dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1320

Shaman
@199.246.3.x

Shaman

Anon

One of the main issues in this is not being talked about

Yes, the CBB pricing is ludicrous.

But in terms of FTTP access, nobody else has the free right-of-way and the 100+ years of government grants that Bell and the cablecos have had. They have a government-purchased monopoly on the physical space and that's an insurmountable challenge in most places in Canada, much less in other areas. With hydro pole studies charged per-pole and replacement of them ranging from $2000 to 25,000 - each, and with so many of them being owned by the incumbents that can demand pole replacement in order to act as a roadblock to competitive fiber...
...it's unworkable.

Where there's independents doing fiber, you'll also find municipality pole ownership or favourable ground conditions that allow trenching. And you'll find no competition. If you have competition for your fiber deployment, you will likely never see your investment back. Bell is able to sidestep that equation for many reasons: lower cost of deployment, access to all the public right-of-ways, massive amounts of cash both in grants and in ruinous profits and replacement of aging metallic assets that have been aging for many years. They can go toe-to-toe with the cablecos in areas where FTTN doesn't measure up, as a bonus. And they want to lock out the IISPs because of many reasons - the main being, quick return on their investment, another being that they want to use that fiber to make the cablecos sweat hard with bargain pricing.

On the subject of CBB... you can buy 2Gbps of Internet transit complete with the fiber costs and port charges for about $7500/mo in say........ Trenton, ON. You'd get burst to 3Gbps, too. The cost for a fixed 2Gbps of bandwidth to get to your customers in the city is would cost about $24,000/mo in CBB for Bell. Or about $37,000 for Cogeco on TPIA CBB.

Yeah. Those are real numbers, too... + or - maybe $1000 for attached charges on the CBB side.

Nitra
join:2011-09-15
Montreal

Nitra

Member

Tell that to the crtc and your MP.

Shaman
@199.246.3.x

Shaman

Anon

said by Nitra:

Tell that to the crtc and your MP.

What makes you think I haven't? If you haven't noticed, the MPs are just puppets of the party these days. The Kingston MP has quit because after four years of having his hands tied, he's realised that he can't make a difference. He's hoping to get one (ONE) thing done in his time as MP and putting all his effort into it, and his party is fighting him all the way. So best of luck with that, today's political environment is poisonous and ineffective.

The CRTC? I got drunk with one of them a few weeks back. I won't share what they said, but I will share that I got taken aside and given a shakedown by a CNOC exec because apparently, speaking truth to the CRTC just isn't politically correct.

It's a s$#t show and who knows what's to come of it.
edugas
join:2004-03-18
H2K

edugas to Shaman

Member

to Shaman
said by Shaman :

On the subject of CBB... you can buy 2Gbps of Internet transit complete with the fiber costs and port charges for about $7500/mo in say........ Trenton, ON. You'd get burst to 3Gbps, too. The cost for a fixed 2Gbps of bandwidth to get to your customers in the city is would cost about $24,000/mo in CBB for Bell. Or about $37,000 for Cogeco on TPIA CBB.

Yeah. Those are real numbers, too... + or - maybe $1000 for attached charges on the CBB side.

IP transit and last-mile are different things. AHSSPI and TPIA is point-to-multipoints while IP transit is served (without redundancy) from one location and then routed on the IP transit provider's network.

You could compare AHSSPI and TPIA with Ethernet Transport or even Wavelengths Services. A MetroEthernet link from a customer's location to another customer's location inside the same city is about 1.5 to 3.0$ per Mbps (for a 1Gbps link) depending on the provider and the city where it's deployed. For example, Montreal is cheaper than Toronto because it cost less to lay fiber since Montreal has Commission des services électriques de Montréal to rent underground conduits to lay your fiber while in Toronto you have to ask permits other authorizations to direct-bury your cables.

Don't get me wrong, CBB is bullshit, but you need to compare apples with apples.
btech805
join:2013-08-01
Canada

btech805 to Shaman

Member

to Shaman
The problem is profit. Having 3 competitors or 4 is not profitable in the telecom industry. And these are businesses after all, not charities, offering a service. Not an essential service either. The only roadblock stopping a 3rd wireline provider from stepping in anywhere is money. You know it, I know it and they know it. Hydro utilities generally own the poles so the telecom company would pay the same lease costs as anyone else. Fiber is fiber, same costs. End to end switching equipment, real estate (for CO's, municipal easements etc.) would be the same costs. The government could even step in and subsidise a lot of these costs through grants at a even greater rate than they do with Bell, Telus, Rogers, Shaw or Cogeco.

