Bell Wants to Dump Third-Party ISP's Entirely

phorm writes "Not only is Bell interfering with third-party traffic, but — according to CBC — they want third-party ISP and phone carriers off their network entirely. Bell is lobbying to have lease-conditions on their networks removed, stating that enough competition exists that they should not longer be required to lease infrastructure to third-parties. Perhaps throttling is just the beginning?"

Comments

As an American, I would like to know

[nebaz]

to the Sherman Anti Trust Act in Canada? Not that it has helped much in the US lately.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[nebaz]

I hit submit too soon. I meant to ask "Is there any equlvalent to the Sherman Anti Trust act?"

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[VickiM]

I'd be surprised if the Bells in the USA didn't start making this same argument here soon. After all, they have to compete with cable and satellite. Why would anyone need more choices than that?

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[jfp51]

Canada has the Competition Act and also a common law framework that provides the legal basis.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Brian Gordon]

Yeah right; america has always been insane on government regulation of telecoms. Yeah they get away with all sorts of abuse, but they do not own their own networks; they operate completely at the mercy of congress and the FCC, and there's no way that they'll let them just cancel the terms of their lease contracts that they don't like.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Anonymous Coward]

true that. most of the lease contracts in america require the companies to lease the network out to the 3rd parties at a rate that won't even cover the cost of maintaining the line just so that the 3rd party companies can offer a competitive price to the consumers.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[_KiTA_]

I'd be surprised if the Bells in the USA didn't start making this same argument here soon. After all, they have to compete with cable and satellite. Why would anyone need more choices than that? Didn't they (read: large corporate internet/content providers like Qwest and Charter) already do this, in reverse? I mean, wasn't that one of their major arguments AGAINST opening the Cable networks to competition? "Why should we allow you to get someone else's pipe on your cable modem? You already could just get DSL or Satellite!"

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[spun]

I know, government regulation of telecoms is so crazy considering that all we taxpayers have done is pay for much of the infrastructure, granted them monopolies, and gave up our property for their right of way. I mean, we should just cancel all our deals with them and let them do whatever they like.

I'd love to see a couple dozen telephone lines coming to my house so I can lease from the company I like, rather than having only one. And I'd also like a couple dozen sewer lines, water lines, and road networks I can choose from, too. As well as competing fire departments, police departments, and sanitation.

I mean, why should I pay for garbage removal when I have no sense of smell. My property, my rules. If I don't want to pay for fire protection, I shouldn't have to. If my house burns down, who else could that possibly hurt?

All these government regulations of private industry do nothing but hurt us. Competition will always ensure we have the best possible services available, and there is nothing government can do that corporations can't do better.

The scary thing is, there are people who actually believe that crap, and want to force those beliefs on us rather than just opting out of the system and making one of their own.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[eln]

Just like the government wouldn't give the telecoms billions of dollars in subsidies to upgrade their networks and then allow them to continue to raise rates and delay those same upgrades while spending the money on, apparently, hookers and blow? Congress works for the lobbyists (including telecom lobbyists), not for the people. Same with the FCC, which has spend the last several years either rolling back or just ignoring various regulations intended to keep these companies from having too much power.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Brian Gordon]

You're going to be modded up by people who don't get to your last sentence o_o Also I was using "insane" as one of those cool kid words, not like how you 4-digit-uid geezers think it means.. highly regulated not unfairly regulated

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Anonymous Coward]

The scary thing is, there are people who actually believe that crap, and want to force those beliefs on us rather than just opting out of the system and making one of their own.

How does one "opt out" of the current beliefs which are currently forced upon us? Stop paying taxes? For the record, this is 'our own'.

But hey, continue to bleat^H^H^H^H^Hbeat those strawmen!

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Missing_dc]

Unfortunately, there is no OPT OUT available for these "public services" or "utilities"
Its take it or move to BFE Midwest and live like a fricken hermit.

That being said the Telecoms and Cable Cos seem to forget they pretty much asked to be a utility to get the (semi)monopoly status, and now don't want to act like one.

And don't get me started on the whole net nutrality subject~!!!! (/sarcasm (for those who do not get the new ~=sarcasm meme))

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Naturalis Philosopho]

I believe that was implicit in the GP's post. If you choose to live in a civilized society, then you must live by that civilization's rules- for the good of the society, even when it's not 100% in your immediate interest. But you are still welcome to go live like a hermit, or find others who want to move with you and start up a new society in the wilderness from scratch where you can have any rules you want... until you bump up against a neighboring society, and then you have to act civilized again or get spanked down. Might be easier just to learn to live with others in the first place.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[spun]

You opt out by leaving the country and making your own. Sorry, you don't get to dictate to the rest of us. If you want it to be different, go through the process we all have to go through to change things, or leave and do your own thing. You don't own the whole country, and you own your property only because we all agree to private ownership of property. Without us around, I'd like to see how long you could defend your property from those who don't recognize your unilateral claim to it.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[spun]

Thank you. I hate having to point this out to libertarian types over and over and over again. They seem to want all of the benefits of society without paying the costs.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[skywolf3]

I do know that here in Atlanta AT&T has been making it very difficult for third-party ISPs to operate. With AT&T trying to hard to kick Comcast in the ass, they are now giving priority to AT&T's on demand video, I often get disconnected or get smacked with high latency at peak times. My neighbors who use AT&T's own dsl, don't have these issues. I'm just waiting for the day when AT&T says enough and just boots them. I really don't know what I would do. Comcast filters, AT&T plays mean kid on the block lol. Besides, my third-party ISP actually has employees who answer the phone, speak english, live in the same town as me and KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT!!

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[trolltalk.com]

We have the Competition Act, which replaced the Combines Investigation Act back in 1986 ...

Also the CRTC.

Bell was able to build out their network thanks to their monopoly position for many decades. The network infrastructure, since it was paid for by the excess levies and guaranteed returns allowed under that monopoly, should be nationalized.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Anonymous Coward]

to the Sherman Anti Trust Act in Canada?

sentence fragments are

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[MrShaggy]

The deal here in Hoser-Ville, is that the ISP's lease the bandwidth from Bell. They also pay around 20$ per user to bell. So I dont see how bell is loosing out here at all. If the independant wants more, they pay for it. It really dosent make any sense.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Kjella]

The thing is that while some things are very effective to run as a monopoly, it's very difficult to make a monopoly run effectively. The drive for margins tend to be lacking throughout the organization, and everyone is bloating their own needs to get a more comfortable budget. Ultimately the politicians granting money try to cut costs but it's like working for a company where only the CEO wants to save money. Also you have issues with workers intentionally slowing down and creating a backlog, it's very easy to lose to passive resistance because usually the solution is to recieve more money, not that the department is laid off because the company is bleeding.

They try various methods like regulation, bids and other things but none of them really work that well. Take bids for example, they usually deliver the minimum of the service requirements, the way the operation is driven is kept as a competitive secret and it's usually hard to get real competition against the incumbent that's already got the staff, the routines and the equipment in place. Regulation is trying to keep the squeeze on the company to simulate the market pressure, but it's really difficult to know how hard to squeeze because the regulated company will undoubtably say you're trying to squeeze blood from a rock. Set service requirements and you'll certainly get a too high claim of how much it'll cost to deliver and so on.

In the end, I understand perfectly well why people look to many of those poorly handled monopolies and say "Man, if only we could get private companies competing for that". I've only dealt closely with one such monopoly and there were simply so many excesses, the great location, the great offices, the fancy equipment in EVERY meeting room, the free beverages and snacks, the great cafeteria and a million other small things... it's all those things that show they got money to spend, and don't really care what the bill adds up to. They just need something that legitimately can be expensed as business cost, and it's fine. They're still on public salary levels and they can't raise those much, but it's no doubt the money was loose and the work pressure low...

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[hurfy]

I wonder if qwest is messing with the indies.
My age old DSL has been acting up a bit lately :(

"Besides, my third-party ISP actually has employees who answer the phone, speak english, live in the same town as me and KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT!!"

Not only that but tech support for mine is actually the guy who manages the ISP's routers and stuff!! :)

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[francisstp]

The scary thing is, there are people who actually believe that crap, and want to force those beliefs on us rather than just opting out of the system and making one of their own. Ooh, I didn't know I could opt out of the current government system! Would you be kind enough to tell me how I can do that?

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[francisstp]

Bell was able to build out their network thanks to their monopoly position for many decades. The network infrastructure, since it was paid for by the excess levies and guaranteed returns allowed under that monopoly, should be nationalized. Two wrongs don't make a right. Imagine where wireless technology would be today if Bell hadn't been regulated all those years!

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[PachmanP]

You opt out by leaving the country and making your own. Sorry, you don't get to dictate to the rest of us. If you want it to be different, go through the process we all have to go through to change things, or leave and do your own thing. You don't own the whole country, and you own your property only because we all agree to private ownership of property. Without us around, I'd like to see how long you could defend your property from those who don't recognize your unilateral claim to it. Actually, could you point me to somewhere where I can go and kill off all the natives and start said country without, say, the UN coming in an defending the property and unilateral claim of the previous occupants?

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[spun]

Leave the country. Start your own. Go live in a cave or camp out in a national forest. I know some people who've opted out of the system and pay no taxes.

How would I opt out of a lassez-faire free market system where all the real estate was owned?

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[spun]

I know that's how it was traditionally done, but come on man, this is the twenty first century. Killing them all off is so inefficient when you can indenture them to you permanently through economic coercion. Huzzah for the owning class!

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[roman_mir]

I agree with your entire comment except your last sentence. I do want competition from phone companies, sewer/water/gas/electrical/fire/medical/garbage etc. services.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[francisstp]

Rational free market advocates have no problem with socialists* doing their own thing as long as it's voluntary and it's not imposed on those who choose to live differently.

You could opt out by, say, pooling with like-minded individuals to buy a tract of land and then refusing to purchase Bell services. No harm done.


*no offense here; I just take it to mean people who desire communal management of resources

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine where wireless technology would be today if Bell hadn't been regulated all those years!

Still decades behind Europe, which has a more heavily regulated industry, but enjoys greater use, lower prices, more flexibility and better competition?

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[budgenator]

the other point is in Canada and the US, the cable-co and the Tele-co's don't really compete that much, they seem to do a dance around the borders but don't really enter the vital territory. The third party ISP on the other hand do compete when Bell-CA started filtering, they chopped the legs out from under the 3rd parties by eliminating one of the few ways they could offer a substantially better service by actualy delivering what was promised in the ads.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I want to be a jerk and say Darfur, but...

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[slashtivus]

I work with a *big* supporter of the Libertarian party. I raise a similar point with him (multiple water, electric) with him fairly often. It makes him squirm and get uncomfortable. The simple point is that not all co-operatives are bad, especially when dealing with basic infrastructure.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Pig Hogger]

Thank you. I hate having to point this out to libertarian types over and over and over again. They seem to want all of the benefits of society without paying the costs.

Gee, just like the communists...

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Wolfier]

That's a classic oligopoly, especially when the market is not totally saturated - in Canada - if all you need to do is to lure new customers, competing for the business of existing customers is not the #1 priority any more.

However, in Europe where there's almost no fresh customer left, they have to compete for existing customers - who need more incentive to change from an existing service (if it ain't broke...)  Thus competition is healthier over there.

Just wait till the market is saturated.  Even if there are only a few players, they'll be forced to compete, no matter how unwilling.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Anonymous Coward]

so...you're saying there might be something flawed with the viewpoints at one extreme or the other?

shocking!

