have expected, we would have a pretty good situation now in Canada. We lost the opportunity here, but we might have another one in a year or two. Look how Rogers and Bell reacted when they got scared of CRTC - they offered unlimited packages! So that means they can offer good packages and still turn profit. And that means this is the best way to go in Canada - through government regulation.
This is the model that works well in Europe.

It would be nice to have a CRTC made up of Information specialist and impartial technocrats with knowledge & experience running the various segments addressed by the CRTC without a vertically integrated incumbent or special interest incumbent sponsored lobbygroup involvement. Yes. Will we ever see that in our lifetimes, the magic 8 ball says NO.
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca

jacketfeng

join:2008-12-21
Toronto, ON
reply to TSI Marc

another reseller offering CABLE 50
»xinflix.com/index.php?route=prod···64_63_68

come on teksavvy hurry up~~~~~~~~~~~~~



d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to tom_tom

said by tom_tom:

said by AkFubar:

Perhaps at that time they will nationalize the incumbent's network so that all ISP can use use it. It is possible that it could be purchased by the gov enhanced and shared out.

Be careful what you wish for. Government should regulate things, not own them. Government owns highways. Government owns Canada Post. Are you happy with how these services work? Are you happy with all the innovation happening there?

Yes I am actually. Are there problems with either of those that we are not aware of?
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting


tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto

said by d4m1r:

Yes I am actually. Are there problems with either of those that we are not aware of?

Are you kidding me? Have you tried to use any of the freeways in Toronto? Terrible traffic everywhere. Can't get anywhere on time, because of the congestion. Do you want to have that kind of situation with your Internet connection?

Canada Post? Every year higher prices, with service being worse and worse. Communal "super" boxes instead of door-to-door delivery, no delivery on Tuesdays and Thursdays in many communities. Putting tons of spam in your mailbox. Do you want your Internet infrastructure to managed by this kind of people?

The way I see the situation when government owns Internet infrastructure is rising prices, with lower speeds and higher latencies as a result of not upgrading infrastructure to keep up with demand. They would probably agree that something like 5 Mbps is a minimum they need to provide, and they wouldn't have any incentive to provide anything more than that. Yes, you would have a guaranteed access to that 5Mpbs, but probably nothing else above that. And just imagine all those unions cutting your Internet for a week or two to force salary increases.... I'm pretty sure it would be much worse than having Rogers or Bell manage their networks.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by tom_tom:

Canada Post? Every year higher prices, with service being worse and worse. Communal "super" boxes instead of door-to-door delivery, no delivery on Tuesdays and Thursdays in many communities. Putting tons of spam in your mailbox. Do you want your Internet infrastructure to managed by this kind of people?

Name another company that can send a letter to the arctic for 63 cents, then we'll talk.

As for the traffic in Toronto, the blame lies squarely in the hands of Jane Jacobs and her supporters who revolted against expressway construction in the 60s and 70s, not the government. Were it up to them, things would have been a lot different. Furthermore, while this may come as a shock, the actual quality of the highways in Toronto and the GTA themselves are vastly superior to anything else you'll find in a freeze/thaw zone. The design standards of the provincial highways are also second-to-none in North America.


TypeS

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

Nationalizing the internet would be a very bad idea. . For one, even if it was done, the MSOs and Telcos would not sell them off cheap, given they were even willing too. That'd be a lot of tax payer dollars needed, there are far better things to invest in right now like wait times at Canadian hospitals than dumping money into buying up all the PSTN/HFC networks. Two, while crown corporations like Canada Post serve their purpose, they are badly managed and get into strangleholds with public unions too often. You would take away private investment, leaving only the government to continue investing into the network whenever they feel like it (ie. when the House of Commons would agree to it in budgets, anyone seen how dysfunctional they usually are?).

I'd rather gave greedy profiteering private corporations managing broadband networks, they're more susceptible to public demand than nationalized industries.



squircle

join:2009-06-23
Oakville, ON
reply to tom_tom

said by tom_tom:

Are you kidding me? Have you tried to use any of the freeways in Toronto? Terrible traffic everywhere. Can't get anywhere on time, because of the congestion. Do you want to have that kind of situation with your Internet connection?

Don't blame the roads for your inability to plan ahead. It's not the fault of the roads that you're late. If people learned how to drive properly (not pointing any fingers), maybe we'd have fewer collisions, less congestion and a better commute. Or, of course, there's the smart option of taking public transit (that's a whole different debate and this is certainly not the right thread for it).

said by tom_tom:

Canada Post? Every year higher prices, with service being worse and worse. Communal "super" boxes instead of door-to-door delivery, no delivery on Tuesdays and Thursdays in many communities. Putting tons of spam in your mailbox. Do you want your Internet infrastructure to managed by this kind of people?

Well "worse and worse" is subjective. They're installing CMB's to reduce costs and provide better delivery standards (which have improved greatly over the past decade). I don't know where you got your "no delivery on Tuesdays and Thursdays in many communities" because that was a temporary measure during the strike and is not occurring anymore (if it is, you should talk to your local postal carrier because that's certainly not how things are supposed to be). The "spam" (which is actually called "admail") is not classified as "spam" by everybody. Businesses want to advertise to you; how is it any different if they send those ads through the mail, put them in a newspaper or drop them in your mailbox themselves?

