dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1344
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

ISP Return on investment criteria (ROI)

From previous posts, I have complained quite a lot about the level of internet access in my neighbourhood located in Petawawa (mailing address Pembroke).

As some of you may remember, my 15 fellow neighbours and myself along Pitzner and Priebe streets do not have DSL nor cable internet. Wireless point to point will not reach us, and our options remain cellular 3G (LTE cannot reach us), or Satellite.

Airport road (the other side of Pitzer, and where our lines come from) is serviced by Cogeco cable internet and Bell DSL. Either end of Priebe Road has DSL Fibre to the node.

3 home based businesses exist on the street, however we are not eligible for commercial internet service such as a dedicated business lines due to not being commercially zoned (email from a Teksavvy rep).

Our line run to CO is 10 KM, with a total line length of 2.1 KM of affected areas over 16 residences. That is a linear density of 131.5 meters per residence.

I am fighting whatever angle I can for my neighbourhood to get improved internet access. One of the challenges will be getting our area to be classified as underserved by the Industry Canada Digital Canada 150 program. As per a previous thread, we are considered "served", and therefore not eligible for funding.

I have just started the following:

1) Snail mail and scanned email letter to both Industry Minister James Moore and local MP Cheryl Gallant requesting a re-classification of our area to underserved.

2) A broadband survey is in process with the other 16 neighbours to gauge interest (there likely is interest) to provide other data.

Not being want to count on government support for just about anything in life.... I am trying to come up with business cases for expansion.

After speaking to one of my neighbours (I have gotten support from at least two), he mentioned that he was in previous contact with Cogeco, and they stated from $30,000 to $50,000 to run internet service to his residence. I have to assume it would cost Bell even less.

The question I have is about return on investment..... lets say the cost was $50,000 for either Bell or Cogeco, and assuming 50% interest in service (likely higher, as there is not many alternatives).... That is $6250 per residence. With 100% it is $3125.

Long term investment wise, those numbers look fairly decent to me considering Bell inherited the copper from the government, and has been using it for about 60 years here. Likely the proposed infrastructure will get another 60 years.

While I assume it is probably a super crazy corporate secret.... does anybody have any idea what a general ROI timeframe is for Bell or Cogeco?

Ryan

wonthappen
@24.114.107.x

wonthappen

Anon

The amount of issues you and 15 others will have might be crazy its just not worth it. I'm surprised your not on a party line
taraf
join:2011-05-07
Ottawa, ON

taraf to jumpingryan

Member

to jumpingryan
How do you know your phone run to CO is 10km?

It sucks for you, but 10km is the range where DSL is simply not going to happen. At that range they need to use analog amplifiers on the phone line just to deliver voice service, and load coils will seriously screw up any kind of digital signal. I imagine even on dialup you're not getting anywhere near 56k at that range.

With the price tag that Cogeco quoted you, it sounds as if they don't have a cable run on the street at all -- usually if all they have to do is run cable from the street to the house the price tag is significantly lower than your neighbour was quoted, and the upper distance limit on a DOCSIS loop is nowhere near as short as the distance you're describing. Again, sucks, but there isn't a lot you can do.

Your best bet would be to get in contact with Bell and see when they're planning on upgrading you to FTTH, or find out how much they'd charge to run fibre for business purposes. You may find it's significantly less than what Cogeco was quoting you. They can push FTTH to ~25km from CO with the newer Huawei equipment, or ~14km on the slightly less new Alcatel hardware, and it's a fairly safe bet that the CO you're connected to has the hardware needed to feed an FTTH line. Bell Business will sell you a business line, and as long as you can pay for it, they'll run the line you need from the CO. Word of warning though: they will require that you sign on to a term contract, and you're still looking at many thousands, possibly tens of thousands, to install it at that distance. They will eventually upgrade you to FTTH of their own accord, but that could be many years in the future, and if you want it now you will have to pay.

