Fwd: HISTORIC opportunity for cheaper Internet in Toronto
On 2021-01-28 5:45 p.m., David Collier-Brown via talk wrote:
A proposal for a community broadband, in Toronto!
Several years ago, Toronto Hydro had the same idea. I believe they sold their fibre to Cogeco. Back when I was with Unitel, working with Rogers, we'd use Hydro fibre to reach customers in the downtown core.
Hydro was "purchasable" --dave On 2021-01-28 7:18 p.m., James Knott via talk wrote:
On 2021-01-28 5:45 p.m., David Collier-Brown via talk wrote:
A proposal for a community broadband, in Toronto!
Several years ago, Toronto Hydro had the same idea. I believe they sold their fibre to Cogeco. Back when I was with Unitel, working with Rogers, we'd use Hydro fibre to reach customers in the downtown core.
--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
-- David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest davecb@spamcop.net | -- Mark Twain
Some web links, PLEASE? thanks On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 21:29:37 -0500 James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On 2021-01-28 8:52 p.m., David Collier-Brown via talk wrote:
Hydro was "purchasable"
????
--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On 1/28/21 7:18 PM, James Knott via talk wrote:
On 2021-01-28 5:45 p.m., David Collier-Brown via talk wrote:
A proposal for a community broadband, in Toronto!
Several years ago, Toronto Hydro had the same idea. I believe they sold their fibre to Cogeco. Back when I was with Unitel, working with Rogers, we'd use Hydro fibre to reach customers in the downtown core.
Not sure of steps in between but Cogeco ended up with Toronto Hydro Telecom and bundled it with Peer1 which they recently sold to https://www.digitalcolony.com/ and its now called Aptum. https://aptum.com/newsroom/cogeco-peer-1-acquistion-by-digital-colony-closes... So a large chunk of Ontario's telecom infrastructure is in the hands of a bunch of fund managers. I have a feeling that will not end well for Ontario users of telecom services. <https://www.digitalcolony.com/> -- Alvin Starr || land: (647)478-6285 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@netvel.net ||
On 2021-01-29 8:05 a.m., Alvin Starr via talk wrote:
On 1/28/21 7:18 PM, James Knott via talk wrote:
On 2021-01-28 5:45 p.m., David Collier-Brown via talk wrote:
A proposal for a community broadband, in Toronto!
Several years ago, Toronto Hydro had the same idea. I believe they sold their fibre to Cogeco. Back when I was with Unitel, working with Rogers, we'd use Hydro fibre to reach customers in the downtown core.
Not sure of steps in between but Cogeco ended up with Toronto Hydro Telecom and bundled it with Peer1 which they recently sold to https://www.digitalcolony.com/ <https://www.digitalcolony.com/> and its now called Aptum. https://aptum.com/newsroom/cogeco-peer-1-acquistion-by-digital-colony-closes... <https://aptum.com/newsroom/cogeco-peer-1-acquistion-by-digital-colony-closes/>
So a large chunk of Ontario's telecom infrastructure is in the hands of a bunch of fund managers. I have a feeling that will not end well for Ontario users of telecom services.
Conversely, the US FCC (just) reached out to Vint Cerf, Dave Taht and others to advise on the $3.2 billion "Emergency Broadband Benefit Program", instead of watching their infrastructure just circle the drain (;-)) --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com | -- Mark Twain
On 2021-01-29 8:05 a.m., Alvin Starr via talk wrote:
I have a feeling that will not end well for Ontario users of telecom services.
I don't think it could be going more badly for Ontario users. A friend has just moved to Helsinki. We compared available plans: Telia's worst plan was faster than Bell's best plan, and it wasn't possible to have a plan with Telia that cost as much as Bell's plans. Stewart
On 1/29/21 9:17 AM, Stewart C. Russell via talk wrote:
I have a feeling that will not end well for Ontario users of telecom services. I don't think it could be going more badly for Ontario users. A friend has just moved to Helsinki. We compared available plans: Telia's worst
On 2021-01-29 8:05 a.m., Alvin Starr via talk wrote: plan was faster than Bell's best plan, and it wasn't possible to have a plan with Telia that cost as much as Bell's plans.
Stewart
--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk We have been to more than 10 third world countries over the years and ALL of them have had faster and cheaper service than here.
A couple of years ago we took a trip along the Mississippi valley and had no coverage for most of that trip. Compare that to a trip to South America where we had coverage in the Andes mountains. Every night I pray for more Starlink satellites. -- Alvin Starr || land: (647)478-6285 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@netvel.net ||
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:05 AM Alvin Starr via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On 1/28/21 7:18 PM, James Knott via talk wrote:
On 2021-01-28 5:45 p.m., David Collier-Brown via talk wrote:
A proposal for a community broadband, in Toronto!
Several years ago, Toronto Hydro had the same idea. I believe they sold their fibre to Cogeco. Back when I was with Unitel, working with Rogers, we'd use Hydro fibre to reach customers in the downtown core.
Not sure of steps in between but Cogeco ended up with Toronto Hydro Telecom and bundled it with Peer1 which they recently sold to https://www.digitalcolony.com/ and its now called Aptum. https://aptum.com/newsroom/cogeco-peer-1-acquistion-by-digital-colony-closes...
