OECD Broadband Rankings: Canada Ranks 28th out of 33 Countries Based on Bell, Rogers & Shaw Data

The OECD published its latest comparative broadband Internet data last week, confirming yet again that Canadian consumers pay more for less when it comes to Internet access. While some will undoubtedly claim that the OECD methodology is faulty, it should be noted that the data is provided to OECD member governments before publication. For this survey, the OECD focused on three of Canada’s largest ISPs – Bell, Shaw, and Rogers – covering 18 of their offerings at a range of speeds and pricing points.

The focus should be on the numbers, which tell a discouraging tale. Among the findings on price of Internet services (all as of September 2010):

Speed Rank
Overall 28th out of 33
Below 2.5 Mbps 17th out of 24
Between 2.5 an 15 Mbps 28th out of 33
Between 15 and 30 Mbps 29th out of 33
Over 45 Mbps 23rd out of 28

Moreover, Canada trails in more than just pricing. The OECD found gigabit to the home service in Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Portugal, while Canada was back in the middle of the pack at 100 Mbit service.  Canada was unsurprisingly one of the only countries where all offers included an explicit data cap (Australia, Iceland, and New Zealand were the the countries). In fact, the majority of the countries surveyed featured no data caps whatsoever.

The OECD data once again confirms that there are serious problems with pricing and competitiveness of Canadian broadband access. In Australia, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, has cited the OECD data as evidence that Australia also trails much of the developed world. The question in Canada is whether the data will provide a similar political support for change.

Tags: / / / /


  1. This should be an election issue!

  2. It must be said that congestion is much
    worse than a cap. TCP will automatically throttle you back is it see drops. Is there a ranking for congestion?

  3. Ivan Merrow says:

    Can Population Density be Blamed for Higher Internet Prices in Canada?
    Thanks for posting.

    How much do you think Canada’s relatively low population density (and thus greater infrastructure dollars required per user) can be blamed for the higher internet costs?

    Or, is it just the lack of competition among Canadian ISPs that keeps prices so high?

  4. Population Density is Misleading
    Canada does have a low overall population density, but it’s very unevenly distributed. I forget the exact statistics, but a very high percentage (80%+) of Canadians live in a medium sized city of some sort. Also, most of Canada’s population is in a small strip near the US-Canada border.

    So while getting 100% coverage is difficult, getting most Canadians on the internet is actually a pretty easy task.

    Though let’s not forget that much of the infrastructure costs are covered by the government in the form of subsidies.

  5. Bill Hillier says:

    Worht reading:
    great paper from MIT, dated 2008! Note the sentences at the botom of page 2, top of page 3…
    also worth a look:

  6. Jesse Whitnack says:

    ISP’s in canada
    the ISP’s here in canada are only doing this to stop competition, (netflix, magic jack, torrents) there is No serious congestion in canada. the best way to profit off any resource, is to create the illusion of scarcity. marketing 101…
    the ISP’s are playing on the inaccuracy of canadians understanding of the internet. most people here dont give two craps about internet prices. mainly because it makes them feel insignificant because they dont know the technical issues behind this topic. (they feel stupid for not knowing, so they believe whatever the ISP’s tell them.)
    if your one who thinks that the population density and massive landscape to cover is an issue, then take a good look at russia for a few minutes.. cities and towns are quite far apart and the country is about as big as canada..
    ISP excuses in canada, congestion, cost of upgrades, “other people using more then other’s”, and competition (netflix magic jack and torrents)
    quote=Martin said:

    It must be said that congestion is much
    worse than a cap. TCP will automatically throttle you back is it see drops. Is there a ranking for congestion?/quote

    I dont know where you got your schooling, but fiber+coaxial networks rarely have congestion issues. Telus or any other DSL lines will have issues if everyone was maxing out their lines consistently, because DSL’s “last mile” to customers homes are still using copper/twisted pair wiring. with a bandwidth/speed limit of 25mbit. coaxial, is quite the different story.
    if there were a ranking for congestion, canada would likely rank pretty well on that chart. I never have any speed spikes up and down. I’m quite consistent on 2mbps down and 1mbps up, on a 15mbit connection.

    bottom line, canada is purely using bandwidth excuses to raise profits, stomp on competition, keep regular people stupid, and get people back in front of their TV rather then downloading the shows they like..