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Or as Chris Rock put it,

The worst part about it we pay taxes for shit we don't even use! Like the fire department. My house ain't burning! I keep the water on 24/7. I got a nice, moist house.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[spun]

How would that work? You can't physically have that many sewer lines, for instance. And many of said services fall prey to classic market failure modes, namely externalities and natural monopoly

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[spun]

But say I couldn't find any land anywhere near where I wanted to live? All I'm claiming is that it's an analogous situation to a person living in a country like the USA and wanting to opt out. Neither system provides a completely perfect solution.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[zenasprime]

Anartica? Then there's always all those planet's out there that need colonizing. :o

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Ctrl-Z]

If Bell was able to get the third parties off their network, they could sell services to the consumers at retail rates instead of wholesale. Instead of $20 per user, they could get $40 per user. And they have the marketing clout to make sure that the independent ISPs wouldn't be able to keep their subscribers once they were booted off of Bell's hardware (that is, if it is even possible for the independents to exist in that scenario!). I have a hard time believing that this is likely to happen, and it is probably just an attempt to negotiate a better position in the current net neutrality and telecom deregulation debates.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Lord Flipper]

Its take it or move to BFE Midwest and live like a fricken hermit.

I'm curious about something: What does 'BFE Midwest' stand for, or mean?

I moved out to the Minneapolis-St Paul area a couple years ago, and although I've always met great folks wherever I've, these Minnesotans are the nicest bunch of them all. Helpful, you can talk to young and old alike out in public without getting paranoid or 'WTF' reactions that are so common elsewhere in the States. And the State, itself, has this sort of conservative, yet very progressive 'tilt' to it. And of course a bunch of the greatest 80s bands came from here. I'm impressed... If Comcast could just drop dead, en masse, in a hurry, this place would be perfect!

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[bendodge]

I've been looking at Quest DSL and had some questions, so I've called the number several times (The website is useless for technical details.) I can tell several of the first-tier call staff by voice, and I always hope I get this one girl Jerusha(?) (at least that's the name she gives). She doesn't know anything about the backend (which is what I want to know), but she at least tries to be helpful and always finds someone who does know the answer to my questions. It's the same peculiar shock you get when you call Newegg and realize you're talking to a normal person who's actually in the same country as you.

I got to an engineer who actually works with the equipment, and he basically said that IPv6 is only for Europe and Japan and that some weird new dynamic system is all the US will get. Quite depressing. But he did say they are preparing for a large speed upgrade this month, so I'm staying tuned.

The local cable company is even better for phone service (the first person I get has access to the hardware), but the latency and upload is getting to me, which is why I am looking at DSL.

I like what I see at Qwest except for their oddball pricing plans. They have a "price for life" thing with a 2-year commitment. I don't particularly mind a 2-year commitment, but who wants a price for life? That seems almost backwards. But then, it might be an advantage after all, since the broadband market seems like it might actually slide backwards.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[DRACO-]

BFE Bum F.ck Egypt. Middle of Nowhere... Just to the left of Nowhere. So far out from the city, the rural gives up.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Colin Smith]

Hyperbole.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[spun]

Well, yes, perhaps a little. But which part did you mean?

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[ultranova]

However, in Europe where there's almost no fresh customer left, they have to compete for existing customers - who need more incentive to change from an existing service (if it ain't broke...) Thus competition is healthier over there.

Competition in Europe - or at least where I live - is healthy because the phone companies are forced by law to lease their lines to third parties. This means you actually have a choice between ISP's.

Just wait till the market is saturated. Even if there are only a few players, they'll be forced to compete, no matter how unwilling.

Not true. They could simply calculate that it's more profitable to squeeze a high margin from each existing customer, rather than trying to get new ones. Natural monopolies lead to natural cartels.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Bellsouth / AT&T already has a monopoly on DSL. Please don't encourage the bastards.

captcha: trapped.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[budgenator]

They could simply calculate that it's more profitable to squeeze a high margin from each existing customer
I'm sure they do, there has to be a formula that takes in the revenues expenses and how many customers at each price point and computes the optimum total profit. Some guy in Corporate probably plays with it on a spread sheet all day long, trying to squeeze another $Million out of the system.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[slysithesuperspy]

"But say I couldn't find any land anywhere near where I wanted to live?"

How is that any different to now if I choose random place and think "I want to live there!" but there is already someone else there. I'm not exactly going to get some guns out and force them off, am I?

(Of course I could get the government to do it for me, and claim it was for a virtuous cause, like I'm sure any aspiring demagogue would love to do.)

Neither system provides a completely perfect solution.

I think this is the key point, economics is all about choosing between scare resources. In reality it is up to whether people want to do it by force or by voluntary means. You are trying to turn reality inside out. It's like you're the bully kid with the gun and you're saying that it's against your freedom to shoot people if you are stopped.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Yaa 101]

Because other people will get sick from your actions, either from germs or from poluted smoke when you burn it.

There do exist other people, you know.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Miamicanes]

> the other point is in Canada and the US, the cable-co and the Tele-co's don't really compete
> that much, they seem to do a dance around the borders but don't really enter the vital territory

In real life, I work for a major telco, so I feel a bit entitled to have an opinion on the matter (disclaimer: 95% of what I personally believe happens to directly contradict the views expressed by my employer).

As a practical matter, the market needs two broad classes of companies providing "last-mile" wired data service:

* Companies that are required to offer service that's "five nines" reliable, costs be damned. Five-nines service isn't "cost-effective" for investor-owned utilities. Not even at high tariffs, because there simply aren't enough customers for whom it's sufficiently compelling to offload the entire cost of five-nines reliability onto them. However, by requiring that they provide at least "three nines" reliability to even their least-valuable customer, the costs get spread around enough to let society as a whole benefit from it. A.K.A., "the Phone Company".

* Companies that are free to race to the bottom, and compete to offer the cheapest, least-reliable service possible to people who want lots of cheap flash & bling, even if it breaks down a lot. A.K.A., "the Cable Company".

If both categories of companies are required to allow anyone to use their infrastructure for "last-mile" access to their ultimate customers, at tariffs that can be left up to the market... but required to be transparent and available to all comers who satisfy the official qualifications for service at a given rate, two are probably enough... though I'd love to see a third competitor to compete with the incumbent bottom-feeder, as long as it's understood that the two bottom-feeders aren't allowed to have any common business ownership whatsoever. In urban areas, a second "regulated/reliable" competitor would be nice, too (but not economically viable out in BFE).

At the moment, my datacom utopia doesn't really exist. The closest it comes is probably the rules under which AT&T operates in Florida... and would have come if Broward County had prevailed over Comcast and required them to open their network to other last-mile customers. High-speed wireless will be an interesting monkey wrench thrown into the gears, because (in dense urban areas, at least) it has the potential to compete as a true bottom-feeder. It's not likely to be reliable in the official telco sense (though "mainstream" wireless providers like Sprint and Verizon will probably evolve into that role over time), but IS (to consumers, at least) comparable in both speed and capacity to DSL.

Satellite? Hard to classify. On one hand, it has Terrabytes per second of cheap unidirectional bandwidth with a marginal per-user cost of almost zero (but "astronomical" costs to serve that first customer). On the other, it will never, ever be suitable for anything interactive and time-sensitive unless the speed of light happens to change (highly unlikely). Iridium was a nifty idea (treating a huge constellation of moving satellites as line-of-sight cellular towers over a ~hundred-mile radius region), but ultimately required too much capital for anything short of a government with unlimited cash to burn (China, perhaps?) to make it feasible... partly, because there just aren't enough compelling customers out in the hinterlands to make servicing them at costs less than what they'd spend to just lay a few hundred miles of new fiber (or living with geosynchronous VSAT's latency) worth it.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[roman_mir]

You can have multiple sewer lines physically. As long as it is allowed, sewer lines can be laid one deeper than another. Natural monopolies is one thing, government regulation making it impossible to enter that market privately is another.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[spun]

People always seem to think I'm advocating the use of force. I challenge you to find any statements I've ever made to back up that assertion.

In reality, it is the free market system, based as it is in private ownership of real estate, that requires the use of force. Free market advocates create a system where they unilaterally decide on ownership rights and enforce their ideas through the threat of violence

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[spun]

Read up on natural monopolies to discover why no company in a completely free market would ever make a second set of sewers after another company had made the first. They would go bankrupt nearly immediately.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[roman_mir]

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is. If companies can make rockets to shoot into space and not go bankrupt nearly immediately, so should it be possible for a company to run a second set of sewers as long as the government doesn't prevent this by force.

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Spelling: "...bell is loosing out here..."

Misspellers are such "loosers".

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets just disband Bell and give all the infrastructure to Telus...

Re:As an American, I would like to know

[Wolfier]

Take a look at Hong Kong - which still runs a largely Laissez Faire economy.  It's a prime example of how fierce the competition is there among wireless providers, credit cards, etc., once the market penetration is high enough to be considered "saturated".

Competition doesn't need tight laws to maintain.  Just a handful of well crafted rules and a high market penetration is enough to keep competition alive.

Hmmmmm.....

[IHC Navistar]

Looks like old Ma Bell wasn't really dead after all..... She was just in at home regaining her strength and plotting her next move with her Baby Bells.....

Re:Hmmmmm.....

[SatanicPuppy]

Ma Bell is alive and well, and living under the name "AT&T" these days, which is technically what she was known as before the whole "Ma Bell" thing...but the current company is technically SBC (Southwest Bell), which happened to be the nastiest and most voracious of the little bells. They switched their name to AT&T inc after they bought the "original" AT&T co which was the chunk of the original company that was allowed to keep the name after the divesture.

(I know the preceding paragraph is nearly incoherent. The business relationships are completely incestuous.)

Half of the original Bells are owned by AT&T these days, and with buyouts like Cingular, it's arguably nastier than before.

Re:Hmmmmm.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this is Bell Canada we're talking about, which was split off from the whole bunch about 60 or 70 years ago. They have nothing to do with AT&T or any of the Bells you mention, except that they share a common name, and that's because they were all incorporated by Alexander Graham Bell.

Re:Hmmmmm.....

[evilviper]

Ma Bell is alive and well, and living under the name "AT&T" these days

Yes everyone, Verizon is just a figment of your imagination.

(I know the preceding paragraph is nearly incoherent. The business relationships are completely incestuous.)

It needn't be complex.

Ma Bell was broken up into regional bells, including Verizon and SBC. AT&T was allowed to continue as a long-distance (non-local) service.

SBC cheated and stole well enough that they ended up with enough money to buy a large number of other regional bells when the regulations were lifted (Verizon did the same thing, though not nearly as bad behaving as SBC). SBC didn't have any cross-country links of its own, which was costing them quite a bit, so they bought AT&T, and decided to take the unsoiled name for themselves and try to make people forget they're still the same "SBC" that's been screwing them over for decades. Simple.

It is in their best interest to 'do no evil' ...

[Anonymous Coward]

as far as PR goes, but that is generally not how stock holders like the company to operate. The likelihood that this is just the beginning is a little better than 1:1 IMO at this point.

You can also (tin foil hat time) bet that this move is in consideration of some strings being pulled from somewhere else.

