Ownership of Intrastructure

I submit that we require public ownership of digital infrastructure. As it is now, no matter whom I contract with, my internet connection is controlled by either Bell or Videotron, as no–one else owns the infrastructure the connection can come in on. I realise that the companies will have to be compensated for the investment, but I also feel that should be balanced against the fact they have had a virtual monopoly for many years now. I strongly feel that Canadians are not well served by the current system, and so our former lead over other countries has disappeared, and we will continue to slide until this and other issues are addressed in such a way to promote the use of the internet.

Comments

Valerie — 2010–05–10 21:15:37 EDT wrote

I say open it up to competition. I have NO problem with foreign investments coming into Canada. Bring it in, it's not coming fast enough.

dsanden — 2010–05–11 14:22:34 EDT wrote

Agreed: concentration is "uncomfortable"

Alternates to public:

• Regulated monopoly ie must–carry (smaller competitors) rule
• Slightly more competition i.e. 4+ players is usually non–oligopolistic in game theory
• Last–mile community coop ownership

rayc — 2010–05–11 17:06:40 EDT wrote

If public ownership means government owned, I don't believe Canadians would fully support it. Notwithstanding the opinions of privacy advocates, how efficient would customer service be likely rendered by any level of government? Aren't consumers already frustrated with poor customer service from the incumbent service providers? I really think in this case, government ought to be responsible for regulation and enforcement, nothing more.

I agree with dsanden about last–mile community coop ownership. See this link — Utility Cooperative for an intro to the concept. One thing that coop ownership offers is community involvement in deciding how and what their infrastucture ought to be used for.

Garth Graham — 2010–05–11 20:37:53 EDT wrote

That public ownership would work best if the governments that owned it were local governments. See for example: Christopher Mitchell. Breaking the Broadband Monopoly [Institute for Local Self–Reliance]: Breaking the Broadband Monopoly

cparr — 2010–05–12 12:55:24 EDT wrote

Introduce some competition. Enforce net neutrality.

SimonRuggier — 2010–05–14 01:01:07 EDT wrote

Just like the water mains and power grid, I would say that network transmission lines are a natural monopoly. This would imply that it does make more sense for either municipalities or cooperatives to be maintaining this infrastructure. I don't support any scheme (including the current system) in which a for–profit company is responsible for network infrastructure.

The government doesn't have to provide the customer service. Instead, they could lease the infrastructure to retail ISPs, similar to TekSavvy's business model in the current system.

aarondyck — 2010–05–14 11:51:24 EDT wrote

I believe that we need regulation of the Broadband industry, not ownership. Net Neutrality and Unlimited Broadband are two topics that are in dire need of some regulation. I believe that I should be able to pay one monthly fee for my Internet access and have no restrictions on that access. The majority of Canadians are in agreement (See CRTC Decision 2010–255 at Telecom Decision CRTC 2010–255 sections 4 & 5). I also need to know that when I type something into my browser bar the provider of my Internet isn't going to prioritize it based on what they feel is important — I should be able to decide this for myself.

In short, we don't need Government ownership but some Government regulation and intervention would help the Canadian people with their access to broadband services.

Nscafe — 2010–05–15 00:59:31 EDT wrote

If WiFi is treated like any other air waves then it should be like other terrestrial services, like radio and broadcast television. Free to everyone if you have the right type of device to use it with. If an individual wishes to have better service, well, there are corporations willing to offer improved service.

If…

knocknock — 2010–05–17 18:53:43 EDT wrote

Something similar to what happened with cellular providers could be good for consumers.

Subsidizing the new building of infrastructure, and its subsequent auction to new companies could provide an injection of energy into Internet competition. As it is, the barrier to entry is much too high.

I don't think that government ownership is the best option, but I do feel that modest intervention may help to provide consumers with more choice and a better price point.

Maxwolf Goodliffe — 2010–05–26 00:19:38 EDT wrote

I love this idea as a new Canadian, this would allow for small companies and even companies from other countries to come and compete with some big names here (Telus, Rogers, etc.)

