[Concerned Citizen]

While I feel that having the CRTC use their mandate to enforce network neutrality practices on the existing duopoly of Rogers and Bell and to have them provide bulk access rates to wholesalers would be the best method to enhance competition in the marketplace. Ultimately, this approach is a stop-gap measure that will only work provided the CRTC and the courts work properly. This is an assumption that cannot always be guaranteed as proven by the CRTC's recent decisions to allow Bell and Rogers to deny access to higher speeds and what not. The courts have also sided with Bell and Rogers on the use of non-neutral methods of dealing with congestion on the network.

I believe that the future of competition in broadband is to have a network owned wholly by the public. Administered like a public utility such as electricity or water. Access to this network could be done by the consumer directly (at retail prices) or to wholesalers as exists under the current system underneath Bell and Rogers (at wholesale prices). All profits will be re-invested into infrastructure and hopefully it would be a self-sufficient entity.

The first goal should be to provide a second internet backbone across the country to enhance redundancy. It will also be possible to allow Rogers or Bell to lease these lines to deal with their own shortcomings in terms of infrastructure to help ease their network congestion. The ultimate goal of this project should be fiber connection to the premises of every city home in Canada. Wireless spectrum could be dedicated to broadband initiatives in rural or remote communities where fiber is impractical to run.

This proposal is not something that will result in immediate gratification for either wholesalers or the end user. However, it will be a step in the right direction for Canada and it's own digital sovereignty by having networks in public hands instead of in the private sector we can protect ourselves and our citizens from extortionist pricing and unfair traffic shaping practices practiced by existing telecommunications giants.

PS: Comments on the writing style and stuff also welcome in addition to the content. I figure I might start working on writing political speeches or something if I'm not that great at public speaking.

[Jay Frank]

Noble idea - well written and could easily be a speech.  Also a better idea than a Levy but still entirely unrealistic.
I couldn't even begin to put a price tag on the value or the Rogers backbone in Ontario nor can I imagine private business being so overjoyed with government competition that they would happily agree to reasonably priced traffic peering.

But....
(/sarcasm on)
I think the Government should also open a chain of Mc Harpers to compete with Mc Donalds.
People gotta eat right?  I'm entirely unsatisfied with the Mc Value Menu and feel that its my governments responsibility to offer me better quality food at wholesale prices.  These corporate giants don't deserve to earn 1 single penny from their incumbent franchise brands.
(/sarcasm off)

J

[Nuitari]

Most incumbents brought this on themselves.

NZ went as far as financing a 1.5billion roll out to reach 75% of their population with 100/50mbps fiber connections.

Basically they are subsidizing a company (any company can apply) to lay fiber, then force that company to wholesale all of it. The companies themselves cannot control the retail market. If they want to do retail, then they need to set up at-arm-length deals that would be at a pricing equivalent to that of other retail companies.

Under a similar deal in Canada, Shaw could apply for the grant to lay the fiber then to resell it and still make a profit.
it's also an opportunity for some incumbents to replace their network.

[Concerned Citizen]

Thanks for the compliments. I think it is a bit of a stretch but not as unrealistic as some may think.

That said, private business should be prepared fro competition from any source including the government. I'm sure the value of the Rogers Backbone is quite high but the only reason it is hard to put a price tag on is because there is no real competing infrastructure aside from their duopoly partner of Bell.

As for the sarcasm, I find it interesting and would like to note that fast food is a highly competitive industry. You have McDonalds, Wendy's, Harveys, Burger King, Taco Bell, KFC, etc... If the broadband industry had such a highly competitive industry there would not be need for government intervention in the form of competition. If say all you had was McDonalds and Wendy's and they both had the exact same menu at extortionist prices and they were the only place to acquire food then it'd be a more adequate comparison. The problem is there is no real direct comparison between the Telecommunications/ISP industry and any other industry because most other infrastructure initiatives are owned or at least maintained by the government (Roads, Water, Electricity).

[Jay Frank]

Most incumbents brought this on themselves.