So a large chunk of Ontario's telecom infrastructure is in the hands of a bunch of fund managers. I have a feeling that will not end well for Ontario users of telecom services.
Of course not - - - - but - - - - the fund managers will make a crap load of money in the process. Bell bought MTS - - - - there were promises of some $4+ billion for infrastructure improvements. Don't think I've seen any improvements - - -rather the opposite in fact - - - - things are getting suckier! How can you tell when a mega corp exec or a politician are lying - - - - are their lips moving? Same old same old!
| From: David Collier-Brown via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | A proposal for a community broadband, in Toronto! I actually think that there is a better approach. The free market is generally a good way to provide services but there are failure modes in the free market. The main failure mode is monopoly. A second failure mode is not providing services to customers who cost more than the revenue that they generate. Problem 1: monopolies. Ones that are vertically and horizontally integrated. Technically, duopolies, but who's counting. The solution isn't to replace them with another monopoly (a government body). The solution: - recognize that there is a natural monopoly and create a regulated field for them. The obvious natural monopoly is the physical substrate of the networks. In fact, there are certain parts of the network that could have competition. The last mile isn't one of those parts. - forbid any integration with the monopoly entity. For example, if it provides physical connectivity, it must not provide services. - the monopoly must be regulated to behave in "common carrier" mode: it must not differentiate in price based upon what the network is carrying. "Network Neutrality" - a nice competitive market for services should be possible. New services can be freely invented. Evidence: the web has a larger set of choices and kinds of services that the phone system. Problem 2: apparently poor folks are not getting enough broadband. - should we subsidize service for them (us)? Perhaps they're making a rational choice on how to allocate their resources. - should we subsidize connectivity for everyone? There are advantages to avoiding discontinuities in policies Years ago, POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) was subsidized, mostly by charging a lot more for long distance service (considered a luxury). This worked fine for a long time but broke down. It isn't clear whether this was good policy. As soon as the single-system, single-provider model of phone service broke down, lots of creativity bloomed. Consider the road system as a model. That's a public resource. I don't 100% know how to analogize this. - roads are (mostly, best) provided publicly - vehicles are provided by a variety of actors (private, mostly, but also public transit) - regulation is by many levels of government, for many separate purposes - a lot of people are killed on the roads. Problem 3: stupid underbuilding of infrastructure Require all builders to provide fibre connectivity in each building. Controversial: that fibre should reach a local, neutral hub where a choice of connectivity providers have presence. The building owner should own this fibre. If there are tenants, the building owner should provide equitable access to that fibre.
I definitely agree: NB and Nova Scotis have done some work with fixed tariffs for access to public poles... this is a workaround to private duopolies. --dave On 2021-01-29 6:11 p.m., D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
| From: David Collier-Brown via talk <talk@gtalug.org>
| A proposal for a community broadband, in Toronto!
I actually think that there is a better approach.
The free market is generally a good way to provide services but there are failure modes in the free market. The main failure mode is monopoly. A second failure mode is not providing services to customers who cost more than the revenue that they generate.
Problem 1: monopolies. Ones that are vertically and horizontally integrated. Technically, duopolies, but who's counting.
The solution isn't to replace them with another monopoly (a government body).
The solution:
- recognize that there is a natural monopoly and create a regulated field for them. The obvious natural monopoly is the physical substrate of the networks.
In fact, there are certain parts of the network that could have competition. The last mile isn't one of those parts.
- forbid any integration with the monopoly entity. For example, if it provides physical connectivity, it must not provide services.
- the monopoly must be regulated to behave in "common carrier" mode: it must not differentiate in price based upon what the network is carrying. "Network Neutrality"
- a nice competitive market for services should be possible. New services can be freely invented. Evidence: the web has a larger set of choices and kinds of services that the phone system.
Problem 2: apparently poor folks are not getting enough broadband.
- should we subsidize service for them (us)? Perhaps they're making a rational choice on how to allocate their resources.
- should we subsidize connectivity for everyone? There are advantages to avoiding discontinuities in policies
Years ago, POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) was subsidized, mostly by charging a lot more for long distance service (considered a luxury). This worked fine for a long time but broke down. It isn't clear whether this was good policy.
As soon as the single-system, single-provider model of phone service broke down, lots of creativity bloomed.
Consider the road system as a model. That's a public resource. I don't 100% know how to analogize this.
- roads are (mostly, best) provided publicly
- vehicles are provided by a variety of actors (private, mostly, but also public transit)
- regulation is by many levels of government, for many separate purposes
- a lot of people are killed on the roads.
Problem 3: stupid underbuilding of infrastructure
Require all builders to provide fibre connectivity in each building.
Controversial: that fibre should reach a local, neutral hub where a choice of connectivity providers have presence. The building owner should own this fibre. If there are tenants, the building owner should provide equitable access to that fibre.
--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
-- David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com | -- Mark Twain
participants (8)
-
ac -
Alvin Starr -
D. Hugh Redelmeier -
Dave Collier-Brown -
David Collier-Brown
-
James Knott -
o1bigtenor -
Stewart C. Russell