×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Canadian ISPs Fight Back, Again

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the there-goes-competition dept.

The Internet 200

jenningsthecat writes "With the recent CRTC decision giving Canadian telcos such as Bell and Telus the legal right to deny third-party ISPs access to their infrastructure, smaller Canadian Internet providers are again fighting for their lives, and are asking their customers for help. The ISPs are seeking public support, asking people to go to competitivebroadband.com to send either a form letter or a personalized message to the Industry Minister, the Prime Minister, the Opposition Leader, and optionally the respondent's local Minister of Parliament. If the CRTC's decision is not overturned, approximately 30 ISPs will likely be forced out of business. Competition in the ADSL market will be totally eliminated, and Canadians will have only two choices for wired Internet access: the local Cableco or the local Telco. Given that Canadian taxpayers have heavily subsidized the telcos in multiple ways for several decades, this decision to hand over exclusive control of the keys to the cookie jar hardly seems fair."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Goverment (0)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541261)

The large carriers had previously been required to sell access at a specific wholesale rate. If Bell and Telus can charge whatever they want, the small ISPs say, Canadians will see less competition, higher prices and slower Internet speeds.

I'd like to support the small ISP and they're being around most likely creates more competition, but I dislike goverment control like that too. Companies should be allowed to sell their services at a price they want. If its pricy for me, I need to be without it. Or pay the price they ask and get the service.

Goverment shouldn't be allowed to tell me that I'm not allowed to sell at a certain price, marketforces will do that.

If the prices will go too much up, I'm sure customers will be unhappy and there will be new ISP's taking place.

Re:Goverment (4, Insightful)

KraftDinner (1273626) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541331)

The problem is the current big ADSL ISP's(Bell and Telus) have a monopoly on their markets(It might be an Oligopoly, I don't know if Bell and Telus compete in the same geographic areas.)

Re:Goverment (1)

fredc97 (963879) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541389)

The problem is the current big ADSL ISP's(Bell and Telus) have a monopoly on their markets(It might be an Oligopoly, I don't know if Bell and Telus compete in the same geographic areas.)

You got that right, all the telcos and cable companies have very specific geographic areas, quite often the only real choice is either ADSL or cable, and in many locations you don't even have such a choice.

Re:Goverment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29541475)

Yup welcome to the USA where we have the choice of Comcast or Verizon.

Re:Goverment (1)

KraftDinner (1273626) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541523)

I'd probably pick Verizon given their pricing and speed plans. They offer plans far superior to that of Bell, Rogers or Telus.

Re:Goverment (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29541603)

Unless you live in a rural area, where your choicess are $100/month satelite or.. nothing because a decade ago verison sued to prevent a wifi co-operative, since it would prevent them from competing (read: price-fixing) in a market they're going to enter any day now.

Re:Goverment (1)

KraftDinner (1273626) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542549)

Hypothetical situation. Given the choice between Verizon, Bell, Telus or Rogers and based on their price/speed plans, I would pick Verizon.....

Re:Goverment (1)

CreamyG31337 (1084693) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541751)

What? There is no Verizon in Canada...

Re:Goverment (1)

KraftDinner (1273626) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542535)

Sigh, I'm saying if I had a choice between Verizon or Bell/Telus/Rogers. I'm not saying I HAVE that choice. It's called a HYPOTHETICAL situation.

Re:Goverment (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541607)

Very true. Just like the power company and the piped natural-gas company are regulated, so too does the Internet service company need to be regulated. Since the government granted these monopolies, it also has the right to control their pricing.

Re:Goverment (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541735)

Actually, these monopolies/limited markets derive from ownership of wired infrastructure. ADSL is either bought directly from Bell/Telus, who own the phone wires, or a reseller.

The other option is the cable company, who owns the coaxial cable network.

Re:Goverment (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541905)

Sorry but I don't see the distinction. Whether you're talking about the power company, the natural gas company, or the internet provider, they still have a monopoly over the market, which was granted by the government's express permission. (Example: Comcast was granted monopoly by my local politicians.) That grant gives the government the power to control pricing. That grant also gives the government power to revoke the monopoly and give it to somebody else.

Re:Goverment (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542055)

What about the heavy tax payer subsidizing that helped pay for that infrastructure?

Re:Goverment (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542253)

Then I hope they are paying for the public right-of-way they are most certainly using.

Re:Goverment (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542205)

Bell holds Ontario, Quebec, and the maritime provinces (I think), Telus controls BC and Albeta, Saskatchewan has Sasktel (The only crown corporation of the bunch), and Manitoba has MTS (Formerly a crown corp, now a publicly traded company).

None of them compete with each other.

Re:Goverment (2, Insightful)

fredc97 (963879) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541347)

If the prices will go too much up, I'm sure customers will be unhappy and there will be new ISP's taking place.

Have you taught about the price to enter such a market? It is not possible for any new player to come in and create its own infrastructure and try to compete with the Bell, Telus, Rogers & Videotron of the Canadian market which all have huge market share. So yes the CRTC has to come in and legislate and force the market to open up especially since all Telcos have been subsidized over the years by the Canadians.

Re:Goverment (5, Insightful)

BassMan449 (1356143) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541373)

The thing you are missing is that the infrastructure was build with government money. The competition is unfair because the big telco "own" the networks and if you don't have the government forcing them to sell their network capacity to the smaller ISPs then they will stop selling to the ISP or sell at high rates and then sell at low rates to their customers. This will put all the smaller ISPs out of business and once they are gone the big telco can jack up their prices because they have no competition.

Re:Goverment (5, Insightful)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541411)

Monopoly, American style!

Seriously, O Canada, don't emulate us on this one. America needs the "Crazy Uncle" to the north to provide some alternatives to business as usual.