The problem being that while everyone hates the incumbents, their prices cover maintenance, staff, plant replacement, fuel, vehicles, etc. Wholesale providers do not have most of these costs and can charge lower rates (which are currently regulated). A third 1st-party provider would need a return on their investments in infrastructure and would need to charge similar rates as the incumbents to recoup these costs and pay off loans/investors. Having 3 competitors would divide the potential customer bases into thirds (all things being equal for this example). Making the billion dollar profits of RoBelUs, only 2/3rds of what they previously earned. Shareholders and investors would then dump telecoms, further driving stock prices down and profitability for all companies including the new kid on the block. Prices would then have to rise to accommodate lost profits, jobs shed. In the face of rising prices, many consumers would begin cutting services, taking only internet instead of internet+tv. Prices would then rise gradually until instead of paying $100/month for tv+internet, you now pay $100/month for just internet.

So as you see it is a circle of rising prices and falling profits that stops this from happening. I know someone will hop on thr fact that i am a Bell employee, but i am a consumer first. That is what i always tell myself and my customers. Anything that lowers prices, i am on board with because not only does it leave money in my wallet but cheaper prices theoretically should spawn growth, and more jobs in the sector. However these businesses are businesses, not charities. They have investors to answer to and shareholders who expect dividends. Not everything can or should be subsidised at a loss like every government program in this country. If company A currently posts $1B in profit today, then it will need to post $1B + another 1% in profit tomorrow and every day after that. Lowering costs by bringing in a third competitor won't happen. It may happen briefly but the companies need to give investors their ROI, and to do so they will lay off people, degrade the product (fewer channels, throttling, lower usage caps, etc.), push appointments out +1 day to lower costs, in order to meet thay $1B + 1%

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

2 recommendations

sbrook

Mod

When the infrastructure is in place, it is far cheaper to rent space on existing infrastructure than to build out new.

That is the reason we have 3rd party retail services over incumbent last mile.

The big problem though is the incumbents not only own that infrastructure, they use it for their own retail services.

In the earlier days with Bell Canada, Bell was divided up into several operational units. Bell Telephone provided the last mile services. Bell Sympatico provided ISP services. Bell Nexxia provided networking services.

So when the 3rd parties came along they made agreements with Telephone for last mile services and Nexxia for network services, and were on a nearly equal footing with Sympatico. The closest we ever came to functional separation. Telephone provided line services to share the cost of maintenance. Nexxia provide the GAS services at the COs and transit to the ISPs. Hey ... the departments were making money doing this. Their bottom line was fine. Sure Sympatico may not have had as many customers as they otherwise might, but that was Sympatico's problem!

Then about the time of the beavers, Bell decided to integrate their operational units. Sympatico, Nexxia etc all went away and now Bell didn't like the idea of sharing their services with 3rd parties ... functional separation went away. And that has led to the scenario where all the functionality to provide 3rd party services is considered competitive.

For cable, originally, Rogers decided they could follow along and offered contracted services outside the CRTC to a few 3rd parties. It was a moderately co-operative scenario since at that time the 3rd parties were a drop in the ocean. When the 3rd party services were mandated by the CRTC, then Rogers realized this was getting serious and say 3rd parties as significant competition and started their campaigns of being passively obstructive and trying to charge more and more.

There are enough customers to go around for several 3rd party ISPs, each offering their own benefits. But the 3rd parties can't get enough customers to build and maintain a 3rd connection to the home.

This is why the idea of functional separation is a good idea in both cable and telcos. Have companies co-operate on providing the last mile transport and transit to the towns and cities, with a maintenance and installation organisation, and ISPs rent the lines to provide the services. Take the battleground areas of the service out of the hands of the ISPs themselves.

Shaman
join:2014-12-16
Kingston, ON

1 edit

Shaman to Shaman

Member

to Shaman
Again, the Bell employee just brushed over the fact that no other parties have the access to physical assets that the incumbents has, and those physical assets were almost exclusively paid for with tax cuts, grants and municipal handoffs.

