Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CTRC Orders Big ISPs To Provide Matching Speeds For Resellers

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the streaming-hockey-is-a-serious-business dept.

Businesses 91

Meshach writes "In Canada there has been a regulatory decision rendered by the CRTC ordering ISPs to provide the same speed to resellers as they do for their own customers. 'Smaller internet providers such as Teksavvy and Execulink had argued that without requirements to offer matching speeds, the big companies would put them out of business. Bell and Telus are selling internet connections of up to 25 and 15 megabits per second respectively over newer fibre-based networks, but smaller providers can typically offer speeds of no more than five megabits per second over older copper-based infrastructure. After holding a public hearing earlier this year, the CRTC now says it will allow phone companies to charge smaller providers an extra 10-per-cent mark-up to use their newer infrastructure in order to recoup the costs of their investments. The regulator also said it would require cable companies to modify their existing internet access services to make it easier for smaller, "alternative" providers to connect to them.'"

cancel ×

91 comments

Wow! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33421296)

The CRTC did something reasonable for a change! Woo!

That's a step in the right direction, however the lines are still owned by the monopolies, and they still set the base prices.

Re:Wow! (0, Troll)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421478)

Cue Libertarian moaning about how the government is the problem - and not, say, high barriers to entry in a captive market.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33422050)

I still don't see how this will allow me to build cheaper canoes, or grow better weed.

Re:Wow! (1)

Phopojijo (1603961) | more than 3 years ago | (#33424038)

Simply put, you can view Wikipedia faster on the cheaper ISPs.

Re:Wow! (2, Informative)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422328)

I remember back when DSL last-mile resellers would sell access per-user access to ISP's for $5 per month more than they were charging direct customers, for whom they also provided backbone access, service, and aquisition. It met the letter of the law for open networks, but it basically guaranteed that they wouldn't have to compete with small ISP's for service and access charges.

Hmmm... (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421346)

The summary left out the "up to..." with regard to speeds.

About Canada (5, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421386)

For those foreign readers one must realize that in Canada we have very little competition in that the competitors don't really try and compete. I doubt they conspire but they just like things as they are. With each other cut throat is just not in their nature. But for newcomers cut throat does not even begin to describe the environment. The cards have been traditionally stacked against anyone new. If a newcomer does somehow make it then they are usually bought out by one of the monsters.
But there has been a sea change. The CRTC(our FCC) that seems to have supported this anti consumer situation is no longer friends with the government and thus the big players have lost their biggest weapon to stop annoying things like pro-consumer companies. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Interestingly enough this is not part of an anti-big-business campaign like the Democrats in the US but a pro level playing fields campaign.
If the government continues on this path we might have a chance to have one of the greatest internet systems at low cost that is found on earth. As a heavy user of this sort of technology I can't wait.

Re:About Canada (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421408)

For those foreign readers one must realize that in Canada we have very little competition in that the competitors don't really try and compete. I doubt they conspire but they just like things as they are.

A little bit more relaxed up there, eh?

Re:About Canada (4, Funny)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421422)

Interestingly enough this is not part of an anti-big-business campaign like the Democrats in the US but a pro level playing fields campaign.

Dear Sir,

A pro-level playing fields campaign IS an anti-big business campaign. In fact it is an outrage!

Signed,
Lobbyists for Major Monopoly ISPs

Re:About Canada (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421540)

Someone modded you funny, but that *is* the operating environment in Canada.

Re:About Canada (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33421706)

Because the big businesses which we do have, depend for their continued profitability upon an uneven playing field.

This isn't to say that big businesses can't be competitive in principle.
It's just to say that ours, aren't.

Re:About Canada (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421514)

Since when were the democrats anti-big business? The only difference is which big business they support.

Re:About Canada (2, Insightful)

Malc (1751) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421570)

There's always been competition in the DSL market, thanks to the CRTC. For many people though, this is not enough as it's often a case of a choice between cable or DSL. If your phone isn't up to scratch, then you have no or little choice of ISP. That sucks.

Canada used to be a leader with high speed internet, but has fallen behind in recent years. Why are the DSL resellers limited to the speeds they were offering four years ago? It's about time they were offering ADSL2+, which, ignoring the story's comment about newer fibre based networks, offers up to 25/2.5mbs over phone lines. Not everybody can get that speed of course, but I've just switched over from ADSL to ADSL2+ in London (UK, not ON), and at 3km from the exchange, I'm getting higher speeds than the these resellers in Canada offer.

