Canada-Wide Wireless Broadband Network Planned

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."

Comments

The meaning of the name:

[TripMaster Monkey]

From this 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 of Superfriends fame to transform into a giant. ^_^

Re:The meaning of the name:

[CohibaVancouver]

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

Re:The meaning of the name:

[onkelonkel]

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:

[bobcat7677]

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...

Re:The meaning of the name:

[B3ryllium]

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:

[chilimonkey]

Except that the 2010 olympics isn't supposed to just be west coast related. It's supposed to represent Canada as a whole and they choose to use the Ilanaaq to symbolize Canada's aboriginal heritage.

Re:The meaning of the name:

[aktzin]

There's an Inukshuk on the cover of the Rush album "Test for Echo".

http://rush.com/php/home.php?f=0

The inside of the CD booklet has other views of the stone figure and also 3 satellite dishes (or they may be radio telescopes).

http://www.connollyco.com/discography/rush/test.ht ml

Very appropriate for a Canadian band, and also for the album's theme of human interaction as described in the liner notes.

Re:The meaning of the name:

[shinyplasticbag]

We call 'em First Nations up here. Not sure why, though.

Re:The meaning of the name:

[Anonymous Coward]

DIRTY KARMA WHORE!

-- fuckings to TMM and Zonk from me in japan

Re:The meaning of the name:

[iTristan]

uuuh, 'cause they were here first?

Re:The meaning of the name:

[shinyplasticbag]

Yes, but it seems to me that the term aboriginal worked just as well. "First Nations" seems overly politicized.

Re:The meaning of the name:

[pipingguy]

I thought that it just meant "man has been here".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inukshuk

Re:The meaning of the name:

[iTristan]

While "aboriginal" is probably accurate enough, I don't think it conveys the reality that at one time, there were hundreds of organized peoples ruling the lands, trading, interacting and occasionally warring - much like any other nation-entity on the planet.

Also, the name "aboriginal" too often conjures up, colloquially, wearing "funny clothing", "unfamiliar dances and eating strange foods", (the list goes on) as being all that First Nations peoples are about. And we had to get beyond that IMHO because it's not respectful to have such a singular perspective.

Is "First Nations" a politicized creation? Yes, but it had become necessary I think mostly because people were not going to afford proper respect otherwise. Humans are funny that way.

Will they use...

[msauve]

802.11-eh?

Re:Will they use...

[Trigun]

Thank you sir. You just made my day!

Re:Will they use...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Will they use...

[exi1ed0ne]

No they will make a new 802.11 zed standard.

Re:Will they use...

[Anonymous Coward]

They will be using 802.11s. See http://reference2.sl.ca/portal/chapleauproject/how itworks/thesolution

Re:Will they use...

[rm69990]

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

Re:Will they use...

[Anonymous Coward]

I await the Bob and Doug McKenzie training video.

Re:Will they use...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent idiot.

Re:Will they use...

[renehollan]

Heh.

When I moved from a suburb of Toronto to a suburb of Seattle, I had to take a drivers' test to get my Washington State license. Almost failed the eye test because I pronounced "Z" in a sequence of five letters and numbers as "zed".

Of course, when I moved to that suburb of Toronto from a suburb of Dallas, I once went into a convenience store, and, not finding where the cold soft drinks were, asked the manager, "Where do you keep the cold 20oz. Mountain Dews?". He acted as if he didn't understand, and it took me a while to realize that it was the "20oz." he didn't grok. I said "600 mills" (millilitres), and his face lit up in a fit of understanding.

CRA (the Canadian eqivalent of the IRS) was not amused, however, when I tried to file jointly with my wife. :-)

Re:Will they use...

[Kevin Mitnick]

Zed's dead baby..... zed's dead!

Great name

[$RANDOMLUSER]

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

Re:Great name

[temojen]

Inuk is one sylable. It means person in Inuktitut.

Re:Great name

[freeweed]

Actually, pretty much everyone in Canada knows what an Inukshuk is, and how to pronounce the name properly. There's a sorta neat one sitting in downtown Winnipeg at the moment, and the logo for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver is an Inukshuk (can't wait to see the mascot for THAT!).

In fact, over the past few decades they've become a common roadside feature in rockier areas of the country. Northwestern Ontario is positively LITTERED with these things, in some places several per kilometre on both sides of the Trans-Canada Highway. Regular folk, aboriginal or otherwise, climb up the rock cliffs on either side of the road and build them for fun.

Don't worry, we're cool with it :)

Re:Great name

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, except that the colourful blocks in the design 2010 Winter Olympics logo represent an inunguak, which is only superficially like an inukshuk. The latter is something which performs the action of a person (in the usual case, pointing a specific direction). The former simply represents a person.

Inuksuit are not often as anthropomorphized as the inunguak on the Olympics logo or on the flag of Nunatsiavut.

It is kind of neat that an Inuit tradition has caught the imagination of many southern Canadians (Toronto is Canada's Deep South), but seeing an Inukshuk in an area without roads, signs, obvious large natural features, or stars to navigate by in the permanent daylight, is very different and much more moving than seeing them built along the Trans Canada Highway.

Surprised?

[beaver2672]

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

Less than 3 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[NetPoser]

Why are you still here then?

Re:Less than 3 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Less than 3 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Less than 3 years.

[Asshat Canada]

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

Re:Less than 3 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Average wait times: 51 minutes (search google)

Greater 75% of those using Emergency services at hospitals shouldn't be....It's a problem of education of the public. Again, search news.google.ca.

Though confidence for politicians is low, and where isn't it, $41 billion in new money was comitted to the healthcare system 1 year ago.

If I'm not mistaken a new medical school will has or will shortly be opened in Northern Ontario. I suspect - I don't know - that enrollment will also be increased at other schools.