So, no other parties can compete. Period. End of. Where there's independent fiber, there is either no competition, or there is physical space available at low cost (which you won't find in cities), or the company has been given municipal advantages, or all three. You usually find that in quiet villages and towns, well north of profit-center cities.

And to get all those physical and financial advantages, incumbents agreed to third party resale at the time that the assets were purchased and built. They knew, the day they accepted the handouts, that they'd have to provide a competitive marketplace using those assets and advantages.

And now, they don't want to provide that third-party access. Never mind that they probably make more money, in reality, on the wholesale providers than they do selling directly to the end customer. The cost of front-end support, advertising and billing are sizable.

As for my comparison between Internet access and network access, the comparison is still completely valid. I'm paying for access to cross the same physical networks that DSL traffic or cable traffic does, and then also paying for Internet access. And yet, it's a fraction of the cost. The only difference is that the subscriber aggregation networks have a last-mile cost, which we are paying for each and every customer right upfront, once they hit the aggregation point there is virtually no bottleneck on today's networks - and if the incumbent has told you otherwise, they are bold-facedly lying to you.
ings
Premium Member
join:2004-12-22
Toronto, ON

ings to btech805

Premium Member

to btech805
said by btech805:

The only roadblock stopping a 3rd wireline provider from stepping in anywhere is money. You know it, I know it and they know it.

There seems to be some dispute here whether physical access is encumbered. I don't know, I'm not in this industry.

But I suspect your observation is much closer to the truth - the new entrants don't want to spend the billions required to build out their own infrastructure. Which is fair enough, but that's their decision, their business model, but casts their complaints in a rather different light, especially in the mobile market, where there is no "last mile" issue.
ings

ings to sbrook

Premium Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

That is the reason we have 3rd party retail services over incumbent last mile.

There's another point of view regarding this, which is that in the interest of populism and buying votes, the federal political parties (all of them) decided to mandate third party access rather than encouraging third parties to build out their own access.

Now maybe that's good public policy. Maybe it isn't. But let's not pretend that it isn't basically a political decision. They could have mandated access to the "poles" but not the networking infrastructure and physical plant.

P.S. Fundamentally my point of view is that I dislike whinny Canadian business people. Is it tough to raise huge amounts of capital and compete? It sure is. But don't whine about it. Just do it.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

1 edit

MaynardKrebs to btech805

Premium Member

to btech805
said by btech805:

Hydro utilities generally own the poles so the telecom company would pay the same lease costs as anyone else.

Not quite right in 'The Center of the Known Universe' (tm).
Here Bell owns the poles which run on the backyard lot lines in residential neighbourhoods (ie. the last mile).

Here they let Rogers 'ride their poles' (so to speak) because back in the old days - the early 1970's - when cable got started, cable was just a high class TV antenna and not competition to anything Bell was doing or contemplating at that time. So the relationship between Bell and 'cable' (Rogers/MacLean Hunter, etc....) was symbiotic, mutually beneficial, and without rancour.

Bell didn't require extensive 'engineering' studies taking the better part of a year to see if a pole could support an extra wire. There was just an agreement that cable could string their wires and install pole-mounted gear as long as it was X feet above ground, and so many feet/inches from Bell wires/gear.

Today that laisse faire attitude is long gone - replaced with costly and long delayed 'engineering studies' which show that an 8" diameter solid pole can only support the weight of the existing Bell & cable lines.

It seems to me that many HYDRO pole of identical diameter carry far heavier loads ( more wires of larger gauge) without issue. I'd like to see a CSA study or a IIHS-like study showing just how much 'load' a typical pole or set of poles can carry without damage. Or maybe we just get 'Mythbusters' to bust Bell's 'myths'.

'The Center of the Known Universe' is a registered trademark of Maynard G. Krebs Enterprises (Panama) Limited. All Rights Reserved.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to ings

Mod

to ings
ings, no ... there's no public policy behind going with mandated access vs new access. It is purely and simply financial.

No investor in his right mind would finance a "Me Too" business in a market with over 99% domination by Telco and Cable.

