The telecommunications situation in Canada is terrible.
Typically, in rural areas the way to get broadband goes something like this:
A bunch of people get a deal with a small ISP to finally provide them broadband because Bell says they won't be doing it. Then two weeks after all the gear gets installed and the small ISP starts signing up customers Bell will swoop in with an offer to undercut them and suddenly all the things that made it 'impossible' to get broadband before are mere chalk lines instead of the hurdles they were made out to be before.
In Canada it is illegal (or was, this is 4 years ago, it may have changed) to have a satellite receiver that receives FTA programming and so on.
As an American, I'm not very familiar with the telco situation in Canada. Is Bell related to AT&T (the old one)? Do they have a approved monopoly over all phone service, ala AT&T way back when (by this I mean do they carry all calls at some point, even if its only as a wholesale co)?
As it was when I was living in Toronto, the last-mile lines are owned by either Bell (DSL/Phone) or Rogers (Cable). Both of those companies are the Canadian telecom heavy-weights.
Rogers does: cable tv, ip phone over cable (ala Comcast in the US), cable internet (which IIRC it own the only coax last-mile lines in the areas where it is a monopoly -- I think that west Canada has a different cable monopoly), the only gsm carrier in Canada+, a chain of video rental stores that competes with Blockbuster Canada.
Bell does: phone, DSL++, and the only CDMA cell carrier in Canada+++.
+ At the time I was living in Canada, there were many smaller GSM players, but they had all been bought out by Rogers, so you largely just had different branded GSM services from the same provider. More recently there have been at least two new GSM players (Wind and Mobilicity) though I believe that their coverage area is mainly just the Greater Toronto Area. [Of note is that Bell and Rogers use the same 3G bands as AT&T does in the US and Wind/Mobilicity use the same 3G bands as T-Mobile does in the US.]
++ The last-mile DSL lines were being sold to 3rd-parties ISPs as well as Bell itself being an ISP on those lines. See me ascii-art diagram in the other thread.
+++ Similar to Rogers, IIRC there were a couple of smaller players that were bought out by Bell so that all of the CDMA carriers were under the Bell 'umbrella.'
A few things to add though you painted a pretty good picture:
- Shaw is the cable monopoly in the west. Shaw used to have a presence in Ontario but they did a big asset swap about 10 years ago.
- A few areas have different cable monopolies but they're vastly smaller than Rogers/Shaw. Cogeco and Videotron, I think.
- Beyond Rogers (who bought Microcell a.k.a. Fido) and the smaller players, Bell and Telus actually teamed up and built their own GSM network. I think it went live shortly before the 2010 olympics.
- As far as I know Bell and Telus both operate their own CDMA networks across Canada. In Ontario, at least, you've been able to get CDMA service from both for a long long time.
- I was under the impression that Bell owned Telus or something similar.
- I heard about the GSM network, but IIRC there is some sort of transition period going on right now. Also, I've heard varying reports about it. I wasn't sure if they actually had a GSM network or if people were talking about them not using CDMA for 3G internet.
Today's Telus came out of a merger a long time ago between the old Telus and Clearnet. There hasn't been any merger yet, but oddly there are articles floating around speculating that there will be one in the not-too-distant future. Great, just what Canada needs: less choice in telecoms.
Re: the GSM network, I thought it was kind of ridiculous at first for the two carriers to build an entirely new 3G network when their CDMA works just fine. The speculation I heard was (1) they wanted to sell the iPhone (2) roaming revenue for the 2010 Olympics. Neither seemed like enough reason for such huge expense though. I can't find much solid information but I'm willing to bet you're right and their GSM network is available in a few places nationwide.
> Do they have a approved monopoly over all phone service, ala AT&T way back when (by this I mean do they carry all calls at some point, even if its only as a wholesale co)?
Not any more, as far as I know. But because there are plenty of restrictions on infrastructure installations and because Bell simply owns all the infrastructure that was invested in in the past Bell effectively has a finger in every pie and as a provider it is almost impossible to get around them.
Classical short-term thinking. Making more money of the consumers in the short term instead of making an infrastructure that supports richer applications in the future which will lift up the whole system and hence will provide more value for everybody.
>The telecommunications situation in Canada is terrible.
Your complaint is that some rural area has poor service. Is that not the case around the globe?
