The Globe reports that Telus has argued in a submission to the CRTC that satellite, cable, copper, and wireless options will together provide 100 percent broadband coverage in Canada without the need for regulation. Telus rejects calls for an Internet obligation to serve.
Telus Rejects Internet Obligation to Serve
4 Comments
Recent Posts
Time for the Government to Fix Its Political Party Privacy Blunder: Kill Bill C-4’s Disastrous Privacy Rules 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 257: Lisa Given on What Canada Can Learn From Australia’s Youth Social Media Ban 
Court Ordered Social Media Site Blocking Coming to Canada?: Trojan Horse Online Harms Bill Clears Senate Committee Review 
An Illusion of Consensus: What the Government Isn’t Saying About the Results of its AI Consultation 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 256: Jennifer Quaid on Taking On Big Tech With the Competition Act’s Private Right of Access
What is considered to be “Broadband”
I ask this in all seriousness. In my area, satellite and wireless are the only options. However, topology makes wireless a non-option for me (even my next-door neighbor has issues with connectivity in the summer). This makes satellite internet access my only option.
Xplornet is the local guy for me. They have 4 satellite options, ranging from 512kbps/128kbps (download/upload) ($49.99 per month) to 1Mbps/128kbps ($59.99 per month) to 1Mbps/256kbps ($79.99 per month). All prices on the current special offer price, with no indication of the regular price.
So, would 1 Mbps be considered to be broadband? For most people, I would argue no, especially those that watch TV over the internet.
collusion
One must be blind not to see the collusion between the CRTC and the big telcos at the detriment of Canadians. Canadians pay the highest price per GB of all developed nations. The Conservatives had a plan to open up the markets and abolish the CRTC but none of this happenend. Shame.
Open Access
Let’s be real here, the only way to end the absurdity of the current duopoly is to move to open access infrastructure. Phone and cable companies owning the infrastructure of the internet is a conflict of interest. We will never have competition or substantial market growth while Telus, Bell, Rogers and Shaw stand as gatekeepers to the ISP market. Privately owned network infrastructure makes no more sense than turning every road in Canada into a private toll road. The cost of laying an open access fiber-to-the-door network in most major centers, and setting up open access wireless in more rural areas has got to be cheaper for the nation than the dead weight the incumbent network operators cost our economy. Let any wholesale ISP that can pay for access do so, and generate some real competition in the market.
huh
You clearly dont know wtf you talking about. My dad worked for Telus/AGT his whole life. They are FORCED to allow other players access to their ducts and aerial infastructure as well as line leasing. WTF do you expect them to do everything for people who want to compete with them? Thats just ridiculous. They payed to lay the infastructure after all. You wanna compete buy the equipment yourself lay your own fiber, setup your own cabinets, etc or be forced to rent.
I do think the goverment should build the infastructure between the bigger citys and smaller areas though because it can be rather expensive to lay fiber between those areas, contract the work to the telecoms for w/e price and let anyone who wants to use it pay for access like they do for wireless frequencys.
Also what some people dont realize is companys like Shaw dont seem to fall under the teleco label which they should because of how things work these days. That means they dont have to let others lease their lines like Telus is forced to do, which is ridiculous.