  7. PopDensity says:

    maybe they will always blame the population density, but place like Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden etc. has a low population density but they have some of the fastest internet in the world

  8. A little off topic …
    In the article below it speaks of Netflix operating in Canada without contributing to Canadian content. I would like to have a better understanding of the mechanics of how the current system works and what is being asked of Netflix? There are already a large number of Canadian shows available on the Netflix service and thus must be paying Canadian copyright owners for it, does this not count? If they are termed a ‘broadcaster’ does that mean they have to financially contribute to Canadian show productions? Do the other in country broadcasters do this?

    Inquiring minds want to know 😉

  9. Catherine Middleton says:

    See for results of a survey of Australian broadband users. >60% think that “broadband value” has improved there in the last year. There are no doubt lots of reasons for this outcome, including a competitive market and a government that is committed to improving broadband services.

  10. @Crockett said: A little off topic …
    In the article below it speaks of Netflix operating in Canada without contributing to Canadian content

    I don’t know anyone who give a flying f where a show is made,if its Made In Canada or it some company needs to have certain amount of Canadian content in order to deliver a products to the consumer.

    Funny, “Canadian Content” is strangling innovation and jobs in Canada.

  11. Scrap the OECD says:

    No Mr. Geist

    The OECD has simply proven again that it isn’t competent to do international rankings like this. They can’t get past their European centric view of the world.

    The World Economic Forum study ranked Canada 8th out of 138 countries last week for its composite Network Readiness Index. How do you reconcile that with the OECD’s Canadian rank of 28th place out of 33 countries? We can’t be in the top 10% on one study and the bottom 10% on another.

    To give you a sense for how wrong the OECD got it they are also reporting that only 78% of Canadians have access to a 3G wireless network when the correct data is 98% of Canadians have access to a 4G wireless network. The OECD also thinks that only 17.9% of Canadians have a wireless data service on their wirless phones when more than 30% of Canadians are using smartphones and more than 90% of Canadians have text messaging service on their phone.

    OECD rankings = garbage

  12. In my opinion, the Canadian Content debate doesn’t hold as much merit with Internet based media as it does with broadcast. With broadcast, you are limited by the delivery method (namely scheduled programming.) However, with Internet-based content, if I want to watch Canadian content, it is up to my discretion to do so; I browse to the content, and watch at my leisure. One of the big election terms this year is “globalization.” If this is to be a truthful statement, then the Internet is perhaps the biggest indication of this and users should be able to view content from anywhere in the world. Enforcing CanCon rules on Internet-based media is a threat to Net-Neutrality in general. Additionally, if they are to go after Netflix for not containing enough Canadian content, then they should also do so against websites like YouTube as essentially they are offering similar services.

  13. George Geczy says:

    To the commenter above the criticized the OECD and quoted the World Economic Forum report, they neglected to note that the “Network Readiness Index” included metrics such as Education, PC ownership, etc. The World Economic Forum report rates Canada as 23rd in the world for the cost of fixed-connection internet, and 68th in the world for penetration of data subscriptions among wireless device users, among other unflattering ratings.

    And no, text messaging is not classified as a true data service.

    The OECD data regarding caps and bandwidth cost is particularly interesting given Bell’s testimony before parliament in February that the prior OECD data was “old and out of date”, and that new data would be more favourable to them. Apparently not.

  14. Jesse Whitnack says:

    No Mr. Geist

    The OECD has simply proven again that it isn’t competent to do international rankings like this. They can’t get past their European centric view of the world.

    The World Economic Forum study ranked Canada 8th out of 138 countries last week for its composite Network Readiness Index. How do you reconcile that with the OECD’s Canadian rank of 28th place out of 33 countries? We can’t be in the top 10% on one study and the bottom 10% on another.

    To give you a sense for how wrong the OECD got it they are also reporting that only 78% of Canadians have access to a 3G wireless network when the correct data is 98% of Canadians have access to a 4G wireless network. The OECD also thinks that only 17.9% of Canadians have a wireless data service on their wirless phones when more than 30% of Canadians are using smartphones and more than 90% of Canadians have text messaging service on their phone.

