Beta
×

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!

Canada-Wide Wireless Broadband Network Planned

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the big-maple-leaf dept.

Wireless Networking 227

twilight30 writes "From the Globe and Mail, Rogers Communications Inc. and Bell Canada have said they will put aside their competitive differences to jointly build and manage a Canada-wide wireless broadband network. It is hoped they will initially reach more than two-thirds of Canadians in less than three years." From the article: "The two communications companies will pool their wireless broadband spectrum into a joint venture called Inukshuk Internet Inc. The network will cover more than 40 cities, and 50 rural and remote communities across the country. Users will be able to access the Internet and use voice, video streaming and data applications both inside their home, as well as on the go."

cancel ×

227 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The meaning of the name: (0, Flamebait)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577844)


From this [inukshuk.com] informative webpage:
the word Inukshuk (ee-nook-shook or ee-nook-sook) is an Inuktitut word that means to look like a person (an Inuk). It is a stone cairn which has been used by the Inuit people to mark high points of land, good hunting and fishing spots or the way home.


Clever name for a communications company...until you recall that this is also the 'magic' word used by Apache Chief [seanbaby.com] of Superfriends fame to transform into a giant. ^_^

Re:The meaning of the name: (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577923)

Love it or hate it, the "emblem" for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics is also an inukshuk, called "ILANAAQ":

http://www.vancouver2010.com/Emblem/emblem.htm [vancouver2010.com]

Re:The meaning of the name: (1)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578200)

Hate It. Inuksuit (yes that's the plural) are from the high arctic and have as much to do with Vancouver as Aztec pyramids. If they have to appropriate from the natives, surely they could find some west coast first nations symbol a little closer to home.

Re:The meaning of the name: (0, Flamebait)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578323)

Yeah. That's exactly the problem with it - that, and it looks like a two year old drew it. :) It's a monster!

They should have gone with a stylized marmot or raven or orca ... modified in such a way that it might somewhat resemble a mountain, but only if you look hard ... :) Ah well. Too late now. We're stuck with ILANAAQ, THE ONLY GAY ESKIMO IN HIS TRIBE.

Re:The meaning of the name: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13577939)


From this [meatspin.com] informative webpage: the words Trip MasterMonkey (trip mas-tur mun-kee) is an English term that means "Karma Whore". It is a slashdot subscriber who pre-types inane comments for first post in an attempt at getting the sacred slashdot karma. Clever name for a karma whore.

Re:The meaning of the name: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13577959)

The real question is, who keeps modding his shit up?

Country-wide broadband? (4, Funny)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578088)

Country-wide broadband in Canada is not going to be easy when the whole middle of the country is mostly woods and not much else. But I guess even the bears in the woods want to read their Slashdot news...or is it Beardot News. Beardot: News for Bears, Stuff That Growls! ... comming to a tree next to you at 1.5Mbps.

Re:Country-wide broadband? (1)

j-cloth (862412) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578243)

If 2/3 of the population is the target, they only need to get southern Ontario and the BC lower mainland. Relatively speaking -- not that big a challenge.

Re:Country-wide broadband? (1)

Chaotic Spyder (896445) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578362)

Most of the population is clustered together. I doubt it will be a big problem. Their goal is not to cover the country but to cover most people.. major metropolitan areas

1992 Called... (1)

1992 Called (893858) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578183)

Shut the fuck up. k thx.

Re:The meaning of the name: (1)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578276)

Interesting... My first thought though was that they were making fun of themselves a bit by choosing a name that sounded alot like Knuk-Stuck. Oh well, I guess I just need to learn how to speak native american languages now...

Will they use... (5, Funny)

msauve (701917) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577848)

802.11-eh?

Re:Will they use... (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577905)

Thank you sir. You just made my day!

Re:Will they use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578054)

Oh god, that was horrible, but made me laugh like crazy. Kudos.

Re:Will they use... (2, Funny)

exi1ed0ne (647852) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578094)

No they will make a new 802.11 zed standard.

Re:Will they use... (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578366)

Lol, that is the funniest thing I've read all day. And I am a Canadian, born and raised. +10 Funny ROFLMAO

Great name (0, Troll)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577871)

Inukshuk Internet Inc.
IN UK SHUK - yah - people won't have a field day with that.

Re:Great name (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578159)

Inuk is one sylable. It means person in Inuktitut.

Surprised? (1)

beaver2672 (736138) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577874)

I'm surprised this isn't google announcing this first.