Re:Goverment (2, Funny)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541559)

Wait... which is the crazy one?

Re:Goverment (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541747)

Thus the reason for the quotations :). We Yanks still aren't using a decent measuring standard outside of scientific circles.

Oblig. Slade (0, Offtopic)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542289)

Wait... which is the crazy one?

Don't stop now, come on
Another drop now, come on
That's why
That's why
I say Maaa mama we're all crazy now!

Re:Goverment (1)

Shaman (1148) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541433)

If I had upvotes, I'd upvote this to the moon. This is exactly correct.

Re:Goverment (0)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541925)

Not exactly correct. If the government is going to pay money to a private business (in this case in the form of infrastructure) because, presumably, it decides that to do so is in the best interest of the society, it needs to do so with a contract that spells out any rights that this business has to give up in return. No problem with that. But I don't see that just because a company has received some taxpayer money in the past, the government can step in at any time and tell it how to price its products or how to otherwise run its business.

Re:Goverment (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541445)

Frankly, if I were Bell and the CRTC said I could do so, I would stop offering wholesale internet altogether immediately.

What business wouldn't love the opportunity to instantly and permanently kill all its competitors except those on completely different lines? Why adjust prices when you can just kill them off?

Re:Goverment (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542337)

Of course, if you did that, then the CRTC would immediately be deluged with complaints, leaving them with no choice but to recant their decision. It's better to boil the frog slowly, so nobody notices anything's wrong until it's too late.

Re:Goverment (5, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541499)

The ISP I worked for for ten years, and was the system/network admin for for seven of those years went under because Telus and Shaw basically set up a scenario in which we couldn't compete with them. Yes, we did have a fiber connection via Shaw's Big Pipe subsidiary, but it was damned pricey. Worse was Telus's stranglehold on the PRI dialup lines. Worst of all was that while both technically were supposed to open their networks to us so we could resell DSL or cable, the hoops one had to jump through and the poverty-level profit margins they allowed made it all but pointless. In the end, we tried to roll out our own WiFi, but geographically or area just wasn't conducive to that.

The whole deck was stacked from the very beginning, and the CRTC, despite all these grand proclamations of protecting competition, had already handed the keys to the kingdom. To be honest with you, if I were a small ISP now, I'd close shop. There's no money in it any more.

Re:Goverment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542437)

That really burns my brisket. A little over a year ago I told Bell to go fuck themselves and went with one of the now threatened third party ISPs.
Service on the new ISP was great, and way cheaper. I can see why Bell wants them gone.
Lord knows what I'm gonna do for internet if my ISP goes belly up. I can't go back to Bell, or Rogers.

Re:Goverment (1)

claq (727871) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542517)

I imagine there has been no decent money in it for at least 10 years. The end user cost of phone and data service is probably not far above the production cost, which means these services are mere commodities, like gasoline. How many different gas companies do we need when they all sell the same thing for the same price and make the same tiny profit? When prices for data services change I'm sure it's because the production cost has changed, like gas, and not because of "gouging". Data and phone access services are so marginally profitable for the big companies that they don't even compete on customer service (again, like gas stations :). The real profit is in those things that cost comparatively little to produce, like text messaging and voice mail (or ring tones, according to Chris Rock [youtube.com] :). This will probably be the final stage of consolidation of the data access service industry in Canada.

Yes, the infrastructure was built partially with public money through subsidies. Does that mean we, the people are forever and always entitled to do what we want with it? If that was the plan then the government should have built it. If you let a private company (i.e. not government run) build something, sorry, it's the company's property. I can get a tax break to put solar panels on my house. Do I owe you some of my electricity? No. You get a side benefit, which is (theoretically) cleaner air. We've reaped the benefit of the subsidy in that we have phone lines just about everywhere, which is something given the vast sparely populated areas of this country. (I haven't visited all of Canada so I don't know if this is literally true. There are probably people in northern communities still waiting for phone service.)

If I'm right that data and voice service is totally commoditized then the wholesale resellers aren't necessary. They either currently resell service at a price higher than it needs to be, or the wholesale price is artificially low to ensure are profitable. I'm not in favor of paying more than I need to, and I'm not in favor of things that distort prices. At this moment in 2009 I think this is a good decision.

Re:Goverment (1)

fredc97 (963879) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541507)

I am pretty sure if you check it out the price on average for a dedicated high speed connection over the last 8 years in Canada has stayed the same, the speed has increased a bit but not by leaps and bounds but compared to many other countries Canada is starting to lag behind. There is no widespread ADSL 2nd generation here, no fiber to the home, no TV over ADSL or other such 'newer' services...

There are already fewer ISPs in Canada then there were 10 years ago when you would have dozens of choice in any major city. Now only a few are left and they don't compete on price anymore. Long gone are the days of unlimited internet for 20 bucks of the modem yesteryear, now everything is metered or limited in some way and nothing you could call high speed is under 30$

Then why do Telcos "own" the networks? (4, Insightful)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541635)

If the infrastructure was built with government money, why doesn't the infrastructure belong to the government?

Do the big telco companies lease the infrastructure from the government? If so, can't little telco's also lease it?

How do the telcos own the infrastructure?

Re:Then why do Telcos "own" the networks? (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541659)

Corruption and lobbying.

Re:Then why do Telcos "own" the networks? (2, Informative)

BassMan449 (1356143) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541873)

Exactly. The government gave them subsidies to build the network, but the big telco lobby is a powerful one and they got the language inserted that guaranteed they own the networks. I personally think since the infrastructure was build with government money it should be owned by the people and just considered public infrastructure. Unfortunately the telcos have a lot more money then me to send to Congress and so the people lose that fight.

Re:Then why do Telcos "own" the networks? (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542045)

How do the telcos own the infrastructure?