Which brings us to your actual question... I don't know the specific numbers, but I do know that the costs for Bell to install a remote in your area would be prohibitive -- we're talking many tens of thousands of dollars, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is because they would need to buy land and build a full remote with voice capabilities, not just a DSLAM. In order to provide you with DSL, they would have to remove the load coils from your line (which you're almost guaranteed to have if you're actually 10km from the CO), which means that the line wouldn't be able to deliver voice service from the CO any more. It's also worth mentioning that the kind of equipment we're talking about is designed to hold a card which can handle 192 customers. They simply don't make voice-capable 7330's with fewer line cards, and the only other option would be a significantly older combo card (ADSL1 only) which may not even be possible to get any more. Bell's not going to install that to serve 16 people when they already offer cellular broadband to the area. Maybe you can convince one of your neighbours to sell their land to a developer who will put in a few hundred houses.... that might be what it takes to convince Bell to put a remote in.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

Hi Tara, thanks for your detailed reply. There is alot of good technical information that I didn't know, especially about the 192 customers served by a 7330.
said by taraf:

How do you know your phone run to CO is 10km?

I got it tested fairly recently by a Bell tech as there was a fault in the line.
said by taraf:

It sucks for you, but 10km is the range where DSL is simply not going to happen.

That is the key problem. I do have load coils on the run. For some reason, the other houses along the same path (up Doran, and down Airport, which changes to Pitzner) are serviced by a 7330 on the corner of Black Bay and Doran or the CO. The line distance from my house (the second farthest one on the run) is 4.9km to the nearest 7330.

Reportedly from a Bell tech, the Black Bay and Doran 7330 4.9 KM away wasn't designed/designated to service my area for reasons unknown.
said by taraf:

With the price tag that Cogeco quoted you, it sounds as if they don't have a cable run on the street at all -- usually if all they have to do is run cable from the street to the house the price tag is significantly lower than your neighbour was quoted, and the upper distance limit on a DOCSIS loop is nowhere near as short as the distance you're describing.

The cost is likely going above, or underneath Hwy 17, where Airport turns into Pitzner. Phone lines cross under there. Cable does not. There is no actual intersection however.
said by taraf:

Your best bet would be to get in contact with Bell and see when they're planning on upgrading you to FTTH

Unfortunately, no scheduled timeline is or will be communicated... that's the way bell is.
said by taraf:

or find out how much they'd charge to run fibre for business purposes.

Teksavvy has refused to continue with a contract as they are supposedly unable to service a non commercial zoned address. They were the cheapest for Fibre 10/10 at $1500 install, and $1300 monthly. Bell has given quotes for 3/3 T1 service around $800 monthly.

Overall, despite the internet surrounding us literally... both ends of Priebe.... I guess we could be pretty much stuck for years I guess. It is not that we live in an unpopulated area.... they just left out 16 residences in the middle Cable/DSL service on 1 sides, and DSL service on all 3 sides.

I am still hopeful WRT to the funding from Digital Canada 150.... maybe we can get some Federal assistance with this matter if I can get our area classified as an underserved area (we are considered served right now). Perhaps a level of lobbying will help with more solicitation of interest.

With cellular broadband 3G (LTE is available closer to the tower), we still don't meet the 5 Mbps... I get a 2.1/0.75..... with 61 ms latency. It is more the 15 gig cap that is costing us a fortune in overages. We will never get rid of the hub, as we need a backup internet connection... but the technology is horrendous for the pocket book.
btech805
join:2013-08-01
Canada

btech805

Member

As far as ROI goes the magic formula is 100% payoff in approximately 10 months with a triple play customer (and definitely never into the next fiscal year) and approximately $2000 per home is the most they will do. Generally more around $1000/house passed.

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

Gone

Premium Member

said by btech805:

As far as ROI goes the magic formula is 100% payoff in approximately 10 months with a triple play customer (and definitely never into the next fiscal year) and approximately $2000 per home is the most they will do. Generally more around $1000/house passed.

Will Bell quote out a FTTH buildout for an underserviced area the same way Cogeco will for cable?
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan to btech805

Member

to btech805
Thanks btech.....

A few people are saying it is pointless to try, all that.... But I don't give up easily.

It looks like there are few angles that I can work on over the years this will likely take:

1) Natural downward curve of technology... Hopefully market forces drive down the price of equipment. That will be challenged by demand for technology from overseas emerging markets.

