Canada Splits Local Phone, DSL Services 445
s20451 writes "Running counter to the recent string of pro-consolidation FCC rulings in the United States, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has ruled that big Telcos like Bell and Telus must offer ADSL service even when local phone service is provided by another company. Effectively this ruling splits local phone and net services, opening both up for competition and lower prices. Press release here."
Oh I could only wish... (Score:5, Interesting)
In Phoenix, we have two different Cablemodem providers, with some fairly significant overlapping coverage, but all of the independent DSL line providers for residential closed except for Qwest, and Qwest still uses Pair Gain, which kills DSL.
They'll just bypass this edict... (Score:5, Interesting)
Still no adsl-only service (Score:5, Interesting)
Should happen soon, though - you can already order internet access from cable companies w/o subscribing to their TV services.
Ouch. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sell your Bell stock!
Re:Oh I could only wish... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Still no adsl-only service (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this mean...? (Score:4, Interesting)
But, can they still compete with cable? (Score:2, Interesting)
From where I'm sitting, it costs about the same for Bell or Rogers. The unlimited bandwidth and increased speed that Rogers offers is very nice, considering that I have roommates whose downloading habits I can't control.
In other words, the telcos can compete with themselves all they like, but (at least in my situation) it's a moot point if they still can't really compete with cable.
Not pro-consolidation (Score:1, Interesting)
The FCC rulings of late are NOT pro-consolidation, but simply anti-regulation.
The FCC is very simply recognizing that its place in the system is changing with the times.
This is one of those VERY rare times where a governmental organization has decided to limit its own powers, and Slashdot's complaining! The experts employed at the FCC recognize that its place is changing, and it shows the integrity to reign itself in, and the uninformed morons in Congress object!
Way to go! (Score:2, Interesting)
It's really true... (Score:4, Interesting)
And it's more evident with the recent news that we keep hearing how Canada is moving forward while the States are slipping into regress by way of draconian laws and regulations a la DMCA, Super-DMCA, Media Consolidation, etc.
I don't know what thats necessary.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Telus DSL (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think this announcement will have nearly the impact in the west that it will have in the central and eastern parts of Canada. Out here, there really aren't any viable competing telcos, and Telus allows other companies to resell DSL under other brand names (for the same price, as far as I can tell) so who you get DSL from seems pretty irrelevant at this point.
Being able to get DSL-only service would be cool, however. I know people who really don't need a land line, but they have it just to get the DSL service.
woo (Score:1, Interesting)
I had to go with Rogers Cable, which isn't a whole lot different then Bell sympatico
Someone else offers local phone service? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:"Good riddance" I say! (Score:1, Interesting)
But that means more people (relatively) to vote for even more socialist Republicans.
The rate of incrase in social spending is 50% higher now than when Clinton was in. And that doesn't include the perscription drug program.
Pay attention (Score:5, Interesting)
If you had to regulate one or the other, which would you have picked? The one that requires the telcos to allow competitors to use their entire network to sell phone service? Or the one that allows companies with their own nationwide backbone infrastructure (like Covad) to use JUST the last-mile portion of the lines?
I REALLY don't understand why they picked what they did. It's not pro-consolidation OR anti-regulation. It's the worst possible combination of choices. It's no wonder there is widespread objection. Although most of the "nerd news" reporting painted the decision as one that was bad for nerds (no more DSL competition)-- mainstream press widely reported it as a terrible loss for the telcos (because they have to basically do all the infrastructure for their POTS competitors). Now, if a decision screws everybody (dsl users, dsl competitors, AND the telcos)-- it can't possibly be doing any of us any good. What the hell was the FCC thinking?
Re:But, can they still compete with cable? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bell removed their bandwidth cap a few months ago. See This page [sympatico.ca] for details. My guess is that they were getting killed by Rogers.
Ironically, Rogers was thinking of implementing a bandwidth cap, but In response to Bell eliminating their cap [custhelp.com], they backed down [custhelp.com].
In some cases, capitalist competition really works!
As for the speed, I've used both and found the two comparable, with Rogers a little faster. Bell (as all DSLs) varies depending on where you are in relation to the phone switching station. Rogers (as in all Cable internet) varies depending on how many people in your vicinity are actively using a cable internet connection.
Socialist State ? (Score:3, Interesting)
The truth is that the Canadian government is happy to infringe upon the freedom of corporations in order to enhance the lives of the individual. (e.g. decrimilize pot smoking, legal gay marriage and broadband for the people).
The US government, on the other hand, is too happy to curtail the freedom of the individual and let big corporations (and their campaign contributions) do whatever they want. (e.g. Patriot 1/2, DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, etc.)
Cheers.
Re:so... (Score:3, Interesting)
The stories I have heard from my friends that had it back then concur with that. But basically the one time they did get an IP they just recorded it and told the computer that it was a static address. After entering the DNS of the local university, all was good.
"I found huge amounts of latency that increased at every hop. It could have been my neighbourhood."
I hadn't heard any stories like that, but I guess it varied from area to area. It was still fast 4 years ago for my friends when it worked.
"I wouldn't go back to them now because of their AUP: no servers. I pay $4/mo for a static IP (Rogers doesn't offer that at all), and I have freedom to use my connection as I see fit. I host my own domain on it amongst other things."
That's your option. I would do the same as what you did if I actually lived in TO on a permanent basis and had a land line and such. But for my current setup, rogers fits the bill more nicely than something connected to a landline.
The few times that I have run a server, I just kept it on a high port and I never heard anything about it.