Because the government didn't want to pay for building it (nor it should) so it let private companies do it and chipped in some of the money and other incentives. Nothing unusual.

Re:Then why do Telcos "own" the networks? (0, Offtopic)

Rue C Koegel (1448549) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542135)

u mean why aren't we a socialist society? because we are a capitalist one!

socialism doesn't mean Nazi, National Socialism, or Stalinist Communism; your local co-op is a perfect example of a successful use of socialist ideas. i prefer to refer to those ideas as Co-Operational, and myself as a Co-Operative, in order to avoid the misconception that socialism is bad for you: but they're the same thing non-the-less.

Re:Then why do Telcos "own" the networks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542407)

The deal was, the big Telcos and Cablecos were given a monopoly in exchange for running a line, for free, to anyone any ware that asked for it. This was all over with before I was born but that's how we got to this point....

Re:Goverment (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29541451)

But the government has given these companies a monopoly over the infrastructure. If the government granted you the same monopoly then it's not a matter of your freedom to set your own prices, it's a matter of your obligation to the government and the public for being granted that monopoly.

If the prices will go too much up, I'm sure customers will be unhappy and there will be new ISP's taking place.

What new ISP's? The existing ones have a, say it with me, monopoly. A government granted (and enforced) monopoly at that.

I think you've completely missed the entire issue here. The government historically regulated the prices and forced these ISP's to open up their lines to allow true competition so that the unhappy customers could go to a new ISP. But now they're allowing these ISP's to set the prices for their competitors. They're forced to sell access to their network (due to their monopoly status), previously they were forced to do so in such a way that other ISPs could compete with them, but now they can just set such a high price that their offering is the cheapest on the market, driving the smaller ISP's out of business.

Re:Goverment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29541493)

Goverment shouldn't be allowed to tell me that I'm not allowed to sell at a certain price, marketforces will do that.

Monopolies can prevent market forces from doing that. Market forces only work in free markets. Monopolies produce controlled markets, and the consumer loses.

This is the fundamental paradox of capitalism: all companies must perpetually compete, but none of them can ever be allowed to win.

Re:Goverment (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541783)

This is a paradox but not a flaw. All beings must attempt to survive, but none can ever be allowed to live forever (population problems and you're in your 20s at 400 years old with about 80 kids...).

Re:Goverment (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542313)

Don't have so many damn kids. Problem solved.

Next?

Re:Goverment (5, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541517)

There won't be new ISP's taking their place because you can't run a second set of cables throughout the city/region/whatever at a competitive price. Because the previous guys got subsidized.

Possibly you can't do so at any cost because the previous guys where granted exclusive rights or because it's politically impossible to get permission now. Though that's irrelevant due to not being able to afford it if you could anyway.

No, it's a monopoly. (2, Informative)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541519)

Your logic only works in a competitive marketplace.

The wires to the home/business are owned by a monopoly. It would be a rare case indeed where putting new wires to a customer makes sense. Most of the time (in the US, anyhow) it's not legally possible to do so.

If these ISPs go away, there will never (outside of wireless) be any alternative to the Telco or the Cable company. Ever.

Re:Goverment (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541573)

>>>Companies should be allowed to sell their services at a price they want

Yes except those companies are government-granted monopolies, like the power company, the piped natural gas company, or the Internet service company. Then the government, since it granted the monopoly, also has the right to control its pricing.

Re:Goverment (1)

zenasprime (207132) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541815)

Your right, companies should be allowed to sell their services at a price they want... The problem with telcos and cable companies is that we, the people (ie the government) grant these companies monopolies and allow them, and even subsidize them with tax payer money, to set up their infrastructure on our property. The telcos and cable companies do NOT own the land that they set their cables, poles, and underground pipe upon. That land is ours and we grant them right of way to use it for their business because it is in our best interest to do so. You see, just because we grant them this right of way does not mean that we no longer have a say. In fact, it is part of the deal that they are granted this monopoly because it is ultimately beneficial for us that they do so and that they have to follow the rules we set down for them if they wish to do business on our property. Simply speaking, that if they choose to do business in our communities, and we grant them right of way to lay down their lines on our property (which gives them an advantage over their competetors) that they might have to allow others to piggy back upon those right of way lines and have competition. Ultimately we let them have right of way for our own benefit. When this relationship no longer is a benefit to us, the rightful owners of the land on which they have set up their business, we have the right to not "renew their lease" if they don't wish to follow whatever new rules we set out for them. In turn, they can remove their infrastructure (cable/phone lines) from our property and take their business elsewhere.

So you see, all this is, ultimately, is two sides of a business relationship. If they do not like the rules we set out for their use of our property, they have every right to pack up and move on to greener pastures. If however, they wish to continue doing business with us, they can make the lower bid and get our business.

What I'm hoping for is wifi technology that will decentralize internet access and get rid of all these land lines that are cluttering my view. I've already discontinued cable service (I can get "TV" from online sources like hulu, iTuneMusic Store, Netflix, etc and/or buy DVDs) I don't really need cable TV programming. I get phone service from my mobile. The only line I have yet to escape is DSL which I will gladly replace with whatever wifi service becomes available in my area. Hell if it was economically feasible, I'd detach from the electric grid as well. ;)

Re:Goverment (2, Insightful)

Tim4444 (1122173) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541869)

It would be absolutely fine to ask the government to butt out if these companies hadn't been taking fat government subsidies to develop the infrastructure they need for those services. I think the government deserves to have a return (in the form of a competitive free market) on its investment. Giving select companies exclusive control over publicly funded projects means the government picked the winners instead of the free market.

Let me put it another way. If a government pays a company to build a bridge, does it mean that company should be able to charge whatever toll it wants for people to use it?

