Rural towns to get faster Internet service off backs of cities - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

hugh · 2008-01-18, 01:15 PM

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission yesterday approved individual plans by the biggest phone companies to bring broadband service to some 350 areas throughout B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario. They will use about half of a $650-million pot of money collected between 2002 and 2006 by overcharging customers in cities.

This really annoys. I'm overpaying to subsidize someone else's High Speed internet service.

IMHO, rural Internet service is NOT something that should be subsidized by cities.

I can live with subsidized phone service, postal service but subsidizing so some kid can watch porn or youtube video's is crazy.

Mole · 2008-01-18, 02:50 PM

And of course they can all spread the hatred of TO. more economically.

i hate tv · 2008-01-18, 06:22 PM

I think everyone should have access to porn, err, I mean, high speed internet
I'm with you on this one Hugh
City slickers get highspeed, but also get rush hour traffic, pollution, increased crime, and all the other good things that come with city living
I have friends that bragged about moving to the country
No more rush hour traffic
Fresh air
Acre lots, and on and on
But then complained about "affordable" high speed internet...

clee991 · 2008-01-19, 10:57 AM

Not to worry! I sit on a rural county committee working at ensuring availability of 'high speed' to all residents.

Bell contacted us regarding the service upgrade which could be funded from the 'deferral account' subject to ruling. Bell indicated that they would limit these upgrades to only areas where there was a written commitment to NOT implement competing technologies or providers. Even at that the technology and coverage plan proposed by Bell was far from state of the art.

I can't imagine too many communities in such desperate straits that the deferral account funded upgrades will come into application if Bell's stance is the same.

Chris

i hate tv · 2008-01-19, 11:08 AM

If you live in a rural area, there usually are other options for high speed
Wireless is picking up quite a bit, and so is Satellite Internet
Both services may not be as fast as cable/dsl, or be in the same price range, but if you need it, its better than dial up.

FitzieSensei · 2008-01-19, 11:39 AM

.....if you LIVED in a rural area, I'd expect you would not oppose such an idea!

You'd be only too happy to have someone else subsidize your internet!

dennism3 · 2008-01-19, 01:28 PM

Then you better start paying for your transit service in TO. Provincial grants help pay for a lot of services in big cities...and yes the city taxpayers pay for most, rural taxpayers contribute also.
I'm not opposed to this even though I already have high speed because I feel high speed is becoming a necessity. Dial up barely works with all the ads and crap on sites now (except this one of course).

technut · 2008-01-19, 07:58 PM

Hugh, high-speed Internet *is* the new phone/postal service (which you say you were willing to subsidize).

I'm sure nobody thought letter mail or phone calls were essential when those services first started up, but they quickly became essential. And today both are subject to frivolous misuse (junk mail and telemarketing come to mind), but that doesn't mean they aren't / weren't essential.

If you want to thrive in the 21st century you'll need high-speed Internet. Since the free-market companies aren't willing to serve everyone equally, it is up to society and our governments to tweak the free-market system so that it serves even those citizens who foolishly choose not to sit in a 6x6 cubical in the middle of a big stinking city and who instead do farming or something equally unproductive.

I_Want_My_HDTV · 2008-01-20, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Bell indicated that they would limit these upgrades to only areas where there was a written commitment to NOT implement competing technologies or providers.

Bell has been told by the CRTC to provide high speed internet to rural customers. The Bell/Rogers wireless system was to serve rural areas but, so far, has only been implemented for large cities. I'm sure that the CRTC would like to hear about your situation and the conditions that Bell placed on its high speed service. (I wouldn't be surprised if Bell is telling the CRTC that you refused high speed internet in your area.) Such anti-competitive practices are probably illegal and are certainly against CRTC policy.

i hate tv · 2008-01-20, 03:39 PM

I don't understand why Bell has to provide high speed to these areas?
Why isn't Rogers forced to provide high speed?
Or Cogeco? Shaw?
So does Bell have to provide the infrastructure to get high speed in these rural areas?
So if Bell pays to have these areas high speed ready, is any DSL provider then allowed to use the now upgraded lines to provide service?
If thats the case, I can see why Bell is dragging their feet
Force them to spend the money to upgrade, and then another DSL provider comes in, offers cheap DSL, and uses the newly upgraded infrastructure....

