| reply to InvalidError
Re: Guess it's propaganda season again! said by InvalidError: I bet Bell would happily hand all the subsidies back (in the form of forking over most of its rural infrastructure) to get rid of its historic obligations if it was that simple. And the reason it isn't that simple is that it cannot simply give back the incredible advantage it gained through its monopoly in the urban areas in exchange for the obligation to serve in rural areas. That is a gift from the government that keeps on giving - which is why they should never be released from their wholesale obligations. |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| said by HeadSpinning:And the reason it isn't that simple is that it cannot simply give back the incredible advantage it gained through its monopoly in the urban areas in exchange for the obligation to serve in rural areas. That is a gift from the government that keeps on giving - which is why they should never be released from their wholesale obligations. Best response in the entire thread.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation. |
|
|
|
| reply to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:And the reason it isn't that simple is that it cannot simply give back the incredible advantage it gained through its monopoly in the urban areas in exchange for the obligation to serve in rural areas. That is a gift from the government that keeps on giving - which is why they should never be released from their wholesale obligations. It is a gift and a curse at the same time. But the obligations to wholesale everything forever will seriously impair the progress of telecoms in Canada. For the incumbents, it does change business case for investment in regulated networks; directing capital to wireless, TV and media holdings. For competitors, it constrains them with the incumbents costs and capabilities or reduces the value of the competing networks they built. And for consumers, it limits diversity and doesn't force down the cost of the network, just the retail price. |
|
 bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica
kudos:2
4 edits | said by freejazz_RdJ:But the obligations to wholesale everything forever will seriously impair the progress of telecoms in Canada. And for consumers, it limits diversity and doesn't force down the cost of the network, just the retail price. The duopolies in the States aren't required to resell their networks anymore and guess what, there is still zero diversity down South and not much in next gen network investment (progress) either. Residential fibre is deployed in the States as much as it is in Canada, far and few between. |
|
| But in the US that is because there is no wholesale at all. I am saying that certain things should be wholesale, like the last mile stuff in cities and more services in rural areas. But the stuff in the middle mile could in many cases come from several suppliers.
For large office buildings there is also less need for wholesale since there is a very good fiber footprint in many cities and a high $$$ multi year contract can justify building a lateral to one of these sites. |
|
| reply to freejazz_RdJ
said by freejazz_RdJ: It is a gift and a curse at the same time. But the obligations to wholesale everything forever will seriously impair the progress of telecoms in Canada. For the incumbents, it does change business case for investment in regulated networks; directing capital to wireless, TV and media holdings. For competitors, it constrains them with the incumbents costs and capabilities or reduces the value of the competing networks they built. And for consumers, it limits diversity and doesn't force down the cost of the network, just the retail price. If competition were never allowed, and the telcos remained a regulated rate of return monopoly, do you really think things would have advanced the way they did? |
|
| said by HeadSpinning:If competition were never allowed, and the telcos remained a regulated rate of return monopoly, do you really think things would have advanced the way they did? Depending on how it is regulated, yes. It isn't like wholesalers are making much of a dent in Bell's subscriber base even today nor like wholesaler would be able to continue existing if Bell suddenly vanished... wholesalers are nearly entirely reliant upon Bell (or the cableco) to provide progress at the first-mile.
If Bell suddenly decided to become socialist (or became regulated based on RoR), we could very well have Fibe25 for $40/month instead of Fibe6-7. |
|
| said by InvalidError: If Bell suddenly decided to become socialist (or became regulated based on RoR), we could very well have Fibe25 for $40/month instead of Fibe6-7. OR we'd be stuck in a world where ISDN BRI at 128kbps was cutting edge. Lets hear it for TRIP '92! |
|
| said by HeadSpinning:said by InvalidError: If Bell suddenly decided to become socialist (or became regulated based on RoR), we could very well have Fibe25 for $40/month instead of Fibe6-7. OR we'd be stuck in a world where ISDN BRI at 128kbps was cutting edge. Lets hear it for TRIP '92! Without wholesalers, cable internet would still have come along. Were it not for that then yes, we might still be stuck with dial-up and ISDN. That's the beauty of infrastructure-based competition... if you don't do something, you have no way of preventing the competitor from pulling the rug from under your feet. |
|
| A Cable/ILEC duopoly is still to cozy, and there isn't enough market to build a national third wire into every house. There still needs to be some form of last mile wholesale that works. What we currently have doesn't quite cut it. |
|
| said by HeadSpinning:There still needs to be some form of last mile wholesale that works. What we currently have doesn't quite cut it. If we went down the RoR regulation route (basically make retail internet a mandated essential service just like telephone service used to be in the monopoly days) and did it right, there would not be enough slack between retail and wholesale prices for wholesalers to make much of a living. |
|
| The problem is, RoR doesn't promote cost discipline. |
|
| said by HeadSpinning:The problem is, RoR doesn't promote cost discipline. No but having to keep up the pace against the cableco which would have to outperform the telco to gain business would. |
|
| In theory, cableco would only be offering TV and Internet. The telco would still have a monopoly on phone service. Since they would not intersect on all planes of service, the competition may be less fierce. |
|
| said by HeadSpinning:The telco would still have a monopoly on phone service. Since they would not intersect on all planes of service, the competition may be less fierce. Wireline and wireline-equivalent (cable MTA) telephone service is not exactly a competitive or growth market... no matter who you buy it from, basic service costs practically the same as Bell's. Having 100 companies offering the same service at the same price is borderline pointless. |
|
 LiQuiDBSD geekPremium
join:2002-08-08
Anjou, QC | reply to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:A Cable/ILEC duopoly is still to cozy, and there isn't enough market to build a national third wire into every house. There still needs to be some form of last mile wholesale that works. What we currently have doesn't quite cut it. I agree with this 100%. The problem here is that we don't currently have that at all. the current wholesaling is not last mile. It's last mile plus backhaul to the ISP's DC. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if ISP's took care of their own backhaul, even if it means multiple links to aggregate from a bunch of CO's, that they can likely do it cheaper than what Bell's "costs" for this are currently. Perhaps it would help spur the creation of more numerous POP's for ISP's. It's kind of silly, when you think about it, that currently, because my ISP is physically in Toronto, if I want to hit anything in Montreal, I'm looking at 30+ms RTT. It's about 37ms to VPN into work, which is 15km away from my house... and that's after having my line's ATM profile remapped and optimized recently... it was over 50ms before that.