Less than 3 years. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13577885)


They'll still be cleaning up New Orleans in 3 years. I want to move to Canada where the priorities are on the people and not "terrorists".

Re:Less than 3 years. (1)

NetPoser (266960) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577925)

Why are you still here then?

Re:Less than 3 years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578172)

someone's gotta troll before canada gets on the internet...

Re:Less than 3 years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578229)

Because his mommy has to put him into bed by 8PM.

Re:Less than 3 years. (2, Insightful)

Asshat Canada (804093) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578252)

No, it's ok...you can stay down there thanks. No need to poison the well with gun-loving, litigious, illiterati.

Canada wide, eh? (1)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577886)

But will it be Canada deep?

Of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13577887)

After all, fiber bundles are too vulnerable to interruption by increasingly sophisticated, rampaging polar bears. ;)

Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide? (2, Interesting)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577889)

If you are just covering the inhabited parts of Canada, I'd say it's doable. Otherwise somebody is smoking some serious stuff.

Besides, I can see some problems with huge microwave transmitters trying to operate on top of permafrost.

Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide? (1, Interesting)

Avacar (911548) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577931)

Bell and Rogers? Definitely only the inhabited areas. Possibly won't even hit the territories.

Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578228)

Bell and Rogers? Definitely only the inhabited areas.

Here, let me fix that for you.

Bell and Rogers? Definitely only Toronto

Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13577950)

Of course someone's smoking some serious stuff...this is Canada!

Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide? (2, Interesting)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578051)

I think it is pretty clear it will only cover those areas that where there is normal telephone service. People at their remote weather stations in the northern tundra will most likely need to use satalite internet. :)

However, isn't a lot of the limits of WiFi caused by the radio signals being blocked by buildings or the landscape... or getting messed up by other radio signals? Shouldn't this mean that a normal WiFi station could cover a lot more area in say some barren northern tundra? Wouldn't the nature of most rural areas (lots of wide open spaces) make WiFi a lot cheaper for those areas?

Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide? (2, Insightful)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578190)

Why provide broadband to uninhabited areas? Gladly, they do say they intend to cover rural areas, which the ADSL and cable providers don't.

Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide? (1)

Kumagoro (889194) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578567)

Why provide cellphone signal in uninhabited areas?

It's not as though people only bring their laptops to and from work/school. I for one would love to be able to stay in touch with e-mail on a camping trip (or any other outing for that matter), especially if someone gets hurt.

Also, people travel through those uninhabited areas on a regular basis, it would be kind of useless if you could only get access near your destination/beginning point.

Details, please? (1)

lonb (716586) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577914)

Anyone know any details about this other than that it will be Canada?

Re:Details, please? (2, Funny)

FishandChips (695645) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577985)

Isn't the fact that it's Canada detail enough? It just means that Canadians will now be able to hunt beaver without the hassle of going outside.

Re:Details, please? (3, Funny)

lonb (716586) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578060)

Those wild people! I hunt beaver in the bars. *drum rim shot here*

Power (1)

joschm0 (858723) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577932)

Maybe the whole system could be powered by generators running on reindeer crap.

Might be usefull to link the inukshuk web page (4, Informative)

XXIstCenturyBoy (617054) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577933)

Which is weird, its not even listed in the article either.

http://www.inukshuk.ca/anglais/index.html [slashdot.org]

I used to work for Fido, the creator of the Inukshuk project. I'm glad Rogers picked it up after they bought Fido, I could never phantom how the smallest cell network in Canada could have implemented it by themselves.
(They did try some lame attemp a wireless internet behind the Inukshuk banner, but you needed a bulky wireless modem to go with it... It wasn't very fast and the price was not very competitive)

Re:Might be usefull to link the inukshuk web page (1)

XXIstCenturyBoy (617054) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577972)

I just checked the page I linked. Although its the right page, its not updated and still talk about Microcell, which was the old owner. Which is weird. You'd have thought hat Rogers would have updated the page before they got in an agreement and made the news...

Re:Might be usefull to link the inukshuk web page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578057)

phantom [answers.com]
fathom [answers.com]

Message to Bell (5, Funny)

colenski (552404) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577938)

...Hey, Bell, how about completing the fucking Alberta supernet first [globetechnology.com] before you start masturbating with Ted about Canada?

Re:Message to Bell (1)

Some Guy in Canada (758074) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578368)

Hey, Bell, how about completing the fucking Alberta supernet first before you start masturbating with Ted about Canada?


Where are you located? I know Fort McMurray was way behind a while ago, so they are probably still not online, but most areas are finished up now.