I suspect you can find more than a few successful entrepreneurs in Canada. Just give it a try. I'll give you start - Frank Stronach.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[Bajanman]

Stop ranting. You're just jealous; YOUR government loves to spend its money on useless war, and not on important things like health care. I for one would rather be taxed for health care, "for the people", instead of being taxed for a war that kills innocents for the sake of oil.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

That should have been 51 minutes for emergency care. We'll have to await the ongoing update of statistics associated with surgical procedures.

Further, the system is under constant challenges - see Alberta and Quebec. The situation is not static, a position too many adopt to make their arguments.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

dumbass. everyone goes to emergency routinely following a visit to the drs clinic if they have further problems. if you really really need something done fly to asia and GET IT DONE. dont just sit there and die, you fuckwit.
the health care system in canada is for front line diagnosis, minimal treatment and minimal care. it works great at that. you can always travel to the states and spend your own money for an emergency treatment. canada doesnt prevent you from behaving like an idiot. it didnt murder your father -- his own fucking incompetence murdered him.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[renehollan]

Jealous?

Hmm, here I am, a Canadian citizen, struggling to escape a society I hate, effectively prefering to be stateless, and I'm jealous?

...of Americans, perhaps, who do not realize just how fortunate they are (even while their government engages in folly -- but Bush too, will pass).

Re:Less than 3 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

youre a jackass if you think canada is worse than 90% of the world including america. we have better food, water and services that americans could only dream about. our country is less polluted, has lower traffic jams and better political leadership than 80% of the planet.
this from a canadian who has lived in america for 8 years.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[renehollan]

Funny, I've spent almost eight years in the U.S. too (legally). I prefer it. So do a lot of other people. Funny how so many are trying to "get in".

If you don't like it here, "go home". Like the Yanks say, "Love it or leave it."

Re:Less than 3 years.

[RedCard]

Clearly, "universal" Canadian healthcare is nothing but a murderous, fraudulent, sham

Really? And the American system is better? What about an American system that forces people into bankruptcy, and where those who cannot pay are left to die?

From the link:
About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9-2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness

Yeah, that's waaaaaaay better.
That took all of two seconds on google.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[renehollan]

Yes, it is better.

Dieing because one can not afford the medical treatment they need or becoming bankrupt after paying for it is no one's fault. It's bad luck.

Taking one's money, to ostensibly provide health care, and then failing to deliver what could otherwise be obtained in a free market with the funds taken, makes one worse off than if one were left alone. If one dies as a result, that is murder.

It would be one thing if the government offered health insurance, even subsidized it. But, to force people to pay for it with monies that could deliver the services promised far more effectively is barbaric.

My health insurance premiums are about US$14k a year, and that provides for gold-plated care (no lifetime max, no copays, etc.) I am married, with a "stay at home mom" for a wife. We file our taxes jointly. That is not possible in Canada. If a family like ours were to move from the U.S. to Canada, they would likely see their tax burden increase far more than what it would cost them to obtain this kind of health insurance (The working spouse would effectively file as single, with the approximae equivalent of an exemption for their spouse).

Trouble is, they wouldn't get the type of service or coverage it would pay for in the U.S.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[schon]

A country where an individual can't spend their own money, after taxes, to save their own life, is barbaric.

Yes, because people in Canada who try to go to the US for treatment get stopped by Canadian officials who arrest them, right?

A country who's Supreme Court agrees that to prevent someone from spending their own money for healthcare is unconstitutional, but can be overruled by the government's application of a constitutional "notwithstanding" clause is doubly barbaric.

Show me where the government HAS used the notwithstanding clause to do this, and then you might have a valid point.

But first you'd have to show where the federal government HAS EVER used the notwithstanding clause.

Cowards, definately.

The only coward I see here is you, using your father's death as an excuse to flame people who are sticking up for their beliefs.

I suggest you get professional help with your grief. The level of substitution you're showing isn't healthy.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[renehollan]

Show me where the government HAS used the notwithstanding clause to do this, and then you might have a valid point.

Quebec has stated its intent to do this, and has asked the Supreme Court to stay it's decision until it passes the legislation. The court has agreed.

Unless there is massive protest, that pretty much makes it a fait-acompli.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[renehollan]

I suggest you get professional help with your grief. The level of substitution you're showing isn't healthy.

Nah, I had the same degree disdain for Canada before he ever died (I had already left). The circumstances of his death just strengthened what I already believed.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's alright - we understand.
A quebecker with a grief problem.

I think what you meant to say was "I had the same degree [of] disdain for everywhere but Quebec before he ever died"

Re:Less than 3 years.

[ShagratTheTitleless]

Americans, perhaps, who do not realize just how fortunate they are (even while their government engages in folly -- but Bush too, will pass).

Funny thing -- Bush agrees with you about mandatory unescapeable state healthcare while the more enlightened politicians do not! That little jab aside, thanks for braving the abuse while warning people about a bad idea... especially considering that Canadian style healthcare is the Holy Grail for pandering US politicians and we may get to try it next.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[RedCard]

Dieing because one can not afford the medical treatment they need or becoming bankrupt after paying for it is no one's fault. It's bad luck.

Pardon me, but let's suggest that you are travelling (where - doesn't matter). You are robbed, and in the process your leg is broken, shards of bone protruding through your skin.

As you lie by the side of the road, a doctor comes by and starts to inspect you. As he begins to apply antispetic to the wound, you tell him you cannot pay.

"Ah" he says "Then this is bad luck"
And he turns away, leaving you to die.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[renehollan]

I had inadvertently dropped "of" in my haste.

But, as an anglo, my disdain was for all of Canada, and particularly the socialism in Quebec and BC. Alberta seamed O.K., but I never had the chance to live there.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[renehollan]

I can best be described as a pragmatic libertarian. While opposed to government programs funded via taxation, I do see the potential savings in large programs by virtue of their economies of scale. Thus, it might be possible that a government health care program could, in theory, offer good value for the money. If that were the case, compulsory participation wouldn't even be necessary -- there just wouldn't be a cheaper alternative.