    OECD rankings = garbage

    You are quite wrong there my friend.. I live in Edmonton AB and There Is No 4G networks here!!
    Not in ontario, and Not in BC!
    A few companies have claimed “4G is HERE!!” but they are full of crap!!
    what they offer is a 21mbit (3.5ishG Network) and claim its 4G!
    just like most are calling their home lines “Fibe” or Fibre” instead of Fiber Optic. because the DSL network in canada is 98% twisted pair and copper wiring for all the last miles.. meaning, fiber lines are run through you neighbourhood, but the lines delivering from the poles to your home are all maxed out at a 25mbit connection.
    a simple “google” explains it all…
    4g is LTE (capable of 50+mbit) networks.. Telus has been claiming they had 4G since ’08 but its only a 21mbit network :/
    Canadian ISP’s Lie all the time, as much as they can, to confuse as many people as they can. just to milk another buck out of us..

    another fact for you to chew on, The World Economic Forum, has been attending the bilderberg group meetings for decades…
    Who exactly do you trust?

  15. Jesse Whitnack says:

    another fact for you to chew on, The World Economic Forum founding Members** have been attending…

  16. Scrap the OECD says:


    The ITU (the folks who define the 3G and 4G standards) issued a news release on December 10, 2010 that makes it clear that some of the advanced networks in Canada qualify as true 4G networks.

    Here’s an excerpt form their news release:

    “Following a detailed evaluation against stringent technical and operational criteria, ITU has determined that “LTE-Advanced” and “WirelessMAN-Advanced” should be accorded the official designation of IMT-Advanced. As the most advanced technologies currently defined for global wireless mobile broadband communications, IMT-Advanced is considered as “4G”, although it is recognized that this term, while undefined, may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed. The detailed specifications of the IMT-Advanced technologies will be provided in a new ITU-R Recommendation expected in early 2012.”

    I too live in Edmonton and am accessing the internet right now through a Huawei E372 wireless internet stick capable of running at up to 42 Mb/s – although it is rush hour here right now and the connection manager is saying I am only running at 18 Mb/s. But that is a far cry faster than Sprint’s 4G network with peak speeds of 14 Mb/s (only available in select US cities). Also interesting to note that my wireless internet stick is faster than my 15 Mb/s ADSL service.

    My wireless internet service is with Telus and the rates for their wireless data plans are the same regardless of whether you are using their latest 4G stick or older EVDO sticks.

    I don’t trust any of the international studies – especially the OECD. So I lean on my own personal experience instead.

  17. Jesse, my schooling? what about yours? you speak like you have only ever setup a network with less than 5 nodes, probably just your home network. You obviously never had to look after a large network. Congestion is a pretty basic concept in real-world large networks.

    But I do agree these international reports of this type are very one dimensional and are usually untrustworthy or flawed once looked into.

  18. Scrap the OECD says:

    The following is an op-ed by Thomas Hazlett that ran in the Financial Times after the OECD declared the US a broadband backwater two years ago. In the US, they question the validity of the OECD analysis. In Canada we take it as gospel – why? Because it feeds our collective Canadian inferiority complex to the benefit of those who want to make a living regulating networks instead of building them.

    The broadband numbers racket
    September 17, 2009
    By Thomas Hazlett

    The global broadband race is on, and the crowd has turned on Team USA In 2004, President George W. Bush said, with characteristic rounding error: “Tenth is ten spots too low”. Things worsened. Last December, President Barack Obama warned that “It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption”. Things worsened more rapidly. In February 2009, Obama exclaimed: “To even say the words that the United States of America has now descended to 19th place in the world is unconscionable”.

    Code Blue. “Broadband Internet in the United States is a disaster,” wrote the Washington Monthly in May 2009. “It’s appalling. It’s embarrassing. It’s preposterous. Compared to the rest of the world, our connections are slow, balky, and expensive”.

    Perhaps these balky connections prevent Americans accessing marketplace data. Taking broadband subscriptions from international consultancy Point Topic for the first quarter of 2009 (the most recent reported), population from the CIA Factbook, and household size from United Nations statistics (all accessed via my US high-speed mobile data connection), the five wealthiest large economies rank as follows: USA (71.1 per cent), France (70.3 per cent), UK (69.3 per cent), Japan (67.4 per cent), and Germany (64.5 per cent).

    continued below …

  19. Scrap the OECD says:

    continued …

    Shifting assumptions shuffle the rankings. Focusing on subscriptions “per 100 persons” moves the US (and Japan) down (due to higher family size). But if broadband availability is the question – which it is – then households are the better denominator. The OECD data, placing the US 15th, are wrong. Properly adjusted, the U.S. is between eight and tenth, finds FCC economist Scott Wallsten, who also shows that US speed and pricing are competitive with most other advanced economies.