Public investment should be for the public good - not selective corporate welfare.

Re:Goverment (5, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541883)

Goverment shouldn't be allowed to tell me that I'm not allowed to sell at a certain price, marketforces will do that.

Market forces? Is this some kind a a euphemism for monopolies, anti-competitive practices and union busting? Because that's the only context I ever hear it used in.

Wake up. Wake up you and all the other "free market" drones around here. The "Free market" does not, has not and will not ever exist. Period. It is a pipe dream concocted from the ramblings of economists, most of whom were in the employ of powerful groups who would like nothing better than a free hand to do as they please in any sector of the economy or society in general. It is, at best and idealised theoretical utopia, worthy only of consideration as a thought experiment. If that.

In reality, you cannot separate economics from the general deviousness, manipulation, underhandedness and skullduggary that goes on in almost every walk of human life. People game system and companies, especially big companies, will game the system up to and quite often past the point where they can get away with it. In this reality, on this planet Earth, your free market theories are about as applicable as theories of anti-matter.

The big telco's are going to degrade service, cripple and destroy all competition, punitively raise prices and in general wreck the whole internet unless there is strong government regulation in place to prevent them from doing so. Platitudes about the efficiency of private industry and the prices "the market" will bear are just that. Platitudes, carrying no more weight than a dry tissue. History, and indeed recent events, have demonstrated quite conclusively that no major industry can be left to its own devices, ever . It simply does not work. The prime, prime, prime example was the recent financial crash. But there are many other examples across all industries.

The internet is now one of the foundations of our society and we cannot allow it to be held to ransom by a handful of individuals hiding behind corporate veils and pandering economics.

Re:Goverment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542141)

Just for the record there is another company currently rolling broadband wireless across the country. 50K subs plus the same on satellite. www.xplornet.com AC because I work for them.

Bigger picture! (3, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541427)

Living in Canada and working in Telecommunications a bit (and my father still does) you begin to learn a few things about these two big companies. Where I live there are 2 basic Internet Service Providers, Shaw (cable) and Telus (Telecommunications).

Telus, being the Telecommunications company - actually OWNS most of the physical infrastructure, or the wiring, that runs across the city. Shaw basically sets up a deal (not sure of the terms) so that they can provide internet access THROUGH telus' wiring. You can try both service providers, but essentially you have two choices: Regular speed with random faults of downtime (telus) or something slightly slower but pretty reliable.

The big wigs of these companies are by no means in competition, with the way they charge rates, make deals to use each others services*, I wouldn't be surprised if they both play Golf together, all the while discussing "How can we make an extra few Million this year. A little for me, a little for you..."

*(for example, 411 directory service from ALOT of providers that aren't Telus is done by Telus Employees)

Re:Bigger picture! (3, Informative)

Shaman (1148) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541511)

FYI, while they "own" the infrastructure, they didn't pay for it. Your tax dollars did.

And they use up BILLIONS of dollars per year worth of free right-of-way that only they have access to.

Re:Bigger picture! (2, Insightful)

hidden (135234) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541745)

Umm ...What?
Shaw and Telus may be entangled somewhere way up on the upstream side, but the local wiring in the city is completely different. Telus is a DSL provider, and Shaw is a Cable provider.

Perhaps you're thinking of Bell and Telus?

Re:Bigger picture! (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541879)

From your physical house, yes, Shaw will handle the cable, Telus will handle the DSL. As soon as it hits a Shaw building - and it needs to hop outside of the city, it sure ain't over a Shaw Cable, and when it needs to hit a different server inside the city to get outside the city, they go through Telus wiring.

Similarily Shaw offers Phone services. Telus offers Television services. They both provide the EXACT same services, whatever you want (if you wanted dialup you could still go through Shaw) because the two of them just work together on it.

Re:Bigger picture! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542323)

Depends on the city. Where I live Shaw owns a fiber backbone that comes through the city that stretches all across the country and down into the US. See the network map [www.shaw.ca]

WARNING! ANNECDOTAL EVIDENCE BE

Never mind the fact that where I go to college they are lobbying for better fiber rollout, and trying to get the Shaw and Telus negotiators INTO THE SAME BUILDING is almost impossible, let alone the same room.

Also Telus got bitchslapped by BC Hydro (gov't power utility) because they share poles, with Shaw piggybacking on the power company's portion. Telus was tightening the wires so they could "push" Shaw off. BC Hydro stepped in when the tension was a) damaging the poles and (b) when they realized what kind of monkey business was being pulled to annoy Shaw.

Re:Bigger picture! (3, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541773)

Shaw uses the cable lines.

Telus uses phone.

Where does the cable start going through the phone?

Re:Bigger picture! (3, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541895)

Where does the cable start going through the phone?

As soon as it hits a Shaw building and needs to go somewhere else.

Re:Bigger picture! (1)

fliptw (560225) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542367)

Like say, from a cable modem via Ethernet?

Re:Bigger picture! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542561)

Shaw doesn't go through Telus at all.. It goes through Shaw's own infrastructure and pipes (once Bigpipe, now Shaw Business Unit).

If you actually tried running some traceroutes from a Shaw connection, you can see the their pipes till its passed off to another carriers pipe. Only time Shaw hits Telus, is if a Shaw customer hits a Telus customer.

Seriously, stop drinking Telus's punch.

Re:Bigger picture! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542267)

I've had Shaw cable internet and telus ADSL, Shaw has a much bigger faster pipe. Well of course it does because its cable and not crappy ADSL...

Re:Bigger picture! (1)

CreamyG31337 (1084693) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542467)

It's not going through "phone wires". More like generic fiber that can carry anything.

Re:Bigger picture! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542227)

Shaw basically sets up a deal (not sure of the terms) so that they can provide internet access THROUGH telus' wiring.