I've had high-speed cable service since long before it was available in most urban centers in the US (much less the rest of the world), including when I lived in a mid-sized town. Here in a suburb of Toronto I've had top-notch, leading-the-bandwidth (15Mbps around the clock) high speed for a low cost for almost a decade.
I think our situation is quite good, actually. Broadband penetration is very high, average caps are competitive with the world, and bandwidth numbers lean very high on the curve.
There is so much misinformation about this whole situation (not helped by people making "incremental cost" calculations that assume that the infrastructure for infinite bandwidth is already in place): The best is the other post where someone talks about it being Soviet-style central control. The humorous aspect is that CRTC is essentially unwinding that central control, put in place back when Bell was the big, untouchable monopoly. It was then that many of the "unlimited cap" companies were basically given leave to leach off of Bell in the name of competition.
Bell is far from alone in providing bulk bandwidth in Canada. If the economics are so straightforward, clearly Teksavvy and the like will just run a Cogent or the like to their distribution. If they don't, ask yourself why not.
Ultimately this is a lot of people up in arms because they want their free lunch.
Bell owns the lines, it is (or rather, was, I've left Canada 4 years ago) illegal to put lines in by other entities.
> Your complaint is that some rural area has poor service. Is that not the case around the globe?
No.
> I've had high-speed cable service since long before it was available in most urban centers in the US (much less the rest of the world),
Good for you :) I had four bonded 28.8 modems and four landlines giving me crappy bandwidth where a simple baseband modem would have done the job but Bell simply refused to remove the chokes from the lines.
> Here in a suburb of Toronto I've had top-notch, leading-the-bandwidth (15Mbps around the clock) high speed for a low cost for almost a decade.
Toronto is but one very small part of Canada and one of the most populous areas at that.
If you run a monopoly you should provide all your customers with equal access to the system, otherwise you should open up the market and get the hell out of the way.
> I think our situation is quite good, actually.
your situation is quite good.
> The best is the other post where someone talks about it being Soviet-style central control.
That was pretty poorly worded but the author makes a much better case further on. Also, state propped up monopolies were very much a feature of communist countries.
> The humorous aspect is that CRTC is essentially unwinding that central control, put in place back when Bell was the big, untouchable monopoly. It was then that many of the "unlimited cap" companies were basically given leave to leach off of Bell in the name of competition.
They'd gladly put their own infrastructure in to the ground, only they're not allowed to.
Just like you're not allowed to hop across the border, buy a satellite receiver that receives 'free over the air' programming and operate it legally within Canadas borders (because that would deprive the government sanctioned operators of their subscription fees that they can charge you for that same content).
Your complaint seemed to be entirely based upon the difficulties in getting broadband in a sparsely populated area. And then some big telco coming in to try to undermine it. We've seen the same story again and again, over the globe. There is nothing unique to Canada in that.
As to Bell being a monopoly, that's a bit laughable of a concept now. I haven't used any Bell services for personal use in well over a decade, despite being in the center of Bell territory.
As to Canada's situation, it regularly ranks in the top tier of broadband penetration and broadband speeds. It sounds like you're the one using your anecdote inappropriately, because actual metrics refute you.
They'd gladly put their own infrastructure in to the ground, only they're not allowed to.
You're conflating issues. Because of the in-the-ground angle, companies are allowed to terminate twisted-pairs at the switching station, providing their own voice or data services. We recently hooked up a business backup high-speed ADSL line, the line provided by Bell, with the data provided by Cogent. Our primary data service, by the way, is provided by the electric company who have a distribution network of fiber.
What is changing is if Bogent terminated that line, but instead of providing their own infrastructure they simply leached off of Bell's. That was put in during the "Soviet style" control.
Again, this is all a bunch of people inventing a reality where they can have their free lunch. It is a tiny percentage of people making a loud noise, trying to burn it all down to get their way. I'll happily endure the down-arrows while a rallying mob tries to construct some ridiculous perception of reality.
I don't know who keeps modding you down, you certainly are 'adding to the conversation', sorry about that.
> Your complaint seemed to be entirely based upon the difficulties in getting broadband in a sparsely populated area.
No, it is mostly centered around Bell playing dirty. Getting broadband in a sparsely populated area is just an example of how they use their resources. Using the legal system to put the squeeze on other ISPs is another.
> And then some big telco coming in to try to undermine it.
If the big telco is the only game in town then that changes matters considerably.
