Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Need for speed

JULIE FORTIER

Special to Globetechnology.com

Latest comment posted at 3:11 AM EST 21/06/08

While ISPs in other countries satisfy public and business broadband appetite by upgrading infrastructure, Canada throttles. How long can it last? ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. instant karma from burlington, Canada writes: how does a company justify the capital expense of FTTH, when they manage their stock prices, by reducing costs, to offset their reduced revenue?
    longer term investment in the telcom industry seems to be a thing of the past... they just can't afford the hit their stock price will take when the report their results...
  2. John K from Canada writes: I think we need to see more and more news articles about how out-dated our telco companies are here and how they've been sheltered from competition from competition for so long (thus never forcing them to upgrade).
    The more and more people are aware of this the more likely (hopefully) the CRTC and government will HAVE TO address the issue in some way.
  3. BC Bud from Canada writes: This requires a government initiative and leadership. Telcos won't do this on their own in the short term and the residual effects on the rest of the economy will be high. Communication infrastructure, like transportation, is the realm of government and the rest of the economy shouldn't be hindered by Telco's need to manage their stock price. Government needs to create incentives to get Telcos to do it or to get individuals to finance it for their own home/business.
  4. andy c from Canada writes: it's all about costs. even if you lay fiber in large candian cities what do you think the telcos will charge and who would pay 100 per month for this? one of the major U.S telcos is charging 150/month for similar speeds (verizon or att). if the canadian telcos make fiber affordable they will have to lower there normal rates in the rest of canada. i doubt that will happen anytime soon
  5. D D from Ottawa, Canada writes: More per month, yes. I'd bet we would also see other services raised in price, as everyone in this forum seems to agree that telcos are more concerned with their share holders.
  6. S Kimmel from Toronto, Canada writes: Trying to get bandwidth out in rural Ontario areas is a real headache, even with Fed North. Telcos wants $$ from the government or businesses in the community. In one area ratepayers have gone to court, thus blocking bandwidth for years.
  7. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring Island, Canada writes: Wouldn't it be nice if our government paid for a satellite to give broadband coverage to all of those rural areas that won't be reached by fibre any time soon. What, the government intervene in an area covered by private business - well, what if we call it 'roads', as in the 'information superhighway'? A bit implausible in Canada perhaps, but Japan managed to find a way to do it:

    http://www.jaxa.jp/countdown/f14/overview/kizuna_e.html
  8. Stephen McPherson from Newmarket, Canada writes: There are a couple of problems that are holding back improvements to internet accessibility and speed for business and consumers. In North America and to a lesser extent in Europe we have a huge cash cow in copper based infrastructure. The telco's are very reluctant to give this up. Doing so will open things up to heavy competition. However, the technology of the future is a combination of local wireless coupled with short, medium and long haul fiber. There are companies heavily engaged in this technology all around the world. We jsut need to allow them to play in our turf [some of them are based on our turf and are 100% exporters]. We are already seeing significant growth of this technolgy in India, China and other areas that were less developed. India and China have leap frogged North America in terms of technology, service and capacity and done so while delivering lower prices - less infrastructure! The throttling response by Bell is reactionary protectionism. Its time to bust up the monopoly and open up the telco industry totally. Bell's day in the sun has past. Their products, services and customer service are relics of the last century. It's time for some fresh meat in the form of open competition. The stench of putrification in the larder has been too strong for too long.
  9. Edward Mulcare from Canada writes: Hairy Wrangellian, you are not missing anything with satellite. For the most part it is overpriced, unreliable and slow. Broadband wireless towers in rual Canada work much better. I'm out in the middle of no where and my wireless broadband is very good, stable and quick. Not fibre optic quick but I can stream live video and I'm 10 miles away from the tower.
  10. Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: We will have fibre to homes in 4-6 years i bet. Canada is always behind and we'll have to wait for the US to go first before we try anything ourselves.
  11. Enoch Root from Canada writes: What is so hard to understand about this?! I see posts flaming the "telcos" for not taking the bleeding edge, in favor of shareholder value... who do you think owns the telcos, the public? No its the shareholder. What the shareholder wants they get; if the business case is there to show that the holder will get more profit then the money will be spent to take on new technologies. Otherwise, stop griping like the telcos owe anyone but their shareholders anything. This is a reality in ALL business, the sooner you understand this the happier you will be as a consumer. If this was such a good busness idea, then some of the non-incumbents would be tripping over each other to get it out and corner the market (internet is one of the few fully-deregulated areas of the communications sectors in Canada) Further, the countries that were stated as having this oh-so-wonderful FTTH have only deployed it in very dense urban areas, and do not have the sprawled out geopgraphy of what is Canada's version of "dense urban areas", and therefore the cost to deploy. Finally, you can thank the CRTC for the state of the Canadian Telecom sector. When it was regional monopolies, the teclos would be guaranteed a regulate and modest return on whatever investments were made to deliver services. Ever wonder why tiny little Canada had the best telcos in the world up to the point of de-reg and not so after de-regulation?! Return on investment is the simple answer and the deregulation of the industry in the name of "better pricing" broke that dynamic; so now we see the true reality of the business of providing telecom services in Canadas geography and market - its not pretty, and its not to our consumer expectations! Ill step off my soap-box now :)
  12. Mike L. from Canada writes: This article is kidding right? Where I live, exactly 100 km from Montreal, 25 km from a city of 50,000, and 5 km from a town of 12,000, all with high-speed access, Bell only offers dial-up. There is no cable. There is no wi-fi. The only alternative to dial-up, is Ka band satellite: 1 mbps download costs, with tax, $95 per month, with 800 ms satellite latency time when you ping a site. It really sucks. Had we know this would be an issue when we bought our house in 1987, we wouldn't have bought it. We feel we have the Internet equivalent of a party-line phone...
  13. Stephen Graham from Kitchener, Canada writes: It's about lack of competition, the same problem that affects many industries in Canada. Why should Rogers and Bell invest any money? They don't need to because there aren't any other players in this country forcing their hand. These two companies have a long history of being coddled and protected by government. Until this changes Canada will continue to be a technological backwater as far as average consumers are concerned.
  14. Doug Dewan from Canada writes: I don't think this is that important of an investment for Telco's. I see the future in wireless - not fiber to the home. People want portable high speed wireless devices...we should invest in that - not running more fiber. Who in the hell needs a 100Mb connection to their home. You don't get that in most business applications.
  15. D P from Ottawa, Canada writes: Somewhat related to this discussion, Corning has developed 'Flexible Fibre', allowing far easier FTTH installations for homes/apartment buildings, etc.

    In the past, optical fiber could not be bent or kinked due to degredation to the signal. With Cornings breakthrough technology, you can practically tie it in knots without signal degredation.

    Any excuse/argument Bell may have had with respect to ease/cost of installation to the home has been greatly reduced as a result. In short, what are they waiting for?
  16. John Williams from TO, Canada writes: Why not more wireless?

    Who needs that kind of speed? For what?
    Streaming movies 16 feet wide?

    Its overkill.
    Put it into new buildings, and focus on wireless.

    I think this is a conspiracy by companies who want to rip up the streets and make billions! 99.9% of people DON'T NEED FIBRE OPTIC.
    Put it into hospitals, etc.

    The few who need it, lets them buy it as part of the house.

    Yep, it does seem to be a conspiracy to make billions. Just relax, you techie maniacs!!
  17. Gord Lewis from Captive Market, Canada writes: Hey, why should the shareholders have to make any investment? That's what the CRTC is there for -- to facilitate customers providing the investment in terms of outrageous prices (my US friends pay half or less for TV signals and anything wireless). We can't expect Bell and the others in the Canadian Telecom Cartel to survive real competition can we? And there clearly is no fat left to cut at Bell; for example customer service staffing -- it is already non-existent.
  18. Timothy Nessus from Somewhere, Canada writes: The article and most comments got most right. YES! there is a cash-cow in copper and Bell / Rogers want to milk it until it dies.

    YES! There is a pathetic lack of competition simply because for new companies IN THE CURRENT LEGAL CLIMATE it costs and arm and a leg to lay down fibre the infrastructure to support it.

    YES! We are falling behid.