Nope. Not quite.

Shaw is the cable television company. They provide Internet access over the coax cable that also provides your TV signal.

Telus is the phone company. They provide Internet access over the twisted pair copper wire that also provides your telephone dial tone.

However, there are lots of smaller ISP's that provide DSL connections over the wires "owned" by Telus. For example, I use a (relatively) small ISP called nucleus.com. They provide me with a DSL connection that goes over the Telus wiring infrastructure, much to the chagrin of the money-grubbing phone company.

As you may expect, the tech support you receive from the giant fat-and-lazy phone company is limited to the subvocal grunting of whatever fly-by-night offshore call centre Telus decides to outsource to this week, while the tech support from a smaller (ie local) ISP actually has a clue.

Articles like this make Slashdot great. (3, Insightful)

spammeister (586331) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541455)

I had a passing interest of the issues at large and I find this decision disturbing, considering our tax dollars paid for this service in the first place!

I consider myself lucky that in my area, the cableco isn't big and mean (Eastlink), and Telus is (AFAIK) the only telco for ADSL in my area, which I would never in a million years use.

How many shenanigans and payola are Rogers and Bell throwing at the CRTC anyways?

Re:Slashdots slashdots great articles like this (2, Informative)

beckett (27524) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541713)

sheesh we've already crashed the pathetic competitivebroadband.com server. either that or the ASP script sucks. HOW DO I MAKE A DIFFERENCE NOW?

Re:Slashdots slashdots great articles like this (1)

spammeister (586331) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542485)

OK, I append my title to say "Articles like this make slashdot great, which then make the articles not so great..."

Re:Articles like this make Slashdot great. (1)

taylortbb (759869) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541719)

There are still DSL wholesalers, that use Telus's or Bell's last-mile infrastructure, but have their own transit/DNS/e-mail/etc. I'm with TekSavvy, which I know services both Bell and Telus areas. Otherwise I'm not sure about Telus, I live in Bell-land so I mostly know Bell-area ISPs. I think TekSavvy is the only one that services both Bell and Telus areas (Yak does, but they just re-sell TekSavvy).

Re:Articles like this make Slashdot great. (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542285)

I hope the 'competition' is better with those than it is here.

I can use Qwest, the telco, as my ISP for $30/month. Or I can use a 3rd party ISP and only have to pay Qwest $28 for the line and pay the 3rd party $20+ for access......

While i do have a 3rd party ISP, you can bet there are darn few people who wish to pay almost twice for no particular reason. Even cable is cheaper than 3rd party DSL here :(

One of these days i need to get off my vintage DSL line i suppose. Still works great for gaming even at only 640k and i know qwest will mess something up (and add interleaving) if i upgrade (err...downgrade if you watch the ping times) but 5 times the download would be handy now.

Re:Articles like this make Slashdot great. (2, Informative)

taylortbb (759869) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542565)

Right now the competition is better. The rate that Bell (Qwest in your example) can charge the competition is regulated by the CRTC to costs + 15% profit margin. This whole article is about the CRTC removing that regulation, creating a situation like you have with Qwest where the independent ISPs will cost significantly more.

Dear Canada, welcome to our world! (3, Insightful)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541583)

Signed, the USofA.

Very few of us down here have any choice for broadband other than the duopoly of telco/cable, and both providers are usually some combination of pillaging our wallets and skimping on service.

Just maybe, you can head this off.

Good Luck!

Re:Dear Canada, welcome to our world! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541717)

I wish we could - but its already too late. Any of the smaller ISP's have basically already shut down because they couldn't compete with the two. This latest move by the CRTC was the last nail in the coffin, sealed the deal.

Re:Dear Canada, welcome to our world! (3, Informative)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541951)

TekSavvy [teksavvy.com] (the best DSL provider I've ever worked with, Google for reviews, you'll understand) is still around, but this decision will probably kill them. It's a real shame.

I swear to you (5, Interesting)

e-scetic (1003976) | more than 5 years ago | (#29541701)

Seriously, you do NOT want to have to deal with Bell Canada customer service or support for any reason whatsoever. They are legendary for the atrocious level of customer care, for bilking their customers, for owing customers money but never giving it back, for simply getting every last little thing amazingly wrong, for the amounts of pain inflicted and for their sheer level of unfairness.

I remember when I got my first telephone line back in the mid-80's, within months I had an unexplained and impossible charge, and I simply couldn't contest the charge - it was either pay it plus (growing) interest or have no phone.

My god, recently I moved to an apartment and had to endure two months of support calls to get my line moved too, and a Bell representative tried to sell me something called Line Insurance - basically, for an extra $20/mo it would guarantee that this sort of thing didn't happen. They wanted to charge me extra to ensure that I got what I already paid for! Can you imagine?!

No, Bell Canada is evil incarnate and must die.

Re:I swear to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29541831)

They can't possibly be worse than Telus. I mean, you'd actually have to practice working on being evil to be worse than Telus.

Telus sucks. It's true!

Re:I swear to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29541989)

What you describe sounds like Videotron. When I moved to Ontario, they owed me money. Then they changed their mind and said *I* owed them money. They tried to do the same to friends of mine who moved or switched to Bell for Internet/TV.

Been with Rogers for a while now. Broadband is fine - in fact they've doubled the speed in 3 years with only a small increase in the cost of the Internet connection. Can't really complain about them now that they've stopped harassing me with cell phone offers. :)

Re:I swear to you (1)

Gramie2 (411713) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542077)

I can vouch for this. When we moved our office, Bell neglected to enable the phones at the new place for a week (they only had about 2 months' notice), so we had to forward the public number to my boss's cellphone and do business like that. And that's one of the GOOD stories!

