[Nuitari]

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

[bastles]

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

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 ...

[Mikkel Paulson]

Huh?

[bastles]

Huh?

Now you have confused me too 

[Daniel St Onge]

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.

[Nuitari]

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

[bastles]

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.

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.

[Jay Frank]

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

[Mikkel Paulson]

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.

[Jay Frank]

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.

[JasonCarr]

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?

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.

You don't have a RIGHT to access anyones PRIVATE PROPERTY - even if that property bears the brunt of perceived public internet traffic.

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.

[bastles]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 *** mediums of global communication?  Somewhere a long the way we took 'private property' a little to far

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.

Supply vrs Demand is what dictates the price of any product or service.

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

It's appropriate for government to be mindful of food so that people don't starve.

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.

Not getting 1mB download speed on your torrent will not cause you to perish or suffer.

Please let us not get on that subject.

Start hunting for Angel Investors, start laying that fiber and compete FAIRLY - that's how your forefathers did it.

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

That's the main problem with you kids today....that sickening sense of "entitlement".

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.

[Jay Frank]

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

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

[bastles]

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)

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.

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.

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

[Jay Frank]

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