    NO! The government should NOT lay out more hand-outs! Bell and Rogers had YEARS to prepare. All the data pointed towards an exponential growth in bandwidth requirements. What did they did??? NOTHING!!!

    YES! Bell and Rogers are SQARELY to be blamed!
  19. Albin Forone from Canada writes: What about "dark fibre" in Canada? During the tech boom a huge surplus of fibre was installed in the US, and is mainly unused. A google for Canada turns up this interesting link:

    http://www.canarie.ca/advnet/fibre.html

    Some enterprising tech reporter is going to shine a light on this, hopefully sooner than later.
  20. Bill Crick from Canada writes: I was wondering what people will need 1000Mbs for at their home?
    30Mbs is enough to stream 6 HD TV channels
    IE: Three stereo 3D HD VR goggle type viewing experiences.

    What is the other 970Mbs second used for - Instant messaging? you must type a lot faster that I do!

    Will you be willing to pay more for this or do you want 300 times faster for the same money?

    If it costs $2000 to hook it up and I pay an extra $10 per month, it takes about 20 years to pay for the hookup? This is good for the service provider how?
  21. Howie W. from Vancouver, Canada writes: I agree with John with the wireless focus. It appears that we are not using the existing technology enough. There is very little benefit when doing cost and benefit analysis of fibre optics with home users. They are only these being used in companies and corporate networks.

    Compatibility is now causing constraints as we have mixed mode delivery where the speed is eventually reduce to you 54 gigs on most wireless equipment.

    I think that internet in Canada will be as essential as the telephone in less than a decade. The question of delivery of internet whether it is going to be delivered by Telus or Bell or another giant is a battle that is going to be fought.

    Europe is well ahead of us in internet delivery. We should look at their models.

    Maybe there will be something better that fibre optics. The nature of the business is that monopolies will delivery the lowest cost internet.
    That is like the Telus or Ma Bell companies. The questions is how are we going to divide the pie.
  22. John Williams from TO, Canada writes: I use a 56MB wireless card all the time, usually on a 1MB-2MB connection.

    That's still plenty fast, even for decent video.
    56MB is plenty

    like the others said, what is 1000MB for?
    Watching TV over the computer?

    Its mega-overkill.

    Ya think the large companies have a stake in trying to propagandize people that they NEED FIBRE OPTIC.
    We need fiber.
    We need optics.
    We don't need both.

    It will happen in the next generation.
    Wireless is fine.
    They have that new Wi-Fi X, or whatever, that covers a neighborhood.
    But that is cheaper than ripping up the streets.
  23. John Williams from TO, Canada writes: PS: don't get mre wrong, I LOVE fibre optic, its the future, no question.
    But lets not get all tech-crazy.

    Its like Microsoft ramming new junk down people's throats all the time. Profits.

    Its tech-hysteria.
  24. Barry Moss from Canada writes: Bill Crick from Canada writes: I was wondering what people will need 1000Mbs for at their home?
    30Mbs is enough to stream 6 HD TV channels
    IE: Three stereo 3D HD VR goggle type viewing experiences.

    5Mbps is very high compression for 1080i30 video. If you don't want a lot of artifacts then you'll need at least 8 and preferably 10 Gbps. If you want 3D, 1080p60 or other lovely things like that, you'll need higher bandwidth still.

    Also, that's considering streaming video. What about downloading video files (for example from iTunes)? Do you really want your regular access to be choked off for an hour or two while you are downloading a movie?
  25. Chris Fields from Canada writes: Doug Dewan and John Williams hit the nail on the head. Wireless is the future conduit. Recent articles on WiMax technology speak to that. As for why anyone would ever need 1000mbps download speed - true, given current needs it is overkill. But considering that this sort of investment is long term, we need to consider what our needs may be 20 or 50 years down the road. And considering the rate of technological advancements who knows what we will be downloading a generation or two from now - high def interactive holographic projection video games linked to your feedback body suit (ie Halo 27)..........teleportation - just kidding. My point is that in the next 50 years we will be using the internet for things we have not even considered yet. And it would be much easier if we did not have to play catch up yet again. So bring on the 1000mbps wireless network.
  26. Kevin Desmoulin from Toronto, Canada writes: Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: We will have fibre to homes in 4-6 years i bet. Canada is always behind and we'll have to wait for the US to go first before we try anything ourselves.