2) I have already started to lobby government for assistance... My area is considered a "well served area" according to the Canada Digital 150.... I am lobbying to get that changed with actual data on speeds and costs to get my HEX ID considered "undeserved".

I have line stats that prove that my well served area isn't quite so with the Turbo Hub.

3) Push people in Bell to make the investment in infrastructure by drawing attention to the need/demand. In short, I want to do business with them and pay them for the best service that technology allows.

While there are naysayers to the whole corporate concept of Bell.... I have to believe that a corporation wants to make money by increasing a customer base. And they can't do that by NOT providing service.... Whether if be TV, landline, mobile, or internet.

While it may be expensive to upgrade, Bell has shown remarkable ability to use infrastructure such as copper lines for 40 to 60 years. There are people who have had the same landline phone number with Bell for 30 years.

Likely when 50/10 comes to our area, it will be the last upgrade for the next 60 years... That shows a good ROI to me! LOL

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

Gone

Premium Member

While it may not help you right now, there are some very rural areas in Niagara - rural as in, the hills of Effingham where you can't even get a cell phone signal - that are in the process of getting FTTH deployed by Bell.

It'll eventually happen for you, it's just a matter of when. You'd probably be able to get the ball rolling sooner by covering whatever they want as a deployment cost, but unless the CO already has the equipment necessary to serve FTTH I could see it being rather expensive. On the other hand if the equipment is already there, I could see it being (a lot) cheaper than what Cogeco wants.

MacGyver

join:2001-10-14
Vancouver, BC

MacGyver to jumpingryan

to jumpingryan
I have you tried contacting your mayor and councillor in writing detailing your concerns?

Bell's LTE map shows your street has coverage, despite you saying that LTE will not reach you.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by MacGyver:

I have you tried contacting your mayor and councillor in writing detailing your concerns?

Bell's LTE map shows your street has coverage, despite you saying that LTE will not reach you.

Those maps are notoriously wrong/over estimating capabilities. My mom's home is the same.. Says up to 42mbps. She's lucky to get 4.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan to MacGyver

Member

to MacGyver
 
 
said by MacGyver:

I have you tried contacting your mayor and councillor in writing detailing your concerns?

Actually, that is one of the steps I am doing next. I already drafted and sent the snail mail letters to the Industry Minister and MP Cheryl Gallant today. I also emailed scanned PDF copies to their respective Parliamentary addresses.

I have contacted Petawawa Mayor Bob Sweet via email twice before after speaking to him at a gala event... no response.

I am drafting a formal letter that I will snail mail and email scanned copies to within the next few days.

Mayor Bob Sweet is also on the EORN Board of Directors, and despite him note returning my emails, he has been a strong advocate for 100% coverage of Petawawa from a business and town perspective.

I am hoping that perhaps he will respond to a more formalized letter.

I am learning alot from the Canadian heritage website on addressing MP's, Ministers, and Mayors... so this letter writing campaign is teaching me about other things too!
said by MacGyver:

Bell's LTE map shows your street has coverage, despite you saying that LTE will not reach you.

My actual location is likely in a slight dead zone, likely due to tall trees. I may, in the future explore an external antenna option. I have posted line test stats. I have no problem with PMing you my address if you like!

Each of our Ipads do not get LTE here either, only 3G.

I have previously had Xplornet satellite, which was unsuitable due to latency. I further them down a few weeks ago to look at high speed wireless. Unfortunately the trees are approximately 125 to 150 feet here (I know that because I recently had 15 of them cut down). I have cut down most on my property, but there is probally 1 KM of trees that I just don't own....

I am also likely limited on a tower that high as this area falls under the jurisdiction of the Pembroke Airport. I havn't checked on the actual limitations as a 125 foot tower would be expensive, but I can't have homing pigeons and the like in my area (by-law) so there has to be some rule on it.

In some cases, having pigeons would be handy. With a small memory stick attached, pigeons would be the cheaper and faster way to move data to an area with actual high speed coverage.
jumpingryan

jumpingryan to Gone

Member

to Gone
said by Gone:

It'll eventually happen for you, it's just a matter of when. You'd probably be able to get the ball rolling sooner by covering whatever they want as a deployment cost, but unless the CO already has the equipment necessary to serve FTTH I could see it being rather expensive.

