Universal high-speed internet essential: Liberals

[Colin Parkinson]

foresterab

Similar situation although I am in Vancouver, but everything goes through our server in Ottawa, plus working in a Citrix environment, actually that’s an oxymoron, working and Citrix never goes well together. Our office is refusing for good reason to use Fttp sites as it is hopeless to attempt a download and this is in a major city, I can imagine what is like further North. Review packages average 5-6MB and a full environmental review is closing in on 1 gigabit. We are now getting both DVD and USB sticks sent to us.

 

[Haletown]

Just because people live in the country, where they live to find a land of peace & quiet, no traffic congestion, quiet  neighbors, clean air & water, doesn't mean they should have to suffer slow internet speed when they go online to order Viagra & look for porn.

It is a violation of their basic human rights and if they don't get high speed access they might starve to death . . STARVE  I tell ya.

Or maybe they could just pay what it costs instead of trying to get other people to pay for their life style.

Now maybe if they would support my campaign to pay city people a subsidy so they go to the country every weekend for quiet  times  & clean air . . .

 

[Nemo888]

I wish we had a free market in Canada for internet access. It has turned into a Bell/Rogers duopoly. Their anti-competitive behavior is well documented. The courts defer from ruling saying it is the jurisdiction of the CRTC. The CRTC, filled with ex-executives from the big two, is a rubber stamp and deliberately does not enforce the Telecommunications Act.  Quite maddening when laws are sitting on the books unenforced. My internet gets more expensive every year with nominal speed increases but every other piece of high tech in my life is ten times faster at one tenth the cost it was in 2000. There is actually a sizable FOTH(Fibre To The Home) movement in the USA. These small towns have decided that in the long run it is similar to other infrastructure that increases productivity like roads and schools.

I also think of internet as essential infrastructure. I would actually like to trade daily delivery from Canada Post and have fibre internet put into my home with the cost savings. I don't use mail anymore. I do all my banking, bills, correspondence, tickets, etc online. Keep mail deliver to only one or two days a week in case I buy something from Amazon or Ebay. Would this be a workable compromise?

 

[Kat Stevens]

A good portion of this country's population still drinks skunjy well water, have their own shit mellow under their back lawn, are paying $.10 a litre more for diesel than gas, no basic cable TV or cell coverage, and high speed internet is their priority?

 

[Journeyman]

A good portion of this country's population still drinks skunjy well water, have their own shit mellow under their back lawn, are paying $.10 a litre more for diesel than gas, no basic cable TV or cell coverage, and high speed internet is their priority?

If you were from Toronto, you'd understand the crisis    ;D

 

[Kat Stevens]

If you were from Toronto, you'd understand the crisis    ;D

Clearly, I'm not getting it.

 

[Nemo888]

But the kids all go to school, they have ploughed roads and postal service nearby. Unemployment is also a huge problem in those smaller communities, per capita social assistance rates are often much higher than in major centres. The internet is the postal service for the majority of younger people. Even more importantly for growth it enables banking, trade and international communication from remote locations at marginal cost. I know a day trader who lives in a town of 4000 people. He pumps his money locally and in this town the welfare office is the biggest employer. The local mine needs affordable access to international markets. Hard to sell things when no one knows you exist. Internet is more important than Canada Post which we still pay for. Times have changed. If we want financial prosperity we need inexpensive non monopolized data links, not letter carriers. If you extend those links into our smaller communities they will share in that prosperity.

I would think that increasing financial prosperity in rural areas by extending infrastructure would be considered a good thing.

 

[Kat Stevens]

You're gonna have to come up with some numbers to back that up.  I'm pretty certain that, per capita, there are fewer cases of welfare here in Westlock Alberta than there are in Toronto.

 

[Nemo888]

It's per capita rates and the stats are generally kept very secret. I have a friend of 20 years that has worked for Ontario Works since 1998. The problem in the smaller community he was posted in before he went to Toronto was compounded by much longer times on assistance because there were no local jobs and a very high teen birth rate. I can tell you that they did offer every person 1200$ immediately on being accepted for assistance to move to a larger community. I must keep the towns name to myself. He finds it easier push someone off assistance in TO.

But this is somewhat off topic. Would you trade daily mail delivery for home internet as a replacement?

 

[MJP]

.

But this is somewhat off topic. Would you trade daily mail delivery for home internet as a replacement?

Apples and Oranges (except in astronomical cost to service so few people)

I won't presume to speak for Kat but if I had my way home mail delivery would go the way of the dodo anyway even in the big cities.  Lots of money spent for not much value added when you compare how cost effective centralized mail boxes are.  However there would be a zombie....ugh senior citizen revolt so that isn't happening anytime soon.

 

[GAP]

..ugh senior citizen revolt so that isn't happening anytime soon.

uh huh....

Actually, I agree with you.....the days of door to door mail delivery should cost extra....mind.....the receptionist at my office is a p/t mail deliverer/sorter and I wouldn't want to miss that eye candy delivering the mail........ ;D

 

[captloadie]

Why can't we have both? Here in the Netherlands, I currently have a 120 MBps connection, plus there is a fibre connection running into the house I don't use. TNT, the mail company in my area, delivers mail to my door, 6 days a week. And if we're not home and there is a package, they'll leave it at the neighbour's for us.

As said before, the issue is competition. There are at least 6 large internet/telephone/cable suppliers competing for my money. There are I believe three commercial mail companies, plus the Netherlands Postal service delivering mail and parcels.