Re:About Canada (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 3 years ago | (#33421866)

Isn't that what Bell's Fibe service is – renamed ADSL2+?

Re:About Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33421926)

It's VDSL

Re:About Canada (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422216)

Not sure, it's been a couple of years since I moved overseas. When I did see VDSL in the past, it was in an apartment building, and the whole building was wired for the service. It also provided Bell ExpressVu. A per building monopoly!

Re:About Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33422508)

25 Mbps down / 7 Mbps up is VDSL.
They also sell ADSL2+ like speeds of 16/1, 12/1, 10/1, as well as a few ADSL (below 8 Mbps). I don't think VDSL is deployed everywhere.

Re:About Canada (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33425738)

25/7 is VDSL2 (not VDSL), the rest of the "Fibe" speeds are all ADSL2+, and below 7Mbps are ADSL.

Re:About Canada (1)

rocca (61281) | more than 3 years ago | (#33423324)

Only in MDU's, otherwise Fibe 16 is the top end which is provisioned with ADSL2+.

Re:About Canada (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33424072)

DSL competition always? I recall that a group of ISPs, possibly as many as 12 , had to light a fire under the CRTC over Bell's control of DSL.This would have been back in '98, IIRC.

Re:About Canada (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33424824)

What, when residential DSL was just starting out? Yes, I too had one of those terrible grey Nortel modems with their silly linecards at the exchange and pathetic upload speed. Wow, a long time without competition.

Re:About Canada (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33425666)

The Nortel 1-Meg modem - I may still have one lying around somewhere. Probably can use it to prop up my couch. The line filter alone was only a bit smaller than the last DSL modem I had.

Re:About Canada (1, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 3 years ago | (#33421586)

If a newcomer does somehow make it then they are usually bought out by one of the monsters.

And who's fault is that? If the newcomer is privately held they don't have to accept an offer. They have no one to answer to like shareholders in that situation. It's simply human greed and an unwillingness to try to change the system by staying that causes the competition to fall apart then.

Re:About Canada (2, Interesting)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#33421760)

We've seen this movie already down here in the U.S. The government steps in to break the stranglehold on the market, forcing the private owners of the infrastructure (ILEC), after much biting and screaming to sell to competitors. Then the small competitors (CLECs) come in. The ones that try to play fair get kneecapped by the ILECs mercilessly. The other ones are ravenous bastards who do things like telling customers to order service from the ILEC (so that they, under common carriage, have to build out any equipment needed to provide the service) and then cancel it. That way the ILEC pays for the equipment, doesn't make their money back on it before it is cancelled, and the CLEC comes in there undercutting the ILEC and the ILEC is forced to let the CLEC use the equipment below cost.

Every party ends up hating each other's guts, and the customers lose in the end.

Sometimes I amuse myself by imagining what it would be like if we ran our highway system like that.

It would make much more sense for the government to buy the infrastructure, maintain it as a break-even venture using private contractors, and provide a fair deal to providers who can distinguish themselves in ways other than "Don't like my prices, I'll just take my ball and go home!" Of course, then the legislative charter would have to be carefully set up to prevent it's use as a giant patronage job bank for do-nothing political allies.

Re:About Canada (1)

lindoran (1190189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33421852)

--Of course, then the legislative charter would have to be carefully set up to prevent it's use as a giant patronage job bank for do-nothing political allies.

you made a funny!

Re:About Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33422300)

So, then, by your logic if your neighbor scored a hot wife after investing a lot of time and money to "land" her then he should figure out how much it cost him to get her and allow you to pay a fraction of that amount to help cover his costs so that you are able to ride her?

Re:About Canada (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33424088)

He's not riding her - the husband is pimping her out to all and sundry and he's figured out how to cut in on the pimp's action.

Re:About Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33424786)

The government is forcing the husband to pimp her out by regulating. The telecoms have not received government handouts for network expansion since the 70s.

Re:About Canada (1)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#33440096)

No, that's an absurd and broken analogy.

Re:About Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33443814)

Proof?