> We've seen the same story again and again, over the globe. There is nothing unique to Canada in that.
I live in a rural European area right now, where I live I can choose from > 10 broadband providers with packages up to 20 Mbit/sec.
> As to Bell being a monopoly, that's a bit laughable of a concept now.
Bell still has an effective monopoly on infrastructure and that is what this article is about, charges that Bell levies on ISPs that are more or less forced to do business with Bell, we're not talking about a consumer monopoly, even though they still profit plenty from their former monopoly in that field.
> As to Canada's situation, it regularly ranks in the top tier of broadband penetration and broadband speeds.
The situation here is somewhat skewed because a large amount of the Canadian population lives in a very small total area of the country.
> It sounds like you're the one using your anecdote inappropriately, because actual metrics refute you.
No, it just underscores the issue. For the record, I've also lived in Toronto (King Street) and it is the contrast between the two that strikes me as placing the rural areas at a deliberate disadvantage. If anything Bell should do everything in its power to level the playing field given the monetary advantages they've been allowed to have.
> You're conflating issues. Because of the in-the-ground angle, companies are allowed to terminate twisted-pairs at the switching station, providing their own voice or data services. We recently hooked up a backup high-speed ADSL line, the line provided by Bell, with the data provided by Cogent. There is nothing changing in that.
Exactly. So how much choice did cogent have in using Bell infrastructure in order to reach you?
> What is changing is if Bogent terminated that line, but instead of providing their own infrastructure they simply leached off of Bell's. That was put in during the "Soviet style" control.
They did not 'leach of Bells', they have very little choice. Bell owns the roads, if you want your cars on them you'll have to pay toll.
> Again, this is all a bunch of people inventing a reality where they can have their free lunch.
I really disagree with you there, if they were free to lay their own fiber then that would be one thing but as long as they have no way around Bell they should not be squeezed like this.
In the Cogent example, Bell is legally required to let Cogent use their loop for a low maintenance cost. That is not what this issue is about, and nothing about that has changed or will change.
The case here is that these small ISPs are not only terminating the loop, they're also using Bell's pipes beyond the termination, with contracts that were enforced when Bell really was a bonafide monopoly. There are actually a lot of competitive options when you're looking for bulk bandwidth, will Bell being a small, small player.
> Bell is legally required to let Cogent use their loop for a low maintenance cost.
Yes, that's because they own all the lines and Cogent has no other way to sign you up as a customer in a way that would be worth their while.
> The case here is that these small ISPs are not only terminating the loop, they're also using Bell's pipes beyond the termination, with contracts that were enforced when Bell really was a bonafide monopoly.
So, again, what choice do they have?
> There are actually a lot of competitive options when you're looking for bulk bandwidth, will Bell being a small, small player.
If that were really true don't you think these ISPs would switch to those competitors with their 'competitive options' instead of waging silly lawsuits?
Bandwidth is cheap. So cheap that it's hilarious to see the rates that Bell now charges these ISPs for transit.
Really, Canada just took a giant step backwards in time and you are cheering it on and I can't see what reasons you would have for that other than that you perceive Bell to somehow have a god given right to a chunk of the turnover of each and every bit of data that gets moved in Canada.
It really should not be that way, the sooner it ends the better. Every company that can afford it should be allowed to put in 'last mile' connections, and every company that can afford it should be allowed to use the former monopolists infrastructure at a cost-plus basis (and not a metered basis). That's the only way the situation will ever get to normal.
Canada is hurting it's citizens interests and the interests of Canada as a player in the global economy by putting the population at a disadvantage as compared to other countries.
Twisted-pair sucks, actually, and Bell's monopoly is on dead technology. We only use it as a backup line in a worst case situation. We actually had a number of options, which is what we used for our primary line.
Though I'm not even sure what your point is.
If that were really true don't you think these ISPs would switch to those competitors with their 'competitive options' instead of waging silly lawsuits?
IT IS TRUE. Accept that as a reality, because it is reality. If bandwidth is as cheap as you claim, they WOULD use those alternatives, now wouldn't they? They have an economic model based upon basically an agreement that was punitively pushed onto Bell because of their monopoly, back when being the big telco made them the top dog.
I'm not cheering on anything but reality. You have ignored or sidestepped every reality I have presented, and keep up with this ridiculous illusion that Bell has any ounce of a provider monopoly in Canada.