    Korea, Japan, and Sweden do feature ultra-high bandwidth connections – as does Verizon’s FiOS, which is expensive and, to the majority of the 10 million U.S. homes passed, not worth the money. Northwestern University economists Shane Greenstein and Ryan McDevitt estimate that increasing broadband speeds by ten times would yield about $6bn to $7bn per year in US subscriber gains. Massive subsidies – the suggestion of some – would be wasted. Moreover, these gains may soon be captured. Cable systems, blessed by the technology gods with recent breakthroughs, are economically upping bandwidth with DOCSIS 3.0, forcing their telco rivals to improve DSL or lay fiber to the home.

    Cherry picking broadband penetration numbers to imply the US is slipping into Third World status is fine for a quickie term paper, at least if Wikipedia goes down. But adults ought sort through the multi-dimensional complexity of the real world – as The Economist attempts to do with its e-Readiness Index which, in 2008, ranked the US as first in the world. And to understand that, were the US to (I’m not recommending this) simply eliminate cheap dial-up – available due to our unmetered local calling – we could jump the broadband ranks by forcing 10m dial-up homes to pay up or go without.

    To cite these realities is to utter heresy, even to be blasted as anti-technology. The consensus “disaster” is not a scientific diagnosis, but a thinly coded call to action. The patient – comatose — must be rushed to the nearest Public Policy Emergency Room and revived by the attending physician.

    Every party – from corporate giants to heads of state – poses as that ER doc. They are ready to inject the elixir; no time for lab tests! The pre-set diagnosis is that our superiors have more ambitiously regulated, forcing networks to help entrants compete. But South Korea, the reigning world heavyweight broadband champ, did not use “‘line-sharing” but rival networks to win the crown. Canada, a highly ranked contender, did likewise, sporting cable vs. telephone rivalry similar to our own.

    Meanwhile, countries such as Germany unwisely protected state telecoms monopolies and then over-regulated their private spin-offs. While cable TV networks pass virtually every German home, regulations block efficiencies and kill investment incentives. Cable modem service has been near nil, botching a golden competitive opportunity that South Korea, Canada, and the US

    Kevin Werbach, an influential University of Pennsylvania law professor, writes that the key is to “Compare broadband offerings in places that pushed forward with line-sharing, like France and Japan, with those in the US.” He asserts that eliminating line-sharing for US DSL “was a terrible loss for competition and innovation”.

    The market data say otherwise. French and Japanese networks languished early in the WWW era, while unregulated US cable TV operators pioneered innovations in residential broadband. DSL growth in America then surged when it, too, was deregulated. In a December 2008 Review of Network Economics study, Anil Caliskan and I show that by year-end 2006 there were 25m DSL households, some 10m more than predicted by the regulated, pre-2003 trend. Controlling for other factors, there was no “loss for competition and innovation,” but a strong broadband deployment boost.

    This is not an arbitrary international ranking but a natural experiment, rich with implication for regulators. Such inquiries into the effect of policy measures are vital. No matter where a country ranks, better policies will help citizens, consumers, innovators, and the economy. To carefully evaluate the alternatives is not to be anti-technology, but pro-science. America’s high-tech economy deserves no less.

    Thomas Hazlett is professor of law and economics at George Mason University. He formerly served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.

  20. @Scrap the OECD

    You just posted that you trust your own experience over studies, then gave an article which provides no actual data (besides a claim of questionable original research methodology), is a “quickie” paper it claims to deride and was put forward by someone unqualified to make such firm assertions. That’s pretty naive on all counts.



    I’m a CCNP with over 10 years experience and have setup networks that span across international corporations. If you’re having a problem with congestion, you’re doing it wrong. Get someone who actually knows what they’re doing to redesign your network, then implement it.


    As for the rankings itself, not surprising, even with the consideration of flaws in analysis there’s no way our access can be considered “good”. Friends of mine who work for the ISP’s have told me what they’ve seen and one of the biggest issues is stillover selling services and not upgrading any infrastructure to handle it. Most of them are as frustrated with their companies as the users are.

    And just as a single example of what is possible, if you’ve been following these issues along for a while you’ll recall the company in Vancouver which tried to give fiber optic last mile service at a pittance, Novus. As an example of the anti-competitive nature out there, you’ll recall that Shaw basically did everything in their power to try and destroy them, eventually bullying them into pricing more in line with the rest of the country.