They are a utility

[usul294]

At this point telecom companies are utilities, so they shouldn't be able to restrict usage like that. Everyone expects their tap water to be of a good quality no matter where you live. However, I don't think that the government should force them to lease infrastructure to competitors. I think bell could probably make quite a bit of money leasing infrastructure though.

Re:They are a utility

[PFAK]

Why shouldn't they be forced by the government to lease their last mile? The infrastructure that Bell uses for delivery of their service was paid for by Canadian tax dollars, and supported by a government provided monopoly.

Re:They are a utility

[ancientt]

Essentially the tax payers are the ones who created and funded the company. It has served its purpose.

As with any government agency, once the services it provided are done by private industry, it is time to cut out the public funding. The government should sell back all the hardware to all the companies involved and use the funds generated to cut taxes.

Doubtless this seems unfair to Bell, but the government was unfair to everyone when it created an intentional monopoly. When they whine, and they will whine, they should be told to join the competition that they felt was healthy enough.

Re:They are a utility

[Anonymous Coward]

Your missing the point to this. Why would Bell want to lease their infrastructure like they are currently forced to do when they can cut out any competition and force YOU to pay $xx.xx more than what a third party will make you pay. Hell, with no competition they can continue to jack up the prices like they've been doing the last few years and because they'll be the only choice, your stuck paying whatever they charge. Our choices in Canada are very limited when it comes to internet access. DSL or Cable, those are the two main technologies with two or three main players at both ends of the country.

Re:They are a utility

[sarhjinian]

Here's the issue: Bell and the other Stentor consortium members were essentially granted a monopoly--and were given government support--to build the telecommunications network in Canada.

When high-speed internet came to the forefront, Bell utterly failed to deliver a competitive product and was basically going to fall back a the "gentleman's agreement" with the cable- and phone companies that would have allowed a maximum amount of profit for the providers with a minimum amount of service on lines that we, the consumer, subsidized.

The CRTC, deciding that the existing Bell/Stentor cartel had done little except gouge customers and that forcing leased lines had done wonders for the long-distance market, hit Bell with the same thing. The result is that Canada has one of the best broadband adoption rates in the world, despite a fairly unfriendly geography.

Yes, they own the last mile, yes, and pay for it, but it's not like they didn't get a free ride from the CRTC and the Canadian public for years. Revoking this will result in a broadband market that looks like the Canadian wireless market: something like the "gentleman's agreement" mentioned above that keeps prices uncompetitively high.

On that note, I personally think the CRTC hasn't gone far enough: they need to force the incumbent providers to open their wireless networks ("System Access fee" my ass) as well. The wireless market in this country is abysmal (as in "worse than the US, by a large margin") and the reason is that the incumbents maintain a cartel and buy or destroy competition.

Heck, Canadian content rules have actually kept foriegn competition out of the market, which means that all Bell et al have had to compete with are small fish and bottom-feeders, which is what Bell wants to squash. I don't like T-Mobile or Verizon much, but I'd like to see them slap some respect into Bell, Telus and Rogers

Re:They are a utility

[Gat0r30y]

Why shouldn't they be forced by the government to lease their last mile? well that totally ruins there plans to monopolize the last mile, jack prices through the roof and make a metric (its Canada) assload of cash, all at the taxpayers expense. duh.

Re:They are a utility

[MightyMartian]

I think, in those early days, it was a wise investment on the part of government. Within a few decades, phones reached just about every house in the US and Canada. The government (really the people) knew that no company could raise the capital required for such a massive infrastructure program, so they popped in the right-of-ways and the like and granted the companies an effective monopoly, but with some rather important understandings.

What's happened is that the telcos have forgotten that the taxpayer subsidized and continues to subsidize their networks.

Re:They are a utility

[Nos.]

There is no government imposed system access fee. Every provider in Canada that I've seen charges it, and nobody has to. It was originally intorduced to help expand the network but that day has passed, and now there are no requirements for it, but that didn't stop anybody (including Rogers) from charging it.

Re:They are a utility

[sarhjinian]

You're correct. The problem with the System Access fee is that the providers and their resellers have implicitly (and occasionally explicitly) said that it's government mandated. The CRTC has expressed some interest in forcing them to clarify it, which, of course, they're fighting.

I've personally had a "discussion" with a Rogers Enterprise Wireless rep (and his sales engineer) on this point when negotiating our contract. He and several of his colleagues were under the impression that it was CRTC-mandated.

Re:They are a utility

[falconwolf]

However, I don't think that the government should force them to lease infrastructure to competitors.

When the government gives businesses billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, in subsidies the government better attach strings to the money. Such as open access. And actually building the infrastructure the money was given to them to do.

Falcon

Re:They are a utility

[Anonymous Coward]

better than that, why shouldn't the canadian taxpayers just own the last mile themselves? bell got a free ride when they were allowed to have it and the government should take it away from them.

Re:They are a utility

[Nos.]

I think that's starting to change. Rogers says it relatively clearly on their site when you're looking at plans "A $6.95 monthly System Access Fee (non-government fee), ", and I believe others do as well.

That's one of the reasons I do prepaid service. Its about the only way to avoid these fees. We'll be getting a second phone soon and doing the same thing. I was thinking about a couples' package for ~$35/month, until you realize that its actually over $50/month once you total up all the extra fees.

Re:They are a utility

[tinkerghost]

I think bell could probably make quite a bit of money leasing infrastructure though.

Not nearly as much as they can make by enforcing a monopoly.

I work for a CLEC & we just went to the PUC regarding this kind of issue - they are literally selling residential service at below wholesale cost.

Re:They are a utility

[KillerBob]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you genuinely don't know what's wrong with your suggestion.

There's plenty of competition in high speed internet, but there is *NOT* plenty of competition in terms of technologies in use. Bell Nexxia owns 100% of the copper to the house. Likewise for cable TV lines... in Ottawa, where I live, for example, 100% of the cable TV lines (and that includes cable Internet) are owned by either Rogers (on the Ontario side), or Videotron (on the Quebec side). There is exactly one provider of wireless Internet services.

That means that if Bell's argument is accepted by the CRTC, the Ottawa market will go from having about 50 options for high speed Internet to having exactly 3, each with a monopoly on their respective technology.

To make matters worse, not one of those three providers offers a service that is suitable for technologies like VPN, or running your own server. All three of them filter access on those ports, and won't allow their users any incoming connections. It's also in their service agreements that they can terminate your service if they catch you running a server.

In other words... not only will the variety of consumer-level services be cut down to 3 monopolies, the quality of services available to consumers will fall into the shitter. It's already fairly well known that if you need to run a VPN, you don't go with Bell, Rogers, or Storm in this city... you go with one of the 3rd parties that's leasing time through one of those three, to get unfettered access. If you want decent access to the Internet, you have to buy a corporate connection from these people... Bell's cheapest runs about $80/month, Rogers is the same, and Storm is $195/month. Just for the privilege of actually having a connection to the 'net which you can use for more than surfing and e-mail.

What's more, tax dollars paid for the establishment of Bell Nexxia. We paid for that copper which they own. So no. They should absolutely be required to continue leasing service. Actually, the Government should acquire Bell Nexxia and turn it back into a crown corporation, and make BCE, the phone/Internet company, lease time from Nexxia as well.

Re:They are a utility

[Actually, I do RTFA]

As with any government agency, once the services it provided are done by private industry, it is time to cut out the public funding.

On the contrary. As with any government agency, private industry should be free to compete. Once no one uses the government agency, it can be scaled back/eliminated. But until then, what's wrong with the government supplying a little socially conscious competition?

Re:They are a utility

[Sentry21]

The impression I got from Bell's argument is something like this:

What they said: The market was opened up for competition, but now there's enough competition so we shouldn't have to still hold their hands.

What they mean: People are competing with us, despite the fact that we own the network and fuck around so badly with our wholesale clients that their problems never get solved in a reasonable amoutn of time, and instead of fixing our ludicrously broken processes or continuing to lose out to people who use our network better than we do, we want our monopoly back.

Bell does have a point; a lot of companies (like one ISP I worked for for almost a week after my training ended) just keep reselling Bell's and Telus's services (despite getting dicked around all the time); they have essentially the same prices, plans, and service as Bell, but it takes longer to get anything done because you're one more step removed from the technicians.

An ISP a friend worked for, however, took the other route. After selling Bell's service in Montreal, they hired my friend to do their ADSL rollout. They bought their own bandwidth, installed their own DSLAMs, and started moving customers over, and you know what? Paying for bandwidth directly was cheaper for them than leasing an essentially unlimited line from Bell.

As a result, they started moving all of their customers over from Bell's per-customer charges to their third-party's per-megabit rates, and they're saving tons of money - enough to use to buy the new ADSL2+ equipment and move even more people over.

The lesson is: Don't wait for Bell to stop being dicks; do things right yourself and it pays off.

Re:They are a utility

[Dark_Gravity]

Why shouldn't they be forced by the government to lease their last mile? well that totally ruins there plans to monopolize the last mile, jack prices through the roof and make a metric (its Canada) assload of cash, all at the taxpayers expense. duh. Wouldn't that be the last 1.6 kilometers?

Re:They are a utility

[JesseMcDonald]

On the contrary. As with any government agency, private industry should be free to compete. Once no one uses the government agency, it can be scaled back/eliminated. But until then, what's wrong with the government supplying a little socially conscious competition?

(1) How does your government-run program ensure that resources aren't being wasted providing a level of service which is less urgently demanded than the other things those resources could have been expended on? In private industry this is accomplished by the profit motive, which government organizations don't have.

(2) How, exactly, do you expect private industry to compete with an organization that trivially get laws passed in its favor (see also: the USPS's monopoly on first-class letter delivery), which can get unlimited "risk-free" loans by virtue of being backed by taxation, and which has no obligation to pay back even the principle, much less the interest, on its start-up costs? Much less if the government chooses to run it at a loss, making up the balance in taxes or inflation.

The only way you can reasonably talk about a government spin-off organization actually competing against private industry is if that organization receives no support from the government at all, whether in start-up costs, operational costs, special laws, loan backing (risk) -- anything which transfers cost or risk to the taxpayers, or legally differentiates the organization from its private competitors. At that point you might as well just privatize it completely.

Re:They are a utility

[Pig Hogger]

An ISP a friend worked for, however, took the other route. After selling Bell's service in Montreal, they hired my friend to do their ADSL rollout. They bought their own bandwidth, installed their own DSLAMs,

Who is that (which ISP)???

Re:They are a utility

[Actually, I do RTFA]

How does your government-run program ensure that resources aren't being wasted providing a level of service which is less urgently demanded than the other things those resources could have been expended on? In private industry this is accomplished by the profit motive, which government organizations don't have.

First, it is clearly demonstrable that the profit motive is in no way the magical panacia you imply it is. Second, why does the government not have a profit motive? For some reason, you assume government will not care. I'll get more into that in discussing the USPS.

The second problem with your assertion is you claim that somehow the prices that would be commanded in the free market are relevent. Rural electification, for instance, is money losing, but vital.

How, exactly, do you expect private industry to compete with an organization that trivially get laws passed in its favor (see also: the USPS's monopoly on first-class letter delivery), which can get unlimited "risk-free" loans by virtue of being backed by taxation, and which has no obligation to pay back even the principle, much less the interest, on its start-up costs?