And maybe the provinces should do more. I can remember when NB was on the cutting edge of telecommunications, running fibre optics throughout the province. But guess what? My parents can't highspeed internet even though the lines run by the house. And why? Only one company offers the service in the area, and the rate of return for providing the service is obviously not great enough.

 

[MJP]

Why can't we have both? Here in the Netherlands, I currently have a 120 MBps connection, plus there is a fibre connection running into the house I don't use. TNT, the mail company in my area, delivers mail to my door, 6 days a week. And if we're not home and there is a package, they'll leave it at the neighbour's for us.

As said before, the issue is competition. There are at least 6 large internet/telephone/cable suppliers competing for my money. There are I believe three commercial mail companies, plus the Netherlands Postal service delivering mail and parcels.

And maybe the provinces should do more. I can remember when NB was on the cutting edge of telecommunications, running fibre optics throughout the province. But guess what? My parents can't highspeed internet even though the lines run by the house. And why? Only one company offers the service in the area, and the rate of return for providing the service is obviously not great enough.

Ahh Europe where you can have your cake and eat it too.  Too bad that most countries there are having a ever increasingly difficult time with their ever increasing social spending and the increase in taxation that comes with.  Also the Netherlands has a total area of 41,526 sq km (16,033 sq mi).  Canada has a total area of 9.9 million square kilometers (3.8 million square miles).  A country that can fit inside Canada over 235 times will have no problem delivering high speed internet to almost every area.  I as a taxpayer even if I lived in one of those areas that cannot get high speed would not want the billions spend on providing a resource to a small percentage of the population. 

 

[captloadie]

Ahh, but you have missed my point. It is competition, not the social spending that allows me the perks I'm enjoying. That being said, if there are only two corporations large enough to build the infrastructure required, what chances are there that there will ever be competition?

 

[GAP]

Yeah, but is that not still the big fish in little pond syndrome....supplying 1/235 of the area is a whole lot easier then having lines snake across tundra.....

 

[Journeyman]

..... if there are only two corporations large enough to build the infrastructure required, what chances are there that there will ever be competition?

I suspect that if the government got out of supporting certain businesses, there would be more companies entering into those markets to provide the competition.


On a completely irrelevant point -- the thing I like about the Netherlands is that they took my ex-wife. We get along great....now that she lives in Rotterdam  ;D

 

[MJP]

Ahh, but you have missed my point. It is competition, not the social spending that allows me the perks I'm enjoying. That being said, if there are only two corporations large enough to build the infrastructure required, what chances are there that there will ever be competition?

I got your point, my first sentence was merely a swipe at Europe.  Did not add to the argument......mea culpa.

I would be glad to see the end of regulation of services that currently happens here in Canada.  It would certainly lower the costs of some things, that are artificially high like cell phones and the like.  Do I think that rational companies looking after their bottom line will spends billions on infrastructure for so few people?  Not a chance.  They will under public pressure provide a solution (satellite etc etc) but there is no way they will spend the billions it would cost with today's technology.  No rational shareholder would allow that no matter what the competition scene is like.  They will as any company would focus on the areas with larger populations where their cost ratios make sense.

 

[captloadie]

Lets take three small rural provinces, say the Maritimes. The Gov't runs cable throughout using tax payers money. They then lease the lines out to several internet companies, none of which begin with BELL, or ROGERS, and then see what happens. Not only would homeowners benefit, but so would entrepreneurs and business. The provinces then use the money collected in taxes from these companies to pay off the investment.

Yes, I know communications is governed at the national level, but this may be a possible solution.

 

[MJP]

Lets take three small rural provinces, say the Maritimes. The Gov't runs cable throughout using tax payers money. They then lease the lines out to several internet companies, none of which begin with BELL, or ROGERS, and then see what happens. Not only would homeowners benefit, but so would entrepreneurs and business. The provinces then use the money collected in taxes from these companies to pay off the investment.

Yes, I know communications is governed at the national level, but this may be a possible solution.

If it is revenue neutral then yes it is a solution that could be lived with, but then you get into the issue of the government owning more assets rather than less.  Not to mention a probable increase in some sort of regulation of the industry (in those proposed areas) rather than less.  It is not so viable with the truly isolated areas like the north where small isolated pockets of Canadians live.  That is where the true cost comes in and quite frankly as a taxpayer is not acceptable.  High speed internet is not a right and thus should not thrust into the spotlight like it is.  I will say again with the technology available today, the cost is not worth it to us the Canadian tax payer.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A good portion of this country's population still drinks skunjy well water, have their own crap mellow under their back lawn, are paying $.10 a litre more for diesel than gas, no basic cable TV or cell coverage, and high speed internet is their priority?

With the Internet access comes things like work opportunities, new ideas, better communications, skype to name a few things. Having been to a lot of small communities, having internet access had a profound effect, generally for the better on the communities.

Just applying for an Independent Power Production facility between a town with internet access and without shortens the review period by months as questions and answers can be done so much faster, not to mention the huge saving in travel costs for the reviewing agencies. Plus you can have nursing stations with video access to emergency surgeons. Better weather reporting across the country, the list goes on and on.

Canada was a world leader in long distance communications, figuring out new ways to provide better and more widespread internet services will likely have a good return on investments and hopefully R&D successes that can be sold overseas.