Pirate Party of Canada Forum

I see two major problems right now:

1 - Large incumbent carriers that have become complacent because "Nobody can match there networks"
2 - Government's incapacity to think beyond the "Right now"

OK so point 2 can only be changed with time and effort so let's not talk about that.

The first point I have a constructive solution to that on we need to grow our own Fiber optic network ( I can here the laughs  in the background ), bear with me on this one. I have been investigating deploying a fiber-to-the building/home for about four to six months now and  have been studying the economics of deploying it over an entire city. Over the last 5 years fiber optic prices have dropped significantly and the technology has progressed to a point where the deployment has become feasible even in a fairly dispersed city. The only thing that is missing from the equation is the initial investment  and the required infrastructure which judging by the amount of venture capital that is going to vaporware, I think that we could get a fair slice of investment for a tangible deployment of current and reliable technology.

I kinda like the idea that we can do more than be a fringe party in Canada. We have our own torrent tool and it gets a bit of notice, but what Bastles is talking about would get  a lot more notice.

There is multiple issues,
-cost which would require significant start up cash in the way of fundraisers, investors, etc
-This could essentially turn the party into a company rather than a federal party and from that lose focus.
-I haven't a clue where one would begin with this.
-Failure might ruin the party.

On the upside,
-If successful its a huge gain for Pirate Party support plus lets not forget money.
-It competes with the terrible alternatives such as the big bad internet companies.
-It would be a stand such as the Pirate Party in Sweden running the Pirate Bay out of Parliament.

The idea while not bad hasn't been fully thought out. We are a democratic party and by that if you could put together a tight, strong report and get people to vote for it then great, otherwise we move on to other things.

I was not thinking that the political party would be the "Hosting/ISP" but more of a catalyst of sort getting people together.
I would be looking more for a "think tank".
The party can be considered to be a political flag ship and several smaller/medium enterprises can be the small fast gun boats  ;)

P.S. I am looking in to venture capital to actually start this type of deployment in my home town.

I was telling my friends that's what we should do. Or something similar. Get a T1 line so as not to be throttled or restricted by their bandwidth limiting plans. But then CRTC came along and gave Bell the go signal to charge independent ISP per bandwidth so that plan of mine got shot out the door. Since my getting T1 line plan would involve getting it from one of the major carrier.

Getting own fiber-optics line? Never thought of that and could work in urban centers. Maybe we could get a co-operative going. Co-op of independent internet providers. It could start in Urban centers. Make it non-profit and all profit goes to expanding the backbone.

Your ISP is not the enemy.

J

I would feel very throttled on a T1 connection.  I have 100/5 with a 500GB monthly "soft cap" for $160/month. (No overage fees but a polite email/phone call if I exceed the cap repeatedly).  If i'm willing to spend the money I can get fiber to my door anywhere in BC.
Your internet service provider is not a "community service".  It is a for profit publicly traded company.

J

Our ISP is not our enemy unless they happen to be Bell or Rogers who controls the backbone. I want to see independent ISP succeed. But recent CRTC ruling allowing Bell to charge these small ISP similar to how they charge their customer - metered according to bandwidth usage, would effectively stifle their competition. Should the government own the internet backbone? Argument against that is that it would discourage private investment on internet infrastructure.

There are talks of equal access to high speed internet for both rural and urban areas. MTS of Manitoba estimated the cost of rolling out such infrastructure would be in the billions of dollars and would be shouldered by the customer. Could it be called equal access if not everyone can afford it?

 

That would work but it is hard to align with investors if you are a not for profit. I more envision a for profit while still expanding and being extremely "cut throat" on the pricing  ;D while still providing above par support and services

until i see evidence that a single not-for-profit isp would not be feasible in canada, i will continue to support the idea.
introducing more competition will create even more redundancy and waste. maximum efficiency cannot be achieved with billions spent on marketing the internet and cell service every year.
if we create a public telecommunications system, just as canada post is a public communications service, we can have great efficiency, plan which transmission method to deploy across the country and expand access for everyone.
having multiple companies scramble to lay out landlines, cables and fibre and see which works best isn't very efficient. there is one internet and that calls for one isp.


everything is shouldered by the customer, private or not. rogers spent one billion dollars to plaster the planet with their advertisements last year. who do you think is paying for all this marketing?

