[kwlug-disc] UBB CRTC decision to be reviewed ...

[unsolicited at swiz.ca]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 19:36:26 -0500, Chris Frey <cdfrey at foursquare.net>
wrote:
> ... Bandwidth is not some
> scarce resource

But bandwidth is a scarce commodity, that is the root of all of this.

It's why there is traffic shaping, too.

Granted: On the one hand, Bell, and others, want people to keep consuming
bandwidth like the old days, so they  can continue to oversell current
capacity to more and more people at 10% usage to get more and more revenue
and profit for doing no more than they have already.

Since that's not going to happen, more and more bandwidth is going to be
consumed, by current customers, leaving them unhappy eventually, they have
to increase capacity. Now the particular bottleneck may no longer be at the
back / fibre end, it's likely at the CO, or DSLAM, or further towards the
house. And as you go further out, it becomes more and more expensive, for
fewer and fewer revenue dollars, to retrofit. (I now wonder is part of the
issue is an artificial attempt by Bell to keep consumer consumption within
the capacity of copper, so they don't look to competitors for all of their
services - since Bell isn't likely to be redoing the last mile any time
soon, I assume.)

The aggregation points are going to need to be retrofitted. Eventually.
Presumably even the back ends (in some long time). We haven't even touched
on redundancy, power consumption, technological distance limitations (need
more COs?).

Bandwidth is a scarce (constrained) resource. Or, at least, capacity
limited, probably at various different points in varying areas. And, at the
least, some of the customers in those areas will be unhappy. We'd better do
something about that ... they might switch to a competitor ... hold on ...
we just killed the competition, we're good to go after all! Aren't we
smart.

<SMACK! UPSIDE THE HEAD!>

* As long as they don't lose revenue, or unless forced to, enterprises
aren't and don't have to be socially or ethically responsible. It's fallacy
to think our environment would produce any other behaviour, given
competition and shareholders. Witness the tar sands, where, despite
government regulation and the threat of the U.S. not purchasing from them,
activities aren't exactly ... optimal. (Which is not to say it's not being
looked at, merely that it's not outright stopped.)

- As has been pointed out, the government handed Bell a monopoly long ago,
and they're running with it. And there is no political will to take on the
mammoth conceptual hurdle of how things ought to be. Ranting that the tiger
has stripes is just ...

Complain to Bell, vote with your feet, and get yourself elected into
positions of sufficient authority and change things to how they ought to
be.