dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
77654
share rss forum feed


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

Re: Major CRTC decision next week. - CBB

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...



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

said by tom_tom:

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).

Whoa whoa whoa there, hang on! On one hand you're saying private corporations should be free to do what they want and own what is essentially essential Canadian infrastructure to make money, and then on the other hand you're saying that they aren't free to make money because the government needs to regulate them.

I doubt I'm the only one here who sees the complete and total hypocrisy in your view on this matter.


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

said by bjlockie:

It's not better because it's privately owned, it's better because it costs more.

Ding ding ding ding ding.

If the government "regulated" the toll rates on the 407 forcing them into an approved toll schedule like tom_tom is proposing, you can be damn sure that there would be lots of traffic with no additional lanes added, it would be riddled with more potholes than the 401 and it would take hours for snow to be removed.

The reason is simple - one way or another, they're going to make as much money as they want, and the easiest way to make more money when you're not allowed to charge what you want is to spend less money in the first place.


tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto
reply to markf

said by markf:

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.

What exactly is that "fiber to the home portion"? One end of the fiber would end in my house, but where would the other end end? Somewhere in the manhole next to my house? Then someone would still have to build an infrastructure to connect all those fiber pieces into a working nation-wide network. Who would do that?


TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
kudos:3
reply to TSI Marc

So has tek gone on record on just what they plan to do with their unlimited cable in the future and if the prices will go up just how much they will go up?


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

said by bjlockie:

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.

+100

I've made the point more than once about the Burlington Skyway - built & run by the government & it had tolls for 20 years.

Any highway in the sticks can be more easily be maintained/expanded than a highway which has been enveloped by a city. The NY Thruway & Mass Pike are both toll highways that effectively bypass cities. They have room for toll plazas to collect revenue, and nowhere near the volume of traffic the 401 has in Toronto.

On any given day the two busiest highways in North America are the 401 in Toronto and the 405 in Los Angeles - neither has tolls. Notice the real operative words in the previous sentence - *in*. They are both highways which - when built - were in the suburbs - but not so any longer.

The answer in urban areas is not more highways, but higher density living, good public transit, vibrant neighbourhoods with services (groceries, pharmacies, banks, etc...) within walking distance.

I had the misfortune last week of driving across Dundas St. from the 403 to near Hamilton. A total fucking wasteland of urban sprawl, with no hope ever of sufficient population density to support a viable public transit system. A pedestrian would die of exposure walking there. Single-family low-density farmland-wasting shit where EVERY family member needs at least one vehicle. They're already widening Dundas St. to 3 lanes in each direction, and will probably need to further widen it to cope with the amount of traffic once all the homes are truly finished.


tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

Whoa whoa whoa there, hang on! On one hand you're saying private corporations should be free to do what they want and own what is essentially essential Canadian infrastructure to make money, and then on the other hand you're saying that they aren't free to make money because the government needs to regulate them.

I doubt I'm the only one here who sees the complete and total hypocrisy in your view on this matter.

If a company wants to own something that is essential, and profit from it, there have to be some regulations to put breaks on what they can charge for it. I would be OK if a private company owned all freeways in Canada, as long as there were caps of what they can charge (either drivers directly or the government indirectly) for it.
This way the rules are clear up front, and if a private company doesn't like it, they are not going to get into this business.

The same applies to situations where monopolies (or duopolies) start to form, like is the case with Rogers and Bell. The services provided by them (Internet connections) became essential, but there is basically no way that a viable competitor can materialize because of high entry costs. That's when governments have to intervene. This is not hypocrisy. It's normal practice that actually works pretty well when it comes to big companies that start to dominate some markets (think Microsoft and their web browser being shipped by default in Windows as one example).


tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

Ding ding ding ding ding.

If the government "regulated" the toll rates on the 407 forcing them into an approved toll schedule like tom_tom is proposing, you can be damn sure that there would be lots of traffic with no additional lanes added, it would be riddled with more potholes than the 401 and it would take hours for snow to be removed.

I don't think so. If it was in the state that you described, then people wouldn't use it. Since they earn profit per car, it is in their interest to have as many cars as possible there. Fixing potholes, removing snow and adding lines would all contribute to having more cars on their road, hence more profit.

koreyb
Open the Canadian Market NOW

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

said by d_source:

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.

The idea is DARK FIBRE, (AKA, just the wire) which each provider would pay to use, which in concept would cover the operation of the fibre wire network, and that alone.. It would be up to each provider to pay their own way with equipment to make it work on each end past the demarc point. If it's done on the local level, not federal or prov level, as water and sewers are, there is less likely an issue getting things messed up. IF all wholesale joined together to invent a non-profit end user fibre network, they could do the same, but to me we ask our cities and towns to supply water, hydro, sewers and roads, so there is no reason they couldn't provide DARK FIBRE to every lot.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to tom_tom

got a dupe for some reason



tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto
reply to koreyb

said by koreyb:

The idea is DARK FIBRE, (AKA, just the wire) which each provider would pay to use, which in concept would cover the operation of the fibre wire network, and that alone..

But I think the main cost is to connect all those pieces of dark fiber into a working network with Internet access.
I can provide a dark fiber from my room, out my house, to the street in front of me. But where do I plug it in? Where do we draw a line between what is provided by the city, and what is taken care of by the ISPs? Are all houses on a street connected to a working network by the city, and ISPs take it from there? Or streets are also connected already? What about town and cities? What is built by governments and what by private companies in your proposition?
I don't understand how would that work.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

said by tom_tom:

said by koreyb:

The idea is DARK FIBRE, (AKA, just the wire) which each provider would pay to use, which in concept would cover the operation of the fibre wire network, and that alone..

