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

[unsolicited at swiz.ca]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:30:22 -0500, "L.D. Paniak"
<ldpaniak at fourpisolutions.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 20:18 -0500, unsolicited at swiz.ca wrote:
>> 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.
>  
> -Save the bits!  They are an endangered species!-
> 
> And that is the fallacy that lies behind the "bandwidth conservation"
> movement.  Bandwidth is *not* a scarce commodity.  Why?  Because I can
> manufacture as much of it as I care to - so long as people are willing
> to pay the price.  An example of a scare commodity are Dodo birds.
> Can't make any more(yet), sorry.  Bandwidth is a product that is made in
> a factory.  In fact, most bandwidth available today was made by Nortel
> and Lucent more than a decade ago during the Great Internet Bubble when
> everyone and their dog was burying fibre throughout North America.  This
> bandwidth is being horded in an uncompetitive manner by the people that
> own it in order to maintain pricing power and keep control of media
> distribution in this country.  Funny how these new internet usage limits
> follow so closely after the introduction of Netflix to Canada...
> 
> Practical bottlenecks are purely fiction, FUD and/or uncreative thinking
> of people who stand to gain by not advancing past the status quo.  How
> can people in Japan and Korea enjoy 100mbit+ symmetric to their homes if
> it is a technological impossibility?  Population density?  OK, so
> Kincardine doesn't get 100mbit - this does not explain why it is not
> available in downtown Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.  There are other,
> non-technological, reasons at work.
> 
> How is it that I can send this e-mail from my desk through my Android
> phone's 3G wifi bridge at 3mbps but only upload it over a copper line at
> 600kbps?  Answer:  My phone is running 21st century tech while my DSL
> line dates to the mid-90s  Copper should always beat wireless by a
> factor of 10 in performance at the same price.  If it does not, someone
> is selling you stale product.  Competition (and ADSL2) would fix this
> problem.  Unfortunately, it is nowhere to be found.

So, you've made my point, thank you.

There is a point at which demand exceeds capacity. We might not be there
today.

There is and will be a cost to retrofit from the mid-90's technology to
21st century technology.

And it ain't going to be cheap.

Please note - I am saying nothing with respect to any practices or pricing
here, merely that bandwidth is constrained, at some point.

Presumably, Bell is making attempts to stave that point of serious
re-investment off as long as they can. And staving off the expense if they
don't have to expend it.

You can argue that they are nefariously also taking advantage of such
positions to also stave off competition and maximize their revenue, but
that is what any reasonable conglomerate would do in today's commercial,
competitive, and capitalistic environment. Bell is carrying out their
mandate - maximize profit to shareholders. They are operating within the
monopolistic environment they were handed by the government.

It is up to the government to hold their feet to the fire.

*They*, to Brent's and other's points, haven't been doing what we perceive
as a very good job of it. (No doubt Bell thinks they've done too good a job
of it.)

But that's a public policy issue, not a Bell, UBB, or Teksavvy issue.