Computers & Electronics

TekSavy demands refunds from internet suppliers

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 30th, 2020 12:28 pm
Deal Addict
Nov 21, 2014
2099 posts
3210 upvotes
Atlantic
krs wrote: You can't just generalize by quoting some measly subsidy to Loblaws, which btw benefits us all by reducing carbon emissions.
I think you miss my point and my point is very simple...so what if the government gave tons of money (in the form of grants, tax breaks, subsidies etc) to incumbents. Many large companies in all different industries get grants/tax breaks/subsidies from the government. Do you think it entitles us taxpayers to something?

In general large businesses get benefits from the government - in many different forms.

That example I gave was the first one that came to the top of my head as I remember it in the news. You may view it as minuscule example but it is not about the amount that matters but rather the concept of government giving benefits to large corporations.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6778 posts
1383 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
I was reacting to Eldorado's comment "Don't forget the incumbents didn't build these billion dollar networks all on their own, lots and lots of help/subsidies from the government made that happen and continue to do so today"
Then barold questioned that statement as did I

and it sounded as if your comment re the Loblaws subsidy was somehow intended to confirm what was posted by Eldorado about government subsidies to build these billion dollar fiber networks.
Sorry if I misunderstood.
Deal Addict
Nov 30, 2003
2680 posts
997 upvotes
Nunavut
barold wrote: I hear this alot - what subsidies did/does the government give?
Here's the current subsidy being offered to build out more to try get the entire country online , 6 billion over 10 years - https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/139.nsf/eng/h_00006.html

In all fairness these companies wouldn't be able to do this all on their own, it costs just way too much regardless how profitable they are

I've read articles on the history of Bell, I would need to go digging to find them again, which talks about the very large subsidies/tax breaks etc helping them build out their copper networks decades ago and how they have profited from it 100x over by now
Last edited by Eldorado on Sep 30th, 2020 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
Nov 30, 2003
2680 posts
997 upvotes
Nunavut
EasyCompany251 wrote: Let's be honest here - all large corporations in all industries have "help" from the government in the form of subsidies, grants and tax breaks etc. E.g. Loblaws got a grant for 12M for refrigerators. https://globalnews.ca/news/5145773/cath ... w-fridges/

What makes the incumbent telecoms different?

From a tax payer's perspective, I have to agree it sucks. But what are you going to do? The Canadian government has made poor policy decisions for decades.....difficult for them to fix this and reverse it in this current age.

If the government had half a brain, they would have set up partnerships with the incumbents to build out the last mile infrastructure AND take an equity stake in the said infrastructure....as opposed to just throwing the money away as "grants" or tax breaks to the telecom while receiving nothing.
I agree, lots of corporations have government help in industries where the government feels the money will help consumers, I have no problem with that

Where I have the problem is when people say how Bell spent all this money of their own so they shouldn't be forced to share it, when in fact I would guess that majority used to build out was tax payer money

But regardless, today I don't think it matters any more who built it, only that things have changed dramatically and the Internet isn't just some cool thing to play with, it's a critical service that everyone should have access to at affordable rates
Sr. Member
Nov 18, 2004
506 posts
150 upvotes
Toronto
My perspective on this is a bit different and likely unpopular. The government in my opinion is good at building infrastructure. But they are terrible at running it and upgrading it to keep with the times. I look at our highways and transit systems as my example (am in GTA). We would still be coping with DSL speeds if the government were in charge of 'innovation'. Now innovation comes not from the government but (IMO) from clever people trying to get around the regulation and barriers. Look at wireless. It was a way to get around the Bell phone line to the home. As the government tightens their grip, clever people will get out and figure another way.

Now I don't believe Starlink (or the other LEO satellites) to be a saviour -- Musk doesn't do anything cheap - but he might put a viable alternative to trying to run fiber to some of these far flung communities... plus I thought Starlink was supposed to pay for his Mars ambitions... that won't be cheap...
Deal Addict
Nov 30, 2003
2680 posts
997 upvotes
Nunavut
zod wrote: I agree with the one wire thing, which is why I think the government should build their own network (or buy out one of the existing networks).

