 dillyhammerSTART me upPremium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:9
 ·Start Communicat..
 ·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·Caneris
| reply to nitzguy
Re: Bell Fibe175 in Ontario said by nitzguy:The cable/copper argument can be made because they were technically "Subsidized" by the government and by extension the people who created that network were given monopolies to protect their share and to reinvest in that network.
In regards to Fibre networks...I don't think that has any play because the cost has been foreborne by the companies themselves with no "regulatory protection".
A strong argument can be made that without the previously enjoyed subsidization and regulatory protection there would be no fibre network - revenues gleened from same were used to build out the fibre.
Open access to fibre is a matter the government needs to take up sooner rather than later.
Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Make The Switch - »openmedia.ca/switch |
|
| said by dillyhammer:Open access to fibre is a matter the government needs to take up sooner rather than later.
This government??
That's a good one!!!
Wahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| said by MaynardKrebs:said by dillyhammer:Open access to fibre is a matter the government needs to take up sooner rather than later.
This government?? That's a good one!!! Wahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. In all seriousness IISPs should get the ball rolling now because it's going to be an uphill battle.
--
Everything in moderation... Including Moderation --Oscar Wilde |
|
dillyhammerSTART me upPremium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:9 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·Caneris
| reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:said by dillyhammer:Open access to fibre is a matter the government needs to take up sooner rather than later.
This government?? That's a good one!!! Wahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Yeah... not good, not good.
But hey, we have 2015 to look forward to.
Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Make The Switch - »openmedia.ca/switch |
|
| said by dillyhammer:said by MaynardKrebs:said by dillyhammer:Open access to fibre is a matter the government needs to take up sooner rather than later.
This government?? That's a good one!!! Wahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Yeah... not good, not good. But hey, we have 2015 to look forward to. Only if the centre-left vote isn't split. |
|
 nitzguyPremium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to dillyhammer
said by dillyhammer:said by nitzguy:The cable/copper argument can be made because they were technically "Subsidized" by the government and by extension the people who created that network were given monopolies to protect their share and to reinvest in that network.
In regards to Fibre networks...I don't think that has any play because the cost has been foreborne by the companies themselves with no "regulatory protection".
A strong argument can be made that without the previously enjoyed subsidization and regulatory protection there would be no fibre network - revenues gleened from same were used to build out the fibre. Open access to fibre is a matter the government needs to take up sooner rather than later. Mike Here's your #1 issue with that...Copper, as we all know, is universal, it runs up and down across I believe 98%+ of the population of the Country....
Fibre...not so selective....as its rolled out, not All areas will have access to it...and not a "required" service as per the copper telephone lines...
That's why I don't think you're going to see the same regulation, as....for the record its not regulated now and it'd be tough for Independent ISPs to argue access based on that fact....not saying that its not possible, but its going to be an uphill climb to say the least. |
|
|
|
| said by nitzguy:said by dillyhammer:said by nitzguy:The cable/copper argument can be made because they were technically "Subsidized" by the government and by extension the people who created that network were given monopolies to protect their share and to reinvest in that network.
In regards to Fibre networks...I don't think that has any play because the cost has been foreborne by the companies themselves with no "regulatory protection".
A strong argument can be made that without the previously enjoyed subsidization and regulatory protection there would be no fibre network - revenues gleened from same were used to build out the fibre. Open access to fibre is a matter the government needs to take up sooner rather than later. Mike Here's your #1 issue with that...Copper, as we all know, is universal, it runs up and down across I believe 98%+ of the population of the Country.... Fibre...not so selective....as its rolled out, not All areas will have access to it...and not a "required" service as per the copper telephone lines... That's why I don't think you're going to see the same regulation, as....for the record its not regulated now and it'd be tough for Independent ISPs to argue access based on that fact....not saying that its not possible, but its going to be an uphill climb to say the least. The argument for getting fibre access is that the CRTC allowed the incumbent tariff for copper to be set so high that indies could never earn enough to afford to build their own networks. |
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:Only if the centre-left vote isn't split.
liberal party is finished in next election
they be lucky to keep the same number a seats they get now
they are more akin to small c conservatives ergo the saskatchewan province where the two merged just to defeat the ndp... |
|
nitzguyPremium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:The argument for getting fibre access is that the CRTC allowed the incumbent tariff for copper to be set so high that indies could never earn enough to afford to build their own networks.
...Good point...in reality, for me, by myself....honestly I find 200gb is more than enough for me...I watch all the TV I could potentially watch and download (not streaming), and watch the Blue Jays games through streaming because I don't have another option as I don't have TV...so I honestly think that its fine for me, as always, others may vary, but if Aliant's FibreOp service does come here...I'm excited to see what that will bring...and I just realized my new place I'm about 800m from the CO....I'll go take some pics of it another day... |
|
cowwoc
join:2007-05-19
St John'S, NL | reply to nitzguy
There is only one way to break this vicious cycle: infrastructure providers may not be service providers, and vice-versa.
The companies laying the wire may not be associated with or give preferential treatment to companies providing service on top of those wires.
If the government passes this law, any government, we're in the money. They have a similar law in Israel and it kills the kind of crap Bell has been pulling for years.
Gili
said by nitzguy:Here's your #1 issue with that...Copper, as we all know, is universal, it runs up and down across I believe 98%+ of the population of the Country....
Fibre...not so selective....as its rolled out, not All areas will have access to it...and not a "required" service as per the copper telephone lines...
That's why I don't think you're going to see the same regulation, as....for the record its not regulated now and it'd be tough for Independent ISPs to argue access based on that fact....not saying that its not possible, but its going to be an uphill climb to say the least.
|
|
 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand | Functional Separation, been discussed ad-nausem here.
"The Harper Government" would never do that , since it goes against their free market mentality. |
|
cowwoc
join:2007-05-19
St John'S, NL | There is no such thing as a perfect free market. If there was, monopolies would have taken over centuries ago.
I don't think the Conservative government is inclined to allow monopolies any more than the Liberals. They will (and have) intervened when there was a clear risk of a monopoly. The problem is that a duopoly isn't good enough either. We need 5+ big players for this to be a truly free market. The current market has no competitive pressure.
Gili
said by elwoodblues:Functional Separation, been discussed ad-nausem here.
"The Harper Government" would never do that , since it goes against their free market mentality.
|
|
| You can search my posts on DSLr over the past 4 years for discussions of how the market should be broken up - market share-wise and functional separation.
In wireless, the incumbents basically got all their original spectrum for free and then some. Remember the 'System Access Fee"??? Originally that was paid by customers on a pass-thru basis to the government to compensate the feds for the spectrum. Then the government stopped collecting their take but the incumbents kept on charging the consumers.
In wireline, there were government incentives and grants paid to incumbents.
In cable there were regional monopolies granted to ensure no competition.
Wind, Mobilicity, Teksavvy, et. al. have none of that coming their way from the Feds.
Save a copy of the attached article locally and refer to it frequently. Have a barf bag handy each time you read it. |
|
| reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:Functional Separation, been discussed ad-nausem here.
"The Harper Government" would never do that , since it goes against their free market mentality.
A brontosaurus, with its walnut-sized brain, would see the merits of functional separation. |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:Functional Separation, been discussed ad-nausem here.
"The Harper Government" would never do that , since it goes against their free market mentality.
And also given the deep integration with these companies like Bell and Rogers would it really work? They will find a way to work around the rules or disregard them. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand | reply to MaynardKrebs
16K/Day in pension.
WTF that's insane..... |
|