Further more the idea that net neutrality would become a government issue, something the people ultimately control and not ISP's. This could then be ratified and made apart of basic rights of Canadians. My point being the access to information and how it should unrestricted and made a basic right.

Sorry if I sound abit whimsical, but this idea after reading it am very passionate about it and think it could work in a country as great as Canada.

Mission, BC

BobFar — 2010–06–07 12:48:11 EDT wrote

More foreign ownership (especially US) is the last thing Canada needs. Inroads to the telecom industry without strict control of ownership is a very bad idea that on the surface might appear to be a way of lowering costs. The end result will not be lower costs but merely a siphoning off of corporate profits to a foreign state. NO to foreign ownership. Harper's government has taken a bad idea started by Paul Martin and made it a ludicrous idea. Now he wants to sell off the airways just a little more at a time.

Zoom–Out — 2010–06–07 16:32:06 EDT wrote

Herbie has it right from my perspective. I see little value to society for 2 sets of fibers running over the same geography. I assume a for–profit company is in a conflict of interest with share holder demands on one side and treating the public fairly on the other side. Throw extended foreign ownership in the mix and the future looks dangerous. As a group, Canadians all use the fibers and they have become essential to our lives; meaning we can no longer function without them. The individuals of Canada should all chip in and take ownership, the current mechanism we have to do this is called Government.

Jim Pook — 2010–06–07 19:36:29 EDT wrote

We do need more competition. Rogers, Telus and Bell have too much power to hold their high prices.

We also need cel service pushed into more remote areas such as the west coast of Vancouver Island for safety of travelers and boaters in the area. A few cel sites on mountain tops could cover vast areas without a lot of investment.

And why are they charging $.35 to $.50 a minute for air time???? How about the same thing as regular phones — monthly fixed price — no minute by minute airtime charges!

Observer — 2010–06–08 08:09:55 EDT wrote

It seems that many comments favor "Public ownership". People… that means government control !!!! Show me ANY instance when a government can do things correctly at lower cost. Another writer wants service in a very remote area for a small fee…. Who is going to pay the cost of the towers etc. to provide this service ??? Then there is the foreign investment idea. Great idea Ehhhh? If you think so just look at the cost to drive on the 407 !!! If we are to move ahead in the digital world we have to be realistic. One way is to only use what you NEED. This would cut most cell and text usage, as an example, by about 75%. With usage down the price will come down also. This is simple business math.

Russell McOrmond — 2010–06–08 13:30:49 EDT wrote

I offered a similar suggestion at an intervention in front of the CRTC.
CRTC intervention on December 9^th

I believe we need to separate out the utility part which should be under public control, and other aspects which are best provided by the private sector.

"We have experience with the type of transition we need to make in order to receive the full benefits of convergence. We have something to learn from the previous Progressive Conservative government of Ontario. The Energy Competition Act of 1998 aimed at establishing a deregulated market for the supply of electricity, continuing the deregulation of the natural gas supply market. This was partly accomplished by recognizing that energy distribution was a natural monopoly, and that expecting each potential competitor to put their own pipes into our homes and offices would be impractical. The sector was split into supply that would be a fully competitive private sector marketplace, and distribution which would operate under a highly regulated utility model.

We must do the same thing for our communications infrastructure, separating a highly regulated utility model for municipal distribution from minimally regulated services that are then built on top. This will allow a free market to build services that actually meet the needs of consumers. This will allow local programming to become more local, lowering existing barriers to distribution of neighborhood programming."

LRT2010 — 2010–06–08 15:27:49 EDT wrote

Goverment ownership will translate in sky–high prices to pay up unions, bureocrats and political appointees. All we need is to encourage the creation of new companies, either national or foreign. Competition will break up the current oligopoly

Tony04 — 2010–06–08 16:32:30 EDT wrote

+1 This is a great idea and I'm all for a publicly owned national data backbone owned and controlled by Canadians. Provide a system to where Telecom companies have to compete by building the last mile of service for wireless or wired access except for places like schools and public facilities.