Please provide evidence that Rogers spent 1 billion dollars on advertising last year.
I simply don't believe it.

J

You need to spend money on advertisements if you want to attract clients even if you are a NFP (Not-for-profit) or not. If you do not nobody will know you exist. Even the cheapest service/gadget needs marketing i.e How do you get potential clients to see/use your product. A general rule for any company is for ever $ of revenue you require an equal or greater marketing value. Companies do not want to spend money on ads and other publicity but they have to in order to attract more customers.

So the question is how do you get the biggest exposure to potential clients for each $ invested in marketing.

P.S. Printing a flyer and distributing it to residents in a city is a form of marketing.

at this point in time, people with mobile phones and internet have it for convenience, not because they were convinced by an ad. without advertising in this market, everyone who requires phones or internet would consider their friends recommendations or use a service to understand availability and pricing in their area.
with a public system, ads would not be necessary because the service is nearly essential. the demand would determine how much has to be supplied. take hydro quebec for example. over 90% of quebec uses their services and i can't recall seeing an ad in attempt to attract customers.

that statistic would not surprise me at all, personally.
this is rogers 2009 annual report (http://www.rogers.com/cms/investor_relations/annual_html/2009/images/Rogers_Communications-AR2009.pdf) on page 83, sales and marketing: 1.203 billion dollars. if you search for the word marketing in the pdf, you can see how much they spent in each sector. 603 million was spent marketing their wireless services.
i'm not exactly sure what the sales in 'sales and marketing' means but i'll assume for the most part it involves the money they spend plastering public transport, newspapers, magazines, billboards, tv, etc, with images of shiny toys and happy people.
regardless of how much they spend, it's a lot. this spending of our money just moves customers from one company to another, saving them a few dollars but ultimately accomplishes nothing positive.

anyway, i'm just introducing some variety to our list of options. public internet/mobile service is a radical but i think it's an idea worth considering. let's not kick these companies where it hurts, let's abolish them entirely and end the waste and frustration they cause.

Don't get me wrong I have had that dream since the internet entered my life 18+ years ago, but as I grew to understand how the world works I realized that it has less and less chance to work. Hydro Quebec is a government owned for profit monopoly. They jerk us around like we are some animal attached to a leash ( the need for  electricity ).

I also have lately learnt about how the public health system owns buildings but does not care about renting for profit they just ask the government for more money to cover there black hole. As some one told me "If I where to do that in a private corporation, I would loose my job!" So in my opinion we need to have a socially responsible private enterprise based on values that would discourage wasteful spending and abhorrently high salaries to CEO.

Also the public sector is too slow to react, with a high tech enterprise you need to be nimble and avoid bureaucratic nonsense, not exactly what the public sector is right now.

Interesting link...I'll definitely look over that document when I have more time.

Thanks! +Karma

J

Actually a few hospitals rented out MRI machines while they were idle and there was a huge polemic on that but lefties.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the only way to avoid problems is to decouple the business of selling the infrastructure (wireless, flat pair, coax, fiber optic) with the business of selling a particular service (cellphone, telephone, cable tv, internet connectivity)

Rogers is spending much more money on trying to convince us that they have a reliable network then working on fixing the drop call issues.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/11/09/calgary-cellphones-dropped-calls-3g.html

And there in lies the problem with the Public Sector; your try to do something and then you get hit over the head with a 2x4 ...

Huh?

Now you have confused me too  ???

The way I picture the ideal system would be this:
A government backed non-for-profit (like the Regional Development Agency system in Nova Scotia) or Crown Corp builds fibre optic infrastructural using federal/provincial/municipal money. The network is rented to companies to use (cable, phone, internet). the money is used for maintenance and hopefully expansion. After a while the network becomes self sustainable using rent revenue. Because it would be a NFP/Crown Corp, it's mandate would be to serve everyone, thus rural/isolated communities would eventually be services. Companies renting the network would provide user service and 'stuff' (modems, TV boxes, etc) while the NFP/CC would maintain and expand.