Re:About Canada (2, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33425784)

the CLEC comes in there undercutting the ILEC and the ILEC is forced to let the CLEC use the equipment below cost.

In Canada, the CLECs often undercut the ILEC (by running tighter ships and accepting slimmer margins), and the tariffs the ILEC charges the CLEC for use of equipment is far from below cost (indeed, for the new usage-based-billing aspect of the tariffs, it's most likely a markup of 5000-10000% of cost).

Re:About Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33422468)

So? How does that observation change the reality for consumers?

Isn't the market supposed to somehow take care of this? Isn't greed supposed to drive businesses to compete in healthy ways that magically work out for the best for everyone?

"Competition" in this situation is mostly infeasible, and when it is moderately feasible, it falls apart due to the very motivators that are supposed to make it work. Therefore, something has to change from the outside.

Re:About Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33427458)

I believe the general sentiment, is, at that point, the newcomer is either bought out or pushed out. It isn't a question of sticking in there and staying competitive, it's a question of how your business will be taken from you.

Re:About Canada (4, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33421640)

What are you talking about? The CRTC nearly always sides with Bell. They allowed them to throttle their resellers and imposed a 60 Gb cap on their resellers (which will take effect once Bell discontinues all their unlimited contracts). The CRTC seems determined to put the Bell resellers out of business but for some reason I can't fathom decided to throw them a bone in this case. Maybe this has something to do with just how unpopular the CRTC is among Canadians, with an online petition that has over 10,000 signatures [dissolvethecrtc.ca] .

Re:About Canada (2, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#33421966)

Maybe this has something to do with just how unpopular the CRTC is among Canadians, with an online petition that has over 10,000 signatures [dissolvethecrtc.ca].

Dude. The "Help nominate William Shatner for Governor General of Canada" Facebook group has over 40,000 votes. I'm not a big fan of the CRTC either, but let's keep things in perspective here ....

Re:About Canada (1)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422088)

Dude. The "Help nominate William Shatner for Governor General of Canada" Facebook group has over 40,000 votes.

There's a difference between clicking a link on Facebook (which a person was logged into anyway) and going out of your way to visit a petition site.

From the comments I've read and speaking to people, the CRTC really *is* that hated. I wouldn't doubt that a paper petition would collect even more signatures if put in the right hands.

And looking at the recent GG's we've had, I dare say we could do much worse than Shatner (not that I would sign the petition, or join Facebook for that matter).

Re:About Canada (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422490)

There's a difference between clicking a link on Facebook (which a person was logged into anyway) and going out of your way to visit a petition site.

Not really, no. It's not important though - I was just pointing out how ridiculously low a number you were crowing about. Maybe if you were trying to petition the mayor of Tuktoyaktuk to cancel the annual Caribou Rodeo, 10,000 signatures would get results. When you're petitioning the Federal Government to scrap a major part of the bureaucracy, all it'll get you is a lot of poorly concealed laughter.

Re:About Canada (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422992)

More people care about shatner than know what the CRTC is. So 10k is comparatively a lot. Maybe not compared to the Caribou Rodeo but still.

Re:About Canada (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33424098)

True. Every time I mention the CRTC to a non-tech friend, they start talking about their mortgage.

Re:About Canada (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 3 years ago | (#33425398)

You think that is bad try working for the Canadian Mental Health Association.

Re:About Canada (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33425628)

I know what you mean - I've worked for a healthcare organisation in Ont; I've heard the jokes.

Re:About Canada (1)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | more than 3 years ago | (#33421922)

> If the government continues on this path we might have a chance to have one of the greatest
> internet systems at low cost that is found on earth.

Pfft, spoken like someone that doesn't know about systems anywhere else in the world. Look up Japanese pricing some time. Even the US gives you reasonable bandwidth caps, not the 50/60 GB you get from Bell and Rogers.

Maury

Re:About Canada (2, Informative)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422276)

I would argue that competition is strong in this rural region of Ontario. We have a handful of independent telephone companies, a couple of cable companies, not to mention the big players all duking it out. Everyone has their own infrastructure so we do not have problems with the alternative ISPs having to use Bell's last mile, for example.

Re:About Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33425460)

Everyone has their own infrastructure

I call bullshit.