Regardless if they paid full freight, the Cableco's/Telco's of this country did pay billions and billions to create the wired network, and maintain the network. I'm sure the government pitched in for rural here and there, but it seems to me the bulk was paid by the incumbents. I used to think here in BC that Telus had bought BC Tel as a crown corp, but then I found out BC Tel wasn't a crown corp. Which I guess is moot because now they're spending billions creating a fibre network in Western Canada. I think Bell is also trying to create a fibre network out East?

I stand by my line, that forcing the incumbents (who are have paid and are paying for the bulk of their infrastricture) isn't going to work. Your asking them to share with their own competition. That's never going to truly be extra competition.

I think we'll have to leave it to agree that a neutral 3rd party (perhaps the government) should build a national fibre network, and lease access to anyone that wants to sell internet over it.
We agree on the one wire thing, but I disagree on how we get there

Running yet more wires and another wire to my house is a huge waste of money, we don't have the billions upon billions needed to do such a project, instead let's use the network that's already built and of course expand and upgrade where needed

I've seen cities in the states that have decided to wire themselves, some sounded like they worked where others didn't fare as well, personally I would prefer government stay out of running such a business and leave it to the private sector

Honestly I still stand by my beliefs that forcing the telcom giants to split up is the best route, one for wholesale access and the other the retail

Take a read at what they accomplished in Australia and England, in Australia the government did build a new network but only because Telstra refused to build a better one and had a stranglehold on the country, the government let them in after it was done but forced them to split into two where one company will manage the network and sell wholesale access, they fought very hard against it and spewed all kinds of crap about how it will kill investment, jobs etc etc.. (sounds familiar).. but in the end things have turned out quite the opposite

This looks to be what CNOC is trying to push for here in Canada
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6778 posts
1383 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
Eldorado wrote: Here's the current subsidy being offered to build out more to try get the entire country online , 6 billion over 10 years - https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/139.nsf/eng/h_00006.html
If you read the details, this is a fund that doesn't even exist yet, it is proposed to be launched in the next few months and it is specifically aimed at providing 50/10 internet to rural communities
Working with partners, the Government is using a range of measures to deliver on Canada's Connectivity Strategy. We are mobilizing $5-$6 billion in new investments for rural broadband to achieve the goal of universal access at speeds of 50 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 10 Mbps upload.


This isn't what we are talking about.
FTTN, which delivers 50/10 connectivity in urban communities today, is available to the TekSavvy's and CarryTel's of the world today.

I would like to find out what subsidy Bell is getting and has been getting to run fiber to the premises, ie FTTH or FTTP
Deal Addict
Nov 30, 2003
2680 posts
997 upvotes
Nunavut
krs wrote: If you read the details, this is a fund that doesn't even exist yet, it is proposed to be launched in the next few months and it is specifically aimed at providing 50/10 internet to rural communities


This isn't what we are talking about.
FTTN, which delivers 50/10 connectivity in urban communities today, is available to the TekSavvy's and CarryTel's of the world today.

I would like to find out what subsidy Bell is getting and has been getting to run fiber to the premises, ie FTTH or FTTP
Well that isn't what you originally asked for, this is a subsidy that they will get and for a build they otherwise would not do... there have been many before this

Not aware of any for FTTH, honestly don't think they get any aside from likely tax breaks, they will only install fiber where it makes them money so many of us will likely never see it unless government steps in
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6778 posts
1383 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
Eldorado wrote: Running yet more wires and another wire to my house is a huge waste of money, we don't have the billions upon billions needed to do such a project, instead let's use the network that's already built and of course expand and upgrade where needed
Which "already built" network do you propose we use?
I had DSL for a few years, the speed was consistent but at around 3 Mb/s painfully slow and streaming was only possible at low resolution.
Switched to cable and speed varied all over the place, often even slower than DSL at busy times.
So neither already built network will do the job, at least in this area.

At another location I go to, just 3kms from the city boundary, DSL is at 0.5 Mb/s and cable is not an option since it wasnever made two-way.
Deal Addict
Nov 30, 2003
2680 posts
997 upvotes
Nunavut
krs wrote: Which "already built" network do you propose we use?
I had DSL for a few years, the speed was consistent but at around 3 Mb/s painfully slow and streaming was only possible at low resolution.
Switched to cable and speed varied all over the place, often even slower than DSL at busy times.
So neither already built network will do the job, at least in this area.