Intersetingly, it is you who is advocating utilities/companies that can pay their start up costs with private funds, and then assume ownership. The USPS doesn't take 'risk-free' loans from the US government. In fact, the surpluses of the late 90's were only due to the USPS being treated as a profit center. In reality, the USPS had raised rates to save money for a few years to upgrade. So, by counting the money as profit back then, you may have been mislead into thinking they ran a deficit recently. And the USPS doesn't have any legal monopoly. They do happen to own everyone's mailbox, so no one else is allowed to use them. That may be the concept of which you were thinking. I worry far less about the government favoring its own programs compared to big private companies.

The last assumption you make is that I care if the competition is on an even playing field. While that is important if all private companies are competing, why do we care if the government is doing it? Ideally, the government would supply some services (ultilites, etc.) up to the point when marginal cost equaled marginal utility. And sometimes lose money. So?

Bringing up the USPS is hilarious. Because FedEx and UPS do compete against that. Private schools compete. Private security forces. Private additional unemployment insurance. Private arrays of microwave transmitters to move information around. Private housing options. In fact, that's why I don't understand why people oppose socialized medicine. Private alternatives to pretty much any government program exist. Unless they'd be impossible anyway. I suppose that's the crux of the problem with your arguement. What's an industry where government supplying that service made it impossible for the market to do so? It would help if that example was not one where equity is clearly a superior concern (courts, etc.) or market volitility would be devestating (police, etc.).

Re:They are a utility

[Anonymous Coward]

even for facilities's based ISP like colba/mto/globility (because i think they're the only ones in mtl..) Bell infrastructure access is still required. we rent the crappy quality copper pairs from CO to CPE.(even telus does) the ONLY physical networks out there are bell and videotron. so ... no crtc's forced open-access means only 2 competitors. Plus, since bell owns most of the low-cost conduits and poles in the city (the city's CSEVM is too expensive) its impossible to actually deploy any new physical networks without cooperation from bell, and trust me, they are even worst with giving you access to poles than the rest.

Re:They are a utility

[Jardine]

Wouldn't that be the last 1.6 kilometers?

Nah, Canadians are bilingual when it comes to measurement systems.

Re:They are a utility

[JesseMcDonald]

I had a nice long reply almost ready, but Firefox crashed before I could submit it. Rather than re-write it, I'm just going to say that I believe that (a) an unfettered free market[1] tends toward the optimum possible allocation of resources[2]; and (b) the unfettered free market is, more importantly, the only system which does not itself depend on the presence of aggression[3] to function. For whatever reasons you probably disagree with (a) and don't care about (b), so really the gulf between our basic principles is much too great for there to be any purpose in debating our respective conclusions at such a high level. I will address this point, however:

the USPS doesn't have any legal monopoly

because it is clearly incorrect. "The USPS holds a statutory monopoly on non-urgent First Class Mail, outbound U.S. international letters as well [as] the exclusive right to put mail in private mailboxes, as described in the Private Express Statutes" (Source). More information is available on the Private Express Statutes.

[1] A market system in which no aggression[3] is tolerated.
[2] Not a perfect allocation, which is only possible given perfect knowledge of the present and future, but no other system could guarantee better.
[3] Aggression is the use of force, or threat thereof, against a non-aggressor.

Re:They are a utility

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I had a nice long reply almost ready, but Firefox crashed before I could submit it.

I have a solution for you.

The USPS holds a statutory monopoly on non-urgent First Class Mail, outbound U.S. international letters as well [as] the exclusive right to put mail in private mailboxes, as described in the Private Express Statutes

Hmmm... that is interesting. I knew about the mailbox (as I alluded to earlier), but not about the anti-competitive statues. Lately, people on slashdot have been correcting my facts with information as opposed to disagreeing with assertions. I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate it.

I do understand their point: that by making extra money via their monopoly can be sunk into equitable distribution. It's certainly a different arguement than what I thought it was.

I'm just going to say that I believe that (a) an unfettered free market[1] tends toward the optimum possible allocation of resources[2]; and (b) the unfettered free market is, more importantly, the only system which does not itself depend on the presence of aggression[3] to function. For whatever reasons you probably disagree with (a) and don't care about (b), so really the gulf between our basic principles is much too great for there to be any purpose in debating our respective conclusions at such a high level.

I think you mischaracterize our disagreement. I think some utilities, including telecommunications, should be available at a reasonable cost to every citizen, at some level. So, the efficacy is sort of irrelevent.

So, I don't particularly care about efficency in that vein. Conversly, what you believe I don't care about, freedom from aggression (or rather coersion), is very important to me. While I do not claim that other systems are free of coersion, I'll claim that free market theorists fail to recognize several types of coersion that applies to the free market.

Namely, you leave out the coercive effects:

1. Soceital pressures - society exerts considerable supermarket pressure on people to pursue certain courses of action
2. Social/Peer pressure
3. Inertia - people tend to keep the patterns. This coercive effect is entirely psycological.
4. Intelligence - brainpower is a limited commodity, especially for some people. However, people are can devote far more brainpower to the isolated case when they are selling something, to the many times they are buying something.
5. Information - much like brainpower, there are huge costs to finding out enough to make decisions. (Yes, economists account for propreitary information, but that's all.)
6. The limited amount of capital/social connections/other assets, and their concentration. This is especially applicable to start-up costs.
7. Lastly, the coercive power of laws that favor incumbents. As a very important sidenote, the morality of not using coercive asset redistribution is predicated on the notion that the assets are legitimitely owned. Once one decides that not the entirety of the asset owned is legitamite, then it becomes trivial to say that taxation to bring it more in line is moral.

8. Sorry if I'm getting incoherent, but I've had quite a bit to drink since I started typing this post...

   to the A truly unfettered free market between infinitely powerful, dispassionate and well-informed agents would lead to an optimum allocation of resources (or at least a local maximum.) However, free market theorists tend to discount the cost of obtaining and processing information (with the exception of obtaining proprietary information). They also fail to recognize certain types of aggression.

   I disagree with your second point, not by claiming that other systems are free of aggression, but that your definition is far too narrow.

Re:They are a utility

[jeepeagle]

If you want decent access to the Internet, you have to buy a corporate connection from these people... Bell's cheapest runs about $80/month, Rogers is the same, and Storm is $195/month. Just for the privilege of actually having a connection to the 'net which you can use for more than surfing and e-mail. This wasn't possible in January when I tried it. As an Ottawa resident, I got tired of the reliability problems and poor customer service at my DSL reseller, so I thought I'd go with a business line from Rogers, and damn the cost. Problem is, they say they cannot sell a business line to a residential address. I pleaded with them and talked to two different sales reps, and neither of them seemed to really know the reason, but they both told me it was impossible.

Re:They are a utility

[gmack]

That would be ColbaNET. The downside (since I no longer work for them) Is that bell only gives access to the CO but not remote CO.

This gives a very narrow range of access and at some distances Bell's standard adsl is faster than Adsl2.

So even with your own equipment you can't free from Bell's resold ADSL service.

Scuttlemonkey != editor

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Not only is the apostrophe erroneously used in the title, but the description is written poorly.

Additionally, what is up with Slashcode lately? It sucks. Comments don't fully load. It is time to fork the older version without this BS. Even Digg's comment system works better than the latest Slashdot comment system. Kevin Rose is still gay, though.

Sincerely,
Angry Sunflower

Re:Scuttlemonkey != editor

[SkyDude]

Kevin Rose is still gay, though.

Really? Is that because Sarah left him ?

Damn

what it is that is beginning

[rodentia]

Throttling is at the other end of the pipe, where they have you by the short and curlies. This is the latest salvo in another volley of lawsuits. This is the beginning of the end of teh internets. Soon you will have a public utility running a subsidized feed of advertisements and surveilance kit to your boxen, call it TV++.

Whatever we get, it is double-plus ungood. It is increasingly clear to me that the www, at least, has been dead for about a decade.

Re:what it is that is beginning

[jon3k]

"Whatever we get, it is double-plus ungood. It is increasingly clear to me that the www, at least, has been dead for about a decade."

Dead in what sense? Because if I compare the world wide web in 1998 to the one we have to day, dead is not how I would describe it.

Re:what it is that is beginning

[rmerry72]

Dead in what sense? Because if I compare the world wide web in 1998 to the one we have to day, dead is not how I would describe it.

Call it unrealised potential then. The web is pretty much the same as 1998 - just more ads. A few brochure ware sites, a search engine or two, a couple of mail sites, an auction house. The web is dead because it was never given a chance to live. To many people the web and the internet are the same thing.

To those of us around on the 'net before 1998 the web is just a T-Model: It brought cars to the masses, but is plain, boring, and only a shadow of what cars should be. And web 2.0 is no different, its really just web 1.0.1 .

Re:what it is that is beginning

[Pig Hogger]

Soon you will have a public utility running a subsidized feed of advertisements and surveilance kit to your boxen, call it TV++.

You mean like the public roads, which everyone is free to use a pair of shoes, a black bicycle, a violet chopper motorcycle, a silver motorcycle with sidecar, a red car, a blue station-wagon, a green mini-van, a yellow van, a purple "cube", a beige truck, a white tow-truck, an orange bus, a crimson semitrailer or a black horse to go where they want, when they want???

Heck, I'll have a free (as in software) public internet anytime over an unfree (as in Tibet) private internet.

Re:what it is that is beginning

[jon3k]

I say call it unrealistic expectations on your part.

Did you expect the web to be a 3d hologram that you can have sex with by 2008?

We have hundreds of millions of people interacting from all over the planet. We have google. We have social networking. We've got skype. We've got World of Warcraft. We've got remote classrooms and teleworking. Government agencies conduct business across it. We're performing surgery from thousands of miles away using robots. And I buy everything but my groceries on it.

What exactly did you expect it to do?

Re:what it is that is beginning

[rmerry72]

We have google. We have social networking. We've got skype. We've got World of Warcraft. We've got remote classrooms and teleworking. Government agencies conduct business across it. We're performing surgery from thousands of miles away using robots. And I buy everything but my groceries on it.

And we've had all of them for a decade or more. Didn't expect virtual 3D blondes bouncing on my organs - just expected some progress, or hell, even something different. And whilst we may have hundreds of millions of people all online, we've got thousands of network owners trying to created walled gardens again. 2018 may not even be as good as 1998 at this rate.

Good for them

[FireXtol]

I've thought for quite a while that forcing telecoms to lease bandwidth to 3rd party providers has been a bad idea. Look at Qwest's leasing options with MSN. MSN has a contract that states they MUST be the lowest-priced Qwest-backed ISP! This is, of course, only BAD for competition. It's just supporting the huge MS monopoly.

Re:Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

The telecoms own the (last mile) wires! If they're not forced to lease
there will be no competition! They had 100 years to build
the wire plant, with lots of breaks from the government
and no one could afford to do the same (especially since
things are rigged so that you would generally have to
wire a whole state at a time).

Re:Good for them

[FireXtol]

Right... forcing them to lease, BUT in a competitive manner would be best. This is not the case, unfortunately. So small ISPs have little chance against the larger ISPs.

Re:Good for them

[Em Adespoton]

Actually, Bell "owns" the (last mile) wires... emphasis on the '"'. The wires were installed by Bell and paid for by Canadian Taxpayers. Bell is forced to lease them because they don't really belong to Bell in the first place. They just happen to be the government subsidized company that was hired to install and manage the infrastructure. Now they want to act like a private company without giving up their government-given priveleges.

Re:Good for them

[Gr8Apes]

The telecoms should be allowed to keep what they paid for, the rest should go back to the public.