But I think the main cost is to connect all those pieces of dark fiber into a working network with Internet access.
I can provide a dark fiber from my room, out my house, to the street in front of me.

But where do I plug it in? Where do we draw a line between what is provided by the city, and what is taken care of by the ISPs? Are all houses on a street connected to a working network by the city, and ISPs take it from there? Or streets are also connected already? What about town and cities? What is built by governments and what by private companies in your proposition?
I don't understand how would that work.

 
I don't know about the cost numbers, but regarding the permission to run fibre/wires, it would likely be more expedient if the communities and/or their public utility companies were to take an interest in having a piece of the action, as they most likely own/control any right-of-way which would be needed to get a 3rd network up and running for local distribution, whether it be a fully wired version, or a hybrid of wired and wireless.

Therefive, it would make sense for any party who wished to establish a 3rd way into our premises to approach each community about partnering with them, in order to 'Git-er-Dun', yes ?

--

We have only 2 things about which to worry :
(1) That things may never get back to normal
(2) That they already HAVE !
-
START Forum »Start Communications
Or you can still use Canadian Broadband.



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

said by MaynardKrebs:

On any given day the two busiest highways in North America are the 401 in Toronto and the 405 in Los Angeles - neither has tolls. Notice the real operative words in the previous sentence - *in*. They are both highways which - when built - were in the suburbs - but not so any longer.

Wanna hear something really wild? The 401 is the busiest highway in North America by a large margin. I-405 in LA is #2. Number 3 is the 427 in Toronto, which has an AADT just below I-405.

markf

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

said by tom_tom:

What exactly is that "fiber to the home portion"? One end of the fiber would end in my house, but where would the other end end? Somewhere in the manhole next to my house? Then someone would still have to build an infrastructure to connect all those fiber pieces into a working nation-wide network. Who would do that?

I'm not a network engineer, but you would obviously have some sort of pick up point where the lines would come together and then be picked up by service providers.

The best solution in my opinion is government owning the lines and private business providing the service across those lines.

There is no economic case for running more than one line of fibre to each home. One company decides to do it this year, 3 years later another so we're tearing things up and paying capital costs again (the customers)? That's in no way economical.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:20

said by markf:

The best solution in my opinion is government owning the lines and private business providing the service across those lines.

This is obviously correct, if the work was being done in a vacuum. However, we have to be cognoscente of the reality on the ground today. The right solution for Canada is Functional Separation.

Now in the case of Fibre to the home, you could argue that that work is being done in a vacuum. It would be nice if more areas would choose to install it on a public utility model. Unfortunately there is basically zero political will. With that in mind, we come right back to Functional Separation again.
--
electronicsguru.ca


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
reply to markf

said by markf:

said by tom_tom:

What exactly is that "fiber to the home portion"? One end of the fiber would end in my house, but where would the other end end? Somewhere in the manhole next to my house? Then someone would still have to build an infrastructure to connect all those fiber pieces into a working nation-wide network. Who would do that?

I'm not a network engineer, but you would obviously have some sort of pick up point where the lines would come together and then be picked up by service providers.

The best solution in my opinion is government owning the lines and private business providing the service across those lines.

There is no economic case for running more than one line of fibre to each home. One company decides to do it this year, 3 years later another so we're tearing things up and paying capital costs again (the customers)? That's in no way economical.

Well that was my original comment (many posts up). Shared network distributed to all ISPs by an "arms length" gov agency. If you are going to have competition, last mile infrastructure must be easily available to all competitors to level the playing field and allow services competition. Eventually it doesn't make sense to keep going back to the CRTC every time the incumbents decide not to play nice.

To those that say the gov managed shared infrastructure is unrealistic or a bad idea or should/could never happen, just because we've always done it the way we are doing now doesn't mean that will always be the way. Remember "too big to fail"? Collapse of the big three was considered unthinkable but it happened. As I said, we live in a world of firsts now. It is all on the table.
--
BHell... A Public Futility.

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

»www.vice.com/read/there-will-be-···wn-hands

»b4rn.org.uk/


mr_hexen

join:2007-08-02
Brampton, ON
reply to InvalidError

said by InvalidError:

said by TOPDAWG:

are they keeping unlimited or is that retiring now?

They will most likely stick around but expect a $10-30 hike.

just thought I'd mention that TSI has NOT stated this and its only a wild guess.

mario9999998

join:2000-08-25
Canada

1 edit
reply to MaynardKrebs

While that's cool, laying fiber in an open rural area is completely different than in cities.

What's neat though is this project:
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009···ave-400/

It would be awesome (if even just for new construction homes to start), if Tek partnered with a utility company (or other indie ISPs) to lay fiber down all the streets. They would only have to advertise to the small areas under construction, and allow the homeowner the option to dig their own trench to save much of the installation cost.

This would be great for indie ISPs as the initial costs would be much lower, and great for the consumer because rates could be lower because the ISP doesn't have to re-coup as much costs, and initial setup fees are cut down too if they dig themselves.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to mr_hexen

said by mr_hexen:

just thought I'd mention that TSI has NOT stated this and its only a wild guess.

Nothing 'wild' about it.

TSI said current prices were based on speculation that the CRTC would cut CBB rates roughly in half but they got CBB rate hikes on most cable carriers instead so their current pricing should be clearly in unsustainable territory.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to mario9999998

Indeed, laying fiber in a rural area requires digging, laying fibre in an urban area requires pulling fiber through existing conduits, or even simply leasing existing unused fiber, or frequencies on existing used fiber.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org