Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2026 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2026 by Canadaka.net
It is the future, we either adapt or sink.
Henceforth you can expect that private investors will no longer invest in Canada's communications infrastructure.
Enjoy your DSL and dial-up because ain't no one going to install fiber for you now.
Yep. The logic of people like this is amazing, I know you spent millions, maybe even billions, in R and D but now I want you to let everyone else piggyback for free.
While I'm not a big fan of these types of decisions after the company spends all of that money and time, these small companies are paying to use the networks and now having to spend money to improve the infrastructure.
Even so, fibre still has a lot of limitations and unless run to the home directly, will have little difference over cable internet.
I am a fan of Rogers, I view them as a strong Canadian company that built their business from scratch and in the U.S (probably contributing to their business culture) but it's not as if they haven't been given advantageous deals in the past, the old Skydome purchase for $1 comes to mind. The competition will come from the delivery mechanisms and services.
Unfortunately high speed internet is quickly becoming a commodity, but I have been loyal to Rogers due to their service levels and desire to "keep me happy" when I have an issue. We still have some of the slowest "high speed" internet in the First World so this probably doesn't change much in that respect. The name brand recognition is there so even though another smaller company can offer better packages and cheaper prices (with the same speeds), it is hard to break into an industry and take old clients even though they are on the same lines. This will be a battle for new clients just entering the workforce and finding their first ISP.
Easy...while yes they have maintained and upgraded the cables (infrastructure) many of these now private companies were once government companies so the original in the ground stuff was publicly owned to start with.
Yes this. Remember Ma Bell?
Yep. The logic of people like this is amazing, I know you spent millions, maybe even billions, in R and D but now I want you to let everyone else piggyback for free.
I don't see where they said "for free". From what I understand, it just means that some of their bandwidth will have to be sold wholesale to smaller ISP's rather than retail direct to the customer. No different from what they did to the big telco's like Bell (as SC mentioned).
In fact it could maybe end up being more lucrative for the big provider in a fluctuating market because they have a contract with the small ISPs to keep available x amount of bandwidth and maybe the big ISP gets paid just for that bandwidth being available without having to actually attract and retain customers.
Yep. The logic of people like this is amazing, I know you spent millions, maybe even billions, in R and D but now I want you to let everyone else piggyback for free.
They didn't pay to R&D jack----. They pay to upgrade their capacity in order to accommodate new subscribers, and they got tax benefits to pay for those upgrades. Then they squeal that they don't have enough capacity because of Netflix, and have to charge extra for arbitrary download limits.
For the ISPs that service people that the big companies won't, it only makes sense to allow them to pay to use infrastructure that the big companies have installed and aren't using.
But there's a downside. Because Bell laid down the fibre to the home (FTTH), they're not obligated to open it to third parties.
"So if I want internet service — or any service — over that fibre line, it has to be from Bell," says Rosenquist.
For years, the big telcos and cable companies have been compelled to allow their competitors access to their copper and coaxial networks. But Bell, Rogers and Telus have been upgrading their networks to fibre optic technology, and if you want that high-speed cable coming directly into your home, you have to go with one of the Big Three.
. . .
"The [big telco] companies argue before the CRTC that they need exclusive access to those fibre to the home lines in order to recoup their investment. And there is a little bit of truth to that," Rosenquist says.
"But on the other hand, they would have been doing this anyway. They have to do it to stay modern and to compete."
What about places where there is existing infrastructure in place? If Bell or Rogers has to share their FTTH lines there, what incentive is there to upgrade?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/fibre-o ... -1.3010347
Even so, fibre still has a lot of limitations and unless run to the home directly, will have little difference over cable internet.
Hybrid fiber coaxial, also known as Distributed Node DSL, uses fiber to bring Internet service from a central switch out to neighborhood nodes and from there it uses coax or DSL to bring the service into homes.
It's not as fast as direct fiber, but it's still better than old school DSL where it was DSL from the central switch all the way to the users and speeds of only 6Mbps were possible.
The Hybrid tech allows for speeds of up to 70Mbps in some areas with 25Mbps being prevalent.
I paid about $1900 to have fiber installed directly to my house and I now pay about $130 a month for 1000Mbps guaranteed, 24/7/365.
The difference for me is stunning with gaming and streaming.
In gaming I used to have about 70ms-90ms between my house and the closest game server clusters in Santa Clara.
Now I have 38ms between my house and the game server clusters in . When I play BF4 against the Russians I have faster access to the server in their hometown than they do.
With streaming there is no buffering. Ever. It just runs.
But I paid through the nose for my connectivity while my neighbors make do with the "U-Verse" distributed node DSL or they use "X-Finity" which is Comcasts' Hybrid coax token ring system that can be fast so long as no one else is using it.
Fiber FTW!
That said, this decision up your way will end anyone's plans of extending fiber to communities that don't already have it.
They're capable of perverting the intent of CRTC regulations just fine. Like the 3 year contract ban on cell service. Mine just ended, I can keep my plan and existing iPhone for the same rate (how nice, $22 month is no longer subsidizing the cost of the phone) or if I want a new phone that plan doesn't exist. I can pay as much for the 6GB bandwisth as I did for the whole plan I have PLUS $50 a month for near equivalent calling features.
As for fibre to home, a couple years ago we got a fibre connection for our WISP. It was a business, so the rate to install fibre direct from the telco CO across the street was $10,000.00. You think to the home will be free?
Hybrid fiber coaxial, also known as Distributed Node DSL, uses fiber to bring Internet service from a central switch out to neighborhood nodes and from there it uses coax or DSL to bring the service into homes.
HFC uses coax, not DSL/phone lines to connect to the node and speed falls down to the bottle neck (coax cable).
Unless the fibre runs to the home, like in your case, there will always been a bottle neck at the DSL lines.
In my area, we have Bell Fibe which is really just a glorified DSL service that all runs through my phone lines and runs fibre from the node.
It's not as fast as direct fiber, but it's still better than old school DSL where it was DSL from the central switch all the way to the users and speeds of only 6Mbps were possible.
Seems silly when you can push through 300Mbps via standard coax cable.
I would go FTTH or not at all. For $60/month I get 300Mbps service which is fantastic for our needs.
It's not as fast as direct fiber, but it's still better than old school DSL where it was DSL from the central switch all the way to the users and speeds of only 6Mbps were possible.
Seems silly when you can push through 300Mbps via standard coax cable.
Not when you are a gamer like Bart and I. Speed is irrelvant, TTL is king! A less 'laggy' line easily makes up for lower speeds.
Bart is getting 38ms to Moscow, but I can suffer through 110ms to Chicago or 70ms to LA because my ISP oversubscribes the coax in my area. Last time I checked, it was over $800k to run fiber to my home, because the nearest trunk is 15km away.