However, governments being what they are, corruption and overhead conspire to overwhelm any possible economies of scale savings. The bottom line is that the difference between the taxes I pay in the U.S. vs. what I would pay in Canada (mostly since one can't file jointly with a spouse or deduct mortgage interest or property taxes) is far more than the best health insurance that money can buy in the U.S. Yet, the government-provided health coverage and service I can receive in Canada is abysmal, by comparison.

Canadian health care is bad value for the tax dollar. If the type of care that the difference in taxes could pay for in the U.S. were available in Canada, the pragmatist in me would have no reason to grumble. Alas, that is not the case.

Re:Less than 3 years.

[renehollan]

And, I agree: under such circumstances, I should be at the mercy of anyone who might leave me to die.

The doctor has no obligation to help me, as I lie there dying.

If I am so foolish as to travel without (a) others having knowledge of my itinerary, (b) enter dangerous teritories without the means to defend my self, and (c) have no means to pay someone who offers to help me should I need help, I damn well deserve to die in such a situation.

Just because one encounters "bad luck" does not mean one can not mitigate its effects. That's the whole point of saving for a rainy day and purchasing insurance against rare, but devastating risks. In fact, the first instances of insurance were cases of mutual insurance: insureds agreeing to self-insure against a devastatic risk that each one of them faced on their own.

Make hay while the sun shines.

My family, though originally rather well off, came to Canada as WWII regugees, having lost everything, first to Nazis, and then Soviet communists. In those days, there was no hand out, no social safety net, nada. You either picked yourself up by the bootstraps, or you perished.

And, you know what? They worked hard, and by their own efforts eventually prospered enough to live a middle-class lifestyle. All that with no handouts, no help save their participation in a community of people in similar circumstances (mutual self-insurance). No damn universal healthcare either: you got a job, your employer provided health insurance. Life was good for them in the late 1950s to mid 1960s. The only "help" they got was a right to "come here and try".

Then, Trudeau starts shoving his brand of communism on the country. Suddenly, they're "the rich" that have to "help". After all, they're "fortunate" to have been born "well off".

Fuck that noise.

Work hard. Earn money. Kill those that try to rob you. Yes, I liked it when I lived in Texas.

Two things you miss in your hypothetical situation are these: (1) Most U.S. states have "Good Sameritan laws": if one stops to assist one in need, and inadvertently causes more harm them good, they are immunue from civil liability. That's particulary important when offering medical assistance with limited medical knowledge (though many employers offer free Red Cross first aid training). (2) Without overly burdensome taxes, Americans tend to be extremely charitable. The current gulf coast hurricane mess has resulted in sufficient offers of temporary housing (i.e. "taking in a family") to probably house everyone affected (over a quarter million offers to date).

In Canada, I saw people living like rats, scrambling to eke out an existence, grabbing at whatever handouts they could get, and generally expecting those in dire straits to get assistance from the government.

No thank you. I pay my way, you pay yours. No onw shits on me here, when I hire a lawn care company and a houskeeper, for being "obscenely rich".

Canada wide, eh?

[Anonymous Crowhead]

But will it be Canada deep?

Of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

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?

[Avacar]

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

Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide?

[RexRhino]

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?

[temojen]

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?

[Kumagoro]

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.

Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide?

[Rac3r5]

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?

In many of the remote areas, we have lots and lots of mountains and trees. These will pose a problem as well.

Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide?

[Bishop]

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

How do you think some communities in the north get phone service?

From Wikipedia

This [Alaskan Highway] route was upgraded to modern digital microwave technology in the early 1990s

The original microwave system was built in 1962. Parts of Ontario and Quebec are also served by microwave links built in the same era. Some of them are probably still on analog links too.

"pre-WiMax"

[ergo98]

http://www.wimaxtrends.com/articles/archives/a0314 05a.htm

Details, please?

[lonb]

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

Re:Details, please?

[FishandChips]

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?

[lonb]

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

Power

[joschm0]

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

Might be usefull to link the inukshuk web page

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

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

http://www.inukshuk.ca/anglais/index.html

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

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

phantom
fathom

Re:Might be usefull to link the inukshuk web page

[Anonymous Coward]

I could never phantom how the ...

fathom

Message to Bell

[colenski]

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

Re:Message to Bell

[Some Guy in Canada]

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

[colenski]

"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.

Re:Message to Bell

[itchomatic]

Supernet is "in" Fort Mac, the hospital/health authority/whatever you want to call it is already using it for sending radiology images to Capital Health (Edmonton).

Re:Message to Bell

[Non-linear Thinker]

Check your Dates - the G&M article was from February. And they missed the finish dates

Under the completion and commissioning plan, all the rural communities in the Extended Area
Network will be connected by April 30, 2005 which will enable local service providers to buy
bandwidth on the Alberta SuperNet and offer high-speed commercial services including Internet
access, to rural retail customers. Additionally, the vast majority of the government, health,
library and education facilities in the Base Area Network and Extended Area Network will be
connected by June 30, 2005 with the total network being completed by September 30, 2005.

Which as an aside was actually completed on Sept 1 - ahead of schedule.

Details at http://www.albertasupernet.ca/

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

[lesburn1]

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.

Wireless Broadband

[Daveznet]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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 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.

Re:Wireless Broadband

[twilight30]

has DSL with Bell (and they force you to have a landline with them as well - so no VoIP for you!

Hi there. I submitted the article - not so interesting.

Howewver, what I've quoted above - this is no longer true. You can now ask Bell for 'dry loop' DSL, which is essentially DSL without landline charges. Bell have only in the last 6 weeks rolled this out, and they are not advertising it (for obvious reasons) -- so anyone can reasonably ask to discontinue their landline, and continue with Sympatico HS as desired.

Thought you might want to know.

T_T Good on Bell!

[ChocoBean]

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

Re:T_T Good on Bell!

[MKalus]

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

The irony in this is that Inushuk was actually owned by Sprint and THEY were going to do something like that together with Microcell.

It is sort of ironic to now have Rogers do this after they gobbled up both Sprint AND Microcell.