There is no way on earth you have independant infrastructure for each of "a handful of independent telephone companies, a couple of cable companies" and all "the big players" running down every road of your "rural region" anywhere in Ontario.

I'd be AMAZED if you even had CABLE running down your gravel-roads... and whatever level of POTS service you do have running down them was put in only because the Fed gov't forced [local-ILEC] to bury it about 40 years ago.

-AC

Re:About Canada (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#33426284)

Perhaps my wording was poor, but I was not suggesting that every single household back some dirt road had access to every provider. If you are in the right area, however, you can get service from most of the providers through their own infrastructure. Keep in mind that the infrastructure extends beyond copper. The fibre rollout has begun and wireless service is available across the region.

Re:About Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33425602)

Where is that? Even in the largest city in Canada (Toronto) there is literally zero competition in the cable market (TekSavvy are a Robbers reseller, and are limited per TFA). If your local copper is bad, you have literally one choice.

Re:About Canada (2, Informative)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422668)

As opposed to the US, where the companies DO conspire, and when caught simply buy off the judge or buy off some legislators or "regulators" to claim that it's not "really" collusion, or else just buy up whole local areas for "exclusive" provisioning.

I remember when Warner Cable ran Viacom Cable out of my hometown and got a monopoly in the county. Ads with a king declaring "I declare Warner Cable for my entire kingdom", and then hiking the rates by $40/month because what was someone going to do - go to a competitor? Switch back to over-the-air, where you could get maybe 3 stations and possibly the local barely-1000-watt PBS with a ton of snow in the picture on a REALLY clear day?

Re:About Canada (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33428382)

Ads with a king declaring "I declare Warner Cable for my entire kingdom"

Really? But he didn't say that with a straight face, right?

Re:About Canada (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422802)

tell that to Quebec, where competition in telephony, internet, and tv are heating up extremely fast.

Bell vs Rogers/Fido vs Videotron

It is shaping up to be an epic fight

Re:About Canada (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33424100)

If by epic fight you mean it took a third conglomerate to force Bell and Videotron to pretend to compete, kicking and screaming.

Re:About Canada (2, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33425842)

Rogers/Fido doesn't offer TV or wired internet service in Quebec. Internet remains a duopoly between Bell and Videotron, TV has a third competitor (Star Choice/Shaw Direct), but it has a relatively small market share (less customers over the whole country than Videotron has in Quebec alone).

Only the telephony market sees a fair amount of competition, with a variety of options (POTS/VoIP/cell) and providers (Bell, Videotron, Rogers, all the VoIP carriers, Public Mobile, etc).

Internet access infrastructure largely remains a duopoly.

Re:About Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33422936)

one of the greatest internet systems at low cost that is found on earth

Not to mention TEH UNIVERSE! All hail Canada.

Re:About Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33423794)

Interestingly enough this is not part of an anti-big-business campaign like the Democrats in the US but a pro level playing fields campaign.

If the government continues on this path we might have a chance to have one of the greatest internet systems at low cost that is found on earth. As a heavy user of this sort of technology I can't wait.

Umm... which of the two Canadian telcos do you work for? And a professional Republican lobbyist too? You really are packing it all in.

This decision is ultimately horrible. Yes, wholesalers now get access to the faster speeds, but in return prices of DSL ports on the "new" fibre (that is how we spell fiber in Canada) network increase by 10% (or more, that part is not decided). But the thing is, the fibre network isn't new. Telus has had fibre out to street access cabinets (SACs) for at least 10 years now. So a lot of wholesalers already have ports on these SACs. But now, the two telcos get to increase wholesale prices by at least 10%.

So, as someone who is in the DSL business in Canada, this is not good. There is also a new business DSL tariff on the way, which is going to jack up all DSL prices, if the DSL line is delivered over anything the telco calls a "business" line.

So the playing field is just as unbalanced. Prices are going up by 10% for most ports, and by 50% to 100% for unfortunates on "business" lines. All in all, a great deal for the telco's. Plus, more money for professional astroturfers like EmperorOfCanada. Can I just email jobs@telus.com to become astroturfer? Sorry, I guess the correct term is "sponsored blogger". Everyone should post links to their "sponsored blogs" and vote on the ones that really get up and really sell the fact that the telcos are going to single handily save Canada, from commie threats like the US Democrats. If you play your cards right, you can be sponsored by the Republicans too, and get two paycheques! Awesome!