Re:I swear to you (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542159)

I had a cell phone through Bell, and when my contract was up, I decided to switch, only because I didn't like any of their phones and mine was outdated (3 year contract right).

Anyways, so for whatever reason, Bell simply could not let me go. I told them, the contract is up next month, I'm cancelling my plan at the end of the contract. And the customer service rep was unable to understand that I was giving him advanced notice, and he was like, "You can pay the 200 dollars to buy out of your contract now.. Or just cancel it when the plan is up" And I tried this with about 3 other phone calls all getting the same response. So when the day came that my plan was up, I called in, and customer service wasn't available I must have missed their operation hours. I call IMMEDIATELY the next day as soon as they were open - and they wanted to charge me for an extra month.

I wasn't even calling them ON that Cell phone, that cell phone was out of use for at least 3 weeks.

Seriously, I didn't mind Bell when everything was up and running, but if you wanted to change ANYTHING (even something simple like your billing address) they were by far the worst I've ever dealt with, even Worse then Telus, and thats saying something.

Re:I swear to you (1)

Palmateer (1533975) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542245)

Actually, I've found that even though Bell (cellular) screws up the billing occasionally, and they often don't understand their own policies once you get them on the phone. I've been able to get them see things my way, eventually, every time (I've been with them for almost 7 years). Sometimes it took a two hour phone call, but they always made it right. In comparison, when I used Rogers as my cell provider I went through the same hoops but never, not a single time, got issues resolved to my satisfaction. I still hate Bell though for the games they're playing here. With a license to raise prices for the wholesale customers as much as they like as long as they charge their retail customers the same, they likely don't care if they lose all their DSL customers. That way they won't be using the pesky VOIP and internet television services which are eating into their REALLY profitable businesses - satellite tv and POTS/long distance.

Re:I swear to you (2, Interesting)

Cassini2 (956052) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542291)

Bell employees call it: "Bell Hell."

My horror stories are endless. They somehow messed up my move, and after 1 year and many many lengthy and repeated phone calls, still were not billing me at the correct address. I finally canceled all my Bell services. It was the only way I could get them to stop billing the wrong address.

Once, someone hacked Bell's backbone routers. All the tech support people would do is go: "We do not support trace route. We do not support trace route. Trace route is not installed on our computers." I finally got them to type in "tracert" at the command line. At that point, they admitted they mysteriously had to leave the phone ... I seem to remember being hung up on, and never getting a call back.

The Bell outgoing email server routinely fucks up. I am pretty sure that they are tweaking the anti-spam settings, and either delete or delay the customer's email messages. Magically, my home internet connection, and all my business customers internet connections, simultaneously loose outbound email for 2 to 3 days. Then it all comes back again. Bell technical support insists the problem is that we use ThunderBird and Microsoft Outlook. Only Microsoft Outlook Express is supported on Bell's network.

Bell Technical Support is so inept: "Bell does not allow them to install any software including Microsoft Outlook Express on there computers." The next time you are trying to debug an email problem with Bell, always remember that you are talking to a person not allowed to use any email software whatsoever. Bell Tech support is only allowed Webmail.

Some of the business types are undoubtedly thinking: Why don't you stop using crappy ADSL lines, and spend $1800/month on a partial T1? Firstly, $1800/month is a significant amount of money to be spending on Internet services, especially in comparison to an $80/month business ADSL line. Secondly, I have spent that much money on fancy Bell Lines. Bell can mess them up too!

Simply put, having ISP's other than Rogers and Bell is vital for Canada's competitiveness. It's called "Bell Hell" for a reason.

Re:I swear to you (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542447)

I'm pretty sure Bell outsources most of their tech support to India and/or the Philippines nowadays, so, y'know, progress.

Re:I swear to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542359)

Me too. Had dryloop DSL for 2 years, then got wise and moved to the TekSavvy version of same 4 months ago.

Just last week they finally agreed to stop trying to bill me, even though I had left.

Thanks Bell!

Re:I swear to you (1)

CreamyG31337 (1084693) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542399)

I've never heard of anyone calling anywhere for technical or billing help and actually getting good support. Maybe back in the days before call centers and outsourcing, but it's pretty much impossible now. It's pretty much related to profit -- the companies are too cheap to allow agents to receive proper training, working computer systems, and time to properly research issues and call customers back. I actually worked in an outsourced call center for 5 years and the only contract that I worked on that didn't have this problem initially was HP computers. They did write me up for replacing a broken modem once (I checked into it later and the customer confirmed that was the problem) but at least they did try to let us do our job without too much harassment. It's just sad that we were probably overall doing a mediocre job at replacing the American workers, and they eventually replaced us with Indians that definitely were not qualified at all. Anyways, the problem is always the same -- communication between the local office or engineers or whatever and the people that answer the phones is always terrible. People answering the phone have more incentive to lie to get rid of you than to spend time fixing difficult issues. The difficult issues of course only exist because of poor communication and training. And of course management is done completely wrong, so nothing ever gets "better".
Example of Shaw sucking at communication: I had to replace my PVR twice because the first two came with a Western Digital drive that, due to a firmware bug, reported an incorrect temperature and shut down (froze) the box. The fact that I could find this out after searching on Google for 10 minutes, yet nobody at Shaw could understand this was quite pathetic. I talked to two people in "tech support" and the technician that came to my house. Finally lucked out and got one with a Seagate drive. I actually called them today to cancel my service because it's a rip-off, they seem to have local support. They were trying to convince me that they were adding new features to the box so I should keep it. "Soon you'll be able to add an external hard drive!". Funny because the box I just bought from Bell (satellite) for $300 less does that too, plus the Shaw box would have if they just left the stock firmware alone. Incidentally, they also apparently cripple the firmware on my modem so that I can't view the status page to check the power levels. God I hate them.
I have Rogers for my cellphone and they suck about as bad as Bell for billing issues. They once charged me $16 in data fees to download a game (doom rpg) from their website even after I asked and made sure they wouldn't charge data fees for a purchase from their wap site. Then they neglected to charge me the actual $5 for the game itself, so I assume id never got paid. Every time I call them, it's at least 20 minutes of holding and being transferred around between the same departments, and accidentally getting hung up on or transferred to closed departments. I'm pretty sure they also buy all Nokia's broken phones for their customers since the last two phones I got and unlocked with a stock firmware turned into crashing pieces of shit.
Telus? They're pretty dumb too. I got a box with a modem in the mail from them the other day, and nobody in the last 5 years at my address has had the name it was addressed to. My friend used to have their ADSL service there. They forced him to downgrade the speed because he wanted to try their TV service. That didn't work properly due to packet loss, so he canceled it, and then they wouldn't give him his faster Internet back because "they were out of ports".