So all that last mile cabling? Welcome to our own network.

Re:Good for them

[taylortbb]

However the regulatory environment in Canada is different. That competitive approach is what you have in the US, and it results in deals like the Qwest/MSN deal you mentioned. In Canada the contracts are government regulated, all ISPs pay the same fee to Bell and receive the same service, no preferential treatment. And the fee is set by the government at Cost + 15% profit, so that Bell can't set prices so high no one can compete.

Re:Good for them

[timmarhy]

what your point, that lower priced internet is bad?

EPIC FAIL.

Re:Good for them

[afxgrin]

This whole regulation setup of the ISPs isn't going to make Internet any cheaper. Bell will always have the ability to undercut their competition that they're forced to lease the lines to. These other ISPs may offer other services that people want to pay extra for, but in the end, most people don't care to have email still with YourLocalISP and will just get the amount of internet that suits their need and is the cheapest.

What should be done instead --- muhahaha --- is that the cable companies should be forced to lease their lines as well to YourLocalISP.

Re:Good for them

[FireXtol]

Telecoms are forced to lease to cable companies.

Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[postbigbang]

Can't play well, eh? Dump them-- DSL and landlines-- and go to VoIP. And take Rogers with.

Truly: they don't understand the Internet, only monopolistic revenues. They're never spanked, so hit them in the wallet, where they'll feel it as that's where their hearts and souls are.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[tux_attack]

A good theory but hard to implement VoIP has less uptime and dies in power-outages. Also cable, at least in the US, has vendors like Comcast and Time-Warner which are terrible as well.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[JordanL]

Dump them-- DSL and landlines-- and go to VoIP

Ummmm... without landline infrastructure, how do you plan on conveying that VoIP data?

Unless what you really meant was get rid of all telephone lines (and by proxy DSL), presumably to make way for direct fiber, which sounds like a whole lot of billions of dollars to me if we're going to go ahead and do the whole system at once.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[Em Adespoton]

OK... we ignore DSL/twisted copper/FiOS, we ignore Cable/co-axial...

What, pray tell, are you running your VoIP over? Satellite? Some cellular network that doesn't use Bell or Rogers trunk lines?

Spanking Bell profits Rogers. Spanking Rogers profits Bell. About the only thing you can do is stop using voice and data services altogether to avoid directly or indirectly paying one of those companies.

Or you can move.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[Guido von Guido]

"so hit them in the wallet, where they'll feel it as that's where their hearts and souls are."

So telco managers in Canada have souls? I didn't realize the difference between our two countries was so great.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[Missing_dc]

See through the politics and bullshit, this is a "red herring" they say they don't want the extra revenue from the 3rd party ISPs, but in reality they are just asking for a concession from the 3rd parties ("OK we'll accept the throttling, just don't drop us")

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[postbigbang]

VoIP isn't that bad, if you spend the same money to protect it that you spend protecting landlines/tip-and-ring. 'Terrible' is relative.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[postbigbang]

Consider: cell phones. Consider: connectivity that doesn't use 'landlines' or tip-and-ring technology, rather, symmetrical fibre and local digital infrastructure (not DSL). Get rid of the monopolies and governmental sanctioned phone-mafias. Be inventive. Be firm.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[postbigbang]

Seems like a red herrings, but even red herrings add up to fodder to be used to get what they want. The concessions they want aren't deserved.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[sarhjinian]

What you could do is, instead of spanking one or the other, whip out a big stick and whale on both of them. Lay a beating on Telus while you're at it, and a light paddling to Aliant, MTS, Sasktel, Shaw and Cogeco. Oh, and Videotron should be bludgeoned to death.

The bludgeon, in the case of most of these, would be maintaining the wired-line lease requirement and adding a requirement to lease wireless airtime, tower and spectrum access.

A la carte TV would be nice, too.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[sarhjinian]

Of course they have souls. They're sitting in a climate-controlled vault in Hell, right next to the room that contains the souls of anyone in the Insurance industry.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[jon3k]

Just run the last mile over wireless, and we will in a few years (read: WiMax).

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[Em Adespoton]

A la carte TV would be nice, too. Isn't that called Bittorrent? :D

Seriously thoughb, sounds like a good plan. Why lease spectrum access though? The companies don't own that or control the infrastructure... the other guys just have to apply for access and be allocated a chunk. I could see mandatory leasing of assigned but unused chunks though; that would get the big boys to at least put SOMETHING on the bandwidth they've reserved.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

You can already do that in a good chunk of Saskatchewan. SaskTel and YourLink both offer wireless internet service. And it's fast enough for VOiP.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[timmarhy]

dies in power outages? never heard of UPS? how many years have we had cordless phones that require mains power now anyway?

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. +2 Insightful, really? Haven't been around in a while, feel so out of touch, that must be why...

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[tux_attack]

I am aware of that and have used a UPS for DSL during power outages. The problem is that many people have not heard of UPSs and they probably won't want to take the small bit of time required to set it up. Also, simply because of the increased complexity of the system, VoIP will be less reliable. If you're good with tech and have a UPS then VoIP is a fine choice but it will have less uptime than POTS.

Re:Do the right thing: dump Bell Canada altogether

[tux_attack]

Yes, "terrible" is relative, but since there are more net-neutral ISPs out there then it makes sense to use those instead. Another option aside from cable would be to use barebones DSL to get VoIP and internet service.

good thing

[superwiz]

Google is so happy about all that openness. That they keep talking about. Why not just come out and admit that they took a beating? Now that Verizon got the spectrum (and doesn't have to fear last-mile competition) they are trying to consolidate all access. And Google is trying to claim that possession of the spectrum doesn't give them complete control. Right.... It's only a matter of time until the Bells re-consolidate. Google loss was a huge loss for everyone. No matter how many "don't panic, we are happy" press releases they put out.

Re:good thing

[masdog]

Google still had a small victory in that loss. Part of the spectrum required completely open access to all third parties. Now whether that is done voluntarily or through a lawsuit or two remains to be seen.

Re:good thing

[superwiz]

has beePosession is 9/10 of the law. A "lawsuit or two" can be dragged out for years until the market is manipulated to the point where paying the damages for the past instances of non-compliance will become irrelevant -- a monopoly will have been established.

Re:good thing

[YaroMan86]

Knowing Verizon, it's likely to be a couple lawsuits before they play nice with the spectrum.

Re:good thing

[Planesdragon]

hPosession is 9/10 of the law. A "lawsuit or two" can be dragged out for years until the market is manipulated to the point where paying the damages for the past instances of non-compliance will become irrelevant -- a monopoly will have been established. And you know what happens to companies that do that? That really, truly violate a government order allowing private citizens to access something created with private funds?

they get their corporate charter revoked, all shareholders lose everything, and their assests are auctioned off to their competition in a firesale.

This isn't Microsoft selling a new type of phone. It's Enron trying to sell a new type of power line.

Re:good thing

[jon3k]

They forced the providers to pay through the teeth, who now have to manage it, and google still get's access to it? Umm, I fail to see how Google "took a beating" ?

Re:good thing

[Fex303]

they get their corporate charter revoked, all shareholders lose everything, and their assests are auctioned off to their competition in a firesale.

That's a lovely thought, but when did this last happen to a major corporation?

Pissing off a large number of powerful people who own shares results in politicians not getting any money to get re-elected. As such, it won't happen.

Re:good thing

[superwiz]

They forced the providers to pay through the teeth, who now have to manage it, and google still get's access to it? Umm, I fail to see how Google "took a beating" ? Every argument has pros and cons for both positions. You just repeated Google-claimed pros. Now go ahead and exhibit some independent thought and list all the cons.

Re:good thing

[jon3k]

Wait - so your argument is for me to come up with my own counter argument? Welcome to the twilight zone ...

Re:good thing

[superwiz]

Wait - so your argument is for me to come up with my own counter argument? Welcome to the twilight zone ... My point rather than my argument is that counter arguments on this point are much too easy to come up with. And neither what you say nor what I say can be stated with absolute certainty of causality. There are contributing circumstances only here. If you want to understand the situation, then, yes, think of the counter points yourself. Otherwise, this will degenerate into both of us stating pros of our positions and considering the cons. And then you will (and I won't) get frustrated because you will think that I "just don't get it". When the reality is that none of the contributing factor is causality-forming. If you just want to yell into the empty space of the Internet, I don't care to be your punching bag. If you want to understand what's going on, this issue is simple enough that you can probably analyze on your own.

Not only is dumping illegal

[garett_spencley]

... but they put up that big barricade to make it impossible. They tested it quite thoroughly by having Cletus attempt to circumvent the anti-dumping device and he was unable to. It's foolproof.s

OK, so an early flaw was that you could ram the barricade with your car allowing you to dump a silo full of pig manure, but they learned their lesson and fixed that.

So good luck Bell with dumping your "third-party ISPs" (whatever that is). There is simply no way you will be able to.

DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[Wesley Felter]

It didn't work in the US, there seem to be problems in the UK, and now Canada. Retrofitting open access into networks and companies that weren't built for it just doesn't work politically or financially, because the telcos always find ways to screw it up (aka loopholes, regulatory capture).

If we want an open access infrastructure, I am forced to conclude that we need to build it.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[rpp3po]

It didn't work in the US... Of course it works! For example, there is a very healthy and competitive DSL resale market in Germany. It is protected by strong anti monopolistic government regulation and works out quite well. Needless to say that you need something else than a lobbyist infiltrated FCC to accomplish something like that.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[masdog]

The question is - how do you build an open-access infrastructure without having to completely rip and replace all the last mile infrastructure in the United States and Canada? Not that I doubt its possible, but from a business standpoint, they like the current infrastructure. They make money no matter what - either by charging competitors to allow them access to the system or by charging customers. And they don't have to invest capital in updating the network (which everyone but Verizon seems to be avoiding). Now...I'd love to see more municipal networks that lease access to the telcos, but I don't see that happening.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello from Germany. For 30EUR (ca. $45) a month we can get a phone line with 16MBit/s DSL, unlimited internet traffic and unlimited calls to landlines. There's fierce competition even though the former state-owned Telekom owns most of the last mile connections. Competitors can buy several forms of access, from raw wire to bitstream access at central locations.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

it's working now, they're simply trying to break it.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[Wesley Felter]

The question is - how do you build an open-access infrastructure without having to completely rip and replace all the last mile infrastructure in the United States and Canada? Exactly, so we're screwed either way. (Technically you don't have to rip and replace; you can build a parallel infrastructure. But the cost is the same.)

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[nuzak]

It didn't work in the US... Of course it works! For example, there is a very healthy and competitive DSL resale market in Germany. I'd like to be the first to give a big American welcome to our 51st state, Germany!

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[cowwoc2001]

It works in great Israel and it somewhat works in Canada. Just because Bell doesn't like it doesn't mean it doesn't work.

In Israel you have two types of companies: one sells you access to the infrastructure and another sells you access to the service (internet, phone, etc). This places Bell on equal footing as any other internet provider and it has led to a very competitive marketplace.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[Froster]

Until this all hit the fan in recent weeks (after the CRTC affirmed their policy to force Bell to continue to lease its lines) I had no idea there was a problem. Just looking at the math on paper, it seems relatively clear that Bell is still making decent money maintaining the network, as $20 of my $29.99 internet service is going directly to Bell, and I am also paying $9.10 extra for a dry loop to my house as well. So, of my monthly internet cost, $29.10 is for Bell to provide the connection, and roughly $10 is for my ISP to provide a service over that connection. For that small portion of the cost, they provide a generous cap, do not throttle, have excellent customer service and provide a very reliable internet connection.