Re:About Canada (1)

BForrester (946915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33425302)

I doubt they conspire but they just like things as they are.

The things are the way that they are because the regulatory body (CRTC) is primarily run by executives from our major telecommunications corporations. The only thing that makes this not a conspiracy, is that it's not done in secret.

Re:About Canada (1)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 3 years ago | (#33425976)

The CRTC(our FCC) that seems to have supported this anti consumer situation is no longer friends with the government and thus the big players have lost their biggest weapon to stop annoying things like pro-consumer companies.

When I read this you rang a bell, and sure enough I had read a Globe and Mail article a couple of weeks about about how Harper's government is trying to neuter the CRTC. Here is the link [theglobeandmail.com] .

Re:About Canada (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434704)

I love how people think oil and gas companies and stations conspire etc... set prices. They are NOTHING compared to the telcos in Canada.

Bell and Rogers don't even try to hide it. They just price everything the same. They even use the exact same sales methods. With convergence I bet their business model is exactly the same now also. They all sell the same services, though slightly different. Cable VS Sat, Landline VS VOIP, Cellphone VS Cellphone (of which both own several subsidiaries), Cable Internet VS Phone Internet. They all offer packages, they all offer their services at "competitive" prices, in that they are the same stupid prices that their competitors set.

I mean the last CRTC ruling was a joke. The independents at the time were complaining that Bell (and Rogers, though I don't think they were part of the investigation) was selling them copper, and shaping their customers traffic, slowing their connections. Bell argued that traffic shaping was needed for the health of the infrastructure as their wouldn't be enough bandwidth for all. They then found a Bell produced study that basically proved this was total BS. Then Bell argued that this practice was "fair" because they at least screwed their own customers the same way. The CRTC found this to be true (surprise) and found in favor of Bell (with I believe a cravat to look at this issue in more detail at an unspecified later date).

SO I won't get too excited about the CRTC growing a spine just yet, though it is however a start.

CRTTCSJER? (3, Informative)

udowish (804631) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421438)

CTRC should read CRTC..messed up banner

Re:CRTTCSJER? (2, Funny)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421496)

Is there also a GRPH, ATTR and DAC? Oh. Is it too late for VGA humor? I suppose nobody got that.

USA (2, Informative)

pleappleappleap (1182301) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421492)

If only they would do that here. There's a local ISP here called Cloud 9 Internet which has EXCELLENT service. I'd much rather use them. However I'm forced to deal with Verizon (who don't even know how to route a CIDR block to me) to get my 35Mbps symmetric connection. It' infuriating.

Re:USA (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422060)

At least you can get 35Mbit symmetric. Here in Oz I'm on 1.5Mbit plus a separate 0.5Mbit connection for VoIP.

Re:USA (1)

conufsed (650798) | more than 3 years ago | (#33423916)

Here in Oz I get 30Mbit down, and 1Mbit up. But I can't get ADSL of any variety at all

Still limited, just quicker (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33421538)

This is separate from the 60GB UBB cap. So now you can run into a wall faster.

..force extra expense on ISPs for reg compliance (0)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#33421568)

That will surely result in cheaper access for everyone!

Re:..force extra expense on ISPs for reg complianc (0)

lindoran (1190189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33421814)

what!? (fist pound ala shawn spencer..)

HEY FCC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33421818)

As an employee of a local ISP providing DSL on Qwest lines, I'd like to take a moment to ask the FCC to take a similar course of action here in the US.

WTF copper lines? (0, Troll)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422048)

Maybe it's just me, but if you're using copper lines, you're hopelessly outdated and deserve to be kicked out of the market, like horse carriages and floppy disks.

Re:WTF copper lines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33422106)

i've seen vdsl connection with attainable 80mbps+ on copper, not that those speeds are available yet but the technology is.

Re:WTF copper lines? (3, Interesting)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422234)

The problem isn't copper vs. fiber. The problem is that the large telcos who own the backbones and built the networks with government funding/subsidies were forced to open up the copper networks to other smaller players on a reseller basis. Now that fiber to the home is being rolled out, they are not obligated (until now) to grant access to the fiber networks.