Look at the wireless market ... several small companies are trying to take on the big guys ... Public - Gone ... Mobilicity - Nearly Gone ... Wind - Hanging On They are only hanging on because the infrastructure costs are nearly manageable. If these new guys had gone in with a shared infrastructure plan, they'd probably do better than they are now. That said, they still have an uphill battle with roaming costs that has to be CRTC controlled in much the same way as last mile is with internet.

An airline called Western Pacific (WestPac) opened up a thriving business out of Colorado Springs back in the 90's. It was thriving. The airport had such an increase in traffic the city actually enlarged the terminal to cope with the WestPac traffic. WestPac had stars in their eyes and I don't know what in their brains. They decided that they would, in their infinite wisdom, move their hub from the Springs to Denver ... the western hub of United. They thought they could take on United on their home turf. WestPac was gone within a year. While in Colorado Springs they were a thorn in United's side, but when they moved to Denver, they were now a wolf near the henhouse.

While Canada's 3rd party ISPs are small, they are only a thorn in the side of the big guys ... an annoyance. If they tried to expand with their own last mile infrastructure, it would take about 48 hours and they'd be out of business. Just like Air Canada and Canadian (CPAir) put Max Ward out of business here in Canada. It will be swift and deadly.

This is not about whiney business people. You can't say "Just do it" when any business man with a hint of common sense says to attempt to put in your own last mile infrastructure would be suicide.

How do you think Rogers got to be the size it is today? Not by investing themselves ... they took short cuts ... they bought out other cable operators and are still at it.

How did Bell do it ... by 134 years of building the business in a market that was nearly all their own.

The continued rumour that they were subsidized has never been proven, although rural customers were being subsidized by urban subscribers for many years and continue to be subsidized to this day, which is one of the reasons, that Bell, like the US looks to try to drop rural services and partially regulated wireline services.

This is NOT a healthy environment for a 3rd party to try to overbuild with a 3rd pipe into the home.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

1 edit

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by sbrook:

The continued rumour that they were subsidized has never been proven, although rural customers were being subsidized by urban subscribers for many years and continue to be subsidized to this day, which is one of the reasons, that Bell, like the US looks to try to drop rural services and partially regulated wireline services.

Name one other company that has an Act of Parliament named after it.

»laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· s/B-3.6/

It would be very interesting to read the Act from its inception til today, looking at all the revisions to the Act over the years.

5. The works of the Company are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
Bibic will use this clause to declare that cost shouldn't matter when it comes to the 'general advantage of Canada', and that we (the people) should pay whatever Bell says it takes to make that happen.

Load me up with lube .... again.
ings
Premium Member
join:2004-12-22
Toronto, ON

ings

Premium Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

Name one other company that has an Act of Parliament named after it.

Air Canada!

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

1 edit

sbrook to Shaman

Mod

to Shaman
The Railways - CN Commercialization Act* (1995, c. 24)

VIA RAIL CANADA ACT

Air Canada Public Participation Act
R.S.C., 1985, c. 35 (4th Supp.)

The Alberta Government Telephones Act

Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited Act
(amended) (Nova Scotia provincial)

Power Commission Act (Ontario provincial creates what now is known as Hydro One and numerous other power commissions)

There are a lot more acts where companies are not mentioned specifically by name, but are there because of the companies' activities.

Shaman
join:2014-12-16
Kingston, ON

Shaman

Member

Rail and Telecommunications are two areas that are definitely subsidized and definitely partial.
btech805
join:2013-08-01
Canada

btech805

Member

Wireless is subsidised, and in fact rural broadband in general is subsidised, but the big 3 take that money to build cell towers across the country for their LTE "hubs" that are profit monsters with low caps.

Wireline services have never been directly subsidised as sbrook has pointed out, however around these forums Bell, Rogers and Telus seem to be everyone's whipping boy for simply being around so long. Rogers bought out every local cableco they could and Bell has put up lines across the country and in fact around the world as the need arose over the past century and a half or so.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan to btech805

Member

to btech805
said by btech805:

However these businesses are businesses, not charities.

I do agree with you completely on the aspect of them being businesses... however... why charge every household across several provinces the EXACT same price for wireline service??

And if wireless is so cheap to deploy in lieu of wireline, why are the rates 2 to 10 times more than wireline?

While I don't consider bandwidth to be a consumable commodity, why, in a free-market based economy, when most commodity based services charge less for a purchase of more product (i.e., buying 12 vs 1200 bananas), do the providers jack their usage prices from 100 to 200% once a cap is exceed?