Re:I swear to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542489)

As a Bell shareholder I am appalled by the level of gross incompetence in almost every level of the company. I no longer use any Bell services and have shares in the damn company, it got so bad that one day after 15 calls regarding a bill that had been paid almost 2 weeks prior (and reported to them on several occasions) I canceled everything. To make a long story short I was accused of stealing Bell equipment (sat TV receivers), not returning DSL equipment and having to pay 3 months worth of bills because of some contract I signed 5 years ago.
Anyways a call the the executive office of the vice president got every all sorted out. This is a special department setup to deal with all the nasty screw ups from their call centres. If you every end up in Bell Hell give this department a call.

Re:I swear to you (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542525)

They wanted to charge me extra to ensure that I got what I already paid for! Can you imagine?!

The nerve! However, did you consider that the "official" price for certain services might be regulated by the Canadian government at a rate that is too low to actually provide the service without losing money? Perhaps this "insurance" represents the difference between what it costs to actually provide that level of service and what Bell is allowed by the government to charge for it. You get what you pay for after all, even if regulators try to create "free lunches" by defying the forces of economics with impossible regulations.

Letting it die? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29541743)

* If the small ISP's don't offer anything beyond what Bell and Telus offer why not let it die?
* Also consider that municipalities may become the ISP and own the fibre infrastructure, then there would be no need for private enterprises doing the same.

Re:Letting it die? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542003)

The issue here (as it is in the States) is that the taxpayer basically underwrote and at least partially funded much of the communications infrastructure out there. These companies keep acting as if they and their shareholders were ultimately responsible for this, but they're not.

If I were the CRTC, I'd say "Either you give smaller ISPs breathing room, or we'll rule your way, but now you will have to pay for every inch of right-of-way that the taxpayer basically gave to you. You will also have to pay back all the grants and other ways in which the taxpayer's largesse has allowed you to profit over the years."

Re:Letting it die? (1)

ph (1938) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542083)

... and the way they'd pay back the government? Raise prices, of course!

Re:Letting it die? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542379)

If I were the CRTC I would say that all infrastucture is now the property of the crown, and every ISP and phone company gets charged the same rate for access.

Re:Letting it die? (4, Informative)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542017)

But they do. Check out the reviews of TekSavvy on DSLreports [dslreports.com] . Vastly superior service to Bell that can't exist without government defended peering agreements.

Disclaimer: I am not employed, contracted, or a family member of anyone connected to TekSavvy.

Re:Letting it die? (1)

vurg (639307) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542315)

Those are fanboy reviews. I'm on Teksavvy. The service is good but not that all perfect.

Re:Letting it die? (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542547)

I never said they were perfect. They're a shit-ton better than Bell though.

Telus - only SEMF can describe their support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542107)

A quick GIS search will turn up lots of Telus horror stories. I've lots of my own working for a IT support company. Good old Telus and their "Static Dynamic DCHP" and their idiotic routing resulted in regular downtimes for businesses we supported. So, we would move them to Shaw. Sometimes that was better, but not by much. Telus support? In most cases, worse than useless. The only way I could describe their support was to coin a new phrase to describe their helpdesk people:

S**T Eating Monkey F**kers

I hate Telus with the passion of a thousand exploding stars.

Pluralizing with an Apostrophe? (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542117)

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

Seriously... it's "ISPs" not "ISP's".

stop the never ending struggle (2, Insightful)

Deadplant (212273) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542131)

Gah, this crap is so tiring.

Any new regulation can only be a band-aid solution.

The correct solution is to break the monopolies by creating a free market.

Municipal public fibre optic infrastructure.

Layer 2 (maybe even layer 1) service to every building as a public service.
Access to that infrastructure with the same access rules we use for the roads.
(In other words, completely open for private and commercial use)

with a fibre bundle to every home any service provider who wanted to provide Internet, TV, Telephone or any other innovative service could go to the municipal exchange and patch us in to their gear.

This would set the stage for a vibrant competitive market for telecoms.
It would allow private, non-commercial telecoms activities.
It would be CHEAPER than running cable and copper to every building as we do now.
It would be future-proof because the fibre has effectively unlimited capacity.

There is already great competition for IP service, the Internet is a vibrant market place except for the last mile.
Go to any public exchange and shop for IP transit and you will have dozens of providers competing for your business.
Throttling, DNS hijacking, p2p filtering.... these are exclusively last-mile monopoly problems.

We all know that last-mile telecoms infrastructure is a natural monopoly just like power lines, roads and sewers.
So why don't we stop beating around the bush creating heavily regulated and subsidized private monopolies then constantly fighting with them and just run the last-mile ourselves?