By having the Data Backbone owned by Canadians, It will allow foreign investment into Telecommunications as well as allow our Canadian owned Telecom companies to invest abroad. The Telecommunication Backbone in Canada will be owned by Canadians and thus the lease requirement to companies providing the "last mile of service" would be safeguarded against national security issues to both foreign and domestic threats. Content will have unlimited competition which will spur investments of Canadians to provide Canadian content to Canadians who wish to view that content.There should be incentives in building out networks to rural areas of Canada much as we have today and to allow additional competition from all sources of telecom including satellite and future technologies which could help in rural areas.

We need to treat spectrum as we would the proposed public owned backbone in that spectrum would be the backbone for wireless. Spectrum is a finite resource and it's important that it's managed as to the best interest of Canada. Industry Canada should consider reserving more spectrum for public access as well as encourage wireless companies who lease spectrum to adopt a system much like WiFi spectrum is used today in that anyone can connect and disconnect to it with any compatible device at any given time. It should be required for carriers to remove the carrier device locks at no extra charge, which will allow Canadians to move more freely to another wireless network that may be able to provide a better service at that given moment so long as the device is compatible. It will also allow for a more balanced management of spectrum considering customers can go to the best network based on signal strength, network speed and cost. Manufacture/Carrier deals that limit the best devices to only work on one carrier and thus a small amount of overall licensed spectrum should be prevented by laws in its leasing of spectrum license. Removing device locks and exclusive manufactures deals would help create a more competitive and open wireless ecosystem. Freeing up more spectrum that's not being used efficiently should also be a goal.

chall2k5 — 2010–06–09 08:54:54 EDT wrote

It took investment from Orascom to start to shake up the wireless market, we need competition in Canada from global ISPs who are able to equally chip in to the infrastructure requirements. There is absolutely no reason to not have a government requlated multi–homed internet backbone that sell bandwidth at COST not above. Consumers should not pay more than what it costs for the bandwidth the profit can be made on additional services (such as email… webhosting, etc.…)

R — 2010–06–10 02:10:03 EDT wrote

Breaking the Broadband Monopoly

iojewole — 2010–06–11 20:03:06 EDT wrote

We need competition badly in Canada. People in other countries are paying less for wireless services because there is competition. We will benefit better through foreign ownership. Let the likes of T–Mobile, Verizon wireless, orange, etc. participate in this country and you'll see how prices will drop. We need to save more money rather than spending 'fortune' on wireless service. I support foreign investment in Canadian wireless sector.

Ryan — 2010–06–11 21:13:08 EDT wrote

I believe no regulation is the key. True free market conditions breed innovation as well as lower prices. A company has the choice to either becoming more innovative and cost competitive than the competition, or become complacent and go out of business. That is the beauty of the free enterprise system in which we live. All the current regulation simply protects the interests of a few select groups while slowing real innovation.

Dacre — 2010–06–13 08:10:42 EDT wrote

I am in support of increased and better competition. Here is a summary of broadband performance in my rural area (Dacre). My earlier submission lacked measurement, but I have managed to do a summary. It beats dial–up and satellite, is costly and needs improvement:
Average values for period of February 18 to June 7 2010
Download (bps)1014760.8
Upload (bps)435478.6
Quality of Service(%)68.6
Round Trip Time(ms)92.4
Max Pause (ms) 339.1
Server Visualware — Virginia USA
Jitter (ms) 32.4
Packet Loss –0.1

rgdebnam — 2010–06–13 11:53:39 EDT wrote

I have my doubts that the government can handle this. I have not forgotten what the DNC list did which was nothing. And didn't protect me. We in Canada do not have the choice our American friends do when it comes to ISP's or the money to get service. Now there is talk that the internet will be like getting cable and tiered. No wonder, the cable companies own the internet as it is, this will greatly boost their profits and drain our wallets. Rural customers have it the worse right now and need it the greatest. I'm all for WiFi and the like but can barely afford my internet now and I'm a shut in so need it. My phone goes through my internet, was the only affordable way to keep in touch with long distance friends so VoIP was my only choice

I just hope the government doesn't side with the conglomerates that run the show and forget about the consumer

KyleAThompson — 2010–06–15 23:32:23 EDT wrote

Do not listen to the free–market ideologues, government run services can be quite efficient, depending on the context and organization structure.