Marketed based economy? hmmmm Normally the more you purchase, the cheaper the per unit the product becomes.

Wireless being provided over wireline?? Is this a level of anti-completive action in certain areas, particularly when certain areas are serviced by Bell?

How come power in Ontario classifies areas as low or high density, and adjusts their rates accordingly for delivery?

People like me are willing to pay for internet... even above the costs listed. I would pay $500 for a 10/1 DSL service monthly.

I already pay $400 to 600 monthly for Turbo hubs times many sim cards... a service I am not happy with... but we have to do it for business. Why can't someone like me actually pay for internet (and not the $260,000 quote to bury a wire 9.5 KM like I recently got from Bell for 20/20 dedicated).

This is a business, and not a charity.... but there has to be a realistic expectation of being able to do business.... that is the issue here.

What do I expect in the next 10 years: I predict that after enough foot dragging from he incumbents, the CRTC will start to get tired of the excuses. The wireless code, which the incumbents fought tooth and nail is becoming the beginning of some new expectations for the incumbents:

- A provider who provides voice services to an address through wireline or wireless, will have to provide data (the internet). No more excuses.

While the internet won't be labeled an essential service, voice will remain so for 911 use... and with the option for provision of voice services... will come the option for provision of data services.

In short, if you provided voice, the company will be providing internet IAW the minimum broadband standard set by the government.

- Minimum broadband standards will be set in stone, and fines will be issued for falling below it.

Overall, for the incumbents, I see some actions they just won't like... but hey, forcing a company to do business with the populace just might be the answer! LOL
jumpingryan

jumpingryan to Shaman

Member

to Shaman
said by Shaman:

So, no other parties can compete. Period. End of. Where there's independent fiber, there is either no competition, or there is physical space available at low cost (which you won't find in cities), or the company has been given municipal advantages, or all three. You usually find that in quiet villages and towns, well north of profit-center cities.

As someone who doesn't even have DSL or cable internet, and survives on a Turbo Hub(s), I actually don't mind the no access to fibre from independents... Bell is building this network... in reality it is theirs....

But I would tie it into something else... if they want to have exclusive access, they need to include a lot more customers in their fold.... mandate a build out so their are no second class addresses without wireline access.

Rather than updating areas from 15/10 service to 175/175.... Mandate that people not covered by wireline receive DSL/fibre coverage first as part of their exclusive access.
jumpingryan

jumpingryan to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

The continued rumour that they were subsidized has never been proven, although rural customers were being subsidized by urban subscribers for many years and continue to be subsidized to this day, which is one of the reasons, that Bell, like the US looks to try to drop rural services and partially regulated wireline services.

The costs for fibre deployment to rural areas are like several orders of magnitude as compared to many copper urban areas.

More customers and higher density doesn't necessarily mean better profitability. Rural customers usually have once choice, take it or not available. Urban customers have at least two generally.

The cost of retrofitting a copper based urban subdivision with FTTH... often over the top.
jumpingryan

jumpingryan to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

Name one other company that has an Act of Parliament named after it.

»laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· s/B-3.6/

It would be very interesting to read the Act from its inception til today, looking at all the revisions to the Act over the years.

5. The works of the Company are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
Bibic will use this clause to declare that cost shouldn't matter when it comes to the 'general advantage of Canada', and that we (the people) should pay whatever Bell says it takes to make that happen.

Thanks for the link to the act.... I read most of it. I it is actually a pretty simple and straightforward document. I will remember to build my next house no more than 62 meters from the road! LOL

I am hopeful in a few years they will amend the act... and perhaps change Para 6, to include both wirelline voice and internet.

I can't stand the foot dragging of Bell for DSL (or fibre) in many areas.... of course they push their wireless offerings.
btech805
join:2013-08-01
Canada

btech805

Member

I agree with all of your posts, however, in a profit based business, the telecom companies are spending their money either where they have to (crtc telling them to) or what gives them the best ROI. The government has created a rural broadband fund which everyone has their hands into, which was created to provide broadband services to rural areas. The problem is that there is no stipulation what class of service, wireline vs. Wireless. So next to no wireline data services are being built with this fund because not only is a cell tower (generally) cheaper to build that 10+ kms of fibre to serve a handful of homes, a cell tower can service homes in numerous directions (although they are not omnidirectional) and as you've pointed out, it costs several hundred dollars a month for in an inferior product.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan to btech805

Member

to btech805
said by btech805:

Wireless is subsidised, and in fact rural broadband in general is subsidised, but the big 3 take that money to build cell towers across the country for their LTE "hubs" that are profit monsters with low caps.