But yeah, I am with you. I have a kick ass plan from Fido and I won't part with it, alone the per second billing is worth it and thanks to them being GSM I can just buy whatever phone I like and use anyways.

Antenna

[thatguywhoiam]

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

Re:Antenna

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll go great with the giant freaking nickel.

Re:Antenna

[JediTrainer]

You laugh, but these guys actually DO use the CN Tower for their UltraFast Wireless service.

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

Re:Antenna

[FusionDragon2099]

If they need a giant freakin' antenna in Sudbury, why don't they just use the Inco Superstack instead?

Re:Antenna

[kent_eh]

Actually, you're right.

D'ya see that white "donut" just under the observation level? Well, it's a radome. Inside it are a bunch of antennas for Rogers (among others) existing cell system.

Re:Antenna

[Mr_Icon]

Eh. I have a much better shot of the CN tower here.

Re:Antenna

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, they look great!

Wireless Internet in Canada? Been there, done that

[kyle90]

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.

They are planning to use moose-based APs

[Anonymous Coward]

But what happens when your AP migrates?

Re:They are planning to use moose-based APs

[vertinox]

But what happens when your AP migrates?

Thats what the KGB agents are for ;)

Cartel?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[onion_breath]

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

[goldspider]

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

[LWATCDR]

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

[onion_breath]

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

[onion_breath]

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

[goldspider]

"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

[bcs_metacon.ca]

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).

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[micromuncher]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't even speak about canada again

- Anonymous canadians everywhere.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[fiftyfly]

And then there's Vancouver, hamilton, toronto, ottawa, quebec, montreal etc. Calgary, edmonton, regina & winnipeg are pretty much the only large centers (saskatoon isn't really on this planet at all) significantly north of the border. Oh I'm sure you could say such and such a place and this that and the other over here and what about fooville but most canadians simply live very close to the border.

Heck - I just moved from Red Deer to Victoria and the whole bloody city is south of the 49th. Oh and your numbers are rather off too try:

• Edmonton: 6hrs
• Red Deer 4.25 hrs
• Calgary: 2hrs

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[Rob_Warwick]

The 2001 census recorded 30,007,094 people, and as of April 2005 the population has been estimated by Statistics Canada as 32.2 million people[9]. Approximately 85% of Canada's population lives within 160 km of the U.S. border. Source: Wikipedia

As of the '04 census:
Edmonton, AB 666,104
Red Deer, AB 75,923
Calgary, AB 933,495
Source: http://www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/ms/pdf/2004P op.pdf

The 2001 census (back to Wikipedia article now) recorded 30,007,094 in Canada.

Quick math shows those cities come out to be about 5.5% of the population.

Alberta is pretty damn empty compared to Southern Ontario/Quebec/BC. The cities you mentioned are not the norm.

Quick searching only found a 1976 version, but here's a population distribution map of Canada. Pay special attention to the Southern Ontario/Quebec region: http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/archives/5the dition/peopleandsociety/population/mcr4064

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, it's very convenient for students, seeing as I live a block from the campus and didn't even know it existed.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[micromuncher]

Wow that's informed. I'm impressed! Maybe I just feel marginalized.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[micromuncher]

How fast do you drive?! For me, from Calgary to Ft. MacLeod is 2 hours! Lethbridge is 3+ hours.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[MKalus]

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

Umm... How do you drive to border???

Edmonton --> Calgary can be done in ~3 hours (or 2 if you really don't care if the RCMP is after you).

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[MKalus]

And I pay my taxes (happily).

See, this is why the West feels so alianted (well Alberta anyways) ;)

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[beeblebrox87]

Most people make less than the mean income (since a few people make a whole lot more than the mean income and this pulls the mean up). Therefore, if taxes were efficiently and fairly allocated to services which benefited everybody equally, most people would profit (even ignoring the economies of scale gained by grouping everybody's needs together). Of course, there's a lot of inefficiency and unfairness in any government, but I'd still be willing to bet that the fraction of his taxes that goes to the wifi is substantially less than what it would cost him if the government didn't provide it.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[Anonymous Coward]

And I pay my taxes (happily).

Tell the truth - you have so little income that you barely pay any taxes at all.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[Anonymous Coward]

I just came out from NS. Lethbridge to Calgary (well, Langdon) was less than 2hrs, @ the speed limit.

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[really?]

Edmonton --> Calgary can be done in ~3 hours (or 2 if you really don't care if the RCMP is after you).

Err .. you mean if the RCMP are after you, you go slower? Where is the fun in a chase like that? :-)

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[MKalus]

Err .. you mean if the RCMP are after you, you go slower? Where is the fun in a chase like that? :-)

The fact that my little shitty car couldn't outrun the cruiser ;)

My fastest way back though was from Calgary --> Edmonton. Under two hours. It's nice if you have some Frat boys in front of you who drive a freaking hummer and kick everybody out of the way (plus the slip stream helps you save on gas) ;)

Personal record though must be three hours from Grande Cache to Edmonton :)

Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[bcs_metacon.ca]

Um hello, this is Canada we're talking about... everyone pays lots of tax :-)

Wipe out competition before it starts

[WindBourne]

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

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

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.

Re:Wipe out competition before it starts

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, for the love of god... (I never thought I'd be defending Bell).

There is quite an acceptable copper/DSL resale system set up within Canada and Bell executes it fairly well. As much as it's tempting to assume that Bell messes with their competitors, they have a completely standalone wholesale department that's heavily incented to drive new wholesale business (to its own competition) and provide a satisfactory experience to the end user.

As for your iStop experience, are you seriously mad at Bell for suspending service when the bills weren't paid? Bell's wholesale service is tarriffed, it's not like iStop was surprised by hidden charges. I've heard from other ISP's who failed to architect their networks properly - they blame Bell for those outages too. Much easier than telling their customers that it was their mistake.

As for wireless broadband, the CRTC has a responsibility to make sure the public airwaves are well-used. Joe Schmoe could tie up frequencies for years without offering good service, he could interfere with other frequencies, he could go bankrupt, etc. At least Rogers and Bell are well-funded, with the technical expertise to make a competitive commercial service based on these frequencies.