  21. @ Kai

    Just to be clear, Novus was not trying to provide last mile fiber to single family homes, they were exclusively focused on high rise condominiums. There is a huge difference in the cost per unit to serve individual homes (digging up driveways, lawns, sidewalks and streets) as opposed to buying conduit space from the city and then running cable up the risers in highrise buildings). Novus was only skimming the cream.

    Let’s be fair – it’s easier and cheaper to install fiber in a high rise which is why countries like Japan and South Korea have more FTTH (fiber to the home) than we ever will in Canada.

  22. Scrap the OECD says:


    So you are saying that the former chief economist of the FCC who is currently a professor of law and economics is not qualified to comment on a flawed OECD study or the economics and policy direction of the United States with respect to broadband?

    Wow, what kind of qualifications do you expect of your dentist?

  23. @Michael

    A fair point, but it’s still a pretty big over simplification, honestly. There is certainly a higher degree of cost between different retrofit situations. And the cost itself when taken on it’s own does appear significant. But, other retrofit situations (such as in the case of plumbing) are far, far more costly. I’d consider it a far more valid contention if there were plans or encouragement towards simultaneously upgrading connectivity with other renovations to individual homes, but there aren’t. There’s no real initiatives towards retrofit, at all, which just doesn’t make sense. Accepting that, would be basically saying we’re fine with Canada never upgrading it’s technology, because it’s difficult… which I think we can agree, is not wise for our economic health in the long term.

    And there’s also the issue that the cost difference in new developments is minimal. Yet, there’s no activity there either. We’re still laying old tech into the ground, with no consideration for that, objectively, it’s obsolete and will -have- to eventually be replaced. It’s a very short term view to take.

  24. @Scrap the OECD

    You should maybe actually look into the subjects before commenting or posting these things. Beyond what I already mentioned, his focus is economic models and primarily, regulation. His “information economy” work is basically just about that. He has no technical background and no qualifications of authority in regards to technology, or any of the other things necessary. His work for the FCC was basically limited to that, as well. Even the article you posted, is primarily about regulation. Being a Professor doesn’t somehow make you an expert on all subjects, I wouldn’t consider Michael Geist an authority on healthcare for example.

    A lot of it sounds like some xenophobic/paranoid “the reds are coming!” cold war throw back where “international” is code for “danger”. If you want to believe that, that’s certainly your right, but the rest of us prefer to live in reality. Our teeth are far healthier for it.

  25. Kai, corp. networks are hardly the same as a service provider networks. Go to Networkers and ask a few service provider guys and also ask about congestion in their network, if you don’t believe me.

  26. And another thing, how much do those corp guys pay for their networks? A lot more than a residential connection thats for sure.

  27. @Martin

    … You’re kidding me, right?

    CCNP, Cisco Certified Network Professional, you might want to look up what the training entails, because it sure as hell isn’t limited to local networks. I mentioned international corporations, as in having to span backbones, which involves working with ISP crews. And I did mention in my comment that yeah, I do speak to the ISP guys (though they’re usually the more senior ones) and I relayed one of the major reasons that they told me, try to read entire comments, please. The issues have to do with bad management and lack of infrastructure investment, not some inherent property of residential networks, get real.

    And yeah corps pay more for a connection, what the hell has that got to do with anything? A corp connection draws way more resources, setup and maintenance than a residential one, of course they’d pay more.

    It’s pretty low that you tried to call out the other guy on his knowledge when you sound like you’re maybe junior helpdesk, if even that.

    Man, this is not worth my time, I’m out.

  28. Jesse Whitnack says:

    if congestion is actually an issue, then creating profit off of something that is non-existent is downright ignorant. You sound like someone who supported canadians getting charged for incoming texts as well as outgoing..
    charging for data usage is not a feasible way to deter people from clogging up networks. slow the speeds you offer down if your networks cant handle the usage. period!
    every ISP is claiming if you buy a faster internet line (50mbit/175GB), it will increase your bandwidth usage cap. giving people faster speeds Will Not fix this supposed congestion problem. It will create more problems.. hence, why I dont believe there is one.
    a lot of corps like best buy canada, build their own ISP network and rent the last mile off major telco to their individual stores.. thats what smart corps do to save money..
    as for that 4G comment, changing the definition of what the rest of the world considers basic 4G capabilities does not (in my eyes) make them 4G.. 4G is 50mbit+
    your downtown 42mbit connection likely costs you quite a bit for data usage too. the entire cell phone network in canada is retarded as well. you may be one of the lucky ones, within your first 6 months and getting unlimited. but all of Telus’s mobile network plans have

