dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
10502
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983

Re: CRTC Wholesale hearing

If indumbents stop fiber deployment, somebody else will deploy.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs
I do like Pentefountas' questions.
quote:
Pentefountas: Sophies choice: should we get rid of independent ISPs, will that ensure investment?
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

If indumbents stop fiber deployment, somebody else will deploy.

Yup

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

Who? I'm pretty sure TSI, Distributel, et al cannot afford it.
iamhere
join:2013-01-26
canada

1 recommendation

iamhere

Member

What about setting up a consortium of independent ISPs...
Cyborg994
join:2005-04-18
Montreal, QC

Cyborg994

Member

Just getting the right of way for most major cities is prohibitively expenive, and nothing has been installed yet...

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to iamhere

Premium Member

to iamhere
They are in competition with each other, same as Rogers and Bell.
So lets say for the sake of argument that all the TPIA providers get together and do so and split the costs evenly.

Now you deal with who is using all the bandwidth. TSI for example is much bigger then Vmedia or Start,so they would use a larger portion of the bandwidth available on the piece of glass.
koreyb
Open the Canadian Market NOW
join:2005-01-08
Etobicoke, ON

koreyb

Member

I've said it before... and will again... There is nothing stopping the group of ISP's from setting up a non-profit group funded at cost end user network to get FTTH installed.. It can operate the way Bell and Rogers do now on a shared setup where someone like TSI would pay more based on having MORE interconnection requirements, than say a Smaller ISP. It ensures fairness and operational costs being covered.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

Sure does, it's called $$$$ Cyborg already pointed out the cost of just getting the right of way will kill that idea.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to Cyborg994

Premium Member

to Cyborg994
Its really preferable to have incumbents leverage their significant advantages as incumbents to overlay fibre in their respective footprints. It's doable to have others do it in the sense that anybody can go lay some fibre. However, there is no doubt that it's not the most efficient way forward as a whole when looking at what we should be doing as a nation for the max benefit of the consumer. Incumbents are in the best position to invest in those networks.

The thing though is that they want us all to believe that because of the above, we all need to accept that it's ok for them to do it wrong on the retail end of it. That those are one in the same and not divisible. That they should be able to dictate what everybody gets at the retail level.

That's just not the case - we can totally do better. We have been. And would totally do even better if given the opportunity.

fs
@38.122.43.x

fs

Anon

Would be totally ideal in the infrastructure was deemed a public utility where the incumbents didn't hold the reigns of power and just had to stand in line like everyone else for their share.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to TSI Marc

Premium Member

to TSI Marc
We also have a federal government that has no interest in infrastructure, outside of marketing slogans and any political benefits.
Cyborg994
join:2005-04-18
Montreal, QC

Cyborg994 to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
I agree. Installing a 3rd set of wire to the house is definitely not the most efficient way of doing this, not my a long shot. I do not think it is actually feasible, in large part due to inertia on the consumer base (it is not possible to break even when your market share is under 10% of an area). Also triple play is something that is hard to offer as an independant, as the other 2 services are controlled by the same competitors... On the TV side I see this less as an issue, as the importance will diminish in the long term, but mobile is necessary...

And, as an independent ISP's customer with needs that cannot be met by incumbents (by choice), I do agree that independents would do better with more control, if the leeway to do so would be available.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

said by Cyborg994:

I. On the TV side I see this less as an issue, as the importance will diminish in the long term, but mobile is necessary...

Not really the telco's are very busy locking up content for their respective "streaming" services. If this is the future of TV we're still stuck with the same players.
Cyborg994
join:2005-04-18
Montreal, QC

Cyborg994

Member

said by elwoodblues:

Not really the telco's are very busy locking up content for their respective "streaming" services. If this is the future of TV we're still stuck with the same players.

Good point...

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to elwoodblues

Premium Member

to elwoodblues
I just think it really helps if you say, ok well what services can we sell with this access connection? I.e, it takes the access connection(input) to do this service and that service(output)

The investment the incumbents talk about is on the input side, but they say they won't invest if they don't get what they want on the output side.(in fact, only on the market share we all occupy - 8% on internet currently)

The reality though is that the input business case can only be rattled significantly if the total revenues on the output side is significantly divergent from what it took to build it.

But, when they cost out the wholesale services we pay for, they do what's called Phase 2 analysis that takes all of that into account. We pay for what it takes and then some to make sure their business case on the input side is not affected.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
Worth re-reading this article
»arstechnica.com/tech-pol ··· s-fiber/

and this thread
»How they do it over there: Netherlands FTTH edition

creed3020
Premium Member
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON

creed3020 to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
Is there a schedule anywhere as to who is speaking when?

I remember seeing one for the Wireless hearings.

Edit: Nvm just found it....gosh the CRTC webpage is a maze

»www.crtc.gc.ca/Telecom/e ··· 4_11.htm

diskace
Retired
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21

diskace to TSI Marc

Premium Member

to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

(in fact, only on the market share we all occupy - 8% on internet currently)

I think before CBB it used to be 5 or 6% in 2011-703 proceeding.

@creed3020

»www.crtc.gc.ca/Telecom/e ··· 4_11.htm

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

That sounds about right. The recent crtc monitoring report says 8% now I believe.

creed3020
Premium Member
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON

creed3020 to diskace

Premium Member

to diskace
Thanks diskace.
creed3020

creed3020 to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
Looks like we're almost back, and JF is seated ready to go.

diskace
Retired
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21

diskace

Premium Member

+1 Lowering CBB Rates
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

+1 Comment on CNOC Part 1 Application

Still sitting for several months now, no decision, not on hold for this hearing.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
JF: CRTC must choose to regulate in a pragmatic, not dogmatic manner.
MaynardKrebs

MaynardKrebs to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
JF's talking about lowering CBB rates

Look at this for a plan to reduce CBB costs on a go-forward basis
»Re: [Info] Another UBB Explanation for the common people
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

Surprised that JF didn't bring up the markup rates...

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

Teddy Boom to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs
The commissioner he is talking to actually sounds reasonably with it. WTF?!?

And yes! Why do they get 20-30% markups?!? That's just ridiculous. 10-15% is enough, 20% absolute maximum.

And I really really really don't have time for this today

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to MaynardKrebs

MVM

to MaynardKrebs
That plan is not practical. Firstly because it mandates fixed speed increases every year regardless of what is actually technologically possible, and it mandates fixed reductions in cost each year regardless of how the actual costs are changing. It also bills by the gigabyte, which bears no resemblance to how actual capacity is managed.

creed3020
Premium Member
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON

creed3020 to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
Oh Menzies.... "Whats the problem?" Acts like everything is swell