You could make the same argument for the cellular frequencies - Joe Schmoe can't just throw up a cellsite on a whim. But Canadians have some of the best cellular service at some of the lowest prices in the world (and that's not marketing-speak, it's actually true).

It was decided a long time ago that public airwaves needed to be centrally managed and that's worked out quite well for Canadians. The CRTC has lots of flaws, but this isn't one of them.

By the way, there are competitive wireless service providers in Canada, Joe Schmoe isn't locked out of the market: http://www.cwta.ca/members/all.php (most of these are equipment providers, but there are independent wireless players in there too).

Inukshuk Defined

[geomon]

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

Rock cairns are the earliest of human communication devices.

Preventing Broadband Piggyback?

[Anonymous Coward]

How would the government prevent a person like Jerry Yang (CEO of Yahoo! and snitch who helped the Chinese government to imprison a reporter for 10 years) from driving by a house and using his WIFI to piggyback onto the wireless broadband connection?

There's already a Canada-wide wireless network

[Stavr0]

It's called default

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

[CokeBear]

The one on my street is called "linksys"

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

[phxbadash]

Well at least it's not D-Stink.

Country-wide broadband?

[drgonzo59]

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?

[j-cloth]

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?

[Chaotic Spyder]

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

Re:Country-wide broadband?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you forgot the Calgary-Edmonton corridor? I would also include Lethbridge, Grande Prarie, and Fort McMurray. The two big cities have over 1 million people each. Fort McMurray only has 60,000, but since they have 1.6 Trillion (with a T, yes I mean 1.6x 10^12) barrels of oil in the ground, I'll include them too. :) That's probably why it's the FASTEST growing region in the country!

Re:Country-wide broadband?

[aonaran]

Except that neither one of those companies operates in BC do they? Bell Canada is Ontario/Quebec, and Rogers traded BC to Shaw for parts of Ontario and the East Coast a couple years back.

Re:Country-wide broadband?

[KingEomer]

I would think S Ontario and SE Quebec would be where it's at... Toronto and Montreal are Canada's two largest cities.

Re:Country-wide broadband?

[fishizzle]

You're thinking Rogers Cable, which is only a subsiduary of Rogers Communications (the company mentioned in TFA). Rogers Wireless and Rogers Video both operate in BC, and Rogers Media owns a few radio stations there as well. Bell Canada also offers their wireless service and satellite TV in BC. I'm guessing it's mainly their wireless services that are involved in this venture anyway.

Re:Country-wide broadband?

[Kinnaird]

Given the track record of the pricipals involved what we will get is slow expensive monopolizing garbage!

Re:Country-wide broadband?

[kent_eh]

Ummm.. You're talking about Rogers Cable. Rogers Wireless operates in all provinces, from coast to coast

Re:Country-wide broadband?

[leerpm]

BCE (parent company of Bell Canada) also owns Aliant , which is the Telco for the East Coast of Canada. Rogers Wireless has complete service across the country.

Re:Country-wide broadband?

[pipingguy]

I remember some years ago where "coast to coast to coast" was being used regularly (must have been CBC Radio) as some sort of bizarre "unique identifier" and call to pride for Canucks. It was most likely a pathetic attempt at a slogan from a Canadian History Ph.D with a minor in marketing (funded by the party in power, of course).

Collusion?

[absent_speaker]

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

Quick call GW Bush...

[B5_geek]

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.

Re:Quick call GW Bush...

[jacksonic]

I'd settle for using Canadian Tire Money at Timmy's. I have over $2 in my wallet now...

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

[beyonddeath]

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.

First chink!

[Anonymous Coward]

\ /
    !
|___|

Aagh

[BlackShirt]

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

Re:Aagh

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's some info about the Finnish project. It should cover every corner of the country in 2009.

What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten...

[Lukano]

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/ . 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...

[Ced_Ex]

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...

[j-cloth]

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.

Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten...

[ChocoBean]

is Bumblefuck seriously a town in Sask, or is that a typo? [/me wikis + google maps] hmmm it's not there but I'm afraid of googling more for that word while at work...

Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten...

[j-cloth]

Bumblefuck isn't in the middle of nowhere, but you can see it from there.

Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten...

[ChocoBean]

Dude, Sasktel would've been bought out entirely by Rogers if it wasn't hiding behind the "alliance" sheild of Bell.

Think of it this way: when a Canadian invents something, it's usually acredited to the States, either because they might've helped fund it, helped make it known, helped patented it, whatever. Same goes for your beloved company. It's not fair, but hey I didn't invent the system.

Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten...

[Lukano]

Actually Sasktel would have privatized (and then been able to have been bought out) if it wasn't for the Saskatchewanian attitude towards retaining crown control of companies. I hear from people daily who bitch and moan about monopolies, and crown controlled, and how since I work for a crown company I must have a hand in making everything in the government as bad as it is.

And on the same breath they will tell you how it's a bad idea to privatize the remaining Saskatchewan Crown's.

That being said - you're wrong about the only thing preventing Rogers from buying out Sasktel being the BWA (Bell Wireless Alliance). It's Saskatchewan politics and only Saskatchewan politcs preventing it (and I'm on the fence here, I have arguements both for and against privatization).

Plus Roger's existing infrastructure is different enough that if the privitization were to happen, AND if a company were to consider a hostile buyout of the now privatized Sasktel - it'd be much more likely to be Bell - not Rogers. You buy what works with what you have, so CDMA for their existing GSM network is a square plug for a round hole.

Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten...

[MKalus]

Plus Roger's existing infrastructure is different enough that if the privitization were to happen, AND if a company were to consider a hostile buyout of the now privatized Sasktel - it'd be much more likely to be Bell - not Rogers. You buy what works with what you have, so CDMA for their existing GSM network is a square plug for a round hole.