Re:Message to Bell (1)

colenski (552404) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578489)

"mostly finished" and "finished" are 2 different things. It's ~2 years behind, and I understand that they are legislated to be finished, like, now, (Sep) or they loose their 100m bond.

They kind of screwed up with Axia and I think that they sued each other; there was corporate political BS involved. My point is that companies that can't finish old projects before announcing new ones for the sake of "competitive cooperation" or to make glowing press releases should be shat upon, esp. considering that the SuperNet is considered public infrastructure. If Bell wants to fuck up their own network, great, have at it, but if they enter a public infrastructure agreement and don't follow through they are betraying the public trust.

PS I'm in Sherwood Park, right beside Edmonton. No Supernet yet, I asked. I don't even think they've turned up the co-lo's yet.

The two-thirds that live with in 50 miles of ... (1)

lesburn1 (93956) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577945)

The two-thirds that live with in 50 miles of the US border. Or two-thirds of the landmass.
Be nice to have next time I go to work in
Kuujjuaq, NWT.

Re:The two-thirds that live with in 50 miles of .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578223)

Kuujuuaq is in Quebec [ulaval.ca]

Wireless Broadband (2, Interesting)

Daveznet (789744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577947)

Being from Canada and having both Rogers broadband and Bell's cell phone service I can only see good things from this joint venture. Rogers has been doing alot of buying lately, just a couple months ago they bought Fido's wireless network. One problem I can see arising is support, both companies IMHO have less than mediocre support that and the fact that even though the executives have put aside their differences the actual employees have a slight disshate for eachother because they were the major competitors for broadband service and cell phone service here in Canada. Lets hope that this works out for us all!

Re:Wireless Broadband (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578132)

Well, Bell bought a significant part of my local telco, and in that same month, my truly unlimited long distance plan went up in price, and down to 1200 minutes max. Service is downhills, and there's been several strikes since then.

The price hike itself was enough for more to make me switch to VoIP. The base + LD (no caller ID, no voicemail or anything like that) was like 70$. So there is that mass exodus around here. Everybody's getting phone with the cable company for a LOT cheaper. I decided to be a cheap mofo and went with comwave for under 15$ a month with tax, plus actual LD usage @ 1.9 cents/min flat (not one of those pay for 800 minutes no matter if you use them or not or any of those things).

My brother has DSL with Bell (and they force you to have a landline with them as well - so no VoIP for you!), and he's paying a bit more before tax than I'm paying after tax, and I have about 3x that speed (not just claimed speed - it's actually 3x the speed).

They also have a bunch of annoying stupid ads that say things like "constant bandwidth!' -- like having a consistently slower connection than with any other ISP is a good deal. We teh suck more than every other ISP 24/7!

I also used to have a cell phone with them a few years ago, and that was ridiculously expensive. That's one of the purchases I've regretted the most.

For more information about Bell, check this [netaction.org] link out, it's worth a read.

To Bell: a royal Fuck You, you can shove that wifi up somewhere really deep, there isn't a chance in hell you'll see any money from me.

T_T Good on Bell! (2, Interesting)

ChocoBean (890202) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577962)

the article says rogers was pretty much forced into it. Good.

I'm not really much of a wireless person. Things don't have to be wireless if all they ever do is sit on my desk anyway. And perhaps I'm mistaken but there are a lot more things wireless networks have to take care of than wired devices no? So I for one won't be jumping on the band wagon of wireless things unless it's much cheaper, much more effective and gets me stuff faster than plain old cable broadband.

and even if I were I wouldn't sign up with Rogers. I'm not about to forgive them for renaming the Skydome to Rogers Center and buying out my old faithful cell phone service provider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcell [wikipedia.org]

Antenna (4, Funny)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577965)

Here is the antenna they will be using... [cntower.ca] In other news, construction of the world's biggest Pringles can is now underway in Sudbury.

Re:Antenna (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578285)

It'll go great with the giant freaking nickel [bigthings.ca] .

Re:Antenna (1)

JediTrainer (314273) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578291)

You laugh, but these guys [www.look.ca] actually DO use the CN Tower for their UltraFast Wireless [www.look.ca] service.

Unfortunately when I looked into it they were maxed out and only offered me DSL instead.

Wireless Internet in Canada? Been there, done that (2, Interesting)

kyle90 (827345) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577967)

I live out in the boonies, and I get a great wireless connection from the nearest town (pop. 540). On a good day it's close to 2 mbps, which is faster than my residence connection at the University of Toronto.