I'm fine with this model, but strong privacy safeguards must be kept in place.

One thing to remember is that the glass is cheap (fiber-optic), but silicon is expensive. A core fiber switch can set you back by ten of thousands of dollars. As capacity rises and more are added to the network you will have to change/upgrade/install silicon. An off the cuff estimate for a single city would be 3 to 6 million $ to complete (I think I am still underestimating the cost)

Maybe the thing we need is a coast to coast back bone network operated and maintained by a crown corp and then slowly build out from there.

Bell/Rogers/Videotron need redundant connection so we could use the backbone as the capital and the current incumbent providers as impromptu investors.

If my family spent a generation cultivating the largest apple orchard Canada has ever seen.
What gives you the right to tell us we can't manufacture and sell apple juice?
What gives you the right to tell us that we must sell apples to a 3'rd party at fixed bulk rates so that they can profit from our fruit?

Breaking up the Telcos didn't fix the problem the first time so what makes you think it will this time?
Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is called insanity.

J

If yours was one of three orchards in the country, importing of apples was forbidden, opening a competing orchard would cost billions of dollars, you charged $5 per apple, and anyone who wanted to sell apple pie had to pay you $10 per apple, then yeah, I hope the government would step in.

Supply vrs Demand is what dictates the price of any product or service.
If it cost my family BILLIONS and YEARS of labor to build that orchard infrastructure why SHOULDN'T it be the same for another business looking to compete?  You want to regulate and punish successful business'?  You think you have the right to break up a business that isn't yours to fix consumer prices?  What's next?  Limiting personal wealth and financial success?  I've heard that arguement before.....

You might actually have a leg to stand on if this was actually aboot food and people were starving.

Food is essential to survival.
Internet access is NOT.
It's appropriate for government to be mindful of food so that people don't starve.
Not getting 1mB download speed on your torrent will not cause you to perish or suffer.
Go ahead and argue that internet access is some sort of "human right" and "essential" to "culture.
It's bullshit.  You don't have a RIGHT to access anyones PRIVATE PROPERTY - even if that property bears the brunt of perceived public internet traffic. If prices are so high and profit margins too wide - clearly there is ample room for competition.
Start hunting for Angel Investors, start laying that fiber and compete FAIRLY - that's how your forefathers did it.

That's the main problem with you kids today....that sickening sense of "entitlement".
The government owes you a job....a welfare cheque, a year of employment insurance if you quit your job, an education and now...internet access.  Decadence and luxury are things that need to be EARNED.  They are not "rights" to be "granted".

Internet access through a FOR PROFIT CORPORATION is a LUXURY.

J

ps - If you came and tried to pick from the pear trees in my back yard...my rottie wouldn't take too kindly to it.

Well if we could leave behind the apple analogy, the creation of a publicly funded fiber-optic network makes a lot of sense. The supposed benefits of capitalism are efficiency not fairness. it makes more sense in the context of the free market to have one network which is leased to internet providers then competing networks which just add redundancy.

The only issue is that we would need to ensure the effective use of the rent revenue to develop the network as technological progress requires higher and higher bandwidth. I hesitate to proclaim a crown corporation an ideal organization to be entrusted with such a responsibility. But that is just a detail, in hindsight having a publicly funded network well seem as obvious as public roads.

Its only with the rise of Corporate Capitalism in the latter half of the twentieth century the we somehow thought that internet infrastructure would be better off in their hands. In reality they will screw us over every chance they get.


More like you SHOULD NOT have the RIGHT to own property which serves a public utility. Since when did our right to private property extend from our house, land, car, pets to fucking mediums of global communication?  Somewhere a long the way we took 'private property' a little to far and you appear to be caught up in all the bullshit.

I have to disagree with you on this redundancy is a staple in the internet. If some one hacks into a network and takes it out than
what do we do? The new fiber-optic network would not only add redundancy and capacity but also force competition.