    It a lot of ways we are really turning into a backwards country, We need good tech and infrastructure, actually this where we do excel and should be putting focus on.
  27. John Williams from TO, Canada writes: yes, we NEED 3D at home.

    3D wrestling.
    3D adult movies.
    3D slasher movies.

    Great use of tech.
    Humans are nutty.
    It reminds me of Audiophiles...they don't mind if the music is horrible, they talk about the SOUND.
    I don't need 3D video.

    I have eyes, go for a walk, 3D surround, with scents too.
  28. John Williams from TO, Canada writes: People and their TECH TECH TECH.

    Its not the tech.
    Its ideas that count.

    I swear, I think there is a fibre optic lobby, trying to ram this down our throats, and makes us pay double.

    Just like TV was going to educate the world.
    NOT!
    Its all junk these days.

    Its not the tech.
    Unless you want those 100 billion dollar contracts....
    check the IP addresses of those promoting this, see which fibre-tech company they are coming from.
  29. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: My Bell Sympatico connection is noticably slower than when I first signed up with them three years ago. And I'm not a big downloader. We're talking about loading pages here. Even the new Firefox 3.0 can't bring the page loading speed back up to where it was just last year. Nor can Opera 9.5. It's really starting to pi$$ me off. If they have to charge me an extra $10 a month, so be it. But put in the proper infrastructure for God's sake!!!
  30. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: John Williams, you burn any books lately? Some of us want technological advancement. I don't wish to go back to the days of sluggish internet service and lost connections thank you very much. Now I'll let you get back to your VHS porn colletion.
  31. Kevin Desmoulin from Toronto, Canada writes: Good Fast Dependable communications has accelerated our development.
    Remember the printing press. I certainly see the benefits of good tech and pursuing it.
  32. John Williams from TO, Canada writes: What's wrong with VHS?
    Other than the horrible picture and sound?

    By the way, "Alistair McLaughlin" a slow browser load has nothing to do with a DSL connection!
    Your computer is screwy, especially of all browsers are having the problem.

    Go measure the speed.

    All you tech-crazy maniac can't handle the truth that 56MB wireless is 5x more than enough for 99% of the people.
    they need to spend billions for junk people don't need.

    Why not put more computer in schools with that money?
    The tech industry uses hype and lies to dupe the public.
    I know people who spend $50 a month to retrieve text emails "faster".
    LOL!!!
  33. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: John Williams, my computer is running fine. Unlike most people, I clean it out every week. That means spyware scan, virus scan, using CC Cleaner to scrub all unecessary files, using EasyCleaner to clean out the Registry, msconfig to clean out the startup programs, and defragging. I also use multiple browsers (Safari, Firefox, Opera) all updated with the latest fixes. Browser memory leaks can be rectified simply by rebooting. If pages load slow, it sure ain't my computer. As for porn, I prefer free streaming video as opposed to the clutter of VHS tapes.
  34. Chris Fields from Canada writes: John Williams, do you really need to be so righteous? It makes you look foolish. Just because you are incapable of recognizing the future potential of technology, doesn't mean that people who do are maniacs.

    Maybe you could enlighten us as to the source for your statement:
    "All you tech-crazy maniac can't handle the truth that 56MB wireless is 5x more than enough for 99% of the people."
  35. Remain Nameless from Canada writes:
    The author's premise for this article is as follows: "Bit while service providers in other countries are investing in new technology to increase capacity, Canadian telcos are trying to curb high-use customers through methods like throttling, or degrading the speed of clients who use peer-to-peer software.

    The first half of this sentence is plainly WRONG. FALSE. MISLEADING. Where is the evidence that Canadian telcos and cablecos are not investing in their networks? She simply states it as a fact and moves on, building one lie on another, perpetuating an urban myth, and inspring a plethora of vitriol from the great unwashed readers. Shame on the author and the G&M for printing such trash.