Wireline services have never been directly subsidised as sbrook has pointed out, however around these forums Bell, Rogers and Telus seem to be everyone's whipping boy for simply being around so long. Rogers bought out every local cableco they could and Bell has put up lines across the country and in fact around the world as the need arose over the past century and a half or so.

I do agree with Bell often being the whipping boy.... along with Rogers and Cogeco. On only issues with the latter two is that they don't really expand service - they acquire.

Bell is improving and upgrading, I will give them that (minus my line run which is still really bad for even voice).... there are some areas that I never thought would have DSL, now with FTTN or better... some really out there properties on huge acreages.

Bell is doing a good job with that, and I am impressed. They certainly have left alot of other people out there with nothing though, and their public relations on network improvement SUCKS!! I get it, they promised DSL to some places in 2004, and still haven't come through... so why communicate what could be failure or worse... but still.

Now with Crave TV, I am hopeful Bell will push not just to do those 15/10 areas and make them like 175/175... but actually push to get customers even just the 5/1.... those customers who can't actually sign up.

For example, I would do a Crave TV on a 3 year contract if I could get 5/1 DSL. I would do DSL/fibre 175/175 or 250/250 (business) on a 3 year contract with Bell if they would push service to me. It's not like the money isn't there. And here is the kicker, I would still be keeping the Turbo hub.... we need reliability.

One interesting side point of disclosure: I am with TekSavvy for land lines X 2(for now).. but I am definitely not loyal to them... why did I choose Teksavvy in 2009: no other options for unlimited, and MLPPP. My DSL internet connection was slow, and I needed MLPPP, and Bell didn't offer unlimited (they tied it into speed plans that were unavailable). Overall, bad business choices on Bell's part in 2009... and I actually think they got put in their place a little by the CRTC.

Now that Bell has fixed those issues on it's wireline... there is little incentive to go with an wholesaler other than price.

However, I am curious specifically on the rural subsidizes actually, and that is where my question is to you..... I know there are alot of subsidies out there for rural. I have researched and reached out to just about any angle possible without much success.

Although I know little about the money side of the business, I do wonder on the perception of rural profitability..... I see all around my area new aerial fibre going up (minus my area: load coiled all over)... and then I hear about copper subdivisions being retrofitted in the city.

Many people talk about how profitable it is to say do some big built up area... but true profitability isn't about total dollars and cents.... it is about percentages and return on investment time frame.

You take the percentages and ROI, and then apply scale (as many subscribers as possible).

I believe that the margins are closer than many people expect in rural areas...

- far lower and faster upgrade costs (abundance of aerial options)
- far less choice in competition (usually none)

Am I wrong in stating that rural wireline internet isn't as unprofitable as people think as say compared to a suburban buried copper subdivision?
jumpingryan

jumpingryan to btech805

Member

to btech805
Had a good laugh today....

I called up, and asked how much it would be to "pay" for Bell business wired internet services.... the response... "we do not allow people to pay for internet services, it just wouldn't be fair to the other customers".

Perhaps that representative didn't get the memo that you got... this is a business!
btech805
join:2013-08-01
Canada

btech805 to jumpingryan

Member

to jumpingryan
said by jumpingryan:

You take the percentages and ROI, and then apply scale (as many subscribers as possible).

I believe that the margins are coser than many people expect in rural areas...

- far lower and faster upgrade costs (abundance of aerial options)
- far less choice in competition (usually none)

Am I wrong in stating that rural wireline internet isn't as unprofitable as people think as say compared to a suburban buried copper subdivision?

In some cases, it may be cheaper to run aerial rural fiber than underground suburban fiber, however even on my measly 1 acre lot in the rural south east of Ottawa, you could squeeze 5 or 6 suburban homes (read: subscribers) side by side at $200-300/month over the one home per lot they get in my area. Outside of the village, the homes are even further apart and you get even fewer potential subscribers. So while the build out cost may be cheaper in rural areas over short runs, the number of potential subscribers is what engineers look at.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

said by btech805:

Outside of the village, the homes are even further apart and you get even fewer potential subscribers. So while the build out cost may be cheaper in rural areas over short runs, the number of potential subscribers is what engineers look at.