Agreed; Crown corporations tend to attract "chair warmers" more that "active participators". The internet is thought as "The Information Super-Highway" so publicly funding it could be a good idea.


Poor little nail, you hit that one hard on the head... The internet is a public utility just as the roads, water and electricity.

The ONLY thing that I would not want is the government starting to legislate what type of traffic can flow over the backbone. It has to be free to any type of data, free of censoring, free of greedy control freaks.


Yes and that is what we would do add more supply.


In our current state of affairs the oil industry dictates much of the cost of our food. We don't have governmental checks in place to
hold the price of milk it is Supply & Demand that dictates how much that costs.


Please let us not get on that subject.


That is what I am suggesting. Pleas read before commenting.


Sorry I take offence to be called a KID. I am the CEO of a small company and I am looking to help not only the residents of our
country but also our industries and schools. Please be constructive.

The sooner you realize that your access to the internet is NOT a public utility like roads, water and electricity the wiser you will be.

Road construction and yearly upkeep is entirely funded by tax dollars and essential to survival.
Waterworks project again - fully funded by tax dollars and essential to survival.
Electricity and natural gas infrastructure - fully funded by tax dollars and essential to survival.
I would not advocate privatizing ANY of the above mentioned utilities. (though in some cases this is being done)

While you may have a tiny bit of investment by government into Bell (and I do mean tiny) this is not the case with your cableco.
Rogers, Videotron and Eastlink do not accept donations to expand their networks to every tent in the woods.
Their networks are entirely built with PRIVATE money, MODERATE risk and are a PRIVATELY controlled (albiet publicaly traded)
business.  If you want ANY control of their networks....you can get it by owning enough voting shares.

As per your request - here is something constructive:

I am not against a PUBLIC fiber network.  In fact, I think it's essential to bypass the US International fiber routes if we're ever going to hold any digital internet sovereignty.  We have had lengthy discussions aboot how this could be achieved on these forums already and considering PPCA can barely afford to field a candidate - I don't think we'll be rolling out any multi-billion dollar coast to coast networks any time soon.  It would be great to stop daydreaming and accept reality here.  For the cost of the recent Olympics and G-20 you could have had a very good start on a Public fiber backbone.

While we bicker aboot pipe dreams like this, C-32, C-50, C-51, C-52 and ACTA are all looming over us getting ready to enlist your existing ISP into becoming internet police with full blown co-operative authority.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if PPCA "leadership" haven't even read these proposed pieces of legislation.  The "style-guide" is more important to them than the fucken platform.
The "brand" more attractive than the actual work of a political party.

While I do respect the entrepreneurial spirit, your CEO title is just a title.  "Helping" residents and schools is charity work.
It's not profitable.

If there is venom in my text on this topic it's because I'm totally sick of hearing the "My ISP IS EVIL!" entitlement whine.
Cancel your service if you hate them so much....it won't kill you.

J

Roads are not essential to survival they help us conduct our daily lives with ease. There are a lot of countries that lack roads but still
survive.

How is the internet any different ? How would do business with out roads, water and electricity ? How would you do business with out
internet ? I have been in business and I know that your business will suffer a lot from the lack of such a service.


I am not whining I am trying to be constructive and propose solutions. I was hoping that others would be as open minded.

The difference is that food needs to move on the road.
You think Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver grow enough food to supply their population?
You need roads for that - it's not a "convenience" for survival.
If the ENTIRE internet went down tomorrow....I'd survive.
Franky, if every grocery store in my town closed tomorrow and the economy collapsed...I'd survive.
Would you?
Just because you PERCEIVE internet access to be essential to your business - IT IS NOT PUBLICLY FUNDED.
The Government doesn't OWE you a web-presence....profit comes with risk - it's not guaranteed. (International Banks exempt)
Get it through your head.
YOU OWN YOUR WATER, HYDRO and ROADS.
You DO NOT own the service delivery of your internet access.
It's not a RIGHT, it's not PROTECTED, it's not a SOCIAL SERVICE.
Should we hand out free laptops and modems for welfare folks?
You think hangin' out on Facebook is gonna inspire them to get a job?
Really?