Before I go on... I'm *not* complaining!! I don't game, I'd be satisfied at 100ms too, I'm just demonstrating a point.
Yes, I know I can get an ISP in Montreal, and improve that, but I'm just showing how with GAS implemented as it is, it's just too easy for an ISP to wake up tomorrow and be able to deploy all over quebec and ontario, without a whole bunch of investment. By truly allowing only the last last-mile, beyond encouraging competition/diversity etc etc... it also promotes ISP's having a broader footprint, with more POP's in various areas (real POP's, and not just aggregation nodes in the backhaul - all though these wouldn't be all bad either). The added benefit of more POP's is also lower cost of entry into providing fibre without necessarily relying on Bell of Videotron's (expensive) fiber that's laid out already.. and brings down more barriers to entry into the commercial market.
More POP's cost money, I know, but you know what, it costs money to make money... As much as ISP's complain it's impossible to bring in copper/whatever to every house, and they're right, I also feel that this decision allows them to hide behind it and pretty much not have to increase their footprint at all, they literally can service all of Quebec/Ontario from a basement if they wanted to (And some do/have done).
I in no way am defending Bell here, you all know how I feel about them.
--
Windows is the virus. Linux is the vaccine, FreeBSD is the CURE |
|
| said by LiQuiD:The problem here is that we don't currently have that at all. the current wholesaling is not last mile. It's last mile plus backhaul to the ISP's DC. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if ISP's took care of their own backhaul, even if it means multiple links to aggregate from a bunch of CO's, that they can likely do it cheaper than what Bell's "costs" for this are currently. I seriously doubt it: Bell has around 450 COs and AHSSPI costs only $1750 per Gbps. For TSI who has 16 of those, they would need to find someone else willing to aggregate 400+ locations for under $28k/month or about $70/month per location.
So, do you seriously think TSI and others could manage to interconnect COs themselves for cheaper than Bell's Fibe25? |
|
1 edit | said by InvalidError:said by LiQuiD:The problem here is that we don't currently have that at all. the current wholesaling is not last mile. It's last mile plus backhaul to the ISP's DC. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if ISP's took care of their own backhaul, even if it means multiple links to aggregate from a bunch of CO's, that they can likely do it cheaper than what Bell's "costs" for this are currently. I seriously doubt it: Bell has around 450 COs and AHSSPI costs only $1750 per Gbps. For TSI who has 16 of those, they would need to find someone else willing to aggregate 400+ locations for under $28k/month or about $70/month per location. So, do you seriously think TSI and others could manage to interconnect COs themselves for cheaper than Bell's Fibe25? There probably a lot of places that TSI, Caneris, Acanac, and others could 'partner' on backhaul circuits.
They are all backhauling to the same places...151 Front and other carrier hotels/NAP's. It's statistically likely that their customer geographic distribution is more or less similar - ie. if they collectively have 15,000 Toronto customers then they are likely to have most of them coming from a small number of CO's, etc....
The smart thing for them to do is create a not-for-profit co-op for this and bring in as many smaller ISP's as possible. Not-for-profit doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have a reserve fund for deploying new equipment for more capacity or better price/performance. Or simply lease the gear for 3-5 years from the vendor or other leasing source. |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:For TSI who has 16 of those, they would need to find someone else willing to aggregate 400+ locations for under $28k/month or about $70/month per location. I make no pretense of being a network builder here, but I'm sure deals could be struck with various data centers to take care of their interconnection needs.
Again, once you have an initial investment, and you build out from there...
So create your first POP where you have the most clients, so you can make your money back the fastest, and keep prioritizing from there.
said by InvalidError:So, do you seriously think TSI and others could manage to interconnect COs themselves for cheaper than Bell's Fibe25? The point isn't to have a lower internal cost than Bell (at least not at the beginning) it's to create un-molested access and to derive greater revenue from each subscriber.
In the end if you don't have to pay Bell for each sub you have it's a double whammy for you, more money in your company's pocket, and less money in Bell's.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation. |
|
| said by El Quintron:In the end if you don't have to pay Bell for each sub you have it's a double whammy for you, more money in your company's pocket, and less money in Bell's. Even though you might end up paying $20 less to Bell, you might end up paying $30 more elsewhere and be out $10 more at the bottom line... then you need to make a compelling service offer with that $10 handicap vs pure-GAS ISPs, which would be a tough sell to people who just want cheap(er) internet that works. |
|
