 kevinds
Premium Member
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB |
to HeadSpinning
Re: Court rejects Bell, Rogers appeals of CRTC decision on Internet Wholesalesaid by HeadSpinning:As a business person, I take a risk, invest capital, and hope to earn a bigger return because of that. I also happen to love the telecom business - building out networks. I get satisfaction out of seeing tens of thousands of people using the service we provide. And if you could do all that, and connect to the local network at the SAME rates that Bell pays to access the last mile... |
|
| |
said by kevinds:And if you could do all that, and connect to the local network at the SAME rates that Bell pays to access the last mile... A bigger return as a reward for investing capital interests me. Everyone having the same input costs because the taxpayer paid for the whole thing doesn't. Not saying that there aren't merit to that idea - just not a business I really want to be in. |
|
 ·TekSavvy Cable
·Can Com
|
Glen T
Member
2021-Jun-23 12:06 pm
said by HeadSpinning:said by kevinds:And if you could do all that, and connect to the local network at the SAME rates that Bell pays to access the last mile... A bigger return as a reward for investing capital interests me. Everyone having the same input costs because the taxpayer paid for the whole thing doesn't. Not saying that there aren't merit to that idea - just not a business I really want to be in. That's seems fair. |
|
1 edit |
to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:A bigger return as a reward for investing capital interests me. Everyone having the same input costs because the taxpayer paid for the whole thing doesn't. Not saying that there aren't merit to that idea - just not a business I really want to be in. That means you want to reap the benefits of regulatory capture, where your territory is yours exclusively to exploit... Except, reality is you can't win long term at that, because Bhell or eTron will want to take over your kingdom as soon as there's a sufficient profit to be made. They will either buy you out or use lobbyist or lawyers to wrestle you out, whatever is least expensive to them. The only reason you are left alone, is that they aren't interested in your clients at this moment. I want a free market system where every internet provider can fail or become the king of providers. That includes Bhell, if they can't fail, then that's not free market and as things currently stand, Bhell is a can't fail company and that's not fair to anyone including MNSi. |
|
 En EnferThis account has been compromised
join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC |
said by MadCow:Bhell or eTron will want to take over your kingdom as soon as there's a sufficient profit to be made. They will either buy you out or use lobbyist or lawyers to wrestle you out, whatever is least expensive to them. The only reason you are left alone, is that they aren't interested in your clients at this moment. Since the Government of Canada promised million$ to upgrade rural areas to a minimum of 50Mbps, look at that, Vidéotron, Rogers and Cogeco decided it was time to buy some independent cable service providers in rural areas. (Rogers failed to acquire Cogeco). And Bell? They're in charge of who has access to the poles, so access is limited under Bell's own terms (meaning once *they* received millions to upgrade an area). You know, Bhell obtained lots of money to upgrade Lac Pemichangan (Outaouais) to 1Gbps, where Bell CEO Mirko Bibic's cottage is located. Talk about priorities... If Bell fails, there's a major impact on hundreds of radio stations, CTV network, 50% of all specialty TV, TSN, PayTV (HBO, Showtime, Starz), a ton of advertisement billboards, satellite service, legacy phone service, sponsorship of all sorts... It is already too big to fail. And the government will bail them out because Bell's shareholders are Canada's #1 priority. Speaking of FM/AM radio, Bell & Rogers recently requested to the CRTC to increase the cap limit on radio station ownership per market, doubling it. You know, all possible full-power frequencies, they'll own them. Time to break Bell? |
|
| |
MadCow
Member
2021-Jun-23 5:21 pm
Pole and wire ownership is the first part we need to break away from them. |
|
| |
to MadCow
said by MadCow: That means you want to reap the benefits of regulatory capture, where your territory is yours exclusively to exploit... That's not what "regulatory capture" means. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re ··· _captureWe have no monopoly on our service area. We compete with Bell and Cogeco. said by MadCow:The only reason you are left alone, is that they aren't interested in your clients at this moment. They don't leave us alone. |
|
|
 sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2021-Jun-23 6:59 pm
Quite ... when they put 3rd parties down in forums or in casual conversation; when they take an extra day or more to do repairs; when they offer discounted rates below the wholesale rates through their flanker brands ... that's not "leaving you alone"! |
|
| |
said by sbrook:Quite ... when they put 3rd parties down in forums or in casual conversation; when they take an extra day or more to do repairs; when they offer discounted rates below the wholesale rates through their flanker brands ... that's not "leaving you alone"! We do our own repairs. We only rely on Bell for our legacy copper, which is a very small part of our business. |
|
sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2021-Jun-23 7:09 pm
I was referring to TPIAs in general, not just you.  |
|
| |
to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:We have no monopoly on our service area. Don't you have fiber on the poles? And isn't it one wire only for each type? At least that's what Bhell and eTron did for copper and cable. And when Bhell wants fiber in that area, will they not want you to remove or sell yours? Because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to put up copper or cable in my area and compete with Bhell and eTron. |
|
|
sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2021-Jun-23 7:43 pm
It's a matter of who has access rights to the poles or "who owns the poles".
