Canada May Name High-Speed Access "Essential"

BurpingWeezer writes: "Whoa. Here's something that caught my eye. The CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) is considering designating high-speed Internet services provided in Canada an essential service. Now before you blow your top that CRTC designation would only set "minimum standards for " ... "service because it is deemed essential to the quality of life in Canada." On the other hand look at what the designation has done for phone service. (Now you can blow your top.) The focus is on the needs of business customers but with residential users in mind. I guess there are enough complaints against Rogers@Home and Bell Sympatico that the CRTC is thinking of flexing its regulatory muscles. Before our American cousins to the south start on government intervention remember that it's because of the CRTC that no high-speed Internet company in Canada is able to charge residential customer more than CAD$50 per month. (I'm told that dirt cheap compared to the U.S.) Many Canadians will welcome this."

Comments

An interesting addition...

[dark_panda]

Broadband is going to be big in Canada. Big. The federal government announced last month (via the Ministry of Industry) that all communities would have access to broadband Internet by the year 2004. The initiative is called Connecting Canadians.

A good press release, issued last month, can be found at here
. Definitely something I want to see progress, although if the CRTC gets into it too deeply, things will probably go awry.

J

This would be a welcome relief

[Jailbrekr]

I had the opportunity to call the CRTC when my ISP was having trouble allocating a DSL port for my new company. While the CRTC has (at this time) no regulatory control over High speed Internet Access, the CRTC offered to make an 'informal' call to Telus on my behalf. Like magic, 27 ports appeared in my CO the VERY next day.

Corporations who have had any experience with the CRTC know that they wield a big stick, and know how to use it. This would be a welcome relief, as I am currently fed up with my crappy @Home cable connect (excellent pack loss), and the emails I receive from them saying that 'It is a known issue, and technicians are busy working on correcting the problem'.

I hope that the CRTC *does* take control, and *does* force the larger Internet providers (like Telus/DSL and Rogers/Cable) to start treating customers with the respect they deserve.

It doesn't work that way

[WarSpiteX]

You *CAN* get more expensive services, very easily. There are Home Business and Small Business (or larger) plans for every ISP.

I can get part of a T1 redirected to me with a Small Office plan (at least that's what it used to be). Or I can have the upload/download speed caps on my DSL raised to 4Mb/1.5Mb with the Home Business plan.

As for higher tax rates, I'll have you know that Alberta is moving to a 10.5% FLAT tax at the start of the new year. There will still be federal tax... but even at its worst, if you live in Alberta you won't pay more than 38% in taxes no matter how much you earn. And look at what you get - space, a clean environment, safety, cheap living expenses, etc.

As for the rather... pardon me... idiotic statement that "Monopolies are in some respects a different story, but keep in mind that the majority of monopolies are a product of government regulation, not of the free market." I'll just point to Standard Oil, US Steel and a multitude of other exampes of a 'free market' at work, which it was back then. Unrestrained competition and battle ultimately produces a winner, and his reward is monopoly up until he gets lazy and taken over by a younger, more dynamic enemy (ie, a new company with bright ideas, low overhead, etc.) Monopolies are hardly exclusively the product of government regulation... though they can be.

And no, I'm not some Canadian out on some crusade to prove that we're as good as Americans. I, and most other Canadians, don't need to prove anything to you. I'm just trying to argue your invalid points.

What if NOBODY wants to supply rural areas?

[evilandi]

Guido del Confuso wrote: If people feel it is too expensive they take their business elsewhere

You're presuming not only that there is competition, but that there is any company willing to supply at all.

In rural areas such as Canada, the initial logistical expense means that buying the service from a truly free market would be unaffordable.

Discriminating against rural areas is as unacceptable as discriminating against, say, hispanic areas or native american areas. Now that isn't a problem for corporations who only want to make profit, but it is a problem for governments who want to be re-elected.

The standard way to get around this is to set minimum levels of availability, typically as part of a company's licence to trade.

For instance, I live here (as my wife points out) in the Cotswolds.

There is NO WAY any teleco is going to be able to supply my house with digital comms for a profit for less than, I'd imagine, US$500 a month.

Yet I have unmetered dual channel ISDN for US$90 a month (plus ISP fees of US$35).

This is because British Telecom is forced to supply ISDN to my house as part of their licence to trade across the UK.

--