Yes, and scale is important in terms of brand....

The point I was trying to emphasize is that rural wireline internet isn't nearly as unprofitable as people think... especially in areas where there is one provider and no cable. While I don't consider myself rural (I am a 1.16 acre lot), and I have plenty of neighbours.... I think there is a perception that my area is hard, or I am way out there. I am just on a very shitty line run that is likely going to be fairly easy to upgrade when the time comes.

Golden Lake - That is out there... and it has some of the best internet around. I can't even remember if Golden Lake has a grocery store?

It just requires effort from the companies, and some risk.

Bell isn't a bad company in my eyes, considering they have brought some quality wireline internet to areas that I never would have expected to experience the world wide web... LOL.

One other aspect against the promotion of wireless for Bell is the caps, and Bell's push to Crave TV. Crave seems of fairly good value for the price.

Customers can't sign up if they don't have the bandwidth. Wireline is the only way to provide that with their current methods of marketing or major leaps in capacity for wireless.

My copper lines and line run are pretty much failing anyways, as you can see by the pictures I have put up in other posts. I don't think we are far off for my line line run to be upgraded out of necessity.

Now that I know some more about the Bell Canada Act... I can see they can't just stop wireline voice services by law. From my understanding, Bell is rarely replacing with copper anymore now as well?
btech805
join:2013-08-01
Canada

btech805

Member

said by jumpingryan:

Golden Lake - That is out there... and it has some of the best internet around. I can't even remember if Golden Lake has a grocery store?

LOL! they do have a corner store with a fantastic selection of fireworks and tobacco products, but grocery store, no.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

1 edit

jumpingryan

Member

said by btech805:

LOL! they do have a corner store with a fantastic selection of fireworks and tobacco products, but grocery store, no.

I have snowmobiled there (beer and wings at that pub), and passed through there, but I couldn't remember!

I am not bashing them now in any way BTW. I think it is fantastic they have some good quality fibre! I am within a Walmart supercenter within 15 minutes, along with a selection of 3 other grocery stores.

It just goes to show everyone that Bell has pushed to some high end internet to some pretty out their towns.
69230940 (banned)
join:2014-12-10

69230940 (banned)

Member

Golden Lake is a tiny town, be surprised if there's a population of 50 there, however the native reserve is also right there and it's a fair sized community (compared to the town that is). It's quite likely that the installation of Fiber there was quite heavily subsidized because of the reserve.
btech805
join:2013-08-01
Canada

btech805

Member

I was just going to say, if anything the reserve has something to do with Fiber being in Golden Lake. My best friend has a cottage in between Brudenell and Barry's Bay and they have no fiber, and Barry's Bay has a much larger population than Golden Lake. In fact at the cottage, they just got cell reception this past summer thanks to a government grant.

Edit: Barry's Bay may have some fiber. There are definitely areas with DSL there, but i have only been there for work purposes once. Every other time i don't travel much further than the grocery store and beer store.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan

Member

The fibre run does seem to head from Pembroke to Barrys Bay along the old Round Lake Road. On another thread, I mentioned about all kinds of trees laying on what appears to be new lines... it is along that run.

They have put up a few 7330's along that run. I have a few friends that live near Round Lake Roa(closer to Pembroke) near Alice, and that is one of my examples of huge acreages that have great FTTN or better. Good on them!

As to the Reserve, I know that there is a special emphasis for aboriginal areas within the Industry Canada program....

I say, good for them, and anybody else who is serviced along the way. Although I disagree with some of the ways the program is likely used (bring people from say 4.5/1 to say 175/175 - a taxpayer subsidized upgrade), the program is a good thing.

Barry's Bay (the town proper), is probably a fairly easy area to upgrade. I suspect there is work in progress right now. Not much is underground there.... the town isn't serviced by Natural Gas, and I suspect there is little in the way of sewer systems in the way.

Hopefully Bell doesn't get complacent with it's upgrades, and just pushes forward over the next few years. There is strong demand in those areas.... with little suitable competition.