Bell gets the lion's share of the monthly fee, and my ISP gets the smaller chunk, and does not complain at all about the service they provide vs. its cost.

I would have to say though that my preference would be that Bell should be broken up into one company that maintains the network, and another company that sells the service. That way, Bell's Sympatico service would have to compete on equal footing with any other DSL provider.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[perlchild]

It's not their decision to make, it's ours. I think the next time they whine about the conditions of their "parole"(what I call their inheriting a monopoly and behaving like it still exists) I think we need to tell them they're just a managing company, and can be replaced at our whim. Let's see bell paying the network access fee, and see if they like it. They want to charge for use of something WE own, they shouldn't be allowed to profit from that.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor American. Literacy isn't what it used to be in your country, is it?

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[dadragon]

I work for SaskTel, a smallish telco in Canada, but still an ILEC in Sasktchewan. Here's how our network works:

• Our landline switches have access points for third party long distance switches interconnecting with ours. This allows for long distance competition.
  
  
• Our landline switches also have access points for third party telephone company switches, for example Shaw has telephone service in my city. Rogers and SaskTel mobility also provice local service.
  
  
• Although we don't have any, third party unbundled loop CLECs are allowed to lease space in our COs to directly provice traditional copper based services like phone or DSL from their own equipment.
  
  
• Our IP core network allows for multiple backhauls onto the internet, so you can lease DSL ports from SaskTel and use your own internet connection for the backhaul. If you're a SaskTel DSL customer you get SaskTel's default backhaul.
  
  

I feel this provides for a fairly open access network. Competitors can hook into just about any area of our network. We have more than enough bandwidth to our DSLAMs to handle 10 meg connections to every port. The only "competitors" that I feel are completely useless are the rebilling kind, the ones who will charge you for our service, which we provide the whole way, just front line tech support is provided by the rebiller.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[KillerBob]

I would have to say though that my preference would be that Bell should be broken up into one company that maintains the network, and another company that sells the service. That way, Bell's Sympatico service would have to compete on equal footing with any other DSL provider.

Doing that would undoubtedly bankrupt Bell Sympatico, as people realize that Sympatico's service is the shits, and they get tired of yelling at Emily for a human being.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[yabos]

It was working perfectly fine until a few weeks ago when Bell started fucking around with 3rd party traffic. It's been working well since the beginning. You just have to force the companies to not be assholes like Bell is right now.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[Pig Hogger]

I'd like to be the first to give a big American welcome to our 51st state, Germany!

Ich, für ein, begrüßen unsere neuen Deutsch Oberherren!!!

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[Pig Hogger]

It was working perfectly fine until a few weeks ago when Bell started fucking around with 3rd party traffic. It's been working well since the beginning. You just have to force the companies to not be assholes like Bell is right now.

Just like Comcrap(TM) a few weeks ago, it's gonna come and bite Bell in the arse. The government can say "we're against intervening into that, let the frea-mahkitt decide" all it wants, but it's a minority government, a minority government that chickened-out and withdrew it's copyright reform bill before even showing it to Parliament, given how loud the public outcry was.

That government is walking a very tight line right now, and the only thing keeping them alive is not their dynamism, but the utter lameness of the opposition leader.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

andnothingofvaluewaslost

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[P00rSpy]

You can't compare country that doesn't have the same population/density. It would be almost impossible for a competitor to build a new network. but if Bell win his point we may well see wireless takeover eventually as technology permit.

Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work

[Froster]

Doing that would undoubtedly bankrupt Bell Sympatico, as people realize that Sympatico's service is the shits, and they get tired of yelling at Emily for a human being. I'm completely OK with that. Competition is what Bell needs to provide a decent service. Their phone pricing is steadily marching downwards while they work on reliability to use that as a selling point, and slashing LD prices to catch up with competitors, all things that they would not have dreamed of doing before deregulation. If they had to play on more equal footing with their DSL competitors, that would be the one and only situation that would force them to provide a Sympatico service that was anything more the mediocre.

the infrastructure business model

[LordKaT]

The "infrastructure" business seems like a hell of a niche to get in to. Rather then being a provider yourself, you provide the copper/fiber/whatever and lease it out to whoever. If you agree to a few monopoly stipulations (like not competing with your third party vendors), you could probably suck on the government tit for generations to come. Someone get me a VC on the line, I think I can take over Manhattan by Monday.

Re:the infrastructure business model

[Wesley Felter]

Yeah, that sounds like a veritable utopia.

Re:the infrastructure business model

[LordKaT]

Yikes. Glad I made a joke about it instead of actually doing it.

ISPs, not ISP's.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sincerely,

Grammar Nazi.

Re:ISPs, not ISP's.

[Anonymous Coward]

Grammar Nazi Grammar Nazi?- Is that an old lady with unpleasant political views?

Competition? Really?

[vecctor]

I know this is about Bell Canada, but I thought the situation was pretty much the same there as here in the US; that is - very little competition.

The first thing I thought when I read "there is plenty of competition" was "Bahahahaha, yeah right! Good one!".

Most places you get one or maybe two choices (and no, satellite doesn't count).

And hey, more choice would be good, but the opposite wouldn't be bad either: municipal fiber being more common. As far as I'm concerned, broadband is a utility.

VoIP,etc,etc,

[loconet]

I can't believe they could actually get away with this. There goes VoIP. This basically leaves us with Rogers and Bell to choose from. Period. Since Bell is still mainly a telephone company, I can't imagine Bell being too happy with customers switching to VoIP providers either (same with Rogers, they also offer a home phone service. ). If they can get away with throttling their internet provider competition or flat out lobby against their existence, what's to say they won't plain out choke out VoIP as well? Or Skype? Or "Youtube" - because they "compete" against their sat service. Where does this stop.

We, citizens, need to light a fire up the government's ass to step in on this one.

Re:VoIP,etc,etc,

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be a dark day if Bell gets what they want. The choice of either Bell or Rogers is not a choice. I'm with a 3rd party DSL provider (who leases lines from Bell) because they're cheaper and provide far better service and more agreeable terms of use. I run a server out of my house. Neither Bell or Rogers will let you do that and bell actually blocks port 25 and probably others. The provider I'm with has no such restrictions and allows you to pay for a static IP.

dumb much?

[ILuvRamen]

Oh yeah, and there would be SO much competition if all the 3rd party ISPs had to lay their own cables! Either it'd be basically a monopoly or they'd get crushed when the 3rd partiers band together and actually do lay their own cable and it's fiber.

Re:dumb much?

[YaroMan86]

That seems probable.

If a bully pisses off enough of the little guys, eventually the little guys pop and take out the bully.

Agreed; mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, what the hell is up with these huge, ugly reply and parent buttons? I liked the simple links better. Also, it is harder to view comments that have been censored by the majority with the new Slashcode. That slide bar is very annoying.

Re:Agreed; mod parent up

[NightLamp]

I don't know what is up with them but it sure makes thumb-surfing on my n800 easier.

Separate the infrastructure from the service

[cowwoc2001]

We don't have the option of Rogers in Quebec. Bell is a huge ass monopoly here and if these laws are rescinded we will go back to the dark days of Bell versus Videotron, both of which are monopolies. Both provide overpriced service and poor customer service.

I absolutely love some of the smaller ISPs that resell Bell infrastructure. Their prices and service is way better but they are the mercy of Bell.

The government should nationalize the infrastructure components of Bell and Videotron and the remaining companies should only deal with selling services on top of that infrastructure. This would put Bell, Videotron and resellers on equal footing. They have something similar in Israel and it led to a very versatile marketplace.

Re:Separate the infrastructure from the service

[postbigbang]

As a utility, the crown owns Bell's turf, or at least many pieces of it. The crown giveth, and the crown can take it away. So can provincial governments that grant access, easements, right-of-way, and tax them. I hope it doesn't get to that... but perhaps they'll start to get the idea.

Say Yes, But With A Caveat...

[MightyMartian]

If I was in government, I'd say yes to Bell, but with the caveat that they would now to have rent the right-of-ways they were effectively given all those years ago.

The Telcos have forgotten that their networks, both in Canada and the US, were built, one way or the other, with the good graces and money of the taxpayers. Those right-of-ways were essentially a gift, with the understanding that they would be used to make communications near-universal.

If the Telcos want to end that universality, then I think their automatic right to those right-of-ways should be removed. We can either go to an open bid, or we can do annual leases, the rates dependent on how nicely the Telcos behave. If they don't like it, they can go buy their own right-of-ways. Might be a bit problematic in major cities, but oh well, I don't think these bastards deserve an ounce of consideration any more.

Re:Say Yes, But With A Caveat...

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I was in government, I'd say yes to Bell, but with the caveat that they would now to have rent the right-of-ways they were effectively given all those years ago."

Retroactively and with interests on the late payments, please.

Re:Say Yes, But With A Caveat...

[Symbha]

Completely agree...
Those aren't 'they're tubes' they are taxpayer tubes.

US Bells

[falconwolf]

I'd be surprised if the Bells in the USA didn't start making this same argument here soon. After all, they have to compete with cable and satellite. Why would anyone need more choices than that?

Most people don't have a choice, either for landline phone service or broadband net access. The only substantial choice people in the US have is with cellphone service, however it's not setup for broadband yet. Now though businesses could use the newly available 700 MHz bands to offer wireless broadband.

But back to the question, simply the more choices the more competition.

Falcon

I hate my DSL

[Ralph Spoilsport]

I have Sympatico and it SUCKS great steaming tourdes. Right out of my butt. It seems like EVERY night right around 7 PM everything grinds to a halt. first thing in the morning - bing bang quick as lightning, but in the evening, it's like they're specifically jerking me around.

It really bites. Example: lest night, 8.30 pm. I fire up my computer (MacBookPro) click connect, and suddenly the DSL light goes out. Then it comes back on. Then it goes out. when it finally links up I've got a DL speed of something like 42kbps.

It's ridiculous. So, I disconnect, turn off the modem, fix myself a martini, and when I get back I turn on the DSL modem, and wait a minute for it to go through its motions. Then I click to connect and bingo - same little soap opera.

So, I give up, and in the morning, I fire everything up, and I get online with 1.2mbps DL speed - thing is ROCKIN.

It really pisses me off. I had totally crap service in San Francisco from SBC/ATT, but this is MUCH worse. Although, when it works, it's way better than what I had in SF.

RS

Re:I hate my DSL

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I had similar problems with DSLExtreme here in SoCal, using wire leased from Verizon. Great all day until about 6:00PM, then severe packet loss until about 10:00PM. After three months of phone calls, service visits, etc. I just gave up and got a SOHO plan with the local cable provider, Cox, which has been great. But more expensive.

Re:I hate my DSL

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had Bell Sympatico for about 8 years. It's been fine.

Re:I hate my DSL

[wildem]

I had sympatico until 2002 . Since then I have been a subscriber to Teksavvy dsl. Bell continuously calls me and tries to entice me with their offers, but I would rather face Chuck Norris in death match than go back to Bell. Thats Teksavvy . Give them a call and you'll see yourself. If they are available in your area you won't be disappointed. Speaking of Bell, they just started to threaten this DSL provider with traffic shaping and peak time bandwidth restrictions , but these small companies are fighting a good fight. Bell would never match their offerings like: 5Mbps/ 200 Gb cap and $0.25/ Gb overage for 29.99 and unlimited for 39.99 . What Bell is doing is horsesh*t. Our CRTC and Ottawa chiefs need to step in and handle this once and for all.