    I do not dispute that network providers are trying to manage the traffic on their networks. And there is room for intelligent debate on the pros and cons of such management. But to assert that they are not investing in new technology to increase capacity, without any evidence to back it up, is irresponsible journnalism.
  36. Will Hoaccio from Canada writes: John Williams from TO, Canada writes: " People and their TECH TECH TECH.

    Its not the tech.
    Its ideas that count"

    Technology is just the application of ideas to practical purposes...

    I remember hearing Paris had begun a program that tied sewer construction/repairs to laying down fiber cables. So, if a sewer need replacement they would also just plunk down some cables. Seems like a good idea.
  37. M K from Vancouver, Canada writes: Yeah, give me unthrottled Broadband, give me a decent, cheap, 3G mobile data network, and for Christ's sake give me ubiquitous WiFi!
    I live in Japan for part of the year and it drives me insane to come back to this backwater. Canadians are insular and backward minded, as a result, uncompetitive and insignificant in the map of global business. As long as we our view of the world only extends to to the United States we will never break out of this Neanderthal status!
  38. D P from Ottawa, Canada writes: The future may indeed be wireless, rather then Fibre, but, call me funny, but I would rather have a consitent and quality Fibre/copper/ethernet connection, then a flaky wireless connection.

    And depending on where you happen to live, wireless connections are indeed flaky and unreliable compared to their hard wired cousins.

    I still think that, even given current wireless standards, that far too many people consider wireless over fibre/ethernet/copper due to a matter of convenience, over quality of service.

    I have never had a dropped call with a land line connection! So until wireless approaches the same level of quality of service as traditional land line connectivity, wireless will always be second rate, IMHO.
  39. John Williams from TO, Canada writes: if a person is having page-load problems...its not a Bell DSL problem.
    Its something else.
    Go do a speed-test.
    People think fiber-optics and Mega-cable with help load pages!

    Like what was said above, it would be good for broadcasting 37 TV stations at once.

    I am not being righteous, just making a point.
    Fiber-optic for the home paid for by the government is a WASTE OF MONEY.
    Its pork barrell highways to nowhere.

    56MB WiFiMax is plenty.

    It seems to be a multi-billion dollar tech lobbying agenda.

    If you want fiber, then you buy it, don't charge it to Canada.
  40. Timothy Crash from Canada writes:
    @ John Williams - yet another person who judges the needs of tomorrow with the technology of today. 20 years ago, all you really needed was a 56k modem, because no one dreamed of using the internet for what it is used for today.

    Tech infrastructure that continually advances is essential to democracy. High bandwidth isn't just used for streaming movies - it is extremely important for virtually every aspect of our society: health care, law enforcement, business communication, information exchange (i.e. news), navigation, infrastructure design and upkeep, , etc. (Yes, even our streetlights, traffic lights, emergency response systems use internet.)

    The truth is, the internet is becoming the one stop shop for ALL information exchange, from the necessary to the trivial. As information becomes more detailed (3D mapping, HD streaming media, etc.) the demand for higher bandwidth increases.

    Back in day, Bill Gates said '640K of memory is all anyone will every need". He didn't anticipate that entire cities would be planned and build using computer simulation - requiring massive amounts of memory. The same goes for bandwidth. Law enforcement agencies transferring criminal profiles (fingerprints, photographs, video footage, audio clips, etc.) would benefit greatly from higher bandwidth capabilities and more advanced / faster networks.

    All this is limited by infrastructure. Sure, wireless may be the road to go, and I hope it is, but to think that our current system 'will be all we ever need' is short sighted and ignores the speed at which technological demands increase. We have to keep up.
  41. John Williams from TO, Canada writes: you can't compare Japan with Canada.
    That is ridiculous.
  42. John Williams from TO, Canada writes: I never said its all we'll ever need.
    But let the fiber-optic come in with new buildings.

    They want to rip up the streets and install fiber to nowhere, and it will cost billions.