Canada Post knows quite a bit about good network operation, though. They have QoS (Regular Parcel, Expedited Parcel, Xpresspost, Priority Courier etc.), they don't shape bandwidth (they'll drop a lettertainer at your door if you get too much mail), and their network is extensive (they can deliver to all corners of the country, unlike the private couriers). Not too bad!

Anyways, this thread is about Teksavvy and CBB, not the postal service. I'll show myself out...


MJB

join:2012-01-29
Reviews:
·VMedia
·ACN DSL
reply to tom_tom

grand result of the cancellation of toronto's freeway system.. the city needs to build the missing links. either over roads. through neighbourhoods or underground. 401 is now being extended to the usa border with the windsor essex parkway (the rt hon, herb grey parkway).

transit isn't enough since they haven't built enough subways...

either freeways or subways. neither are built ontime

other infrastructure needs to be built.. ftth aswell



tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

Name another company that can send a letter to the arctic for 63 cents, then we'll talk.

There is no such company, because Canada Post has a monopoly on delivering regular mail in Canada. Sections 14, 15 and 50 of the Canada Post Act make it an offence for anyone else to carry a letter for less than three times the prevailing postage rate. You can go to jail for it.

If it were allowed for private companies to deliver mails freely, it's possible it would have been cheaper (or faster).


tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

As for the traffic in Toronto, the blame lies squarely in the hands of Jane Jacobs and her supporters who revolted against expressway construction in the 60s and 70s, not the government. Were it up to them, things would have been a lot different. Furthermore, while this may come as a shock, the actual quality of the highways in Toronto and the GTA themselves are vastly superior to anything else you'll find in a freeze/thaw zone. The design standards of the provincial highways are also second-to-none in North America.

You are comparing it to other highway systems owned by governments. It's better if you compare 401 to 407 (which is privately owned). I have never experienced any traffic on 407, there are fewer (basically none) potholes, and the snow is removed almost instantly.
Of course, it costs a lot to use 407. But - same as with the Internet situation - the main issue is that the regulations imposed by the government are too weak. If the regulators did their work properly, we would have much lower rates on 407 now, while still maintaining the higher standard in comparison to 401 and other provincially-owned highways (407 profits are huge).

Making Canada's Internet infrastructure government-owned would just open a nasty can of worms. Like it or not, our only way to go is to convince CRTC that they should regulate Rogers and Bell more thoroughly. Ideally, they should force Rogers and Bell to split into smaller companies, so that the Internet part of the company would be separated from Cable. The way it is now, there is a big conflict of interested. If Rogers makes their Internet services fast and unlimited, it may convince many people to resign from Cable and go with online streaming. So it's not in Roger's interest to do that. But this can be fixed by government regulations.

bjlockie

join:2007-12-16
Ottawa, DSL
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by tom_tom:

It's better if you compare 401 to 407 (which is privately owned). I have never experienced any traffic on 407, there are fewer (basically none) potholes, and the snow is removed almost instantly.
Of course, it costs a lot to use 407.

You pay for little traffic, no potholes and to have the snow removed instantly.
It's not better because it's privately owned, it's better because it costs more.


tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto

said by bjlockie:

You pay for little traffic, no potholes and to have the snow removed instantly.
It's not better because it's privately owned, it's better because it costs more.

Actually, you don't necessary pay more. Maintaining existing highways is a big part of any governmental budget. So you pay - indirectly - with taxes. Knowing that privately-owned businesses are usually more efficient with spending money than public companies, it's actually likely that cost per-kilometer of highway maintenance may be lower for 407 than it is for 401.

I'm afraid something similar could happen to Internet if it was owned by the government. Maintenance costs would have gone up (unions, inefficiencies, etc) but the level of service would have stayed the same.

I don't think government companies are good at innovating at rapid rates. They are better at maintaining constant basic services at predictable low rates (think water, sewage, electricity, etc) than rapidly changing services like Internet connections.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom

said by tom_tom:

said by bjlockie:

You pay for little traffic, no potholes and to have the snow removed instantly.
It's not better because it's privately owned, it's better because it costs more.

Actually, you don't necessary pay more. Maintaining existing highways is a big part of any governmental budget. So you pay - indirectly - with taxes. Knowing that privately-owned businesses are usually more efficient with spending money than public companies, it's actually likely that cost per-kilometer of highway maintenance may be lower for 407 than it is for 401.

I'm afraid something similar could happen to Internet if it was owned by the government. Maintenance costs would have gone up (unions, inefficiencies, etc) but the level of service would have stayed the same.

I don't think government companies are good at innovating at rapid rates. They are better at maintaining constant basic services at predictable low rates (think water, sewage, electricity, etc) than rapidly changing services like Internet connections.

Is anyone advocating the government own the Internet, or just provide the infrastructure?

Just like you said, the government is good at providing things like water, sewage... I would say the government should provide and maintain the fibre to the home portion of the network and have handoff points where private ISP's takeover. They would lease the infrastructure at stable rates where everyone pays the same. The differentiation would come in speeds, capacities, etc, but there would no longer be a situation where incumbents can crush independents and create essentially a duopoly.

Without government intervention that's all we'd have now, so I think that municipalities should be looking at building out fibre networks.


MJB

join:2012-01-29

the corporations run the government that is the problem...