NZ went as far as financing a 1.5billion roll out to reach 75% of their population with 100/50mbps fiber connections.

Under a similar deal in Canada, Shaw could apply for the grant to lay the fiber then to resell it and still make a profit.
it's also an opportunity for some incumbents to replace their network.

Thanks for the reply.

NZ is barely bigger than my back yard and surrounded by water that is easy to run a sonnet ring without trenching at all.
Granted - there are some mountains but nothing even remotely close to crossing the Rockies or carving a ditch in the Canadian Shield.

***Personal opinion - NOT the opinion of my employer***
Why would Shaw apply for a grant for something they already do?  Shaw will run fiber to your door anywhere in our service area.  My understanding is that a good ISP overbuilds and has dark fiber for rent or even sale in some cases.  I'll agree with you 100% that there is a congestion and net neutrality issue in Ontario and Quebec if you'll agree that there isn't this problem out West or out East.  Shaw success is built on family and decades of hard work from thousands of dedicated staff sharing Shaw values.  Our customers are our own families, our neighbors and the communities that we live in.  Perhaps this should be a Provincial choice because frankly, I don't think our customers would leave us for a highly monitored and likely filtered government backbone.  With the types of people who run our government....how can you even consider giving them control of your internet access?  Give your head a shake man.  Quit acting like we're forming a multi-term majority government here.

Unity Statement:
I recognize that the goal here is to improve upon the existing system and make right some of the wrongs done to consumers in Ontario and Quebec.  Under Shaw and Eastlink - I don't see a need for a government built network to force fairness.  Moreover - as a taxpayer - i'm unwilling to fund it or hand over the keys of public internet access to a US lobby infested and corrupt government.

J

[Jay Frank]

Thanks for the compliments. I think it is a bit of a stretch but not as unrealistic as some may think.

That said, private business should be prepared fro competition from any source including the government. I'm sure the value of the Rogers Backbone is quite high but the only reason it is hard to put a price tag on is because there is no real competing infrastructure aside from their duopoly partner of Bell.

Oh...I dunno m8...it's quite a s-t-r-e-t-c-h from Victoria to Prince Edward Island.
Do you know what it's called when the government controls all television, newspapers and access to information?
Ya...I bet you can take an educated guess.
1/2 of the old folks on Parliment Hill probably can't program a VCR and you want them to build and control a coast to coast fiber network....
I can think of a lot better ways to spend 100 BILLION or more dollars.

Real competition doesn't come from subsidy or government inserting itself into a competitive private market.
I used the food industry sarcasm because the government could do a lot more good for the public by bringing down the cost of food than by running fiber to every camp site in Algonquin Park.

J

[Concerned Citizen]

Well I only know how things are from my experiences. If they're different out west well I'll take your word for it.

"Perhaps this should be a Provincial choice because frankly, I don't think our customers would leave us for a highly monitored and likely filtered government backbone.  With the types of people who run our government....how can you even consider giving them control of your internet access?  Give your head a shake man.  Quit acting like we're forming a multi-term majority government here."

As if the government couldnt do the very same if they wanted to. The government is in the pocket of big business and big business returns the favor, mostly. Ultimately Rogers or Bell could decide to do the very same tommorow and start heavily monitoring (which they probably already do for CSIS/NSA) and filtering the backbone for the government.

"Oh...I dunno m8...it's quite a s-t-r-e-t-c-h from Victoria to Prince Edward Island."

It was done before multiple times (Railway, Trans-Canada Highway, Telephone/Telecom), it can be done again and probably will be done again.

"Real competition doesn't come from subsidy or government inserting itself into a competitive private market."

I would say this depends on your defininitions of real, competition, private and market Here's my definitions.

Real: Not fake. Genuine, True, etc...
Competition: Having multiple entities in a market that have a variety of offerings.
Private: Something built entirely with private money and entirely on private property.
Market: Offerings to the consumer to purchase.