If they would "sell off" Sasktel chances are good you'd see a bidding war between Telus and Bell. Bell wants West (Hence Bell West) and Telus wants to go east, and more importantly, keep Bell as far away as possible.

They could make quite a profit there.

Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten...

[dcobbler]

Actually, it looks like Microcell didn't get the license to do this in Sask (as well as Manitoba). read this from the "who we are" page of inukshuk.

So, Sasktel still gets to do this for their customers, no?

Cheers, Dcobbler

Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten...

[Anonymous Coward]

First company to have broadband/dsl television services in Canada - Sasktel.

SaskTel was not the first to rollout DSL TV. It was released and failed badly somewhere on the east coast (New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, I can't remember exactly).

I'm from Saskatchewan, my dad has been working for SaskTel for nearly 30 years and was part of the test rollout for Max. I would kill to get Max in Edmonton where I live now.

SaskTel does need to get update their equipment. 8 Mb isn't enough (at my dad's place anyway) to run 2 channels and download at full speed (get about 90KB/s instead of 180KB/s). The lack of HDTV and dolby digital is a bummer. When they get the bandwidth issues out of the way things should improve substantially.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Kuujuuaq is in Quebec

Interesting

[Vaystrem]

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.

Re:Interesting

[dadragon]

In many provinces, Saskatchewan included, most communities over 500 people have DSL. Seriously.

I'm curious... why do you say "Saskatchewan included"? You make it sound as though Saskatchewan is or should be way behind other provinces broadband-wise.

Saskatoon and Regina were pretty much the first two cities in Canada to have DSL service.

Re:Interesting

[Vaystrem]

I know, and I live in Regina currently and you are correct, these were one of the first two cities in North America to have DSL.

What I am really getting at is that in other countries and states it is rural areas that are largely left behind. I wanted to use an example of a province that has a significant rural population and was still able to deliver broadband to a significant portion of its populace.

I said 500 population in my initail post. In my talks with Sasktel representatives they have stated any community with more than 40 people.

I suspect that many Americans can look around and see communities of 500 or larger in states that are not predominantly rural and still have poor broadband access.

Given Saskatchewans population and that population's distribution it SHOULD be behind other provinces and states. The fact that is not is a testament to crown corporation investment, Sasktel's innovation.

The lack of access in other areas is due to the, very reasonable, unwillingness of a private corporation to provide services that are not profitable. Urban customers definitely subsidize the delivery of services to rural areas.

Rather long winded, but that's why I chose Saskatchewan as my example.

To bad the US won't do the same...

[slapout]

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

cool bones

[satanicat]

This could be my proudest hour as a canadian!

Re:cool bones

[Anonymous Coward]

That's kind of sad. If you want a real reason to be a proud Canadian this week: http://www.terryfoxrun.org/

would this be anti-competitive?

[deft]

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?

[Abcd1234]

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?

[davide marney]

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.

Re:Only $200M in deployment costs?

[MKalus]

Not too suruprising. Over the last ten years or so a lot of infrastructure was built.

Alberta for example is building the Supernet which is done by Bell, so they already run Fibre etc. in that province and it IS supposed to be Wireless, so they can probably build on top of that.

I'd be surprised if there aren't similar efforts being made in other areas.

Whatever

[loconet]

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.

Re:Whatever

[MKalus]

Shaw apparantly has rolled it out quite successfully (judging by some comments it seems almost TOO successful), so has Primus.

Rogers may be a while though, I worked there for a while and when I left (a year ago) it was still in the "internal testing" phase I think they called it.

They're not using Haliburton

[joelsanda]

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.

Re:They're not using Haliburton

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been modded 'Funny', but I honestly think you deserve an 'Insightful'.

Re:They're not using Haliburton

[Anonymous Coward]

Haliburton is a county in Ontario. Halliburton is different.

Re:They're not using Haliburton

[joelsanda]

Haliburton is a county in Ontario. Halliburton is different.

Is the county seat for Haliburton a town named "Cheney?"

Re:They're not using Haliburton

[Anonymous Coward]

The main town in Haliburton County is ... Haliburton.

Freinds of mine that used to live there called it 'Helliburton'

Re:They're not using Haliburton

[pipingguy]

We're 1/10 your size, so we have to do more with less. I think I speak for all Canadians when I singlehandedly apologize for Celine Dion.

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

[ScottyH]

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.

I hope that Inukshuk

[WormholeFiend]

will install hotspots in Iqaluit.

It's freakin' cold up there.

Will it reach to Detroit?

[objekt]

I want me some of that free wifi!

Re:Will it reach to Detroit?

[Anonymous Coward]

What made you think it would be free?

Re:Will it reach to Detroit?

[objekt]

D-oh!

Re:woah

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Challenging, but doable

[ErichTheRed]

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.

Re:Challenging, but doable

[Fox_1]

The Telecommunications industry has been more stable in Canada then the US, especially recently due to different management by regulatory agencies, and the fact that it's a smaller market. One of the first DSL providers (40$/mos 7mbp downstream 1.5mbp up) in North America was located in Halifax, Nova Scotia back in the mid 90's. Because the population is small, technically literate and close packed many new technologies are trialed here before being used in larger markets like the US. In fact many places already have much of this technology in place and now it's just being linked at a larger level in terms of management and coverage.

In Canada something like 80% of the population is within 4 hours drive of the US border. Most of the population (>50%) is further concentrated in four broad urban regions: the extended Golden Horseshoe in southern Ontario; Montréal and environs; British Columbia's Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island; and the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. Second largest country in terms of landmass, but a population of 30 million we're about even with Tokyo city for population. And when the ICE melts we get all that land too !!! (cue madman laughing)

Re:woah

[rm69990]

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

30 years later in Newfoundland

[micromuncher]

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

[micromuncher]

I meant included. Why can't I edit my damn posts.

Re:30 years later in Newfoundland

[brunes69]

FYI - Bell Canada owns a 60% stake (read:controlling) in Aliant. For all intents and purposes, Aliant == Bell Canada.