    You want fiber to your home?
    Then buy it yourself.
  43. C. Fletcher from Canada writes: Yet another example of 'lazy capitalism,' which underlies Canadian businesses in general. Why would the Canadian telecos have an incentive to invest in modernizing their networks to remain competive with the rest of the world when they know that their domestic market is effectively protected from foreign competition? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for government policies that favour Canadian businesses, especially those in nascent sectors. However, there comes a time when we have to recognize the perverse effects of those policies and cut the 'umbilical cord.'
  44. Dave LeBlanc from Canada writes: How secure is wireless? Don't people have wireless routers in their homes? Don't they activate its firewall? Now, ask yourself : how secure is a shared wireless connection? New subdivisions are wired for the phones, right? Well, why not wire them with fiber optic cable while they're at it? When New Brunswick had to upgrade their phone lines, they were smart enough to lay out fiber optic cables at the time, foreseeing the future benefits. Check it out at : http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5387/is_200211/ai_n21321680/pg_3 You want to replace copper wires with fiber optics? Sure, it's going to cost to replace them, but if you take out the copper wires and sell them (copper is worth a lot right now), you'll recover some of the replacement costs. People use more bandwith, and it's only going to increase. Why not invest in something that offers almost unlimited (potential) speeds? Do the job right the first time, even if it costs more, and you won't waste time fixing things in the future.
  45. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> The high cost of hooking up Canada's low density population is one, but that doesn't explain why there isn't a push in the Windsor to Quebec corridor, Canada's most densely populated area. Good luck with that argument in Canada, to just service the urban areas.
  46. Howie W. from Vancouver, Canada writes: It all boils down to money. What is the consumer willing to pay?

  47. Remo Prata from Canada writes: Canada is a laggard and will always be.
    Too bad because the few companies that are thriving (in technology industry) are going to be dead soon because the the lack of investments and the lazyness.
    While the rest of the world embraces innovation canada sleeps then cries when they can't get something like the next door neighbor....

    oh well...boohoo
  48. Geriatric Personage from St. Stephen, Canada writes: John Williams from TO, Canada says I think this is a conspiracy by companies who want to rip up the streets and make billions! 99.9% of people DON'T NEED FIBRE OPTIC.
    Put it into hospitals, etc.............. there is no need to dig up streets the infrastructure is already in place to route fibre into homes... sewer lines service most residences in Canada and are ready now.
  49. TheWay ISeeIt from Calgary, Canada writes: How about this? In each service area, the incumbent telco and cable companies e.g. Bell/Rogers, Telus/Shaw, etc. fold their copper infrastructure into a joint venture company. The new company tears out all the copper in the urban neighborhoods and replaces with FTTH. The incumbents share the new infrastructure and sell their services to the consumer delivered over this common infrastructure. They pay the joint venture company a tariff out of the revenue from the consumer. A fibre connection can deliver all the bandwidth anyone would ever need in their home for phone, Internet and TV service.
  50. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Canada writes: Reading these comments, I think to myself:

    How many Luddites can you fit in a single thread?
  51. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring Island, Canada writes: Edward Mulcare: Oh yes Ed, I know satellite is not nearly as good as wireless - I am lucky enough to have a wireless link to the top of a local mountain, about 10km away, and I generally get over 10 megabits/second, both up and down, about twice as fast as most people in the city.

    But I'm one of the lucky ones, because I have a direct line of sight to that mountain; many of my neighbours don't. I think the Japanese solution, a satellite for all of those who are out of reach of cable, fibre, or wireless is great - and they are doing this in Japan where there are lots of people able to take advantage of the new high-high speed broadband - in the range of 100 megabit - and this is now making video on demand a lot more feasible.

    In these parts, Telus and Rogers are rolling out high-speed in some areas - but they don't want to go all the way to the end of a lot of roads because the income they'll derive from it is still too low to pay for the cost of the cable. Wi-max might do it, but there are a lot of rocks around here that get in the way of wireless signals. A satellite makes a lot of sense for those that can't be feasibly reached by copper, fibre or ground-based wireless, but it will take a government to do it - and the one we have is ideologically opposed to such things, though apparently they are ready to underwrite the cost of nuclear reactors, and bail out failing automakers.

    To all those that say you don't need it - why yes, of course you don't need it - we don't need electricity either, but it sure makes life a lot more pleasant.
  52. Jay D from Canada writes: I'm not sure there is consumer appetite for FTTH yet. In theory it is the natural evolution of the fixed line network. Fiber offers very high bandwidth. On a single fiber, without wavelength division multiplexing, 40 Gb/s is now very easily done. If houses were fed with a gigabit ethernet channel that would be more than enough for the next decade and by upgrading the transmission and reception gear the speeds offered could ramp up further. Routing and switching in the core fast enough to offer very high speed edge service is an entirely different problem, but it will be solved eventually.