I don't disagree with the statement that it will happen eventually... I think the areas that aren't served right now are going to have to lobby for coverage or be ignored.

My case is a little different than others here complaining about their 5/1 DSL, or 15/10 DSL saying their service sucks. While sympathetic, as I want everyone to have good coverage, I generally have a good laugh when I see those posts.

I don't even have that option, and with the uncontrolled pricing of Turbo Hubs, the internet has definitely become among the households largest expenses.

The worst thing is that we have to limit our usage, go to the public library when required to download. Our internet costs could actually buy me a new pickup truck.

While I am all for reducing costs, we would pay $500 monthly to get DSL rather than a Turbo Hub. At least we would have faster and better quality of service without highly restrictive caps.

Attempts to pay $500 a month to get DSL/Cable internet are turned down.

I actually offered $500 monthly to a Bell rep for DSL.. because it is what we pay now at a minimum, with the restrictive cap. At least with DSL, we would have far less restrictive caps and overage costs.

Coupled with that, the true cost of mobile internet data is coming out in Bell's new offerings. $5 for 10 hours of Bell Mobile TV. Using Bell's own calculator, 600 minutes of video data is about 2.3 gigs of data.

Bell is charging $2.17 per gig for their TV usage, and still making money. Why am I paying $7 a gig to start, and $10 a gig beyond 15 gigs? This is particular to me since Bell doesn't service my area with DSL, and controls when the DSL service offerings come in. A pretty serious conflict of interest.

I suggested in my letter to the Minister of Industry that he consider introducing a legislation to protect the consumer from such circumstances. Those who don't have DSL due to Bell's choices fall under special pricing..... mobile offerings are priced similar to DSL for both service and caps.

That would probably do more to get Bell moving on upgrades... they would actually have incentive to improve. As soon as DSL is offered, then mobile offerings fall under the old system.

Unfortunately, adding to the issue is that Bell doesn't announce timelines or criteria for upgrades. While is is technically a corporate secret, people rely on them to provide service... and in my case, there isn't really any competition.

I have contacted numerous fibre companies, T1 providers, etc etc. They either can't install here because Bell controls the corporate access. Bell wants up to $1800 monthly for Fibre dedicated.... that is outside of the monthly price range of $500.

As well, we are surrounded by DSL in 3 directions within 1.5 KM. 4.9 KM from a 7330 line run. The 4th direction is not inhabited.

Anyways, still working on fighting the good fight. Check out the new thread I started about work being done in Petawawa today... while not likely applicable to me, hopefully someone is getting an upgrade (check them off, and move onto me next!)

All the best,

R

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

Gone

Premium Member

The hills of Effingham have no DSL, either. And no LTE or fixed wireless like Xplornet due to the topography. The best they can do, quite literally, is satellite broadband. And yet Bell is in the process of installing fibre. So I'd say you'll get something, eventually anyway.

Most of the areas that are getting FTTH overlays can't do anything better than a few megabit on DSL, too. True, it's better than what you have now, but it gives you an idea of how they're prioritizing rollout.
btech805
join:2013-08-01
Canada

btech805 to Gone

Member

to Gone
They will, just expect an astronomical number. If they are doing a build out, it won't be from the closest CSP or existing fibre line, it'll be brand new from CO. Cogeco and Rogers will often quote based on their closest taps.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to jumpingryan

Mod

to jumpingryan
I live in Rural Kanata ... just north on the way to Dunrobin. I am fortunate ... I get Rogers cable here ... no Bell DSL ... in a cell deadspot (if you're lucky, move a few inches and you MIGHT get 1 bar if the wind is blowing in the right direction) ... in a satellite deadspot due to trees ... to get above the trees you need a tower ... but the tower may cause problems with the seaplane base nearby so needs approval and no RF service.

My neighbour just 200' away can't get ANYTHING except dialup ... I'm the last on this Rogers cable segment!

This is not somewhere rural like Petawawa or Burnstown. This is in Ottawa city limits. With homes now being built worth $600 grand plus up the road!