The reason we're having this debate is because twisted pair easily does 20MBit these days.
Easily? Hardly. Over an absurdly short distance from the switching station, with perfect copper, as a tech trial sure. In the real world most ADSL users find that their experience is nowhere near that.
ADSL sucks. ADSL has always sucked. It is a dead technology that is constantly simply being replaced.
We're having this discussion because Bell, due to their ILEC status, was forced into agreements that favored some businesses that pandered to, essentially, the "problem users" who were kicked off every other network. Teksavvy didn't go to ADSL because it's such a great technology. They went to it because the CRTC cleared a sweetheart deal for them.
Well here in the UK, BT are rolling out FTTC (Fiber to the Cabinet). Third Party ISPs can install their min-DSLAMs into the cabinet, which is usually not very far away in an urban or semi-urban environment. This will be VDSL, delivering 50mbps!
If I were Teksavvy I'd be doing a projection on the costs of rolling out my own DSLAMs, and the value of reselling that on to other customers, really really fast. Probably approaching some UK companies like TalkTalk to buy in their experience for 2 weeks of consultation and costing models. Then contacting Huawei, and getting their army of Chinese engineers to come out and install these DSLAMs, or train Canadian engineers how to do it.
> Over an absurdly short distance from the switching station
That's sort of the whole idea ADSL is founded on.
> with perfect copper, as a tech trial sure. In the real world most ADSL users find that their experience is nowhere near that.
Actually, in the 'real world' it's doing pretty good. If there are limitations it is more often than not because of oversubscribing of pipes further down the line.
Seriously, that does not 'suck', that's a pretty impressive technological hack. To take lines that were meant to carry voice and to get them to function at bitrates that a HF transmitter would be jealous of is not all that bad.
ADSL is constantly being upgraded to supply a market demand, it is not being 'replaced because it is dead'.
There is an awful lot of copper in the ground and will remain like that for a long time, ADSL has in this sense been a great enabler in bringing broadband to the masses, the other side of that coin has been internet over the TV cable.
From that wikipedia article:
"VDSL2 deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at source to 100 Mbit/s at 0.5 km (1,600 ft) and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km (3,300 ft), but degrades at a much slower rate from there, and still outperforms VDSL. Starting from 1.6 km (1 mi) its performance is equal to ADSL2+."
1 km is not an 'absurdely short distance' for a maximum of 50 Mbit. In practice at that distance VDSL2 (which is currently only available from a select few providers where I live) does anywhere from 20 to 40 Mbit, not all that shabby, in fact I can hardly imagine what I'd use that for and I'm a pretty big consumer. Oh, and I live about as far away as you could possibly get from the nearest POP.
> We're having this discussion because Bell, due to their ILEC status, was forced into agreements that favored some businesses that pandered to, essentially, the "problem users" who were kicked off every other network. Teksavvy didn't go to ADSL because it's such a great technology. They went to it because the CRTC cleared a sweetheart deal for them.
The bandwidth charges that Bell is trying to levy here are not based in reality, regardless of the position of Teksavvy, and I don't see any reason why people that simply use 'dropbox' or 'netflix' should be punished for that with these outrageous charges. No other developed country has such a backwards system. 'Problem Users' don't exist, that's simply people using the capacity of the bandwidth that was sold to them. If you don't want users to use a fat pipe: don't sell them one.
Anyway, this thread is becoming ridiculously indented, I'm going to let it go with this. Thanks for the exchange!
> Here in a suburb of Toronto I've had top-notch,
> leading-the-bandwidth (15Mbps around the clock) high
> speed for a low cost for almost a decade.
Toronto is the "New York City" of Canada. Do you look to New York City to be an exact replication of how the entire US looks, works, and functions? This reeks of "Windows never gave me a BSOD therefore all of the people that say they've had a BSOD are lying"-type of argument. Please leave your anecdotes at the door unless you promise to see them for what they really are... anecdotes.
When I was living in Toronto the quality of internet service (at least with Bell) depended very much on the area. In some areas the lines/infrastructure was really crappy and rather than fix it Bell would just blame the end-user (you need to reboot your computer, that's why the bandwidth is so slow) or acts of god (I know that you've been complaining about the bandwidth for months, but it was really caused by that large storm last night. It should be fine now.).
> Bell is far from alone in providing bulk bandwidth in Canada.