Re:Wireless Internet in Canada? Been there, done t (2, Informative)

beyonddeath (592751) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578162)

Maybe if you live in chestnut, or at utm/utsc, but any other res downtown at uoft has a 10-15mbps connection downstream and more upstream.

Not to mention the fact that i was there 2 days ago at gerstein in the morison pavilion getting over 40mbps downstream and 10 up. Essentially maxing out my laptops hdd.

Re:Wireless Internet in Canada? Been there, done t (1)

ScottyH (791307) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578388)

Yeah, I used to have internet on UTM campus (live off campus now), and it was TERRIBLE. 10 gig download per month or something. I would sometimes kill my internet after a week.

They are planning to use moose-based APs (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13577974)

But what happens when your AP migrates?

woah (-1, Troll)

KFowler (915146) | more than 8 years ago | (#13577990)

They have the internet in Canada?

Re:woah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578411)

Oh wow, another juvenile joke about Canada. Always hilarious.

Re:woah (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578480)

I'm a Canadian and I thought it was pretty funny.

Re:woah (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578420)

LOL!!! I love it when people make fun of us.

Re:woah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578445)

yea we use Can-tennas to steal Wi-Fi across the border from various US hotspots.

Cartel? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13577996)

In the rest of the world associations like this would be called cartels.

Works perfectly fine for NY mob families & OPEC

A Canadian's $0.02 (5, Informative)

onion_breath (453270) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578002)

I live in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. It's just east of Maine for those who may not be aware. I live in a small city of about 50000 people, and we already have had free wireless public internet for a few years now. It's called the Fred-e-zone.

It's availabe to most as long as you're living close to the valley and not behind some of the hills in town. I just bring my laptop from work, to coffee shop, to home... always connected for free.

People are under the impression that Canada is huge and is sparsely populated. I can tell you that most cities are south by the US border, and only a small portion of Canada actually has people living together densely. It would be easier to build this type of infrastructure here in Canada than it would be in the States I would guess... just because most major cities are along the border.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (0)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578115)

FYI - Your "free" public wireless internet isn't free. Especially for the taxpayers who are unfortunate enough to live "behind some of the hills in town."

Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (1)

onion_breath (453270) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578286)

FYI - It is free. The city receives funds in taxes, parking tickets, fees and dues. Large portions are paid by the downtown businesses, so the city receives these funds every year and they've managed it responsibly enough to be able to afford and offer up this service. I live in a place where I pay taxes... I'm guessing you probably pay taxes too, no?

As far as those not in the valley... how is this any different than, say, your township building a new baseball diamond *just* across town, a little too far for you to use without going out of your way? Same thing... it happens.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (0)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578381)

"Paid for by taxes" only means "free" if you're not paying taxes.

I suspect that you pay taxes; therefore you are paying for this service, as are people who cannot even use it.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (4, Insightful)

bcs_metacon.ca (656767) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578514)

Most Canadians are happy to pay taxes in return for having solid public services, public works, universal healthcare, universal social security... you know, a social safety net like the rest of the world (*other* than the U.S) has. "Free" WiFi is a nice benefit to tourism and students (i.e., people who don't pay municipal taxes), and to the businesses in the downtown core where the service is strongest.

I live in Fredericton too, and I don't use the e-Zone much but it's handy to have available. And I pay my taxes (happily).

It is more than free, it is a profit generator (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578541)

Fred-E-Zone is a spinoff of the citys fibre network. When they built it to handle the city's data in the late 90's, they installed tons of esxtra fibre (of course - fibre is cheap, laying it is not). Now they resell the capacity to business in the city. They make more money off of it than it costs to maintain the thing.

So not only is the spinoff WiFi free, it makes money for the city.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578240)

I looked at the coverage map and it looks like a lot of the city doesn't have coverage.
Frankly a lot of it seem to cover the river. Maybe that is where the mayor's boat is.
Frankly I think fiber to the door every where would be more important to business than wifi. I mean for at least 3 months a year you really can not "work" in the park.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (1)

onion_breath (453270) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578375)

Heh! Yeah... what can I say? As that coverage map shows only the areas close to the river are covered, and the marysville area too. Well, like I said this is a town of 50000, it's small! That coverage map isn't just the 'river' portion of Fredericton... it's pretty much the whole town! :)

I'm on the south side of the river, outside of downtown and I can hit a signal from home.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (0)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578530)

Most cities are by the border? Not everyone lives about the great lakes. Not everyone in the maritimes is close.

