Publicly Owned Infrastructure

We should setup a 100% publicly owned backbone across the country. Companies (not individuals) should be able to lease bandwidth on this backbone at globally competitive rates (not just Canadian competitive, we all know we pay too much for our bandwidth). Maintenance and upgrades of the network can be funded by leased bandwidth.

Neutrality should be enshrined on this connection. Colleges and Universities using this connection should charge students no more than cost to use this connection. Oversight will have to be provided by an arms length government organization.

There should be an initiative for new houses to have fiber connections to the local switching stations that would be owned by the home owners, not a company, and a rebate program set up for upgrading to a fiber connection. The government should not lease directly to consumers however because it will stifle competition in the ISP arena.

The idea of this is not to make money but to ensure that Canada remains, and becomes, a more attractive place for high tech companies to move to. We will have the required infrastructure, and a knowledgeable population of workers. For Canadians it will act as a balance against the incumbent companies that use their internet to prop up other failing business models.

Comments

theluketaylor — 2010–05–10 20:09:25 EDT wrote

I agree wholeheartedly government needs to get involved in the development of national infrastructure. No single company has the means or inclination to build a scalable, futureproof network that provides connectivity to all Canadians. This country is far too large for infrastructure to be build by anyone but government and with public control innovative companies will be able to try new business models and ideas without the massive risk and cost associated with major network infrastructure.

Government can build a nationwide fiber network and lease the space to companies that want to resell the capacity to homes and businesses. The network should be service agnostic. It could carry TCP/IP, voice, TV and any new developments that may come along. Federal and provincial governments would be responsible for the long distance links and assist local government in building the final nodes with expertise and funding.

Amsterdam is doing something similar and serves as a model of what I see as ideal. I read a very informative article about their goals and issues they have encountered:

How Amsterdam was wired for open access fiber.

bwilliamp — 2010–05–10 20:39:37 EDT wrote

Agree 100%

This is top of the list as to what the government should be doing.

matt.hcg — 2010–05–11 14:18:30 EDT wrote

This, as far as I'm concerned, is the most important issue. Corporations have and will do anything to maximize profit. We can not let them apply that business model to our culture, which has become dependent on the internet.

dsanden — 2010–05–11 14:56:53 EDT wrote

Suggestion: Must–Share–Trench rule: when a cable is being laid in a trench (or tunneling etc), other providers may put their cables in the same trench.

rayc — 2010–05–11 17:41:29 EDT wrote

Is there a good sustainable business model yet for supporting municipal or government–owned broadband? Some models uphold net neutrality ideals like UTOPIA of Utah by remaining wholesalers. But will broadband users likely face the possibility that data usage must be metered like electricity or water as a public utility. Will data rates fluctuate and be traded on commodity exchanges (like Enron!)? Unlike traditional utilities, it doesn't make sense to conserve data usage or hedge/speculate/trade them.

I'm sure the digital economy has a strong correlation with data usage. The richest content or media will likely consume the most bandwidth. But is it fair to charge more for transmitting 3D medical images versus a 140 character tweet on twitter? Doesn't that hinder innovation and progress by punishing the data starved?

Rebates on data usage should be used to help subsize costs for medical and community service organizations.

infzy — 2010–05–11 17:58:18 EDT wrote

As long as we never end up with a Great Firewall of Canada, similar to that of China where the government can control the peoples' access to information.

If the project is founded on solid good–faith democratic principles, then this could be extremely good for our country. +1

Jaheckelsafar — 2010–05–12 16:33:10 EDT wrote

From rayc: "But is it fair to charge more for transmitting 3D medical images versus a 140 character tweet on twitter?"

That's up for the controlling organization to decide. I'd say that should be free. I think medical, educational, government, and cultural institutions should pay a flat rate for unlimited bandwidth. This should not be extended to ISPs and private companies though. They can pay for what they use. In the case of resellers they can pass the cost on to consumers for greater bandwidth or not same as they do now with Bell, but there would be no caps and the price per meg would not have the same gouging that the incumbents charge (read rates competitive for the world at large, not just compared to companies in Canada (who shall remain nameless))

The key is complete network neutrality. No interfering with traffic on the network. No preferential treatment of certain types of traffic. However, customers could be cut off from the backbone for various reasons (public complaints, proven illegal activities, etc…). Proper pricing will prevent too much traffic on the network, and money coming in will go to upgrading and maintaining the network rather than corporate coffers and investors pockets.

saneconsulting — 2010–05–19 02:27:08 EDT wrote

Most of the required fibre backhaul between all the major cities in Canada is already in place so there should be few requirements to replicate those investment. Appropriate regulatory control of course is critical to providing affordable access to this fibre backhaul infrastructure.

