DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to tom_tom
Re: Major CRTC decision next week. - CBB 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.
|
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3
 ·Start Communicat..
| 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. |
|
Reviews:
·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 Boomk kudos Received
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:7 | 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 |
|
 AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
·TekSavvy DSL
| 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. |
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
1 edit | reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:http://www.vice.com/read/there-will-be-broadband-forgotten-by-the-future-some-take-the-internet-into-their- own-hands
»b4rn.org.uk/
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. |
|
| 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. |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | 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 |
|
1 edit | Also for rural vs urban, I would assume there are many more regulatory issues with running fiber. The companies would have to deal with other companies that have infrastructure underground and get permission (and pay) other companies to use existing conduits to run fiber. That's why I mentioned installations for new construction homes so that it's much easier to accomplish before anything is built up that would interfere with running fiber.
Another option is with municipal support, to run fiber in the sewer system, and leave it up to homeowners/ISPs to run the last mile to the homes. If anything, it would be a good experiment to run in dense urban centers (like trialing the area around 1 front street).
Google's sewer fiber ISP project:
»www.google.com/tisp/install.html
(old april fools joke) |
|
GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to TSI Marc
Installation of fiber in Bell conduits is regulated, I don't think Bell can actually refuse without a valid reason (like the conduit being full). That was what they got in exchange for being granted a monopoly on telecom conduits.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
| said by Guspaz:Installation of fiber in Bell conduits is regulated, I don't think Bell can actually refuse without a valid reason (like the conduit being full). That was what they got in exchange for being granted a monopoly on telecom conduits.
So that part of their business is a regulated utility.
Just a small step to make the rest of it so. |
|
| reply to Teddy Boom
said by Teddy Boom:Unfortunately there is basically zero political will. With that in mind, we come right back to Functional Separation again. Functional separation also requires every bit just as much political will, just like proper regulations would.
Proper regulations would make separation unnecessary.
Separation or public utility without proper regulations would still be highly likely to fail.
Heck, even under best-case scenario, a properly regulated public utility may still fail at fostering competition. If we go with the Amsterdam model where fibers get aggregated in POIs serving ~30k tail-ends each, each ISP needs to get their optical gear in each POI. Connecting the first subscriber on a POI would cost ISPs over 30k$ in setup and equipment costs and a few more k$/month for rack space, power, interconnect, etc. fees. Rinse and repeat across several hundreds of such POIs. For each new subscriber, there are additional fees for the SFP modules and having a tech pull fiber from the OSP patch panel(s) to the ISP's equipment rack(s). The hook-up fees would likely be much higher than what we have today, the monthly rates may not necessarily be any lower, the entry cost may be on the prohibitive side and each ISP needing their own network engineers to do hook-ups would add significant cost overhead. Only the largest players can afford this game.
It sounds nice in theory but does not necessarily work quite as nicely in practice. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to TSI Marc
You knew it was coming. Bell has filed an R&V.
Converted to pdf so you can actually view it properly.
Main key point:
quote:
that the mark-up applied to the Companies' wholesale business HSA services provided over fibre to the node (FTTN) infrastructure be raised from 40% to 50% in order to properly maintain the Companies' incentives to invest at the level they were under the previously approved mark-ups
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 | HSA is different from GAS. This specific R&V would only affect a very small number of subscribers. |
|
| reply to TigerLord
said by TigerLord:Dit comme un vrai Quebecois.
Do I need to translate as not to offend anyone?
Il manqué pas un "S" à "soulon"? Après tout, y'en avait une gang?
--
Cheers! |
|
| reply to Johnster
said by Johnster:said by bparanoid5:Looks like you picked a bad week to quit amphetamines.
And sniffing glue... Airplane!
--
Cheers! |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 | It is, but don't call him Shirley. |
|
| reply to AkFubar
It's utterly crazy that the state control the sale and distribution of a consumer good like alcohol, and yet essential infrastructure is placed in the hands of oligarchs. Essential infrastructure should be publicly owned; consumer goods can exist in a state of perfect competition and are therefore best handled by the free market. |
|