Used collectively you cannot have "real competition" when you have only two entities in the market that are offering effectively the same service at the same prices with the same restrictions and any entities which resell their offerings have effectively the same pricing points and conditions as well. You also cannot have a "private market" when corporate entities make judicious use of public land to run their fiber effectively for free.

"I can think of a lot better ways to spend 100 BILLION or more dollars."

I can think of alot worse ways to spend 100+ billion dollars. Also This is a project that would be spread out over 10+ years, it's not something that happens overnight and you're right we should start in Ontario/Quebec where the worst of the problems exist.

[Mikkel Paulson]

Besides, everything starts in Ontario/Quebec. This is Canada, after all.

[Kellythedog]

If I may, I'll throw this our for consideration.
Back in 2008 Google http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/11/homes-with-tails.html  and others suggested we should be looking at the " homes with Tails" solution to solve our net neutrality issues, and reduce cost while improving service.
It's something we could very easily champion and resurrect.
I've snipped a bit from the article below..I don't think the pilot ever really took off, but it is an excellent idea none the less.
SNIP<
Under the "homes with tails" model, customers would purchase a fibre wire connection to their home that would provide speeds far in excess of what is generally available in North America today. The fibre would be connected to existing open exchange buildings where a large number of telecommunications pipeline providers have equipment that forms the backbone of the internet.

Customers could therefore bypass cable and telephone companies, who today provide the "last mile" of connection between the exchange and the home, to access the internet and thereby video, voice and other services.

The model would also result in significant monthly cost savings because customers would only have to pay service providers for the true price of their services and not for infrastructure investment, the report said. The majority of monthly internet bills today are to help cable and phone companies recoup the costs of building their networks.
Original Article.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/12/01/tech-fibre.html

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/12/01/tech-fibre.html#ixzz0qhcG80YO
< End Snip

see also  http://www.newamerica.net/files/HomesWithTails_wu_slater.pdf

Kellythedog

[Jay Frank]

Is the goal here to bypass the last mile infrastructure builders and owners?
Seems to me the ones that do it right are doing a fine job.
I can understand the 2 provinces that are getting a bad deal being upset - but there are more than 2 provinces in this country.
"Competition" definately isn't nailing the guys who build the whole infrastructure to the cross and proclaiming your government the "Internet Savior"

J

[Concerned Citizen]

Well I wasn't claiming the government was any sort of Internet Savior but perhaps bypassing the last mile connection as Kellythedog suggested could be the method for dealing with monopolistic entities. That last mile connection is no longer under their control so they theoretically have more choice. The problem with the throttling Bell and Rogers does is at the DSLAM or equivalent in Cable terminology which is where the last mile connection hooks into their network. It is also coincidentally the part of the network that resellers are not able to gain access to.

In the end the only way to have competition is to have the entities that sell wholesale be prohibited from retailing as well. That is how big gas companies killed most independent gas stations in Toronto in the 90's. They just stopped selling to anyone who was undercutting their own retail prices and that was that. No gas = No Gas Station Business.

[Nuitari]

Why would Shaw apply for a grant for something they already do?  Shaw will run fiber to your door anywhere in our service area. 

To lessen the cost of doing it and to extend their network further at a reduced cost.

[Concerned Citizen]

Well it seems like NZ already is working on doing what I was thinking of...

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/06/07/2255227/NZ-Plan-For-Fiber-To-the-Home

[Jay Frank]

To lessen the cost of doing it and to extend their network further at a reduced cost.

No thanks.  We don't need a bailout.
Besides....if we were to take money from taxpayers to build our network...they might get the foolish idea that they own it.

J

[Jay Frank]

Well it seems like NZ already is working on doing what I was thinking of...

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/06/07/2255227/NZ-Plan-For-Fiber-To-the-Home

""New Zealand is located in the South Pacific Ocean, southeast of Australia. It's land covers 268,680 square kilometers, with water covering 10 square kilometers. In comparison, it is about the size of the state of Colorado.""

""Canada - 9,984,670 km2""

J