I agree with the concept of publicly owned infrastructure but I would suggest that a Public Private Partnership may be the most appropriate method to pursue this. Also, the network should and perhaps be funded primarily with private equity with fixed rates of return which can limit problems attributed to corporate greed.

Zoom–Out — 2010–06–07 17:07:27 EDT wrote

One quick observation, Jaheckelsafar is only making the fiber cheaper to the ISP's and capitalist rules say they will charge what the consumer is willing to pay. I see higher profits for the ISP's and not necessarily cheaper rates for the public.

jabarksy — 2010–06–07 23:27:06 EDT wrote

I was thinking about this a little while ago, but there is a problem of the current network which is owned by various countries, and making it publicly owned would require nationalization which is something we should not do. Ideally I would have liked to see something where the network is open to everyone all the time without limitation and all we would need to do it buy a phone, essentially run the information superhighway like an actual highway. This would have its own problems and benefits, but at least we wouldn't have to deal with the customer service problems and supposed mistakes on the monthly phone bills. Unfortunately the telecom companies will die a hard death. Therefore we need to find a way to include them.

Thus I would propose a serious look at regulation for contracts that the service providers make people sign. The idea of a clause where rates can be changed at any time without notice of require acceptance is ridiculously unethical. A negotiated contract would never have such a thing or a lawyer would get disbarred, so why should the public have to put up with this bullying. I have no problem paying for service, but I should have the right to decide, and if the company is not giving me what I want I should be able to cut them off anytime, as they are essentially in breach of contract.

I thus applaud the government for allowing more competition, and once people's contracts expire over the next three years, I believe the big boys will get a rude awakening, so bring on the competition and let the people decide with their money.

Observer — 2010–06–08 08:39:57 EDT wrote

Publicly (government controlled) backbone? And who is going to pay the companies that laid the wire for THEIR property ???? And since it is publicly OWNED who is going to maintain it ?? I am amazed at the number of comments that suggest services should be FREE of cost and FREE of control by the corporations that supply the services. If changes are really needed in our tech systems then we have to be realistic… The reality of this site is that it has been set up to create a desire amongst Canadians that we need foreign investment to make the services cheaper. If anyone thinks this is a good idea just remember… our P.M. and the current government are trying to implement a trade deal with the EU which is demanding access to all of our infrastructure. How many writers know about this deal ?? I suspect very few.

bwilliamp — 2010–06–09 02:25:24 EDT wrote

@Observer

Did you even read the OP? Nobody is talking about free.

Russell McOrmond — 2010–06–09 20:49:40 EDT wrote

I suggest a mixed utility + private sector is the right model, similar to what Ontario did with the electricity market. For more details, see:

Digital Copyright Canada

This would separate the services which are a natural monopoly, and should be provided as a utility, from services that can and should be provided by a highly competitive private sector marketplace.

To @Observer

I believe it would be appropriate for you to research the current situation a bit more. The current landline providers are highly publicly subsidized, and exist largely because of the government gave them a a Right Of Way exemption to property rights in order to be able to put the wires above and below public and private property. If these companies had to pay fair market rent on the property they are using it would likely wipe these companies out.

Tony04 — 2010–06–17 13:25:30 EDT wrote

Australia is moving ahead with a publicly owned National Broadband Network. The NBN in Australia has studies which can help Canadians to develop the same or similar guidelines to building our own infrastructure. Canada needs the roads of the internet in the hands of Canadians and away from corporate decision that undermine the best interest of Canada.

Copy and Paste the links below to your browser:

Telcos joined by Google, Intel to applaud NBN Study

National Broadband Network

cbritton — 2010–06–21 21:57:32 EDT wrote

I believe that this is a duplicate idea that was submitted previously based on the submission date:

Ownership of Infrastructure

SimonRuggier — 2010–07–03 02:03:10 EDT wrote

@cbritton: Sure, they're fairly similar statements, but I would say the best thing to do is vote them both up. Our network infrastructure has been mismanaged for far too long, so the more attention this suggestion gets, the better. Network infrastructure, especially last–mile connections, are a natural monopoly, and we could have far better infrastructure for the same investment if the government were to recognize this when setting public policy.