Re:30 years later in Newfoundland

[Anonymous Coward]

My Fido cell has worked in St John's for the last 6 years.

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.

That's funny, I doubt small and/or remote communities will get included.

Re:30 years later in Newfoundland

[micromuncher]

The things you learn! Thanks for the tip.

Re:woah

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:woah

[rm69990]

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

It is more than free, it is a profit generator

[brunes69]

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.

ot - your sig

[onkelonkel]

Light rock is very bad and stupid and wrong and evil and if you women change the channel on the radio one more time to "EZ Silk Lite Soft Smooth FM" I will by God snap and RIP YOUR TINY BRAINS OUT THROUGH YOUR NOSTRILS, DO YOU HEAR ME!!!

/end rant

Deep breath...Calm down....sorry

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

[kyle90]

I wish it were so... I'm in the new building (Morrison Hall), and right now the connection is at 937.40kbps.

Abso-frickin Incredible

[killercoder]

Wonderful - does that mean they will price it the same way Rogers and Bell Do?

Data on both is way over priced. All-you-can eat data pricing on T-Mobile is 25$ a month. On Rogers the closest they have is 25mb for 60$ a month (they call it all you can eat - the fine print says 25mb is an upper limit).

I also hope they get around the channel limit of GSM and CDMA. This "limit" was why they were overpriced to begin with. If they go with a new tech, I don't see much pooling of resources outside of their tower infrastructure - they are incompatible.

I've been burned by both these guys as their pricing has destroyed the mobile data market in Canada. Maybe they'll get it right this time?

This is NOT wifi

[smcavoy]

The technology uses licensed spectrum and is VERY portable.
basically you connect their wireless modem to the power and then via ethernet to your PC. Done.
It's been "on trial" for years I believe in Richmond BC and Cumberland Ontario.
I really hope a PC card or (better yet) a USB device will allow for laptop access to the network...

Bears in the woods

[wowbagger]

The bears need Internet access for their new web site:

Want to see what we do in the woods? See all-natural action!

Antennas, Up Canada Way

[Limited Vision]

Nah, the antennas are easy -- you just stack the rocks and make sure the inukshuk's arm is pointing at its neighbour...

  __                   __
  ___                  ___
__________  >>>>>    __________  >>>>>
  ___                  ___
_______              _______
__   __              __   __
__   __              __   __

Just Wait 'til you see the difference

[woodsrunner]

... and you'll really see how funny that is. Even remote fly in villages around the Hudson Basin have had better internet connectivity than is available in many large US areas now.

Going from NW Ontario down to Chicago last year was like going back in time eight years technologically. Not only is there a difference in internet speed and use, but also in understanding of technology.

I couldn't believe it! Not what I had expected at all.

In Car Streaming Audio/Video?

[wavesmash]

Does this mean I can finally have Orb in my car instead of buying a grey-market Satellite Radio from US? http://wavesmash.blogspot.com/2005/08/get-orb.html How aboot a check mail notification light on my dashboard, eh? This could get interesting.

Re:In Car Streaming Audio/Video?

[Anonymous Coward]

How aboot a check mail notification light on my dashboard, eh?

Yes, but then you'll have to take your car into the dealer or a shop with proprietary equipment to actually read the mail, and they'll charge you a fixed "read time" regardless of how long it actually takes you to read each one. (Some makes will have "turn the ignition key three times" backdoor to make the idiot light blink a code for the amount and type of email.)

Follow the money...

[C-Diddy]

How much C$ does the Liberal party stand to skim off the deal? Enough to finance the toilet drain gun "registry" that has succeeded in registering a pathetic number of guns?

What will it cost? Re:A Canadian's $0.02

[danharan]

As you mentionned in discussion with others, the cost of installing the extra capacity was very low- the city was laying down fiber anyways. So you're likely getting service for pennies, and the whole city benefits.

TFA indicates a cost of $200 million over 3 years for the infrastructure. I wonder what monthly payments that will mean for end users. If their track record is any indication, these companies are likely to overcharge and provide piss-poor customer service.

If Rogers and Bell are what capitalism is all about, I'll take municipal anarcho-socialism any day.

Range doesn't have to be HUGE...

[Dankling]

2/3 of the Canadian population lives within 30 miles of the U.S. border. That's a pretty large concentration making it easy to supply the Wi-Fi. There definitely aren't as many farms as Nebraska - but there certainly are a ton of log cabins. People in log cabins must not count as people - otherwise the costs would be much more than $200 mil to get the country setup... slash-for-thought

C'mon, we don't drive THAT slow

[WebCowboy]

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

Nor are we that bad at math...

When I last drove from Coutts (US border crossing) to Calgary it took about 3 hours or so...I believe the distance is 300 to 350 km.

Red Deer is 140km further north along the QE2. It takes no more than 1.5 hours (I usually get there in 1:15)

Edmonton is about 150km or 160km further north yet--another 1.5 hours past Red Deer.

So I humble submit a revision to your statement:

Edmonton, AB is 6 hours drive from the border.
Red Deer, AB is 4.5 hours.
Calgary, AB is 3 hours.

Please don't confuse our poor American bretheren regarding our geography--they have a rough time of it as it is--like US suppliers in Washington state or California shipping things to Vancouver via a distribution centre in Toronto--because it is "easier" since Toronto and Vancouver are in the same country (for those who don't get it, Toronto is 4,500 km from Vancouver...more than twice the distance between LA and Vancouver).

I don't mean to belittle the intelligence of US citizens as they are no dumber or smarter than any other people--their education curriculums are just severely lacking in the World Geography dept. We Canadians have our flaws too--like our tendency to measure distance in units of time.

As for this Bell/Rogers partnership for wireless broadband, I'll believe it when I see it...it'll probably happen but it won't be all that soon judging by how Albert Supernet has been dragging on. Of course this isn't a government project so it may be different. Can you imagine if this thing was cooked up by the wonks in Ottawa?