The small companies don't own the physical wires and so by not letting them access the next generation infrastructure rollout, the monopolistic big companies can effectively force them out of the market.

Re:WTF copper lines? (2, Interesting)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422590)

Yes, but that's a separate problem which "matching speeds" or "network neutrality" doesn't solve. That's a problem with "monopoly", plain and simple.

both the previous posters (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 3 years ago | (#33423776)

Should read up on a concept called natural monopoly. Some things are only efficient to produce if you can have a monopoly. Telco is one of those. Would nearly every house be wired for cable and phone if every potential vendor of phone and cable had to run there own wires around the country in hopes of getting enough subscribers? Would homeowners like to buy houses with 10 phone jacks in each room and a few cable boxes "just in case" they decide to go with another provider? Nope so the monopoly exists. Similar with things like electricity, water, or even often with things that are highly parishable with a relatively small local demand (cement say). Local market can't support more than one and company can't ship wet cement large distances so each area ends up with a monopoly or near monopoly player.

I'm not sure on the government subsidies, haven't heard of them but it doesn't mean they didn't exist. The problem is if the government said something like "it doesn't make sense to wire the country, but if you do it we'll help so that it will give you a good profit" and I went out and wired the country I would expect to own that stuff I just laid. Similar to a subsidy on purchasing a car say, once I bought the car I claim the subsidy, but I still expect to own the car. I don't want the government to come next year and say "we are starting a carpool and you need to lend your car for 5 hrs a day since we helped pay for it".

Re:both the previous posters (1)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33431958)

The obvious solution would be to have the government do the wiring, just as they build roads.

Re:both the previous posters (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 3 years ago | (#33431994)

Yep, but a little late for that now unfortunately. What the government could do is replace the backbone with fiber and then give customers the option of sticking with the old copper from the old provider, get service which the old provider leases from the government or from the government/government controlled company directly.

Re:WTF copper lines? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422536)

Welcome to Canada? We have 33m people, and the majority of them live in a 100mi corridor along the US border. And where cable won't go, in some cases all you can get is copper.

Re:WTF copper lines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33425958)

Just be thankful you have copper. I'm 100km north of Toronto and all I can get is dial-up, heavily over-priced satellite or insanely over-subscribed wimax. Ping times can exceed 800ms.

Re:WTF copper lines? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#33424024)

For one group that has a major chance of running Australia - copper and wireless are the future! None of this "obsolete optical technology" for them! They are of course noisy idiots.

FIBE (2, Insightful)

simonbas (1319225) | more than 3 years ago | (#33422690)

They should rule against Bell Canada for pretending to have fiber services with their DSL "Fibe" network

Re:FIBE (1)

chrish (4714) | more than 3 years ago | (#33426308)

Oh but they do have fiber services, just not to your home. The "Fibe" stuff is fiber to your neighbourhood, and if you're lucky you'll be close enough to their remote to actually get something like the speeds they're advertising.

Of course, they could sell you the 25MBit/sec tier and deliver 1MBit/sec speeds because it's all "up to".

Re:FIBE (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#33426714)

Be careful for what you wish for.

In the USA, when your get fiber to you house by the telephone company, they REMOVE the copper so that you cannot get phone or DSL from a competitor.

Re:FIBE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33426842)

[Citation Needed]

Re:FIBE (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#33428260)

Re:FIBE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33430046)

There is nothing in your half-assed search that says the companies are FORCEFULLY REMOVING the copper wires.

Even if they are removing it, can the owner of the house request that it stay? Is there some other reason why they might actually need to remove it?

You don't specify a company, either. Which company? All of them? Doubtful.

Re:FIBE (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434822)

Is anyone but Verizon doing FIOS in the US?

10% not enough (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 3 years ago | (#33423752)

I don't know about you guys, I'm on the high/highest end internet connection and have been for the last 10 years. Over that time my bandwidth has increased about 6X down and 16X up for roughly the same price. So 10% premium is roughly 10 years to recoup costs but will they really be able to sell there 25Mbps connection for anything like the same price 10 years from now? It will be the discount bin $20/mth "highspeed" by then. That is the problem, network gear lasts a bit longer than servers but I'd say its half life is less than 10 years now.