Furthermore public corporations are publicly responsible, so even if they don't turn a "profit" their "external" economic/social benefits may outweigh what is internalized in their revenue/cost structure. A serious effort should be made to investigate the possibility of public internet in Canada.

There are no doubt better options available than the status quo.

Tony04 — 2010–06–17 13:26:41 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

dsampson — 2010–06–21 09:11:44 EDT wrote

Pioneering this country telco services were private with the rail lines, then public with Bell, then went private and controlled with the monopolies like Bell.

Opening up the competition would be good, regulation has hurt us to a certain extent. Public utilities prevent innovation and drive up price. Opening up to a TRUE free market should help drive innovation and drive down costs.

Also, look at the role of community based ISP's (simmilar to co–operative cable companies). National Capital Freenet leases bandwidth from Bell Nexia and they offer a decent price. Cheapest in ottawa I have found (National Capital FreeNet).

I am for less expensive and universal access to broadband, however I have to vote no to this idea because it seems based on incomplete information.

Here's to universal Broadband.

Cheers

Ron Van Holst — 2010–06–24 09:18:52 EDT wrote

Let's open the scope a bit. The digital economy isn't about getting cheaper internet access or cheaper cell phone rates, it's about improving the well–being of all Canadians. Cheaper and ubiquitous digital access is only a small piece. If we're thinking public ownership of digital infrastructure, we need to think about more than connectivity. Where does all this digital data get stored? Where does all this digital data get created? Where is all this digital data managed? Where do all the innovative services built on digital technologies come from? Mostly not from Canada.

If Canada is to be a global leader in the digital economy, creating a better standard of living for all Canadians, we need more than just cheaper access to American content and services.

All components of digital infrastructure should have a public ownership model so that world class deployment can be built to benefit everyone in Canada. Private enterprise could lease the capacity, not just connectivity to deliver services more cost effectively.

Personally, I'm advocating public ownership of more computing infrastructure, in addition to the public ownership of better and more ubiquitous communications infrastructure, but there is also the public ownership and access to digital information so that Canadians can use this information to create better services.

Digital technologies can also be used to better manage the resources that we have. Canada is fortunate to be a resource rich nation, but if we do not manage these resources effectively, the wealth will leave Canada, and the negative impacts of exploitation will be left to us. Better use of digital technology will enable us to better manage the risk of negative consequences of resource utilization, but also make sure we get the most benefit from the resources that Canada has.

R — 2010–07–01 01:24:37 EDT wrote

Finland makes broadband a 'legal right'

antarctican — 2010–07–08 13:42:34 EDT wrote

One way I've long seen as a solution to the network infrastructure oligopoly problem is to decouple infrastructure from service providers. Make companies pick, you either own/provide the infrastructure in a carrier neutral fashion or you're a provider (i.e. ISP). We don't have private roads, they're public utilities that are carrier neutral for all companies, why should such an important piece of infrastructure in the 21^st Century be any different?

trevor.woods — 2010–07–09 15:26:11 EDT wrote

Public ownership is not the solution, more competition is.

twintowertwo — 2010–07–12 18:46:24 EDT wrote

Decouple infrastructure from service provider. Competition at both layers means reduced CAPEX and OPEX, which allows smaller competitors to achieve realistic ROI. The same may hold true for the incumbents. If they can overbuild/augment their Cu networks for less CAPEX, they can achieve their ROI with fewer subscribers as well.

The public, public sector, and private sector can all invest in the infrastructure, with the safe bet being passive fiber optics, and the even safer bet being home–run fiber architecture. My personal opinion for residential deployments is home–owner owned fiber/conduit to the PL, coupled with muni–organized fiber/conduit from the PL to the open–access neighbourhood node.