* it would take 5X as long as promised to finish
* it would cost a billion or so dollars more than budgeted
* it would be run by Paul Martin's children
* Very few people would know about it, despite hefty sums being paid to obscure advertising agencies in Quebec--usually bay way of unmarked brown envelopes stuffed with cash and delivered to agency executives by staffers from the prime minister's office.

Re:C'mon, we don't drive THAT slow

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, lots of products are shipped from west coast US to west coast US via Memphis, TN.

tele companies. love/hate relationship in Canada

[BRUTICUS]

A lot of americans seem to get pissed when little big brother upstairs gets special treatment but aren't you used to it by now? We had high speed internet in both forms CABLE AND ADSL before anywhere in the states did. Playing quake was so fun back then being a low-ping bastard and rocket-raping the world over.

All we need up here now tho is to follow suit of USA cel phone companies and start giving us some of that 50 dollar anytime long distance plans. Canadian cel phone companies rip us off left and right. There is no such thing as a nationwide long distance plan, atleast not with Rogers. And there is no way to check your minutes. Canadian CEL phone companies need standards.

Anyway, so Rogers/Bell will have wireless internet access available. This will sure make automation a lot easier.

Re:woah

[KFowler]

This is why I love Canada. Canadians can take jokes much better than Americans. That and the pretty snow and shit. And of course the fjords.

Not Cheap

[torok]

Being a Canadian and knowing the telcos here, it won't be remotely affordable access to the average Joe.
Many already pay:

1. $45/month Cable Internet (Or $30/month ADSL)
2. $30/month telephone
3. $40/month Cell phone (With some ridiculous per-minute charge for 1X(3G) Net access)
4. $30/month cable/satellite TV

And now they figure we'll shell out some money for wireless? What for, when we've got hardwired internet and cell phones with 3G? Guaranteed they'll charge a small fortune for access to their wireless net.
When house prices in Vancouver have doubled in the last 5 years, and gasoline approaching $1.20/litre (that's about $4USD/gallon for you americans), just who do they think will be buying this?

Re:Not Cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about the buzzword "convergence." Wireless can deliver High Speed Internet, replace home phone with VOIP, develop IP based TV broadcast.

If you can use your laptop anywhere, why would you pay for data access on your tiny cell phone screen?

Maintaining a wireless network would be much easier than installing cabling to new subdivisions. This would cut costs.

Re:Not Cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: TV, phone, and cell pricing is no better in the US. In some cases it is worst. Long distance is cheaper in the US though.

actually...

[ylikone]

Canada has generally been way more technologically advanced for over a decade than the States when it comes to Internet access. We Canadians should really be saying "You guys finally have broadband?" to you.

Re:actually...

[KFowler]

Hey, we had Al Gore first.

Re:actually...

[Rotten168]

Ok, but according this this our internet penetration is higher than yours. Canada has good broadband access but I the problem was that so many people in the US already had existing dialup connections that they didn't forsee the need to upgrade. I once read that Jamaica has nearly the same cell phone penetration rate tha the US and Canada does, but their overall phone penetration rate is very low. So many Americans and Canadians already have phones they don't feel the need to upgrade.

Re:actually...

[LNahid2000]

Note that Canada's numbers are from Dec 2003 while the United States' numbers are from June 2005. A lot can change in a year and a half.

Re:actually...

[Rotten168]

Yes I noticed that after I posted. But for whatever reason, I have noticed that people around me with dialup and reluctant to upgrade to cable.

no disclosure = press release, not news

[Anonymous Coward]

The Globe and Mail, while an ok paper, is a property of Bell Globemedia. Yes, the Bell logo is at the bottom of the page, but this sort of thing needs to be in the copy of the article.

It's increasingly difficult to find impartial stories on big media companies in the mainstream press.

Some questions to ponder...

[Anonymous Coward]

How will this compete with existing pay-per-use hot spots and will this wireless network be available in the places where it is really most wanted, like airports?

If they can truly make it ubiquitous, that would be really cool! Maybe even cooler than hockey... okay, maybe not. Cooler than winter... well, not in Winnipeg. Let's just say really, really, cool.

PS - If this doesn't score at least a 3, I'm guessing the humour is lost on non-Canadians. :)

PPS - BTW, we don't just randomly say "eh". (+1 for culturally educational)

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

[lesburn1]

oops, sorry I should have said "Nunavik".

as a Canadian

[Anonymous Coward]

Always nice to see two honest companies take time away from their busy monopolies to work on the betterment of the Canadian broadband infrastructure.

Totally off topic but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that there are more people in Saskatoon than Regina right?

The meaning of the name

[protolith]

I for one welcome out 3I overlords...

Wonderful.

[Phantasmo]

Having been a customer of both Rogers and Bell, I can honestly say that this news disturbs me. I'd sort of been hoping that the City of Toronto might start its own wireless ISP but this sort of kills that idea.
Rogers sucks. They play ads while they keep you on hold for their billing department. And I don't mean ads for their other services - I mean Rolaids, Everybody Loves Raymond, etc. Plus they've just installed this crappy voice recognition system that (like most voice recognition systems) doesn't work. I watched my girlfriend have the following interaction with her cell phone:
"Tech support. TECH. SUPPORT. TECH SUPPORT!!! TECH SUPPORT!!! TECH SUPPORT!!! AIIIIEEEERRRGGHHHH!!!!!!"
Rogers: "I'm sorry! I couldn't quite catch what you were saying! Please try again!"

Yay money!

[billcopc]

Rogers + Bell + wireless networks = big racket.

I may be biased, but I fail to see how this will be a good thing. They will offer premium wireless internet, charge through the nose and further cement their joint monopoly. Everything a telecom does is to increase profit, or save face so they can subsequently hike the rates. What we need is city-wide FREE wireless internet like some larger U.S. cities have or will soon have. A government-sanctioned wireless network would enable all sorts of enhancements and bring in more "good" people as a direct result of the facilitated business and mobility.

Enough already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you knock it off with the damned anime smiles!?! It's bad enough that you karma whore at every instance!