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

Teddy Boom to jumpingryan

Premium Member

to jumpingryan
Great thread! I'd like to hear more about the commercial zoning requirement TekSavvy quoted you. That's a bit surprising..
said by jumpingryan:

I suggested in my letter to the Minister of Industry that he consider introducing a legislation to protect the consumer from such circumstances. Those who don't have DSL due to Bell's choices fall under special pricing..... mobile offerings are priced similar to DSL for both service and caps.

I like this idea! Apart from the fairness and equal access arguments, I think it is probably 'fair' to the mobile providers from a financial perspective. Presumably mobile data prices are more about ITMP (Internet Traffic Management Practice)--and/or customer's willingness to pay--and not particularly related to the cost of delivery. Rural neighbourhoods with poor wired connectivity have far less demand, and so pricing up usage to maintain the health of the network (ITMP) is not justifiable.

However, I think asking for new legislation from scratch is asking the moon. Instead, you could ask that it be tied to Canada 150 funding Or argued before the CRTC as a regulatory issue, or piggybacked onto whatever else that comes along.

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

Gone to btech805

Premium Member

to btech805
said by btech805:

They will, just expect an astronomical number. If they are doing a build out, it won't be from the closest CSP or existing fibre line, it'll be brand new from CO. Cogeco and Rogers will often quote based on their closest taps.

Cogeco doesn't run new coax. If the nearest service area is several kilometers away they'll run fibre from right from the headend to the area being served and then set up an RFoG network. Cogeco was doing this years before Bell was doing greenfield FTTH. Even if they don't do RFoG and instead do coax they're still going to run fibre to the area and install a new node rather than running coax with amplifiers and battery backups every 200m-500m. In other words - not much different from what Bell would do. Cogeco will only extend the existing coax network if there is no gap in service area, and even then they may still run fibre depending on the eventual node size. Can't speak for what Rogers would do, though. Not that it matters, this is Cogeco territory.

Knowing this, I doubt Bell's costs would be any more 'astronomical' than the $50K Cogeco quoted right now. Because of the lack of powered equipment needed which negates the need for the ongoing maintenance that goes with it, Bell may even end up being cheaper if they already have the necessary equipment at the CO.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan to Teddy Boom

Member

to Teddy Boom
said by Teddy Boom:

Great thread! I'd like to hear more about the commercial zoning requirement TekSavvy quoted you. That's a bit surprising..

It is kind of weird, as Bell did quote me for a T1 and Fibre to my residence at twice the price.

I am unsure if we are going to proceed with this, mainly due to cost.... The internet will be fantastic, but our budget is about $500, give or take a few hundred. Fibre 10/10 dedicated would be double that.

Start has similar pricing, but I am unsure if they have the same access issues that Teksavvy is reporting.

I have considered angles including re-sale to neighbours, etc etc... but that would likely require alot of risk and hardware investment, along with something bigger than 10/10. Running my own ISP, considering I am away with my career occasionally might be risky.

I am more worried about entering a 3 year contract as well, although they have 1 year agreements.

Anyways, straight from the email from TSI:

"Ryan,
The problem we run into is that we do not have an agreement with Bell to offer Fibre to The Premise for residentially zoned locations, only internet service over conventional copper wire (ie DSL). They are basing the pricing provided to us on the postal code for the area and have not verified the zoning as of yet. If we were to request they proceed further they would confirm the zoning and the entire process would fall apart."

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

Teddy Boom

Premium Member

Thanks Ryan, interesting.. That business service must be off tarrif--a TekSavvy to Bell business to business agreement--and Bell makes sure they have control over how it is offered by making TekSavvy agree to all kinds of restrictive stuff. Meanwhile, no reason why Bell would have to follow the same rules for their own service. Annoying, but... Kind of like phone number porting for TekSavvy's POTS offering, just nothing to be done about it.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

said by Teddy Boom:

Annoying, but... Kind of like phone number porting for TekSavvy's POTS offering, just nothing to be done about it.

It's also irrelevant complaining to the CRTC, as I technically haven't signed up and therefore haven't been denied anything.... yet.

In most government organizations, theoretical complaints aren't necessarily entertained.... you have to be directly disadvantaged in some way to have a grievance that they will listen to.... ie Someone complaining about cellphone plans that doesn't own a cellphone.

