dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
826
rockstead
join:2012-06-30
Pincourt, QC

rockstead

Member

When will TS be able to offer FTTH in Quebec?

I'm envious if my neighbor that has FTTH with Bell, although I'm not sure if they offer unlimited bandwidth if not taking Bell Fibe, something I would never do.

How close is TS to being able to offer FTTH in Quebec?

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

TSI Marc

Premium Member

It's with the CRTC. Currently, it's not mandated so we don't have access. It will likely be decided on later this year.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

@Marc

Do a deal with Google - you sell TSI to them. They make you president of Google FTTH Canada Ltd. You bring fiber to all of us.

Jay_P
join:2005-12-12
Montreal, QC

Jay_P to rockstead

Member

to rockstead
Considering the amount of traffic being pushed from youtube, google etc it might be in google's best interest to offset some of the CBB to IISPs. Marc give them a call :P
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to rockstead

Member

to rockstead
I would not hold my breath - I doubt the CRTC will mandate wholesale access to FTTH within the next three years.

Even if it did, the wholesale rates will probably ruin most IISPs chances of making a profit out of it. In hearings a few years ago, I think Bell said triple-play is required to make FTTH profitable, so you can expect wholesale rates to reflect the projected loss per line from being unable to strongly nudge people towards triple-play plans.
daeron
join:2012-05-11
Ottawa

daeron to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

It's with the CRTC. Currently, it's not mandated so we don't have access. It will likely be decided on later this year.

I know the CRTC is never quick with these things, do you know if they have a rough ETA on the decision? I've got fiber directly in my home but the only company I can use it with is Bell (which is super frustrating).

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

1 edit

jmck to InvalidError

Member

to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:

I would not hold my breath - I doubt the CRTC will mandate wholesale access to FTTH within the next three years.

Even if it did, the wholesale rates will probably ruin most IISPs chances of making a profit out of it. In hearings a few years ago, I think Bell said triple-play is required to make FTTH profitable, so you can expect wholesale rates to reflect the projected loss per line from being unable to strongly nudge people towards triple-play plans.

i don't see a reason why it can't still be offered at simply a higher cost to IISPs, at least they'll have the option and i'm sure power users would be happy to pay a higher fee for FTTH too.
btech805
join:2013-08-01
Canada

btech805

Member

said by jmck:

said by InvalidError:

I would not hold my breath - I doubt the CRTC will mandate wholesale access to FTTH within the next three years.

Even if it did, the wholesale rates will probably ruin most IISPs chances of making a profit out of it. In hearings a few years ago, I think Bell said triple-play is required to make FTTH profitable, so you can expect wholesale rates to reflect the projected loss per line from being unable to strongly nudge people towards triple-play plans.

i don't see a reason why it's can still be offered at simply a higher cost to IISPs, at least they'll have the option and i'm sure power users would be happy to pay a higher fee for FTTH too.

That is what i envision happening. However who in all honestly is going to pay more to be with the IISP. Teksavvy is a great company but the cost of everything else is rising today, consumers aren't going to want to spend $90/month for 50 meg ftth if they can have it for $70 with Bell. You can even add in that you can get cable 60 for around the Bell price and it wouldn't make much sense

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

jmck

Member

it would also be interesting if Bell could create a bundle package for IISPs/FTTH with their TV service since it's a big part of making FTTH work in the first place.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt

Member

said by jmck:

it would also be interesting if Bell could create a bundle package for IISPs/FTTH with their TV service since it's a big part of making FTTH work in the first place.

That would require Bell wanting to play along. I very much doubt the CRTC would mandate THAT.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to btech805

Premium Member

to btech805
Next go-round at the CRTC somebody ought to ask the CRTC a pointed question:

"What's the CRTC going to do when their dithering on mandating wholesale FTTH at competitive rates drives the independents out of business? Simply pocket their cheques from the indumbents and walk away from your cushy CTRC jobs smiling?"

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

Guspaz to rockstead

MVM

to rockstead
It's not a foregone conclusion to the CRTC that the independent ISPs are required. If they decide they're not required, the outcome you describe (being driven out of business) would be desirable (to the CRTC).

If you notice, whenever the CRTC examines things like if FTTH should be made available to wholesalers, they re-examine if the wholesale regime needs to exist in the first place.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

1 edit

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

I'll grant you that in and of itself stringing fiber on poles in not rocket science. But it is near impossible to get 'permission' from Bell to permit a 3rd party to use their poles.

And it's beyond belief that in cities like Toronto you can't string fiber on hydro poles as a form of competition to Bell's poles -- and if Toronto Hydro did allow fiber only from indie ISP's you can bet that Bell/Rogers would sue in one breath and in the next breath try to get an exclusive deal with Toronto Hydro for pole access - thereby shutting out indies once again.

The fact is that indies couldn't raise more than maybe $20 million bucks if they pooled all their borrowing capacity together - and then they'd bicker as to where they should string fiber -- Toronto, Rimouski, Barrie, Brandon, Whistler.

So, yes, wholesale is required until the indumbents hold a collective market share of less than about 60-70% nationwide.
btech805
join:2013-08-01
Canada

btech805

Member

I would almost quadrupole that estimate for a city like T.O. Kingston is a small city and that cost 30-odd million...
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

It's not a foregone conclusion to the CRTC that the independent ISPs are required. If they decide they're not required, the outcome you describe (being driven out of business) would be desirable (to the CRTC).

I think the CRTC is unlikely to find out IISPs are no longer necessary but if FTTH costs are really as high as incumbents claim they are, the CRTC may end up approving rates that make no sense. A slightly different route towards a similar end-result.
Cubytus
join:2007-08-24

Cubytus to rockstead

Member

to rockstead
Wouldn't it be more economical for indies to strike a deal with OVH? I mean, they have already deployed an extensive fiber optic network in North America, with many PoPs. It IS frustrating to see PoP so close to the home, yet still unavailable to the common user.
https://www.ovh.com/ca/fr/apropos/reseau.xml
Deploying only local fibers can't be as expensive as inter-city.

I was at their meetup a few days ago, and while they have the technical and probably financial capability to deploy FTTH as they did in France, they want to concentrate their energy on what they do best: cloud services, VPS, dedicated, and a whole array of Web services. They don't intend to become an ISP, so may welcome the deal as it wouldn't be competition.