    Some kind of debt financing would seem to be the way for the telcos to afford to do this. If consumers suddenly started to demand 50 Mb/s guaranteed download rates and were willing to pay double what they now do for services then I think the telcos would scramble to build out more capacity. The key is whether consumers will pay for it.
  53. mu mu from Canada writes: This would be an article to prepare us for the service providers to land on the government door step with their hand out.
    We need to do the last mile in wireless. That can already handle 54Mb.
    There's no need to wire buildings at all. Put the AP on a street lamp and away you go.
  54. Phil Harrington from Canada writes: John Williams you must work for Bell or Rogers, because you have the same myopic distorted view like they do.

    Its not about tech tech tech, its about getting with the times.

    you moan about costs skyrocketing, well reality check they already are. Rogers is already charging customers for going over arbitrary limits on their internet connection.

    Ask any consumer, they'd rather pay more for more, than more for less.

    With the advancements in communications, is it not good to be ahead of the curve.
  55. alex just a canadian from Canada writes: so bell got any bondholders ready, or teachers will pay then bill us
  56. Red-necked and loving it from Canada writes: John K from Canada writes: I think we need to see more and more news articles about how out-dated our telco companies are here and how they've been sheltered from competition from competition for so long (thus never forcing them to upgrade).
    The more and more people are aware of this the more likely (hopefully) the CRTC and government will HAVE TO address the issue in some way.

    Let's start by doing away with the CRTC! This is just an "old boys'" club and certainly not arms length from the telecoms. Protectionism, cronyism, - no more, no less
  57. D JL from Canada writes: Let's start talking about allowing US companies up here. We protect Telus, Bell, Rogers, & Shaw to much. Let them compete.
  58. Mickey Hickey from Toronto, Canada writes: The Canadian telcos are selling high speed internet services based on promised speeds that are pure fiction or outright fraudulent depending on how charitable one feels. I see scenarios by Globe columnists that mull over whether BCE will spend $5 billion buying back shares or issue it to shareholders in the form of dividends. (This assumes the bondholders win.). Our various federal govts' are quite supportive of the monopoly/duopoly as it exists. The OSSTF and fellow travellers are over paying for BCE secure in the knowledge that the customers will foot the bill while the govt cheers them on. Is it possible that the federal govt. could ensure that the telcos can only charge for services actually delivered and end the fantasy marketing games under which customers are now getting ripped off daily. Vote early and vote often.
  59. Amguada Kickboote from Don't ask, Canada writes: Canada used to be a leader in telecommunications. We were doing research into fibre optic messaging 30 years ago, before the rest of the world even heard of it.

    I think it would be best if at least the backbones were publicly owned, much like the asphalt highways. They have become too important to our economy to be left in unregulated private hands.

    Frankly with all the microwaves we endure already, I would rather that this was buried in the ground blipping harmless light pulses. Light will always be faster than sound, regardless.

    What is the use of 1,000m/s?

    Media such as high definition movies or TV shows could be downloaded on demand almost instantaneously. Even live sports could be streamed in hi-def in real time. Media sources would be global, not regional.

    Bye bye cable companies. Welcome smaller new world.

    All sorts of new applications would arise that used real time, high resolution video communication on a global network. The reliability, quality and speed of this type of communication would significantly reduce the need for face to face meeting, greatly reducing transportation requirements and environmental impact.

    We are technically close, increased consistent bandwidth is the last missing ingredient. Fibre is what will provide it.
  60. J B from Canada writes: The problem is not only that the federal government doesn't push it, it also discourages it. I've been working on a project over the last two years to connect fiber running along cpr from Vancouver to Montreal and the gov't has shut it down at every turn. They are simply not interested and believe that the private sector will pay for this connectivity. If we built the canadian railroad system with the same attitude it would take 13 different trains on different set of tracks to get across Canada.
  61. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Yes we need FTTH, no we don't need corporate welfare to achieve it!