I still haven't gotten close enough to my price point of $500 monthly.
jumpingryan

jumpingryan to Gone

Member

to Gone
said by Gone:

Most of the areas that are getting FTTH overlays can't do anything better than a few megabit on DSL, too. True, it's better than what you have now, but it gives you an idea of how they're prioritizing rollout.

The Black Bay run in Petawawa on the west side of Hwy 17 is all 5/1 right now. Everyone living on that street is VERY happy with it from a cost perspective.

That is really all I am asking for from DSL.... a measly 5/1, and I will accept the future improvements when they come.

R
jumpingryan

jumpingryan to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

This is not somewhere rural like Petawawa or Burnstown.

Petawawa isn't that rural when you look at it from a population per square KM... a town of 15,000, with several ongoing subdivision projects.... 5000 soldiers just 11 KM from the house door to door.

In some cases, it mimics the density of of Kanata's sprawling subdivisions on a square KM basis.

The problem is that there isn't many square KM.

As to your neighbour, we are likely in similar circumstances WRT to access... I am about 1.4 KM from access. The one neighbour up the street is about 300 meters from access. I am hopeful we all get good access soon!

I really hope the government re-considers making the internet a utility, or some other right to access legislation similar to phone service. And apply the Weights and Measures Act to the UBB.

The ISP's want to charge like a utility with their UBB.... make them one.

Semaphore
Premium Member
join:2003-11-18
101010

Semaphore to sbrook

Premium Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

..... or Burnstown

You're right... Burnstown, Whitelake, Waba, Springtown and Calabogie all have FTTN

Edit - can't spell

pstewart
Premium Member
join:2005-10-12
Peterborough, ON

pstewart to jumpingryan

Premium Member

to jumpingryan
Have you tried talking to NRTC to see if they might be interested in exploring options?
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

said by pstewart:

Have you tried talking to NRTC to see if they might be interested in exploring options?

I have on several occasions. They have zero interest in expanding to our neighbourhood.

It is unfortunate... I have now discovered we are now up to 6 home based businesses out of 16 residences.... almost 40%.

I am actually about 6 KM (as the phone lines travel) from one of the NRTC FTTH subdivisions. I also have seen some boxes pop up here and there with their logo on it, but they are few, and seem to be selective to area.
taraf
join:2011-05-07
Ottawa, ON

taraf to jumpingryan

Member

to jumpingryan
said by jumpingryan:

It is kind of weird, as Bell did quote me for a T1 and Fibre to my residence at twice the price.

Y'know, a Fibre 10/10 would actually go a long way, as long as people aren't saturating it with multiple Netflix feeds or similar. Buy yourself a good router which can do QoS and dedicated bandwidth per port, and run a conduit with an Ethernet to your neighbour and split the cost. You each pay $500/mo for 5/5 with extra bandwidth when the other isn't using it (5mbit is enough for 1 Netflix and you'd still be able to surf/watch youtube, and you'd actually find that most of the time you see the full 10 for yourself). You can run gigabit Ethernet over Fiber to the neighbour with consumer grade hardware to about 5km before it needs a repeater.

There's a large up-front cost (even "consumer grade" fiber optic hardware is significantly more expensive than the d-link stuff you can buy at Staples), but as long as your neighbour is willing to split the cost, it would actually make economic sense for you, and you wouldn't have to be so careful about overages/excess usage. If you're willing to put up with less dedicated bandwidth you could get more neighbours on board and reduce the cost even more (or alternately, with more people on board, your budget could go up enough that you can start buying into faster speeds for everybody... economy of scale).
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

said by taraf:

Y'know, a Fibre 10/10 would actually go a long way, as long as people aren't saturating it with multiple Netflix feeds or similar.

Tara,

This really isn't about NetFlix for us, but perhaps that will be a bonus I will appreciate.... It is about getting some sort of broadband access that we can use for my wife's work, and for us to update the computers without having to travel to the public library or McDonalds. I did examine that aspect including wired/wireless options to distribute.... become my own ISP for my neighbours.