In much of Ontario, Bell or your local hydro own the poles. Whoever uses the pole seeks permission to rent space on each and every pole! So, for example, if Hydro owns the pole, then both Bell and Rogers pay pole rental if they share the pole.
Near here, there are poles owned by Bell that they did not want Rogers to use ... so Rogers installed their own across the street!
Sometimes, apparently, even if hydro owns a pole, and Bell rents the pole, they may put an exclusivity clause on the pole. At the corner of my house, there's a Power pole with Bell, and separate Rogers pole (I THINK that's because it's the end of the cable line on the street).
So, it's not so much that they can't put something up to compete, but they can't share the pole or underground trunks. |
|
| |
to MadCow
why does everything think fibre has to be ran on poles anyway? start in London does all there fibre underground with minimal digging none of this we have to dig the whole street up b/s that bell makes it sound like they have to do to put in fibre. |
|
sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2021-Jun-23 9:51 pm
It's a lot cheaper to put on poles in existing areas if there are poles there. |
|
ADTRAN 411
TP-Link Archer AX11000
Grandstream HT801
|
cheaper maybe but a lot more hassle if u gotta deal with jerks like bell/rogers/shaw ect or a hydro company who has no incentive to let u use there poles. poles should be controlled by the city there located in not a privately owned company there on city property anyway and they should be free for any one to use but that wont ever happen. |
|
| |
MadCow
Member
2021-Jun-24 12:17 am
said by jeffrey15287:cheaper maybe but a lot more hassle if u gotta deal with jerks like bell/rogers/shaw ect or a hydro company who has no incentive to let u use there poles. poles should be controlled by the city there located in not a privately owned company there on city property anyway and they should be free for any one to use but that wont ever happen. Search for "wire pole in India" to see what that leads to. I think Bhell's 'ancient' argument for one wire of the same type per pole makes sense, it's just how they administered that and weaseled out of sharing the access to the wires. It needs to be municipal owned (or at least whoever owns the wire, should not be allowed to directly provide service on it, in order to separate telecom infrastructure and services). |
|
| |
to MadCow
said by MadCow: And isn't it one wire only for each type? At least that's what Bhell and eTron did for copper and cable. And when Bhell wants fiber in that area, will they not want you to remove or sell yours? I've see poles with up to 4 strands attached. Each attachment strand could have copper, fibre, coax or a mix lashed to them. There are poles here in town that have Maxcess (bought by Cogeco), Cogeco, MNSi and Bell copper and fibre all on the same pole. Not really sure what you're trying to say with "one wire only for each type", or "remove or sell yours". |
|
En EnferThis account has been compromised
join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC |
to sbrook
said by sbrook:Sometimes, apparently, even if hydro owns a pole, and Bell rents the pole, they may put an exclusivity clause on the pole. At the corner of my house, there's a Power pole with Bell, and separate Rogers pole.
So, it's not so much that they can't put something up to compete, but they can't share the pole or underground trunks. It's a game of extortion and domination. It's like, Bell sees Rogers request and fart out an outstanding amount of money for each pole, saying "you make millions in profits, can afford paying the bill". Negociations are delayed. Rogers has to ask the city for permission to install new poles, and it's a long process. In the end, either the city a) denies Rogers request and back to delays, or b) overlook details and grant Rogers permission for new poles. A few months (or years) later, the city look at the mess/ridiculousness of wires on both sides of the street or alleys, and something's gonna happen. Delay tactics are benificial for Bell for connecting private companies, those who want to pay a bundle to 1 service provider for a dedicated line between their stores. If Rogers can't reach some stores due to Bell pole blockage, or it's Cogeco/Videotron/independent territory, then the private company will choose Bell. In some areas, Hydro owns the poles, but access is managed by Bell. Not to forget, Hydro also has its dedicated fiber optics network, allowing them to monitor the network remotely, points of failure, errors, etc., reallocating monitoring employees sitting all day doing nothing. |
|
·TekSavvy Cable
·Can Com
|
Glen T
Member
2021-Jun-24 12:30 pm
Going back 35 years we had a bunch of my wife's relatives come over from Denmark for a big anniversary party. They were amazed by our beautiful city and scenery but laughed out loud at our ugly poles with wires hanging on them. They asked, "why do you do this?" Denmark was already running everything underground by that time. |
|
En EnferThis account has been compromised
join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC
1 edit |
Advantages of underground wiring: Cleaner landscaping, protected from damages caused by high winds and freezing rain.