  29. Jesse Whitnack says:

    feckin hell, it cut most my comment off!
    all of Telus mobile networks have data limits around 5GB/month and if you go over, 5¢/MB which is about $51.2/GB…

  30. Jesse Whitnack says:

    I’m not saying best buy is a smart company, they are greedy as all hell!
    and the first thing they thought when ISP’s started ranting about UBB was “how can we make money off this?” sell off in-home techs to install bandwidth monitors, and limiters on routers!!
    I know a few techs who were quite excited ISP’s were threatening UBB..

  31. Hey Jesse

    Lighten up dude. You have dismissed everyone on this thread who doesn’t agree with your peculiar perspective of the world. According to you there are no decent networks in Canada, all corporations are evil and greedy, the former chief economist at the FCC is an idiot, and you personally have a better definition of what qualifies as a 4G network than the ITU. You have shot your credibility all to pieces. Why should anyone believe you?

  32. @Jesse, If BestBuy is set up as an ISP then why don’t they even have a public ASN? Why is hosted by Akamai? How much fiber do they have? it’s 0. They resemble nothing that an ISP is. Are they using MPLS over SONET? if so, I can guarantee you they are just renting it from the real ISPs.

    They have a dinky little enterprise network that’s a 1000 times smaller than even a small tier 2 ISP.

    and what’s wrong with being junior help desk?

  33. Jesse Whitnack says:

    I have not dismissed anything Kai has said.
    the FCC in canada is “Farm Credit Canada”
    the FCC equivalent in canada is the CRTC and industry canada.
    wheres your credibility?
    I do not have a personal view on 4G networks, the rest of the world does, changing definitions to better fit in canada is pure bullshit! and that is exactly what happened.
    and there are some good networks in canada, TekSavvy is a good lil ISP. but all the cell phone providers in canada have milked all of us to hell and back. Wind has some hope, but other providers are promptly attacking them from every point they can.. and soon, they will conform with the rest of canadian cell providers..

    prove me wrong rather then make a pathetic statement like that please 🙂
    and get your facts straight.. FCC lol 😛

    @Martin has nothing to do with their internal networks. They do not sell off connections to people, they use it for their stores only. ask any futureshop or bestbuy employee. I’m not here to school you.

  34. @Jesse, junior help desk people feel sorry for CCNP guys, because a CCNP just means that the CCNP guy just keeps failing the CCIE exams.

  35. Jesse Whitnack says:

    quit with the low blows Martin..
    the CCIE exam is extremely intense and world renowned. the same can be said about CCNP certificates..
    you have no idea how old Kai is, or if he has even attempted the CCIE exams.. he may just be happy where hes at.
    I’ve a friend in netherlands who has his CCIE and it took him 4 attempts to complete that exam. hes an amazing coder though.. I personally dont know anyone who has a CCNP certificate. I respect anyone with the capabilities it takes to accomplish Cisco exams, even the CCSP, CCIP, CCNA, CCDP..
    I have very little respect for “help desk” kids who only know what their computer screen tell them..

  36. Jesse, it’s your call. The more you comment the sillier you look. I think you are the only one following this discussion who thinks FCC is Farm Credit Canada.

    You may not be aware but Teksavvy is primarily a reseller of Bell’s ISP service. So Teksavvy’s network is only as good as Bell’s.

    But please keep commenting – some of us are finding you naivity to be quite entertaining.

  37. Jesse Whitnack says:

    there are 6 major ISP’s in canada, who rent last mile connections to third party ISP’s such as TekSavvy, this is well known fact.. attempting to make me look silly over such a basic fact is pretty pathetic lil lady..
    if you failed to read properly last time, I said “the FCC equivalent in canada is CRTC and Industry Canada”

  38. Jesse Whitnack says:

    and the difference between teksavvy and bell is teksavvy actually tries to offer their customers fair deals, but Bell is pushing for UBB, then switched it to AVP because ottawa overturned that CRTC decision.
    teksavvy on the other hand is one of the few ISP’s fighting for network neutrality. even under Bells network.
    it gets pretty pathetic when a third party ISP is offering better deals than the ISP they are connecting through..
    teksavvy 15mbit/1mbit unlimited BW $54/month
    Bell 25mbit/700kbit 75GB cap $62.99/month

    so using Bells lines, teksavvy offers better offers than Bell does.
    that is why they want UBB or AVP..