At another location I go to, just 3kms from the city boundary, DSL is at 0.5 Mb/s and cable is not an option since it wasnever made two-way.
Good question, it is a mess in this country.. do we use what the cable guys built or Bell/Telus?

I know my thoughts aren't any where close to a simple solution, and maybe it's not the best.. I haven't heard of any better and I just don't think it's financially feasible to build another network from scratch, we've already invested a ton of tax money into what we have now, and our country is just too damn big

Maybe with splitting Bell and the cable guys up, the result is one wholesale access company that will take this whole mess of an infrastructure and start combining, eliminating the duplication, replace/upgrade? Blue sky ideas which I'm hoping those that are on our side and smarter than me can come up with a good plan
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6778 posts
1383 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
Eldorado wrote: Well that isn't what you originally asked for, this is a subsidy that they will get and for a build they otherwise would not do... there have been many before this
What I asked about was your comment "Don't forget the incumbents didn't build these billion dollar networks all on their own, lots and lots of help/subsidies from the government made that happen and continue to do so today"
..and you replied by referencing a future government program aimed at providing 50/10 speeds to rural communities.

The whole discussion centred around the incumbents receiving lots and lots of tax dollars for the billion dollar networks they have built (Bell according to the article I posted spent 4 Billion per year) and not allowing other ISP's access to it.

As far as I know, the only 'pipe' the other ISP's don't have access to is FTTH.
They do have access to FTTN
So the subsidy question really ends up relating only to FTTH

But we are way off topic anyway - Teksavvy is looking for a refund, not access to the FTTH pipe.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
10362 posts
2289 upvotes
Victoria
Eldorado wrote: We agree on the one wire thing, but I disagree on how we get there

Running yet more wires and another wire to my house is a huge waste of money, we don't have the billions upon billions needed to do such a project, instead let's use the network that's already built and of course expand and upgrade where needed

I've seen cities in the states that have decided to wire themselves, some sounded like they worked where others didn't fare as well, personally I would prefer government stay out of running such a business and leave it to the private sector

Honestly I still stand by my beliefs that forcing the telcom giants to split up is the best route, one for wholesale access and the other the retail

Take a read at what they accomplished in Australia and England, in Australia the government did build a new network but only because Telstra refused to build a better one and had a stranglehold on the country, the government let them in after it was done but forced them to split into two where one company will manage the network and sell wholesale access, they fought very hard against it and spewed all kinds of crap about how it will kill investment, jobs etc etc.. (sounds familiar).. but in the end things have turned out quite the opposite

This looks to be what CNOC is trying to push for here in Canada
I think you have to go beyond splitting it. Even if cableco/telco's had to split off their internet into seperate companies (or sell it off to a new company), that new company is still going to be focused on profit (because it's a company). They still aren't going to want to share it with competition, and it's still not going to be profitible to expand to many rural areas. The goal for a company that sells only internet, would still be to maximize profit.

That's why I think government ownership might be the only solution. Internet seems to be more of a public good.

That's my thoughts. I don't think you can spin it off into yet another company and expect they'll instantly not seek profit, lower prices, or expand into money losing areas.

I also think it's all moot. The Canadian government would never split up the telco/cableco's.
Deal Addict
Nov 30, 2003
2680 posts
997 upvotes
Nunavut
krs wrote: What I asked about was your comment "Don't forget the incumbents didn't build these billion dollar networks all on their own, lots and lots of help/subsidies from the government made that happen and continue to do so today"
..and you replied by referencing a future government program aimed at providing 50/10 speeds to rural communities.

The whole discussion centred around the incumbents receiving lots and lots of tax dollars for the billion dollar networks they have built (Bell according to the article I posted spent 4 Billion per year) and not allowing other ISP's access to it.