J

*sigh*

I'm less interested in trolling you than waking you up.

J

Then this is not the thread is not for you, because your posts are trolling.
You have voiced your opinion. I have read it. Please back down off your high horses.

no, we don't give anyone laptops and neither do we give them cars. but we do give them roads to drive their purchased vehicles on.

trains and ships are far more necessary for transporting goods. roads are the inefficient product of a huge burden, the automobile.


i believe unfortunate people and those who can't generate income should receive benefits at a small cost to everyone else so they have opportunity to improve themselves with less struggle. i guess you can call it entitlement but i expect to pay my share as i'm born into a well-off family. i must accept the the fact that others are ill and poor and require financial aid to get on their feet. it's simple insurance. public or private, dependency is necessary and inescapable for many.

that's the main problem with you older people. that sickening lack of compassion for others, who built the world around us. to act so independent and self sufficient is a complete joke. we're all mere building blocks in an economic sense.

to get back on topic, i don't see how telecommunications is not an important or essential service. how then do you justify the public postal system, founded in 1867? if public roads deliver our goods at a cost to the public, then so should our words. plenty of people drive on roads for pleasure but they aren't charged extra for driving to an amusement park. and while the internet is used for pornography and video games, it's also used to transfer funds, to deliver invoices, to learn, for social networking (a valuable service which does do good) or to remotely operate surgical robots. much of the internet is already so abundant in urban areas it's tough not finding a free connection. privatized internet creates scarcity out of something already quite abundant with existing infrastructure. corporations turn it into a luxury and that curbs progression and access.
the government should simply be a managing body for public assets. i'm not saying i'm owed anything. my suggestion is that we make the internet abundant and available for everyone, you and me included. it isn't even a matter of handouts to the poor. it's an inquiry to see if the incredible waste companies generate when managing this system makes financial sense.
on my street we have a canada post truck come by every day and deliver mail to our single mailbox. everyone has one. there is no need for two trucks owned by two companies to manage something as straightforward as delivery.
postal service is the number one analogy to public internet as it is a form of communication. one internet, one public provider.

i'm going to stop there because i am not entirely sure if you are epitomizing an ignorant free market conservative or are truly serious or 'trolling'.

I for one would like to see telecommunications as an essential need. This is one of the principles of the PPC correct?

It is, but I don't think establishing something like that would be practical in a country with the size and population density of ours.

Most (51%, 18 million) of Canada's population is located in the Quebec City - Windsor corridor.

25million Canadians are in an urban area (density more then 400 people per square km).

If it is viable to wire up a suburban neighbourhood, then it is possible to do it for 80% of all Canadians.

It's not that impractical, after all almost everyone is connected to the electricity and telephone service. The Internet is just another cable on the posts that are already there.

I mean establishing internet access (or access of a certain speed) as a fundamental right. That implies 100% coverage.

It is hard to justify that in my opinion but what we can do is try to reduce the cost to the end user by using market forces.

That I don't have a problem with.

A little tidbit from the net:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/26/hylas-1-satellite-blasting-off-today-will-rain-down-broadband-f/ (http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/26/hylas-1-satellite-blasting-off-today-will-rain-down-broadband-f/)

Not a bad idea ...

yeah wireless is a more practical solution for sparsely populated rural areas. No benefit in running fibre optic for miles to serve a few household.

Long run fiber is not that expensive. Satellite is very expensive in launch and upkeep costs.

Maybe not for the cable itself, but the cost of installation, whether buried or on poles, is sure to be significant.

Satellite Internet is nothing new, but it's typically very slow. Perhaps a better solution is to meet in the middle, upgrading fibre coverage where possible and reinforcing satellite access in the most remote communities.

Sound like a plan.

Here in Nova Scotia, the government is ensuring 100% high speed access by funding ISPs to set up wireless broadband. I don't think it's impossible to provide high speed to every Canadian. In the worse case scenario they have satellite.