  39. Jesse,

    Desperate backtracking to hide the flaws in your logic. This is hilarious, please keep commenting … 😉

  40. Jesse Whitnack says:

    no backtracking, I didnt change any of my statement, I merely clarified them for your dim ass 😉

  41. @Jesse, I got news for you Teksavvy is a business, not a consumer charity, and they are trying to make money just like Bell is. That is the only reason they back NetNeutrality, business. Third Party ISP have to offer “better deals than the ISP” they connect to or how else would they survive?

    I really am curious to what you think NetNeutrality is? and how it could ever be technically implemented?

  42. King of the World
    NDP will socialize, nationalize the whole mess, giving Canadians free access to 24/7 Porn, educational material,American propaganda, even former USSR propaganda if we wish. So long as the collapse of the democracy into a corpocracy south of Canada isn’t spread North by Harper’s corporate ass-licking contest with Obama. Canadians need government assisted low rental housing, free dental care, free post-secondary education, stricter labor laws, better, government guaranteed retirement systems at age 60, more holidays, longer vacations, and more cheap pork, flour, canola oil. Much longer maternity leaves, guaranteed kindergarten, day care for all children, American hormone laced meats need to be kept out of Canada, same for American milk, milk products.
    Canada needs more, domestic based, micro-breweries, more and cheaper Canadian barley and hops for the breweries, and strict German-like purity laws for beer-making to keep
    American style mass-produced corn sugar based pis out of Canadian stomach’s. We no longer need Yankee Doodles cars, can survive with Asian models, especially cheaper, better, Chinese models coming down the tubes! We need nuclear/electric bullet train networks and their associated, nuclear powered infrastructures, daisy chained across this nation – NOT by American reactors, but Chinese, Thorium fueled, fail-safe reactors – coming soon from communist China, designed without bombs in mind,without planned obsolescence, without expensive proprietary features, Do they have safer reactors? Google Tsinghua University, China, pebble bed, gas reactors for a view of a safer,more modern, corporately unaffected, capitalist corruption free, better Chinese design! Why did we ever forsake our safer Candu reactors for dangerous plutonium producers from American war-mongers, Ge MK5 models like Fuckoshima, an admittedly greater disaster than Chernobyl? What ever happened to McGill Universities “Slow-Poke” reactor installed somewhere in Quebec? Still running? still producing? A secret?
    Corpoarte rules Corporate restrictions on programming languages, telecommunications have held the West back long enough! Asians excel in these arenas. not Americans, not Canadians! Why do we, an independent country abide by U.S. corporate law, corporate interferences in our progress, our comfort? Canadians owe a huge Thank-You to the Bloc for saving our asses from Harper’s corporate aspirations, a cushy corporate retirement job after committing mayhem in our free democracy!

  43. Jesse Whitnack says:

    I’m not google, lazy ass.
    if all these ISP’s are screaming that our typical demand of the network our tax-payers mostly payed for is too much to handle, then we should de-privatise the entire industry..

    SaskTel refuses to implement UBB because the monitoring technologies are expensive to implement as well as maintain.

    that being said, I dont believe we should have to pay for these monitoring technologies if they are purely out to profit off us and create “extra’s” to charge us for…

    if your down with paying $1 to $2/GB then, pay it yourself. Canada should not have to put up with this because a few losers like you guys think profiteering is “just the way it goes”

    here, I’ll make it extremely dumbed down for you 😉

    argue after 🙂

  44. Jesse Whitnack says:

    SaskTel is the last government run ISP left in canada

  45. Jesse

    Hahahaha, you are sweating like a stuck pig. This is absolutely hilarious. You really are new at this aren’t you …

    Looks like Kai isn’t even coming to your rescue anymore – oh wait, maybe you and Kai are actually the same person. Way to funny, LOL!

  46. NoWonderCanadaSucks says:

    Jesse Whitnack Is a Horse Fucker
    I hate Jesse Whitnack and I would not spit on him if he was on fire.

  47. … Decided, against better judgement, to see if there’d been any decent comments on this. Won’t be making that mistake again.

    But because you asked so “nicely” Amber the troll…

    @Jesse Whitnack

    I’d say your time here is wasted, as well. These types aren’t worth the effort mate, better to use your time on more productive things =)

    Sidenote: I love working with the TekSavvy guys, especially because using them means I get to slide around Bell’s idioticy, for the most part.