Edmonton, AB is 12 hours drive from the border.
Red Deer, AB is 6 hours.
Calgary, AB is 4 hours.

And then there is NFLD.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578587)

Please don't even speak about canada again

- Anonymous canadians everywhere.

Wipe out competition before it starts (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578014)

They are looking to own that avenue BEFORE anybody decides to do it. It is a very cheap way to go.

Re:Wipe out competition before it starts (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578137)

Well, Bell pretty much OWNS DSL broadband anyways, while Rogers owns Cable broadband. Any 3rd party DSL provider must sign over their first born to Bell before they can offer "competitive" DSL service. Anyone using iStop DSL service is all too aware of how much control Bell has over DSL service, as Bell has shut down that ISP several times because iStop was negligent in handing over enough money to appease Bell. Besides, the CRTC won't allow Joe Schmoe internet company to setup a wireless broadband service anyways, only Bell and Rogers have enough money to pay off the government agency to allow them quick and monopolistic control of another broadband avenue allowing them to gouge customers. The CRTC has been Roger's and Bell's b*tch for a long time.

Inukshuk Defined (0, Redundant)

geomon (78680) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578016)

Inukshuk(in-NOOK-shook): a rock [worldweb.com] formation based on the common rock markers used by Inuit peoples in Canada's Arctic.

Rock cairns are the earliest of human communication devices.

There's already a Canada-wide wireless network (5, Funny)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578068)

It's called default

Re:There's already a Canada-wide wireless network (1)

CokeBear (16811) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578605)

The one on my street is called "linksys"

Collusion? (4, Insightful)

absent_speaker (905145) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578093)

This would be great if telecos were benevelent entities looking after the share interests of society, but they're not. No copetition elimenates the incentive to innovate, the incentive to drive develop cost lowering efficiencies. Of course telco's are willing to put aside their competative differences to create a high-profit monopoly on wireless.

I admit, There would still be competition in other forms and the telco's couldn't continuously raise their prices. However, I would imagine that the same telco's would also own most of those other means to get broadband.

I'm a little rusty on my business law, but isn't this overt collusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion [wikipedia.org]

Quick call GW Bush... (1)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578118)

We need to tell Bush, that the real Axis of evil has joined forces in Canada. Spawn of Satan (Bell) and Son of Satan (Rogers), have combined to form the most feared mega-corp the world has seen since Syndicate!

In typical fashion us Canadians will wait for somebody else to put and end to this evil while we complain about taxes and mutter under our breath.

Maybe if we get Tim Hortons coupons too it will be ok.

First chink! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578163)

\ /
    !
|___|

Aagh (2, Informative)

BlackShirt (690851) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578167)

Finland and estonia also have plans to cover large rural areas with edge network for internet connection. In a year or two.

Re:Aagh (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13578443)

Here's [3g.co.uk] some info about the Finnish project. It should cover every corner of the country in 2009.

What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten... (3, Informative)

Lukano (50323) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578216)

I work for Sasktel (incumbent Telco in Saskatchewan - smack dab in the middle of canada for the geographically challenged) and we've had wireless internet services going for the better part of a year now.

We're part of the 'Bell Wireless Alliance' which is a resource/competition sharing agreement between Bell, Sasktel, Aliant, MTS and most of the other CDMA cellular carriers (excluding Telus) - and yet Bell always seems to trump Sasktel where new technology is concerned.

First company to roll out DSL in Canada - Sasktel. Who got credit? Bell.

First company to have broadband/dsl television services in Canada - Sasktel. Who gets credit, Bell and a handful of US carriers who are still working on it.

First company to have MTC wiress broadband in Canada - you guessed it, Sasktel. Who gets credit - Bell and Rogers.

An example of this service can be found here https://commerce.sasktel.com/esales/start.swe?SWER owId=1-4NP&SWEField=s_2_2_24_1&SWERowIds=SWERowId0 %3D1-4NP&SWETVI=&SWEApplet=Product+Catalog+List+Ap plet+(eSales)&SWEView=Product+Catalog+View+(eSales )&SWEDIC=false&SWETargetView=&SWEVI=&SWENeedContex t=true&SWETA=&SWETS=&SWEContainer=&SWECmd=InvokeMe thod&SWEReqRowId=1&SWESP=false&SWESPa=&SWEPOC=&SWE BID=-1&SWEC=5&SWEM=&SWEMethod=Drilldown&SWETS=1092 677920239&SMIDENTITY=NO/ [sasktel.com] . It's basically the final step to getting broadband internet services to every single populated square inch of the province (Sitting at 70-80% currently with just regular copper and fibre - the wireless is to bridge the final remote areas).