If low end DSL ever came, I once had MLPPP multi-link to bump up my speed, and I would probably do that again if required.

For us, Netflix nor Apple TV isn't an option right now witht he Turbo Hub at $10 a gig after 15 gigs.

Curiously, and showing the true cost of bandwidth for Bell.... you can get $5 Bell mobile TV... using Bell's own mobile calculator for 10 hours, works out to 2.3 gigs or so, and that means $2.17 per gig... Anyways, save that for another rant.

If it ever went down to $2.50 a gig, I would just eat the Turbo Hub costs, and maybe bond two of them together somehow.

I have gotten a quote from Start, and TekSavvy.... both were competitive quotes for 10/10 Fibre, scalable up to 100/100 (for not too much more for what you get), however there is one snag that may come up:

"Ryan,
The problem we run into is that we do not have an agreement with Bell to offer Fibre to The Premise for residentially zoned locations, only internet service over conventional copper wire (ie DSL). They are basing the pricing provided to us on the postal code for the area and have not verified the zoning as of yet. If we were to request they proceed further they would confirm the zoning and the entire process would fall apart.

Regards,
TSI Jeremy"
JimBee
Premium Member
join:2003-03-28
Ottawa, ON

JimBee to jumpingryan

Premium Member

to jumpingryan
said by Semaphore:

You're right... Burnstown, Whitelake, Waba, Springtown and Calabogie all have FTTN

...This is news to me. My parents place is located ~1km from Burnstown along Calabogie road. We can only get 6/1 legacy ADSL2 (actual speeds of 5/1 due to distance).

What is this FTTN availability you speak of? Is this something recent?

Re: NRTC
said by jumpingryan:

I have on several occasions. They have zero interest in expanding to our neighbourhood.

This shocks me a little bit as I understood Petawawa to be one of NRTC's most serviced areas. It's one of the only places they offer their FTTH (as well as in Cobden).

But then again I also figured that it was North Renfrew Telephone Company that was the ILEC for that region too (I mean, it IS over 100 years old).

This whole mess is a good argument for why it should be municipalities/utility companies and not private corporations, deciding who gets access. Imagine if you built a cottage in a relatively rural area with neighbors only to be told by OPG that they wont give you power because it's not profitable enough for them (yes I know you might have to pay to get the lines built out/new transformers depending on where you are but my point is you _will_ get power). Perhaps that's a bad analogy seeing as it's "easier" to transmit power than DSL signals.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the internet is becoming an essential service. Until governments recognize this, people are at the mercy of whoever services the area.

If I had to spend ~$500/month on internet alone for my business, I'd look into renting somewhere close by that is in range of service and work from there. Or hell, if it's that important to have a reliable connection, I'd consider moving.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

said by JimBee:

his shocks me a little bit as I understood Petawawa to be one of NRTC's most serviced areas. It's one of the only places they offer their FTTH (as well as in Cobden).

But then again I also figured that it was North Renfrew Telephone Company that was the ILEC for that region too (I mean, it IS over 100 years old).

Well, Petawawa is classified as a "well served" area according to the Digital Canada 150 program... however, I think my examples in service proves otherwise.

The area is served by a mix of Bell & NRTC (in select areas).
said by JimBee:

This whole mess is a good argument for why it should be municipalities/utility companies and not private corporations, deciding who gets access. Imagine if you built a cottage in a relatively rural area with neighbors only to be told by OPG that they wont give you power because it's not profitable enough for them (yes I know you might have to pay to get the lines built out/new transformers depending on where you are but my point is you _will_ get power). Perhaps that's a bad analogy seeing as it's "easier" to transmit power than DSL signals.

I agree totally. Right now Bell is 1/4 a private utility provider. They have to provide phone, but not internet.... as to local companies, I really don't care too much about who gets service to me... but right now, the system isn't working for me.

I am all for the internet being labeled as an essential service... companies are charging like a utility, lets make sure they are properly billing like a utility under the weights and measures act.

My guess is the who UBB will get scrubbed if that happens, as it will turn out their meters are as crooked as a private taxi with the meter lock removed.


smogers
@108.170.167.x

smogers

Anon

»www.eorn.ca/service-locator/

What does that say for your area?