dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
458
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

Consultation on Policy Changes in the 3500 MHz

I haven't found another thread on this topic & I am kind of trying to figure this document out in it's legalese.... particular as to how it applies to my area (Pembroke):

»www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sm ··· 841.html

Will my area (classified as rural in the document) loose this spectrum?

Will the 3500 MHz be used for different things in different areas, or will this be a blanket removal of it?

----------

As someone who should likely be considered rural (yet within only a few KM of fibre to the pole houses all around me), I would actually support giving up spectrum from small town ISP's with one caveat... funding for the rural expansion of wired services.

If you have a phone line... guarantee DSL/cable access (likely via fibre) to all for those areas affected by the spectrum loss.

I see the push for wireless for rural people, as an excuse to fleece rural customers in the provision of substandard service. A form of protectionism that the companies like Bell and Rogers can only dream of achieving.

Many of these rural ISP's complaining about the spectrum loss are junk service providers that claim to be the saviour of rural internet... they are the rural equivalent to Bell and Rogers, yet far worse than the wireline providers in the provision of service.

Some companies state that wireless is the cheapest way to bring household service to the rurals, but in reality, wireless is the most profitable for them. If wireless is indeed so cheap to roll out, where is the cost savings to the customer.... why are wireless options amongst the most expensive ways to get internet by several times the cost.

As a rural living person, without DSL, I support giving up the spectrum as long as it is tied to a wired expansion in affected areas.

Save the wireless and satellite offerings for what it is meant for, mobile internet, and places like remote mining camps.

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

Gone

Premium Member

Interesting that they separated Fort Erie and designated rural while the rest of the Niagara Region is designated urban, including areas far more rural than Fort Erie.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

said by Gone:

Interesting that they separated Fort Erie and designated rural while the rest of the Niagara Region is designated urban, including areas far more rural than Fort Erie.

I don't know how they got that either for Pembroke area..... It says they consider Pembroke rural despite it's area combined population of 70,000 (combining population centres that back onto Pembroke).

If your area is rural, do they lose the 3500 MHz spectrum? I do t quite get the proposal yet of who gets to keep their spectrum, and who looses it?

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

Gone

Premium Member

I think it's because even though the Pembrooke "area" is 70,000 people, there is no single centre that is over 30,000. They even use it as an example in the document:
quote:
Note that the classification of urban is proposed for Tier 4 service areas which contain a population centre of 30,000 or more; all others would be rural. For example, although Tier 4-056 (Pembroke) shows a total population of 77,757, given that it does NOT contain a population centre of 30,000 or more, it is deemed rural.Footnote26
Contrast this with Fort Erie, where our population is above 30,000. But for some reason they list us as 28,000 - and I'm guessing it's because they include the Black Creek neighbourhood at the far north-end of the town and on the border with Niagara Falls as part of Niagara-St. Catharines.

And no, rural areas don't lose their 3.5GHz spectrum. It is just licensed differently and in a more granular way.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

I did read that part, but I do find the criteria very suspect... I mean more than double the population classification, and still considered rural......

A far better factor would be population density as an indicator of rural, than population. But then, that would likely be a more content decision, and we can't have government bureaucracy bucking their own trend!

I say give it up across the board, and as a condition of future use, order the providers to do the right thing and provide landline access.

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

pstewart to jumpingryan

Premium Member

to jumpingryan
I don't support this spectrum being "taken away". it has been in use for quite a few years in urban and rural settings to provide primarily Internet access. These were and continue to be in some cases, areas that have absolutely no high speed options.

Wireless is more economical to deliver and considerably faster to deploy. Is it more profitable? Depends on who you talk to, but remember that for a lot of these areas it didn't make any sense to deploy "wired" options or those providers would have done that in the first place.

Wireless has a significant drawback though in that it is a limited amount of spectrum resulting (in a lot of cases) Internet speeds that are not always comparable to urban settings with cable/DSL/FTTH.

The providers that deployed 3.5Ghz spent a significant amount of dollars getting this spectrum through auctions that in some geographic areas were quite fierce. Combine that with equipment costs that were 2-5X that of unlicensed fixed broadband wireless equipment. With the investment made in spectrum, equipment, sites/towers etc I think it would be a mistake to remove the ability for providers to continue using this spectrum the way they have been to date.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

Well, I can understand the issue and the people's reluctance for change, but I think the balance can actually be created in the interests of providing the best service to all in this proposal.

It is not in anybodies interest in being on wireless forever, especially if their houses are already served with phone service. The prices are dropping, and wired services I deploying outwards further and further..... wireless will likely not meet people's demands for data anytime soon in a cost effective manner.

If the spectrum is indeed limited, and perhaps a precious resource, it is time to consolidate, and place emphasis on using the spectrum where it is needed, mobile applications.

Fixed wireless to houses is actually a poor use of spectrum to service houses that already have a landline or cable... which is most in the rurals. As a condition of the proposal, service the rurals with proper wired internet, and shift the spectrum for mobile usage.

The providers who do wired options haven't serviced the area in many cases due to agreements with the spectrum holders not to compete. A very sad set of circumstances in this country.

I don't have much sympathy for the 3500 MHz providers to be honest, they are just trying to preserve a true monopoly. They can provide rats poor service, and holes in their coverage, and get away with it.... and can make the big, bad incumbents smell like roses in many cases.

Urban people can claim they have an oligopoly (with a few choices for wired internet), but it is the wireless ISP providers in the rurals that have this spectrum that are even worse in the their complaints..... "don't allow another provider in... ESPECIALLY a wired provider!!!"

"Don't take away the spectrum, people count on us as we have set the conditions to be their only provider, FOREVER!"

And as to it being taken away.... well, their licenses are expiring. They are and were never guaranteed renewal.

I would ease the transition by making a condition of buying the spectrum that a wired service of minimum broadband standard (set by Industry Canada) be in place prior to transfer of spectrum through an orderly transfer.

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

pstewart

Premium Member

"The providers who do wired options haven't serviced the area in many cases due to agreements with the spectrum holders not to compete. A very sad set of circumstances in this country."

That is simply not true in your area and many other areas that I can think of. It's difficult often though for rural customers to understand the challenges of serving every single customer in an area. It is also quite difficult to get answers on why a wired provider isn't serving your exact address as well.

Having a condition that a wired provider serves an area if they are to purchase wireless spectrum makes no sense in my opinion. A number of the original 3.5Ghz license holders couldn't provide wireline services, or if they could then the costs would be extreme.