As far as I know, the only 'pipe' the other ISP's don't have access to is FTTH.
They do have access to FTTN
So the subsidy question really ends up relating only to FTTH

But we are way off topic anyway - Teksavvy is looking for a refund, not access to the FTTH pipe.
Actually looking back, I didn't reply to you at all.. I replied to someone asking about what subsidies the government had given - teksavy-demands-refunds-internet-suppli ... #p33203710

This may not be active yet, but it's just a current example of their network being funded by tax payer money

FTTH is up for a decision from the CRTC soon to give 3rd party access, but first we need these access rates to be real world instead of their fantasy numbers.. most are guessing this whole FTTH thing won't be resolved for a good 5 years
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6778 posts
1383 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
Eldorado wrote: .... I just don't think it's financially feasible to build another network from scratch.........
I tend to agree with you, but it seems we have been doing this already for at least the last five years.
Capitalism at work.

I was quite surprised when Bell and a contractor started work here about 41/2 years ago - it wasn't really clear initially what they were doing; the whole process took a while, but there wasn't that much that was actually dug up. All our power lines, telephone, cable etc were underground already, so maybe that made things easier to bring fiber directly to the home.
What really surprised me that after all that was done, nobody came trying to get us signed up the the new fiber connectivity - not even a flyer in the mailbox.
It was only about 2 years after the fiber installation at the street had been completed that I checked into that further because my cable internet just continued to be a disaster and Teksavvy couldn't fix it although they tried many times over the span of close to a year.
Seems Bell has lots of money to invest in fiber connectivity in urban areas without starting to get get a return on that immediately; rural internet is the problem and the government incentive is trying to address that.

PS: I just checked cable internet at my address again.
Including a $20.- discount for the next 24 month, cable is still a few dollars more than the regular price of FTTH at the same speeds an I'm sure cable speeds will drop during busy times while FTTH speeds are rock solid.
Deal Addict
Nov 30, 2003
2680 posts
997 upvotes
Nunavut
zod wrote: I think you have to go beyond splitting it. Even if cableco/telco's had to split off their internet into seperate companies (or sell it off to a new company), that new company is still going to be focused on profit (because it's a company). They still aren't going to want to share it with competition, and it's still not going to be profitible to expand to many rural areas. The goal for a company that sells only internet, would still be to maximize profit.

That's why I think government ownership might be the only solution. Internet seems to be more of a public good.

That's my thoughts. I don't think you can spin it off into yet another company and expect they'll instantly not seek profit, lower prices, or expand into money losing areas.

I also think it's all moot. The Canadian government would never split up the telco/cableco's.
Read further into it

One company sells wholesale access to the network, they manage and build it

The other is the retail side, they purchase access from the wholesale company just as easy as anyone else, they then compete for customers

There is no sharing, the wholesale company is in business to sell access to the network
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6778 posts
1383 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
Eldorado wrote: FTTH is up for a decision from the CRTC soon to give 3rd party access, but first we need these access rates to be real world instead of their fantasy numbers.. most are guessing this whole FTTH thing won't be resolved for a good 5 years
That gets back to subsidies in my mind.
Take a real live example at my location;
100/10 FTTH is currently at $70.-/month regular price,people are routinely getting it for anywhere between $45 and $60
120/10 cable is $93.-/month less a $20.- discount for 24 months making it $73.-
So - slower average speeds for less money the way I see it.
Teksavvy has access to cable internet at $
Well, I was going to check Teksavvy's pricing to get an idea what the wholesale FTTH price would have to be but can't get to their website...
Maybe later Crying Face
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
10362 posts
2289 upvotes
Victoria
Eldorado wrote: Read further into it

One company sells wholesale access to the network, they manage and build it

The other is the retail side, they purchase access from the wholesale company just as easy as anyone else, they then compete for customers

There is no sharing, the wholesale company is in business to sell access to the network
Yah, but can you force a company to be "wholesale" only in Canada. If they're wholesale only, they're leaving money on the table. I'm not sure what the legalities are surrounding forcing a company to not be able to retail.

Plus there's the whole issue that existing wired infrastructure is for both Internet and TV which are the two lifebloods of cableco/telco's. How do you divide that up, when you'd be taking away their ability to sell cable tv services. This thing has huge neverending court battles written all over it.

Top