Really? I was under the impression that Bell was just selling access to their last-mile infrastructure and companies like TekSavvy were providing their own peering arrangements for getting the customers to the internet. Would you care to explain to me what the real situation is?
It's my understanding that the infrastructure looks like the above diagram. In this case, Bell is not selling bandwidth to the internet to 3rd-party ISPs, they are just selling access to their (government-subsidized) last-mile lines.
What is the section between the DSLAM and PoP? Why does Bell need to charge usage-based on that section seeing as the peering itself is not the issue? Some more explanation of that part of the diagram would be much appreciated. :)
Umm... that's the bit between your local exchange (Central Office) and the nearest Bell exchange (Central Office) to where the ISP actually hosts its equipment. (In the case of the GAS, that equipment is routers that can talk PPP/L2TP, or something close, as I can't find real technical details on GAS). OK, so it is more complicated than this as there are BRAS - broadband remote access/aggregation servers - along the way that collect the DSLAM traffic together into ATM links, and the split out aggregated traffic for the ISPs. (Basically the internal Bell ATM packet network).
This is Bell's transit network. Whilst technically the UBB is on the individuals and not what is transited, it is essentially what is being billed for.
Bell is claiming that it's links on the transit network are being crippled by heavy users. This may actually be true during busy hour. But in reality this shouldn't happen, as Bell can increase the bandwidth of most these relatively cheaply, as most are fiber. There are probably a few 100 that aren't fibered, causing the biggest problem.
But OK. The more I read about this, the clearer it becomes that the problem doesn't really exist at the moment. This is Bell's way of sabotaging the GAS product that it has been forced to sell by the regulator.
I hope this is a move that will force the independents to group together to purchase their own DSLAMS and transit. And then Bell faces much stiffer competition. In the UK, BT is facing real and consistent competition, thanks to our regulator getting tough in the last few years. BT now even have to allow competitors to lease it's ducting to roll their own fiber.
Which suggests that the only bit that could conceivably have contention, which the wholesale customer does not control, is the connection between the DSLAM and the BAS. From the BAS's to their handoff PoP/CO, they have to pay for these "AHSSPI/AHSSL (Aggregated High-Speed Service Provider Interface/Link)" in 1gbps increments.
My anecdote was...anecdotal. Nonetheless Canada's broadband deployment rates are in the top quarter of the OECD, and it regularly ranks very well in bandwidth in the same comparisons. Empirically Canada isn't doing so terrible.
Really? I was under the impression that Bell was just selling access to their last-mile infrastructure
Your understanding is wrong. If TekSavvy were just terminating the loop, Bell wouldn't even have the technical ability to do anything to restrict or harm them.
The situation here is that Teksavvy has access to bulk wholesale Nexxia (Bell's backbone) rates that were forced upon Bell by the CRTC. Again, this was an agreement that was established when Bell was overwhelmingly dominant in certain areas of Canada. If those wholesale rates are "fair", however, then clearly Teksavvy can just arrange with another provider to handle that service. The reason they can't, of course, is that the rates they were paying were essentially monopoly subsidized.
Is that really the reason why? I find it also possible that they haven't been able to setup the infrastructure to peer with other providers yet, as it seems they were only given 90 days before this went into affect. I don't know what sort of timeline is reasonable for them to be able to hook-up with other providers as I've never worked on that sort of infrastructure before.
Yeah, that's the reason why. Just to be clear, Bell has been making their intentions clear for a long, long time. They were packet shaping "reseller" connectivity as long as two years ago.
There ARE DSL providers that locate hardware in Bell switching centers and don't use the Nexxia network. Primus is an example. Funny thing about Primus is that they, too, are implementing UBB, but it isn't because of Bell: It's because they don't want the ultra high throughput users that are being punted from TekSavvy from all migrating to their network.
Typically, in rural areas the way to get broadband goes something like this:
A bunch of people get a deal with a small ISP to finally provide them broadband because Bell says they won't be doing it. Then two weeks after all the gear gets installed and the small ISP starts signing up customers Bell will swoop in with an offer to undercut them and suddenly all the things that made it 'impossible' to get broadband before are mere chalk lines instead of the hurdles they were made out to be before.
In Canada it is illegal (or was, this is 4 years ago, it may have changed) to have a satellite receiver that receives FTA programming and so on.