[/rant]

Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten... (1)

Ced_Ex (789138) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578344)

Well, if it makes you feel any better, the rest of Canada really appreciates Saskatchewan's production of wheat, barely and hops for all that beer goodness!

Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten... (1)

j-cloth (862412) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578467)

Chalk one up for publicly owned monopolies. My dad in Bumblefuck Saskatchewn has better internet access and a cheaper phone plan than I do in Toronto. I also noticed that Bell has taken SaskTel Max and is selling it as Expressview for Condos.

Interesting (4, Interesting)

Vaystrem (761) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578242)

Odd as it may seem this is not really about improving access for Canadians to broadband. In many provinces, Saskatchewan included, most communities over 500 people have DSL. Seriously.

What this is really about is allowing Rogers and Bell to compete on 2 levels with Telco's in other provinces with a minimal investment in infrastructure. This is a comparatively minimal investment because they do not have to trench lines to every house to provide service.

It will allow them to:
A) Provide high speed internet access in markets they couldn't access before
B) Allow them to provide VOIP service in markets they couldn't access before
C) If they can get wireless VOIP handhelds... they will have coverage about as good as GSM based cell phone services in Canada.

Its a very strategic move. As it stands the individual telcos, which either WERE or ARE publicly owned put the physical infrastructure in. There have been a series of rulings by the CRTC (our FCC equivalent) regarding what fees must be paid by competing organizations to access that infrastructure, but this bypasses all of that.

I'm very intrigued.

To bad the US won't do the same... (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578249)

...it'd be nice if a group in each state got together and worked to wire the whole state.

cool bones (1)

satanicat (239025) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578280)

This could be my proudest hour as a canadian!

would this be anti-competitive? (1)

deft (253558) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578333)

Seems like two companies that would normally be driving rpices down decided to form up a new company with a single pricing plan.... anyone else read it that way?

or, i may be too synical.

Re:would this be anti-competitive? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578379)

Not I. I read it as they've teamed up to build the infrastructure. It's unclear how the service will be sold to the customer (for example, presumably they'll also have to agree to lease out their infrastructure for resale by competitors, ala the current situation with cable and telephony).

Only $200M in deployment costs? (2, Interesting)

davide marney (231845) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578341)

Did I read that right in the article? They're only budgeting $200M to deploy a nationwide wireless network?

That would be 1/1000th the amount of money Bush pledged the Feds to throw in to rebuilding the Gulf coast.

Wow.

Whatever (1)

loconet (415875) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578367)

Just like those two announced their VoIP service was to be released soon. Nothing comparable to vonage/primus yet.

Yes i know about Roger's home phone thing but no, it's not the same.

They're not using Haliburton (5, Funny)

joelsanda (619660) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578371)

Did I read that right in the article? They're only budgeting $200M to deploy a nationwide wireless network?

The Canadians are not using Haliburton.

I hope that Inukshuk (3, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578395)

will install hotspots in Iqaluit.

It's freakin' cold up there.

Will it reach to Detroit? (1)

objekt (232270) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578396)

I want me some of that free wifi!

Challenging, but doable (1)

ErichTheRed (39327) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578414)

This project has a few things working for it and against it at the same time. One thing against it is the sheer size of Canada. Admittedly, I'm sure they're not going for all the middle-of-nowhere places way up in the north, but it's still a huge landmass. One thing for it is that "the phone company" is behind it. This means they can use existing lines, poles, towers, central offices, etc. to deploy infrastructure. I'm pretty sure telcos are deregulated in Canada too, but I also know that something like this could never happen with the telcos in the US simply because they'd be stepping all over each other. Remember how impossible it was to get DSL when it first came out? We've got cable modem service, but last I heard it was still not the easiest thing in the world.

30 years later in Newfoundland (1)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578426)

Both companies mentioned have no presence in Newfoundland. If you can call two towers (Rogers) on the whole island a presence (servicing St. John's poorly.)

This is kinda stupid; cause all sorts of Americas are buying up the real estate around Deer Lake (because of pristine flora, fauna, and you know there are 6 moose per square kilometer - making moose more abundand than people on the ol' rock.)

It's funny seeing them say it will be nationwide at such a small number; as I doubt small and/or remote communities will get excluded.

Is I a Newf?

Deed I is me ol' cock, long may your big jib draw!

Re:30 years later in Newfoundland (1)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 8 years ago | (#13578450)

I meant included. Why can't I edit my damn posts.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>