Re:I hate my DSL

[Ralph Spoilsport]

THANKS! great stuff. You made my day!

best,

RS

Re:I hate my DSL

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are line issues (or modem issues), not really DSL issues anymore than using RG-59 for satellite is a satellite issue.

Try another modem, preferably in the demarc. If the issue doesn't go away, prod Sympatico to check your line stats. Explain the problem is intermittent. After going through their idiotic song and dance (which includes using their modem again), they'll realize you're right, and will send a tech to repair the issue.

DSL technology is a little fragile, but it isn't THIS bad, trust me. You should be able to keep a solid connection for months at a time if there aren't issues on the line, or Bell doesn't screw up the BAS.

Re:I hate my DSL

[Xilinx_guy]

There's probably a physical reason why your DSL is having difficulty in the evenings: NEXT and FEXT. Near End Crosstalk, and Far End Cross Talk. In the peak hours (i.e. after work in the evening), *everybody* is online, surfing and downloading and what have you. DSL uses multi-tone modulation, and resembles Gaussian pink noise in its distribution and spectrum. This bleeds across to the other pairs in the cable bundle going to the central office, raising the noise floor for everybody, at both ends of the link. When the noise floor goes up, all DSL modems fall back to using fewer tones, and simpler constellations in the modulation, in order to get the bit error rate to a reasonable level. In extreme cases, data throughput can fall to very low levels, as you report. Moving to a location closer to the CO will definitely help. Cable service providers have less of an issue with crosstalk, since there's only a single coax cable involved, but they can have other issues with cross-channel noise caused by clipping and non-linearities in the cable amplifiers. This can be pretty ugly for the analog cable channels still carried as a legacy service. Mine look like crap because of all the digital services crammed into the cable bandwidth. I think the ultimate answer is FIOS, which scales to huge numbers of users, with the only conflict being access to the shared bandwidth of the switches and upstream links.

Simple.

[headkase]

The amount of regulation should be proportianal to the barrier of entry in a market. $1 trillion to enter? Regulate the fsck out of the one or maybe two entities that can afford that. Capitalism only works when healthy competition exists, otherwise the market must be regulated simply because the feedback mechanisms that make capitalism so wonderful just break down with monopolies. Also, monopolies are natural features: they emerge every once in a while and need to be broken up when they do - they are a symptom of our incomplete understanding of capitalism. If we fully understood capitalism we would not let monopolies emerge in the first place.

Canada: regressing once again

[Powercube]

In 1996 my family signed up as beta-testers for cable internet with Videotron. We were given a 5/5 connection, as beta-testers at the time it was free but once the service was mainline it was only 40 dollars a month. Not bad, keep in mind that Telus wasn't even offering DSL at this point... Shaw then buys out Videotron in Alberta and creates the "powersurfr" brand... prices go up and speeds fall to 2/768! Now, for a lovely 60 dollars a month I can get a 10/1 connection that has a cap... it used to be unlimited! Oh, did I mention that anything meaningful is throttled? I think the Canadian telecoms saw Australia's clusterfuck and wanted to be just like them. Okay, maybe not. Even though Telstra may be a constant thorn in the side of every Aussie, there are a lot of third party providers leasing their lines. The ACCC requires Telstra to lease the last-mile out and I doubt this will ever change.If Bell gets their way, the caps that Rogers are starting to put into place out East are going to look like amazing deals in mere hours. I can't tell you how much I hate to side with the CRTC but they'd be morons to let this happen (that said they've done everything they can to prop up CTV and ExpressVu).

Re:Canada: regressing once again

[timmarhy]

Oh don't worry telstra are looking across the pond and want what you guys have.

our own parasites just turned on adsl2 (only have being pushed over the edge by 3rd parties installing their own dslams) but only did with the hollow threat that they wouldn't if they were forced to open it up to 3rd parties.

telstra's level of stupidity is easily approching your own bell's, with them "threatening" to not bid on a government tender for building a FTTN network if they have to allow open access. like anyone cares if those fucktarts bid on it or not, i believe they are trying to create the impression that no one else can build a network.

If competition is so great..

[Seek_1]

Would someone please tell me where I can an ISP in Ottawa (Canada's Capital of all places) that doesn't have a downstream cap, or throttling/traffic shaping and has (god formid) decent customer service.

I'm looking for a new ISP because just this week I got a notice from Rogers that they've decided to change the definition of 'unlimited' to 95Gigs + $1.50/Gig after that. While I understand that Rogers is utterly incompetent, once my services and billing were properly set up, they required very little maintenance once they were up and running (it took me almost two years for their 'system' to properly bill me automatically and send me a paper invoice). Because of this I haven't had a reason to switch. ***Attention Shareholders*** Now I do.

I've been looking at CIA.com (www.cia.com) recently as they come highly recommended, but I'm waiting until I can get some more concrete numbers before signing up.

And yes, I will be cancelling my Rogers account now (After nine years), and have no plans to switch over to Bell.

Re:If competition is so great..

[Professor_UNIX]

I'm looking for a new ISP because just this week I got a notice from Rogers that they've decided to change the definition of 'unlimited' to 95Gigs + $1.50/Gig after that. What on Earth are you transferring that 3GB per day isn't enough bandwidth? Let me guess, you download dozens of different Linux install DVDs per month and write reviews for Linux Journal? If you've got a fast Internet connection there's no reason to download the entire DVD ISO, just do a net install off a ~100MB CD image and download only the packages you need to install from the FTP or HTTP server.

Now, if you're honest and say you're download dozens of pirated movies, music, and software then I admit I feel sorry for your situation because that stuff can become really addictive.

Re:If competition is so great..

[antdude]

How about watching streaming videos like on YouTube, QuickTime trailers, etc.? Those adds up!

Re:If competition is so great..

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't go with CIA. They, like most other cheap ISPs, vastly oversubscribe their customer support. I've never gotten through. I'm with CIA (they bought IGS, and therefore inherited my business) but if I ever have a problem I'm leaving them, likely for Storm.

Re:If competition is so great..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, if you're honest and say you're download dozens of pirated movies, music, and software then I admit I feel sorry for your situation because that stuff can become really addictive."

No here in Canada we can be honest and say we are downloading content from the internet connection we paid for and expect to get the advertised speed of, as we have already paid to be pirates due to the Blank Media Tax on damn near everything that you buy that you can record on like CD, DVD, Cassette tapes from olden days that the media mafia has successfully lobbied for that compensates them for non-commercial copyright infringement as the courts in this country have already ruled this is so.

Re:If competition is so great..

[Pig Hogger]

Would someone please tell me where I can an ISP in Ottawa (Canada's Capital of all places) that doesn't have a downstream cap, or throttling/traffic shaping and has (god formid) decent customer service.

National Capital Freenet.

From their blurb, it's 5MB down/800mb up, capped at 200 (yes two hundred) per month.

Re:If competition is so great..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are averaging three gigs a day they will likely be happy to see you go. A common complaint I've run across is people saying that the ISPs should not be advertising unlimited bandwidth if they can't provide it. While I agree with that due to the principals involved this is the other side of it. It's all well and good to argue the semantics of the situation and what right the ISPs have to throttle but realistically you only have two choices. You will be throttled, or you will pay per bandwidth. Too many people (not necessarily the parent) come off sounding like they want 20Mb speeds with no caps for 50 bucks a month, profitability be damned.

Re:If competition is so great..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's www.cia.gov ...

Re:If competition is so great..

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been looking at CIA.com (www.cia.com) recently as they come highly recommended, but I'm waiting until I can get some more concrete numbers before signing up.

Holy shit, highly recommended by whom? By people who like dealys, waiting hours on the service hotline and days for their wrong modem? (CIA is also known as 3Web, one of the worst ISPs you'll ever find.) Go with teksavvy. (Check dslreport if you think I'm a turfer.) (I have to admit, I am a Lisp programmer... did you notice? :))

Re:If competition is so great..

[Professor_UNIX]

So, you think that paying a tax on blank media gives you a right to pirate content?

Re:If competition is so great..

[Anonymous Coward]

CIA is not great in the Waterloo area here, the network latency during peak periods went through the roof. You should check dslreports.com and www.canadianisp.com for ISPs.

Re:If competition is so great..

[SupplyMission]

Check out the National Capital Freenet.

I have been using their DSL service for 3 months now and am very satisfied.

For $29.95 per month, you get:

• 5 Mb/s down, 800 Kb/s up (max)
• 200GB transfer per month ($3/GB after that)
• Hassle free service with great tech support

Their tech support is provided by extremely competent volunteers. In the very beginning, I feared some hiccups with the service, because I was having a voice phone line installed after I had already activated the DSL service. They made sure everything got sorted out smoothly. I didn't lose a day of connectivity during the switch. My fears were for nothing.

I'm not sure what's going to happen to NCF DSL if Bell manages to get it's way, though...

Plenty of competition? Hardly

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the Yukon, we have NorthWesTel... owned by Bell Canada. That's it for land lines. No options.

For internet, we used to have 4 ISP's, NWTel's pricing to those ISP's (same idea as the leased services that Bell is trying to kill) crushed two ISP's and NWTel bought the 3rd. So... NWTel is the only option. Oh, wait, there's Navigo as well. hmm it's crappy and ultimately owned by NWTel as well.

Cellular services. We have Latitude wireless (owned by NWTel) and Bell (which, once again, owns NWTel).

NWTel is really great at lobbying the CRTC to expand and extend their monopoly in the north, to the detriment of northerners.

monopolies

[falconwolf]

I've thought for quite a while that forcing telecoms to lease bandwidth to 3rd party providers has been a bad idea.

What's bad are taxpayer supported monopolies. These companies, telcos and cablecos, have been given monopolies then they've been given taxpayer money to buildout a broadband infrastructure. Which they didn't do.

Falcon

I can only imagine

[oahazmatt]

I can only imagine that Bell's public relations director is out-sick today. He'll walk in Monday, see his 1,046 new voicemails, go in the corner and cry.

Bell Canada is right ....

[kwandar]

and the sooner they pay back the differential between the monopolistic prices they received to subsidize their phone infrastructure for 100 years, and competitive prices, the better.

Those funds can be used to subsidize third party "last mile" networks, if Bell Canada is so suddenly keen on bringing competition to the market! And while we are at it, the cable carriers can do the same thing (albiet for a shorter time period). Lets see how they like it when there is more than a duopoly involved in the "last mile"

Question:

[mqduck]

What's an "entirely" and what's wrong with ISPs having one?

infrastructure and supply should be separate

[cats-paw]

When they are not, there is a conflict of interest.
The same thing applies to the electrical grid, and to cable.

The maintenance of the infrastructure should be separate from the product delivered using the infrastructure, shouldn't it ?

The Original SBC Goatsie

[Anonymous Coward]

SBC is the original "goatsie".

Seriously.

When they bought Pac*Bell, they integrated the "*" into the middle of "SBC". Turn the B* on it's side and you know what you've got.