    Bell made just over $4 billion in profit last year, why should they receive one single cent of taxpayer money to do what they should already be doing. Legislation is needed not government handouts to the wealthy corporations!

    Legislate that any new roads must have fibre & the same for roads that are being re-paved, along with the new sewers & sidewalks. Stipulate in the legislation that for re-paved roads, the homeowner pays for the installation of fibre from the street to their home, if they desire it at the time. For re-paved roads it should be optional to bring the fibre from the roadway to the home, since existing homes already have copper, as well, homeowners should have the option of hiring any licensed contractor & not just Bell to install fibre to their home from the roadway.

    If legislation of this type were implemented today, in 10 years 25 to 40 percent of homes in cities would be FTTH ready. The costs to telcos would barely dent their profits & the cost to homeowners would be well under the quoted $800 minimum in the article. There would also be no need to charge subscribers one cent more for Internet access. I can buy 250ft of 62.5/125 Multimode Duplex Fibre Optic Cable for under $125, enough to do two detached single family homes, add another $50 for connectors & all that's left is the connection from street to house.
  62. ken g from Canadian in Mexico, Canada writes: Remember the days when Telcos were owned by the provincial governments? AGT, BCTel, SaskTEL, ManitobaTEL, etc. That is when the foundation for the initial infrastructure was laid. Who owns the Telcos in the countries where FTTH exists?
  63. John Williams from TO, Canada writes: Its funny how they say we NEED fiber to stay an advanced country.

    But the fiber will be used for High-def movies and sports!!!

    LOL!!

    Also high-def wrestling?

    Yes, the public NEEDS more distraction and entertainment to stay "advanced".
    (notice how more than a few folks here admit to being in the business of selling fiber-optics for a living).
  64. Richard Atkinson from Napanee, writes: I have noticed with interest the variety of comments in the implementation of FTTH. During the last month the cable company have had service crews upgrading the 30 year old cable system to improve its already poor quality. Bell have also had a team doing their latest repair and patch of the 1973's copper pairs cable and they are continuously changing defective pairs. The amount of time and resources spent in this patch and mend process would be far better spent on replacing with FTTH using a common conduit and allow for expansion of new services. A fibre trunk system is in place at the end of our street only 200 yards away. When I retired 14 years ago the cost of fibre was cheaper to install than copper and subject to fewer problems. Fibre is also capable of being upgraded by improved terminal devices. So why is there so much resistance to upgrading to fibre when this is needed.
  65. Spivack GlobeFeedback from Markham, Canada writes: - John Williams from TO is really pushing wireless

    - The future is wireless, Rogers tells telecom summit (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06/16/telecom-summit.html)

    - Perhaps John should read a 2002 artcle about dark fibre: Can Canada be a World Leader in the next Internet Revolution? (http://www.canarie.ca/advnet/fibre.html)
  66. Justin Payne from Richmond BC, Canada writes: Albin Forone from Canada writes: What about "dark fibre" in Canada

    Thanks for the link. Fascinating article I think there are a lot of people on this thread who should read the entire article and learn something truly amazing about the future of Canadian communications.
    To Spivack,
    I agree, Mr John Williams should have a read.
    http://www.canarie.ca/advnet/fibre.html
  67. Spivack GlobeFeedback from Markham, Canada writes: Richard Atkinson from Napanee, writes: "When I retired 14 years ago the cost of fibre was cheaper to install than copper and subject to fewer problems. Fibre is also capable of being upgraded by improved terminal devices. So why is there so much resistance to upgrading to fibre when this is needed. "

    Government is out of touch with "true" technology and forward-thinking business and Canadian companies do not want to spend to upgrade unless goverment "kicks-in" money - the crisis in the auto industry is a good example.
  68. Gordon Murray from Canada writes: Now that Bell has passed that federal test and the Teacher's Pension IPO will more or less proceed, Bell can ease up on the "throttling" that some liken to laughable three-stooge service ("'short and curlys' release"). ~<~
    Continued throttling would be pointless now, right?
    rIgHt?? hEy! heY! wHuT GiVes? mY kEyboArD!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.