Just for comparison (3, Informative)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 3 years ago | (#33424240)

For comparison to those outside of Canada:

My current ISP is Rogers Inc and I'm using their 15mbit/1mbit package which costs about $54 and comes with about 90GB cap (that's not a misprint).

Since I'm a heavy user, I always end up using upwards of 300gb/month, which they charge extra for. My total monthly bill is always $102.

Now, I can get the same speed service with NO bandwidth cap from "Montreal-DSL" for $54 flat. The two big ISP's Rogers and Bell will now be losing half of the money I was giving to them each month just for being total dicks, and I'm calling to start the switch over tomorrow morning.

Re:Just for comparison (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33425222)

Teksavvy is getting access to Rogers cable internet now. Cheaper than Rogers, no caps. I think twice before jumping to dsl and look at staying with "Rogers" infrastructure but using the resellers option.

Re:Just for comparison (1)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 3 years ago | (#33426538)

They have an unlimited option, but they also have other cable options with a 200 GB cap, which is the same as their DSL tiers. Info is here. [teksavvy.com] Unfortunately, the cable offering doesn't list MLPPP support, which means you won't be getting around Rogers throttling that way. I have heard that Rogers doesn't throttle nearly as bad as Bell though, so maybe MLPPP isn't necessary for the cable option. I should look into that, because we're using MLPPP on their DSL package. The service is great and reliable, but I could definitely stand having more than 5 Mbps down if I can for not much more money.

Re:Just for comparison (1)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 3 years ago | (#33432608)

Tekksavvy doesn't provide service in Mississauga where I live, I already tried. And I cannot use DSL service because the lines are bad in my house - and Bell obviously isn't about to start digging up the street so I can have fast internet access from a 3rd party ISP, so I'm forced to stick with anyone who can provide Cable internet in my area.

Re:Just for comparison (1)

volmtech (769154) | more than 3 years ago | (#33431858)

Poor baby. I live one mile past the last mile for cable or dsl. I have HoughesNet satellite service, $94 for 1.5 mbit with a 450mb per rolling 24 hour period limit (thats not a misprint). If you go over that they impose a penalty by cutting speed to 36kbit for 24 hours.

Re:Just for comparison (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#33434914)

Not sure where you live, but I know in many parts of the country the options are even worse.

Where I live in Ontario, its not too bad, but I still pay about the same as you for a 60GB cap from Cogeco, which I believe is owned by Rogers. It was a 10mbit, but they improved it the last couple of years. I currently get about 12mbit so it probably is a theoretical 15mbit by now. I also am a heavy user (though not that heavy) and also usually exceed my cap by a bit, though I have been trying to monitor my usage and keep it under cap or within reason (60-80). They also charge 1.50/GB which is a bit nuts.

Considering Teksavvy sold it at 0.25/GB on their limited accounts, or 0.10/GB if you pre-paid for 100GB at a time. Of course they have unlimited accounts as well. These are all DSL however, where I have cable which is a bit different.

Anyway in other parts of the country your options may be pretty bad indeed. If you live in a big city you likely have more options available to you.

Thanks CRTC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33426210)

You just forced 3rd party ISP's to charge more for their services then Bell customers for the same service. At first I was happy that you forced Bell to offer resellers the same speeds that Bell customers can get, but now I am just aware you approved a way for Bell to maintain their monopoly by charging more for their reseller lines forcing 3rd party ISP users to want to switch to Bell.

The CRTC stands for "Canadian Repressed Technology Committee" and the CRTC is responsible for keeping Canada at least 10 years behind other countries for services and cost of services.

fibe is not fibre (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33427874)

Just to clarify something from the summary....Bell does not over fibre internet, they offer "fibe" which is DSL in disguise. I signed up for it when they said the 8,12 and 16Mbps packages were available but canceled the same day when the tech told him his connection would not do more then 5Mbps as I was too far from the central office. Watching the tech install it also, they installed DSL filters on the phone lines and gave me a DSL modem even after I specifically asked if they run fibre to the house before signing up. I then asked the tech where the fibre line was, and the tech laughed saying they don't do that even though that's what they explained to me on the phone ( I was very specific making sure my lawn wouldn't be too affected). If the CRTC was still a valid entity, they could prevent Bell from taking advantage of their less technical customers. I wonder how many ppl are using this "fibe" right now not realizing it is just the same slow DSL?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...