Inconvenients: When a wire breaks while buried in the dead of winter at -35°C... good luck finding the cause and a quick repair. |
|
| |
to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:Not really sure what you're trying to say with "one wire only for each type", or "remove or sell yours". My understanding was that there were no places (in Canada) where you could choose between two different cooper connections (POTS) companies and the same applied to coax with cable companies. When phone companies deployed didn't they argue that having multiple copper networks in people's back yards would be more expensive to the consumer since it would duplicate infrastructure? In exchange for exclusive access the prices for phone service was regulated. Eventually they did get unregulated, in exchange for phone companies requires to give access to third partie phone providers in colocation (and we know how that went). And when cable deployed in Montreal in the 70s, and that I know from having been there, Bell (and I guess other phone companies elsewhere) fought to prevent access to the poles at a reasonable cost and were eventually forced to share access with cable since as it was not a competing service and the it required a different type of wire (coax). Cable companies started out as many small providers and each had their own territories with no overlap. I remember that at the time the same argument of not having multiple coax wires hanging on the pole, so that there could only be only one cable provider per sector. Eventually these merged by acquisitions and became Videotron. So, I assumed the same rules of not having multiple providers would apply (or eventually apply) to fiber on poles. |
|
| |
said by MadCow: So, I assumed the same rules of not having multiple providers would apply (or eventually apply) to fiber on poles. No such rule exists today. |
|
En EnferThis account has been compromised
join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC |
to MadCow
said by MadCow:My understanding was that there were no places (in Canada) where you could choose between two different cooper connections (POTS) companies They do exist. Or used to exist. Maskatel headquartered in St-Hyacinthe, Québec, is a good example. As a regional phone provider, they were spared from TPIA access requirement on their network. Unfortunately, Bell brought Maskatel on january 1st 2018, but kept the name, their official website makes no mention of Bell anywhere. They offer 1Gbps internet, and IPTV. Of course, customers wanting cellphone service will be invited to switch to Bell for bundles. Recently there was a city, also in Quebec, who wanted to offer their own internet service and deploy fiber, but faced a roadblock by Bell over a 3-years waiting access to the poles, next thing you know, Bell technicians spotted in the poles installing fiber on their own network. Don't remember the city name, but was mentionned on DSLR. |
|
·TekSavvy Cable
·Can Com
|
to MadCow
Here's how stupid pole nationalism can get. The street light burned out on the pole in front of my house. I wait a couple of weeks and no one replaces the bulb. I call the city and they ask 'what is the pole made of, wood or steel? Steel is city owned, wood is BC Hydro.' I say wood, and they say call BC Hydro.
Hydro says 'that pole is scheduled to be replaced'. Then they replace the pole, but not the street light. I call Hydro and they say, 'if you want a street light on your pole, you can buy one.' I say, I want the existing one replaced. They say, there is no existing light. I say that is because you removed it. I tell them that this is the only light on our street. I show them Google street views of the light. They say you can buy a light if you want one.
After a year, the city finally intervenes and forces Hydro to put a street light on the new pole. The crew foreman is overheard yelling up at the lineman 'I don't give a f**k how you install it, just give the asshole his f**king light." |
|
| |
to En Enfer
said by En Enfer:Recently there was a city, also in Quebec, who wanted to offer their own internet service and deploy fiber, but faced a roadblock by Bell over a 3-years waiting access to the poles, next thing you know, Bell technicians spotted in the poles installing fiber on their own network. Don't remember the city name, but was mentionned on DSLR. I'm sure there's nothing that scares the incumbents more than municipal owned fiber. |
|
| MadCow |
to HeadSpinning
They should though, the argument the phone companies used, was right, it does increase cost to customers to have duplicated infrastructure. But they used (and abused) this to gain enough exclusivity. The only logical way is to share the infrastructure between providers. There are places where they have multiple electricity providers and a single power grid. And I've also heard of places that even have multiple water providers with a single pipe network (in England where my company at the time had offices they could choose between two water providers... even though it came from the same pipe and was the same water), and the same can be done for communication networks. Would we even be discussing if Purolator, UPS, Fedex and Canada Post should own their own private roads to deliver their packages to customers? |
|
·