2008-01-18, 01:15 PM	#1
hugh Member #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 47,492	Rural towns to get faster Internet service off backs of cities The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission yesterday approved individual plans by the biggest phone companies to bring broadband service to some 350 areas throughout B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario. They will use about half of a $650-million pot of money collected between 2002 and 2006 by overcharging customers in cities. This really annoys. I'm overpaying to subsidize someone else's High Speed internet service. IMHO, rural Internet service is NOT something that should be subsidized by cities. I can live with subsidized phone service, postal service but subsidizing so some kid can watch porn or youtube video's is crazy. __________________ As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.

2008-01-18, 02:50 PM	#2
Mole Veteran Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,246	And of course they can all spread the hatred of TO. more economically. __________________ "I've sworn off agnosticism, which I now call cowardly atheism" James Cameron

2008-01-19, 11:39 AM	#6
FitzieSensei Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Labrador City, NFLD Posts: 196	.....if you LIVED in a rural area, I'd expect you would not oppose such an idea! You'd be only too happy to have someone else subsidize your internet! __________________ If it floats thru the air, shouldn't anyone be able to capture it?

2008-01-19, 07:58 PM	#8
technut Veteran Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Victoria, BC (on Shaw TV & Internet, Telus home phone, Bell mobile) Posts: 1,767	Hugh, high-speed Internet is the new phone/postal service (which you say you were willing to subsidize). I'm sure nobody thought letter mail or phone calls were essential when those services first started up, but they quickly became essential. And today both are subject to frivolous misuse (junk mail and telemarketing come to mind), but that doesn't mean they aren't / weren't essential. If you want to thrive in the 21st century you'll need high-speed Internet. Since the free-market companies aren't willing to serve everyone equally, it is up to society and our governments to tweak the free-market system so that it serves even those citizens who foolishly choose not to sit in a 6x6 cubical in the middle of a big stinking city and who instead do farming or something equally unproductive. __________________ Mike / technut

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2008-01-18, 06:22 PM	#3
i hate tv Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,317	I think everyone should have access to porn, err, I mean, high speed internet I'm with you on this one Hugh City slickers get highspeed, but also get rush hour traffic, pollution, increased crime, and all the other good things that come with city living I have friends that bragged about moving to the country No more rush hour traffic Fresh air Acre lots, and on and on But then complained about "affordable" high speed internet...

2008-01-19, 10:57 AM	#4
clee991 Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Huron County, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1	Not to worry! I sit on a rural county committee working at ensuring availability of 'high speed' to all residents. Bell contacted us regarding the service upgrade which could be funded from the 'deferral account' subject to ruling. Bell indicated that they would limit these upgrades to only areas where there was a written commitment to NOT implement competing technologies or providers. Even at that the technology and coverage plan proposed by Bell was far from state of the art. I can't imagine too many communities in such desperate straits that the deferral account funded upgrades will come into application if Bell's stance is the same. Chris

2008-01-19, 11:08 AM	#5
i hate tv Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,317	If you live in a rural area, there usually are other options for high speed Wireless is picking up quite a bit, and so is Satellite Internet Both services may not be as fast as cable/dsl, or be in the same price range, but if you need it, its better than dial up.

2008-01-19, 01:28 PM	#7
dennism3 Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 531	Then you better start paying for your transit service in TO. Provincial grants help pay for a lot of services in big cities...and yes the city taxpayers pay for most, rural taxpayers contribute also. I'm not opposed to this even though I already have high speed because I feel high speed is becoming a necessity. Dial up barely works with all the ads and crap on sites now (except this one of course).

2008-01-20, 03:39 PM	#10
i hate tv Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,317	I don't understand why Bell has to provide high speed to these areas? Why isn't Rogers forced to provide high speed? Or Cogeco? Shaw? So does Bell have to provide the infrastructure to get high speed in these rural areas? So if Bell pays to have these areas high speed ready, is any DSL provider then allowed to use the now upgraded lines to provide service? If thats the case, I can see why Bell is dragging their feet Force them to spend the money to upgrade, and then another DSL provider comes in, offers cheap DSL, and uses the newly upgraded infrastructure....