[kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy

[unsolicited at swiz.ca]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 01:03:10 +0000, rbclemen at gmail.com wrote:
> This is, in my opinion, the root of the problem. The free market would
> solve this problem. If a service is to expensive, find an affordable
> alternative. The CRTC, which is controlled by a board of which 80% of
the
> members are former employees of either Rogers or Bell, has eliminated
> viable competitors on their behalf.

I don't believe you are correct. Or not directly.

The problem is the ownership of the copper of the last mile.

And the only way to get the free competition you're talking about is for
the government to take over the physical infrastructure of Bell. Not just
last miles, but the point of interconnect for those who wish to compete.
(It's the same problem with railways.) And we think taxes are too high now
...

I don't think many want that, although it makes sense. And is probably the
reason why Canarie never amounted to what I had hoped for it (internet
backbone in Canada public owned and controlled).

It's a nasty problem.

I have hear counter comments about the CRTC. Both that they don't feel
they're doing enough (but their hands are tied [through precedent?]), and
that they have no role to play any more. At least not in telephone or
internet.
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <unsolicited at swiz.ca>
> Sender: kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:56:09 
> To: KWLUG discussion<kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Reply-To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy
> 
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:46:53 +0000, rbclemen at gmail.com wrote:
>> As of 2008, internet service in Canada was at least 25% more expensive
>> than EVERY OTHER technically competent nation. As much as 80% more than
>> some. 
>> 
>> The problem isn't that Bell can charge whatever they want for their
>> services. The problem is that every viable alternative that could
> possibly
>> compete has been squashed by either Rogers or Bell manipulating the
CRTC
>> into either making startup impossible, or in Look Communications case,
>> mandating that the cost of the service must be more than 50 times more
>> expensive than it needed to be.
> 
> Ah. Thanks for that reminder - had forgotten that. Which, as a statement
> in and of itself, is pretty sad - that I had forgotten about it. As in
it's
> 'normal' now. Or again.
> 
>> Bell don't have to care about small DSL resellers. I don't believe they
>> ever did. They get most of the money with none of the tech support,
> billing
>> and collections headache. This is far larger
> 
> AFAIK, they never did. It was the CRTC that mandated they resell, and do
> so with fewer restrictions than Bell wanted.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Unsolicited" <unsolicited at swiz.ca>
>> Sender: kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org
>> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:33:06 
>> To: KWLUG discussion<kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
>> Reply-To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
>> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy
>> 
>> On Sun, January 30, 2011 5:26 pm, Chris Irwin wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 02:22:49PM -0500, Kyle Spaans wrote:
>>>> I got an email last night from Teksavvy telling me that as of March
1,
>>>> my internet will be Usage Based Billed: 25GB monthly bandwidth
>>>> cap at $1.90/GB for every GB over the cap...
>>>
>>> That email also mentions several "Insurance" plans, also set by Bell &
>>> approved by the CRTC.
>>>
>>> An additional 120GB cost $15/mo. So my internet prices will have gone
> up
>>> almost by 50%.
>> 
>> That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Is the irritant the amount, or
> any?