When the merger was announced, this logo went out to managers on bronze medallions (I've got one in safe keeping, for future sale on ebay). Once it was realized, it was quickly changed. SBC did their best to get it off the internet, but I see some remain (get it while you can): http://www.lunarchallenge.com/images/SBC90.jpg, http://www.clpproductions.com/Images/Logos/sbc-logo.gif. If anyone knows of a large version still up, I'd love to get the link.

I'm pretty this wasn't a slight goof, but rather a from a pissed graphics arts employee that managed to slip it by the board.

Re:The Original SBC Goatsie

[Ctrl-Z]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SBC-star-logo.png.

HTH.

Right, I think I've got it...

[mutube]

...but where does Taco Bell fit in?

Re:Right, I think I've got it...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Taco Bell" was the common term for Telmex within SBC.

It was a major management no-no to say it, but the term stuck.

Re:Right, I think I've got it...

[RealGrouchy]

...but where does Taco Bell fit in? With Raffi, they co-own the patent on the Bananaphone, as well as other food-based phones.

- RG>

And so we have to teach you to hackity hack hack

[CHRONOSS2008]

who ever i am , let them do that , and you will see HACK++TV.1.0 broadcasting to the public about freedom about the corporate facist oligarchy that is trying to take over not just canada but the world in general. I htink the SAC 5$ proposal now should be killed look at warner brothers other day getitng the greed on wiht "20billion to isp liscence" WOA screw them. The crap they spew isnt worth it and i swaer on my grandmothers grave , you just try and take over my countries internet, and you will learn who WE are. DOne is being nice DoNE is being polite. hackers of te world unite.

Consider: cell phones.

[falconwolf]

And cellphones can do broadband?

Consider: connectivity that doesn't use 'landlines' or tip-and-ring technology, rather, symmetrical fibre and local digital infrastructure (not DSL).

Fiber isn't landline? It may be glass instead of copper but it still requires the same right of way and even more labour to install.

Get rid of the monopolies and governmental sanctioned phone-mafias.

Agreed, however the problem is in the details. For instance someone has to pay to build then maintain and own the infrastructure. What might work is to separate the ownership of the infrastructure from offering the services it is capable of delivering. Such an approach is being implemented as part of A Broadband Utopia in northeastern Utah, here's an update abet almost a year old. One person in the article says it is operated like an airport, airliners don't build their own, instead usually the airport is built and owned by the government who then leases gates to the airlines.

Falcon

Re:Consider: cell phones.

[postbigbang]

Project Utopia in Utah is a good example of what can be done when you get people to make it happen. And no, landlines refer to tip-and-ring technology of the old phone companies. Fiber is in lots of places, thanks to the Rolling '90s. A lot of it is dark and no one knows just how much except those that laid it. Cellphones do a heel-on-the-garden-hose broadband. Not very good. But there are ways to say 'no' to monopolistic behavior.

Problem Isn't Bell or the CRTC

[mrobinso]

The most disconcerting message in the story is the interview Nowak had with Paul Geist. In it is mention of the fact that Minister of Industry Jim Prentice is AWOL on the issue. I mean, who would dare ask the Minister in charge of investigating anti-competitive offences - and they are serious offences - to look into what has to be one of the worst companies to do business with in Canada. I won't even mention that one of the most recent former Ministers of Industry had just been previously employed as ::cough:: head of regulatory affairs at ::cough:: Bell Canada.

While you might think that the CRTC is an old antequated fossil that needs to be put out of its misery, the Minsitry of Industry is on life support. What's left of it is being run by gutless bureaucrats more interested in their career path in private business post-federal brothel than protecting Canadians from scheming corporate predators, marketing fraud, advertising scams, artificially high gas prices, the list goes on and on...

Bell Canada is the least of our worries.

SABOTAGE

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm not condoning it in any way, I wonder if people would start sabotaging the network..
Back in eastern europe, we have those jipsies stealing cables and leaving whole neighborhoods without telephones for weeks.. :)

Utopia and landlines

[falconwolf]

Project Utopia in Utah is a good example of what can be done when you get people to make it happen.

Yea, though as a libertarian I believe in small government I like Utopia. A system like it doesn't require the government to own the infrastructure though, all it requires is to require the owner of the infrastructure to allow open access to it and bar them from compeating with anyone who wants to offer any services it can deliver. I like the idea of having a coop own it, as it is now utility coops already deliver electricity and phone service. Actually I'd expand the separation and open access requirements to power lines as well, a utility company would own the powerlines but would be required to allow access to the lines to power generation companies. And any other utility that requires right of way access. Then allow consumers to choose who will provide the electricity they use. A coal fired power plant, nuclear power plant, solar, and wind farms could be hooked up to the same lines then the user would sign up with whichever provider they wanted. For those who are considered mostly with low prices, they could sign up with the coal company. Those who are concerned about greenhouse gases and believe in nuclear power can sign up with them. And those who care about GHGs and nuclear can go with solar and or wind.

And no, landlines refer to tip-and-ring technology of the old phone companies. Fiber is in lots of places, thanks to the Rolling '90s.

As fiber needs the same, or similar, rights of way as copper does, as does coaxial cable I consider them all landlines. The only thing different once the lines are lain is the equipment needed to use them.

Falcon

Re:Utopia and landlines

[postbigbang]

There's one difference in between your sense of cupric vs fiber. Landlines are old technology, where the capacity per cable lay is around 220 users (differs, obviously). A WM fiber can haul perhaps 100x of that number, with variables. Landlines often use aerial carriage, where fiber is usually buried. Landlines, therefore, are a bit different if ill-defined. Co-ops are good ideas... but take common standards and funding methods to do. There's hope.

Yeah, that sounds like a veritable

[falconwolf]

utopia.

I see one big problem with TFA. It talks about how Utah taxpayers subsidized Utopia yet it does not acknowledge the billions of taxpayer dollars government already gave to the telcos and cablecos to buildout a broadband infrastructure the companies never built. Question, would you also like airlines to build and pay for their own airports as well? Here's an appropriate quote from Paul Morris, Utopia's executive director:

"It would be absurd for each airline to build its own airport," he says. "But that's just what we've been doing for telecommunications. Qwest has its set of wires in the ground, and Comcast"--the dominant cable provider in the region--"has its own. We think it makes sense for a city or a region to build the airport, have someone operate it, and let as many airlines provide service as want to."

Falcon

Grandfather clause?

[phorm]

If you're already in an "unlimited" plan with Rogers, aren't they required to uphold the existing definition? Did you have a contract with them or just month-to-month? If the former, then they should be able to add such new limitations.

fiber and landlines

[falconwolf]

There's one difference in between your sense of cupric vs fiber.

I'm not the only one who considers fiber as landlines: "Pyxis Broadband offers a wholesale alternative to landline fiber via a carrier-grade, wireless backbone operating in a secure, FCC licensed frequency environment." Senior Network Technician ... "Resolved leased landline fiber". "BSNL Land lines (Fiber optics) and Mobile phones".

Co-ops are good ideas... but take common standards and funding methods to do. There's hope.

I don't see any problems of common standards, as both electrical and phone companies worked out any connection problem. As for funding, though on a much larger scale, they can be funded much the same way as coops are funded now, membership fees. I'm a member of 2 coops and when I joined each one I paid a fee. The coops are eligible for loans so they can raise more funds. Now each year depending on how much I spend at them I receive a check from them. And if I ever decide I want to leave the coops I get a refund of the member fee I paid joining as well as another refund check depending on how much I spent there.

Falcon

Anti trust case anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

A free market of monopolies yay!
Thats always good for the consumers right?

Re:VoIP,etc,etc, What competition?

[aqui]

I've used both Rogers and Bell.

They both have shitty service and behave like monopolies.

I finally switched to uniserve (ca.inter.net) a company based out of Montreal (I think).

I can highly recommend them. I was totally floored by their excellent service. $5 cheaper per month the first year (then the same price with modem rental), tech guys that speak English, support Mac OS X, windows, and even linux! Helpful friendly and polite.

They even walked me through how to configure my ADSL modem as a bridge so I could use my router behind it (its default configuration was as a router).

After every tech call to them, I received a follow up call 23-48 hrs later with them checking that the problem had been resolved to my satisfaction!

The only two problems I had were caused by Bell:
One was on start up. Bell "forgot" to activate the line. Uniserve explained honestly to me that their hands were tied for any Bell issue Bell "requires" 48hrs to fix it.

The second problem was an outage caused by Bell (Bell claimed a "snow storm" damaged system... which ironically happened two days earlier on the Saturday and my internet was fine the day after on Sunday. Monday it died. Personally I think Bell throttled my ISP to almost zero since the error was a time out error (modem live lights worked) so they could give Bell business customers access while I waited for them to fix other lines that had failed on the weekend and Bell had not bothered to fix them.

I take uniserve's word over Bell, their service an support any other time has been consistent and outstanding.

Where as all previous experiences with Bell have been well... lets say leaving a lot to be desired.

If the CRTC reinstates Bells monopoly ISP service will go to crap.

Rogers vs Bell. What kind of competition is that?

The truth is if Bell or Rogers actually listened to their customers and gave them the service they want then they wouldn't have to worry about competition.

I will be writing my MP.

Note: I do not work for uniserve, and no I wasn't halucinating they actually called me back!

How about....

[zenasprime]

.... If I just take an axe to that pole out front in MY yard? That should solve the problem of these pesky no good thieves who don't pay the toll for using my property!

No private company can build a last-mile!

[WoTG]

There is growing competition for last-mile connections in the core of the major cities -- well, there is in Vancouver, I have to assume other large cities in Canada and the US are similar. It's easy. A few miles of cabling can serve tens of thousands of workers (and people, if there are condos downtown). It's possible to see a return on investment.

But in the much less dense areas, no company will ever be able to roll out a last mile wired connection. It just costs too much. We've got cable and phone, that's it. That's probably all that we'll ever have in the wired world. I expect to have wireless options, i.e. WiMax, someday.

What's my point? We're years away from having competive last-mile options - two options are not enough for real competition.

Oh, and yes, the fact that the incumbent phone companies built their network under a regulated monopoly for decades doesn't help Bell's case. Maybe we should force the incumbents to split off their old infrastructure and run those independently, like the way we used to split banking from insurance and home mortgages. Ok, that's not likely.

Distributel!

[Anonymous Coward]

Distributel!

I have them in Montreal, and I'm porting my phone number to their voip service too. their adsl is truly unlimited, i asked if i could do a terabyte per month, and they told me that its included. 50$ a month for unlimited adsl + voip service. equipment is free, just return it when you cancel. They've been great.

What f@cking robbery is this ?

[unity100]

Didnt they built the network on PUBLICLY OWNED LAND with PUBLIC SUBSIDIES ?

how the f@ck they are able to come up and say "our network" and bar competition out of it ?

Explain why carriers like this need to exist.

[zerofoo]

Someone please explain to me why incumbent carriers like this need to exist. A government that can build and maintain a network of roads surely can build and maintain a network of wire.

It's time for governments to build out networks and let companies provide services over those wires - much like roads. Government can either use its own employees to maintain the wires, or hire companies to do that work (exactly like the way roads and bridges are built and maintained).

-ted

Re:VoIP,etc,etc, What competition?

[loconet]

heh, funny enough as soon as you mentioned ISP based from Montreal, I knew who you meant. I used to be with them (or the co. they bought) when they were accent.net back in 96-97 and total.net later on. Great service but changed to Shaw Wave as soon as it came out. Glad to hear they're still around.

Re:And so we have to teach you to hackity hack hac

[rodentia]

+1