    Haven’t bother with the CCIE yet. But yes, you should feel sorry for me. I know I cry myself to sleep every night. My only consolations are that I’m my own boss, work from home or in my own air conditioned office, make quadruple (or more) what the help desk does and that I get to send them out for coffee when I feel thirsty. It’s tough I tell you, really tough. *sob*

  48. I find it funny on how so many people fixate on forcing telcos like Bell to offer subsidized wholesale access to the ISP’s like TEKSAVVY. Look, conventional telephone companies like Bell and Telus are bleeding DSL and phone customers to the faster cablecos. Give the telcos a break. If anything, more emphasis should be put on forcing Shaw and Rogers to offer third party wholesale access. Where do I see TEKSAVVY spassing out on Rogers? Only coaxial cable can offer next-generation speeds like 100 mpbs. It is technologically impossible for copper line to offer that.

  49. Faster cable internet seems to be getting a free ride in terms of third-party wholesale access. I don’t see TEKSAVVY complaining about Rogers.

  50. Jesse Whitnack says:

    if you take a look at teksavvy’s website, they offer anything from DSL lines (Bell) to coaxial lines (rogers) Rogers (coaxial cable owners east of manitoba) does allow access for third party ISP’s.. and I’m pretty sure Shaw does aswell, I just dont know the names of such ISP’s but google is always helpful in such situations.. 😉
    hint hint..

    yea I hear ya there, I havent even looked at this page for a few days.. good luck to you in your ventures, We can only hope ISP’s dont destroy canada’s inet.. arguing facts with people like those two are essentially useless.. and Amber seems to be some sort of shareholder or even staffed at a major canadian ISP.. so I’m just gonna ignore her 🙂
    hope we cross paths again someday..

  51. @Mike: “Look, conventional telephone companies like Bell and Telus are bleeding DSL and phone customers to the faster cablecos. Give the telcos a break. ”

    Maybe they should have focused on what a telco is really supposed to do? Like fast, reliable, reasonably priced communications? Beat anyone else at it? Nothing more, nothing less?

    But no, why would they do that, they had to spend their money on dish TV and other stuff which has nothing to do with a telco….


  52. Jesse Whitnack says:

    if telus and bell are able to re-string this entire country with cat6 cable replacing all the copper and twisted pair crap, they will have a future in competing with speed against other ISP..
    in order to offer TV, Phone, and internet they have to run that all through those copper and twisted pair lines.. essentially causing congestion, more severely in places like apartment buildings and townhouse complex’s.. coaxial does not have this disability. end of story..

    Telco in canada should be more open about this disability of DSL lines, maybe even convince everyone to hop onto cable lines for the next few years while they replace all the twisted pair and copper lines, replacing it with maybe even faster lines than cat6 (ie; FTTP fiber to the premises) then get all the DSL customers back with offers of insanely fast FTTP lines.. rather than convince the majority of ill-advised customers that they already have “fibre” lines.. :/

    definition of FTTx via wiki
    FTTN – Fiber-to-the-node – fiber is terminated in a street cabinet up to several kilometers away from the customer premises, with the final connection being copper.

    FTTC – Fiber-to-the-cabinet – this is very similar to FTTN, but the street cabinet is closer to the user’s premises; typically within 300m.

    FTTB – Fiber-to-the-building or Fiber-to-the-basement – fiber reaches the boundary of the building, such as the basement in a multi-dwelling unit, with the final connection to the individual living space being made via alternative means.

    FTTH – Fiber-to-the-home – fiber reaches the boundary of the living space, such as a box on the outside wall of a home.

    FTTP – Fiber-to-the premises – this term is used in several contexts: as a blanket term for both FTTH and FTTB, or where the fiber network includes both homes and small businesses.

    right now, DSL lines are using FTTN in canada.. but ask most telus customers and they will tell you they have a “fibre” connection.. merely because that is what they were told when they got the package.. they dont know any different.
    with they final connection being copper or twisted pair the speeds are reduced immediately to 25mbit (~4mb/s)
    trust goes a long way.. maybe its time for telus and bell to trust their customers enough to shut down for real upgrades rather than keeping everyone using only small portions so they can hide the fact that their structure cant handle the future demands..

  53. cfp certification education program says:
    Bestbuy is really a smart company, I really like the way they keep their clients engaged.