If you read the article, you'll see that there really isn't a need to get all worked up about this right now. The CRTC is *not* seriously looking at designating high speed access as an essential service: ``We've never defined high-speed as the essential tool,'' said Colville. [VP of CRTC] ``Low speed (dial-up) is the essential tool.'' It's the public in the form of consumer associations trying to force this, but ``Colville cautioned that he doesn't know of any short-term answers to the high-speed dilemma.'' Have to wonder these days if the/. guys actually read past the headline.
Anyway, something constructive. It's interesting seeing (what seems to be) the opinion of the majority of Americans here, that this would be a bad thing as it would impose necessary restrictions (eg bandwidth, dynamic ips, etc) on the service to keep the cost down. I suggest that that is maybe because the American market is already heavily competitive, and you already have these services, so base expectations automatically become raised.
Here in the UK ADSL is *just* now, after about 2 years trialling, being rolled out. BT (the main Telecoms provider) is massively behind schedule, and coverage will probably be 10% of urban areas, maximum, by the end of the year. The basic home package is on a 512k pipe with a 50:1 contention ratio, non dynamic IPs, and standard BT support (ie wait several hours in a queue, speak to someone unqualified, wait several days to have it fixed). For this wonderful service you pay £50 a month (ie around $70-$75).
Personally, I'd love nothing better than for some official intervention in the UK to designate broadband as ``essential''. When you're running to catch up as badly as we are (and, in a different respect, as Canada is) it's a pretty effective way to get some standards and requirements settled, even if they are comparatively low to elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the article, you'll see that there really isn't a need to get all worked up about this right now. The CRTC is *not* seriously looking at designating high speed access as an essential service: ``We've never defined high-speed as the essential tool,'' said Colville. [VP of CRTC] ``Low speed (dial-up) is the essential tool.'' It's the public in the form of consumer associations trying to force this, but ``Colville cautioned that he doesn't know of any short-term answers to the high-speed dilemma.'' Have to wonder these days if the /. guys actually read past the headline.
Anyway, something constructive. It's interesting seeing (what seems to be) the opinion of the majority of Americans here, that this would be a bad thing as it would impose necessary restrictions (eg bandwidth, dynamic ips, etc) on the service to keep the cost down. I suggest that that is maybe because the American market is already heavily competitive, and you already have these services, so base expectations automatically become raised.
Here in the UK ADSL is *just* now, after about 2 years trialling, being rolled out. BT (the main Telecoms provider) is massively behind schedule, and coverage will probably be 10% of urban areas, maximum, by the end of the year. The basic home package is on a 512k pipe with a 50:1 contention ratio, non dynamic IPs, and standard BT support (ie wait several hours in a queue, speak to someone unqualified, wait several days to have it fixed). For this wonderful service you pay £50 a month (ie around $70-$75).
Personally, I'd love nothing better than for some official intervention in the UK to designate broadband as ``essential''. When you're running to catch up as badly as we are (and, in a different respect, as Canada is) it's a pretty effective way to get some standards and requirements settled, even if they are comparatively low to elsewhere.