Re:stop the never ending struggle (1)

Giltron (592095) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542389)

Mod parent up. I totally think this would be the ideal solution. The more immediate answer would be to SPLIT UP these Telco's wholesale and retail businesses. Let Bell Sympatico internet be a completely separate company from the wholesale business. Let Bell Sympatico etc buy access at the same price that Techsavvy does. It is a conflict of interest to be your own retail arm, and the gatekeeper for any other competing retailers.

Letter of appology from Telus (1)

cdn-programmer (468978) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542219)

Somewhere around here I have a letter of apology from the past president of Telus!

They started to shut off my phone service. You see - I had to build a time division reflectometer and shoot the line that I wanted my DSL service on. This is pretty easy to do. We went to Radio shack and bought about $20 worth of stuff and a 1.5 volt battery and hooked up a dual channel oscilloscope. About 15 minutes later we knew where the line taps were. So I called in Telus and asked them to remove the line taps and told them where they were.

What happened next? I was told it was going to cost me $1400!

I had no choice. I agreed to this.

So a tech came around. I have this on film! I set up a camera and I filmed him! He spent 1 hour. He had to unscrew 14 nuts and open a canister and snip a wire. So I figure Telus wanted to charge me $100 per nut!

After he did this the DSL fired up and ran perfectly!

A month later I got a call from one of Telus's supervisors. He asked me how it is that my DSL works! So I provided free consulting and told him if they snip such and such wires and get themselves a TDR then they can get their DSL services working!

Meanwhile I was in touch with their offices about that $1400 bill for 1 hour of work.

It was about 9 months later that I was in Brisbane. In that 9 month period of time even though Telus told me they would review the bill... they never did. I got a call from Calgary. The phones were being shut off! Telus had already disconnected one line in fact!

I called Telus from Brisbane and managed to get one of the executive assistants. I advised her she could save her company a lot of money. She had a choice. She could listen to me now and get my telephone line reconnected and get the bill reviewed and if she failed to do this then my next phone call was going to be to my lawyers in Calgary and we will get a court order and Telus will pay for it! Guess what - it worked. They reconnected the line. Meanwhile they did reduce the bill so I had to pay them something like $400 for them to fix the line so DSL would work!

Imagine! They want to offer a service they want to charge for and the customer has to show them how to do it and pay something like $400 for an hour's work on top of it! Insane!

That is just part of it.

A few years later I was billed more than $3000 in overcharges. They wouldn't answer their phones. I went through investor relations. IR does answer phones! I found their legal department. I wrote lawyer like nasty letters. I offered to sue them and pointed out that if I file - then we get discovery and in discovery they have to cough up the accounting and justify their billing. Maybe he might want to do this outside of a court action because if he doesn't then he will have to do it as part of a court action.

I got some results. They refunded about $3000.

On this matter I never ever received a correct billing statement from that company!

These days? I will not deal with that company.

It was a nightmare!

ISP's (0, Flamebait)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542255)

The ISP's what fight back? Kdawson and jenningsthecat (and the New York Times as well), meet Bob [angryflower.com] .

ISP is an acronym, not a contraction.

</pedant>

WISP (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542273)

The WISP space ( microwave backhaul) is still very under-served in Canada. In Calgary, Terago has only two towers - one is too low (on a hotel) and the other one on the CPP hill is overloaded. Hopefully this will improve things. Cables are so 20th Century.

Re:WISP (1)

jewps (800552) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542387)

Too bad its quite expensive either way. In Vancouver, there is Prime Signal and Metrobridge as well as Terago. They're all about the same price except Metrobridge, they have a package which uses Cogent bandwidth.

Experienced this first hand (1)

JuSTCHiLLiN (605538) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542301)

Telus denied the muncipality I work for access to an unloaded copper pair sighting the CRTC ruling. We wanted the line so we could put our own dsl devices at the end points, one at city hall and the other at the remote office. Instead of letting us do this, Telus suggested we use business adsl and use vpn. Great idea, it's only quadruple the price, runs over the Internet, and is factor of ten times slower due to the low bandwidth they offer and the encyption. That's that or go on their managed service for ~$500 or more a month. What irks me the most is they will give us the line but they will go out of their way to load it so it's unusable for dsl. I should just see if I could grease a tech $50 to unload it for us.

ASPX? What? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542335)

Am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that a bunch of small IPSs fighting the big monopolies are using a Microsoft server for their website?

"Competition"? Markets are evil, remember? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542457)

> Competition in the ADSL market will be totally eliminated, and Canadians will
> have only two choices for wired Internet access: the local Cableco or the
> local Telco.

Surely you don't want competition. That means a market, and all the evils of capitalism! You want good, old-fashioned regulated monopolies! Or better yet, just nationalize the telcos and cablecoms and everything will be just fine.

This is interesting (1)

KingPin27 (1290730) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542473)

I live in Southern Alberta and was a former user of Telus phone/internet services. I lost my nerve on dealing with Telus when this happened. My mother in law told me one day she got a call from a Telus employee in their customer relations department telling them that they are now offering 4Mbit service in "her area" now for 39.95 cdn/Month -- perfect because she was getting 1.5Mbit before for about the same price -- I WAS EXCITED because I too was using Telus and was getting the 1.5Mbit service for the 39.95 / Month.

I haply called Telus billing and requested said service --- the answer was that it was not available in "my area" but I could continue to use the 1.5Mbit service and pay $39.95 cdn/Month for it --- I WAS FLABBERGASTED!!! SERIOUSLY -- I was getting much less service than new customers and paying the same price as they are for this newer service, sure I understand that not all equipment and lines can be upgraded at the same time but WHAT THE HECK! I lost it on the poor agent who then told me that they could reduce my bill by 5$ / month if i agreed to sign a 2 year contract!! at that point i completely lost it and cancelled my service on the spot.

I've been using Shaw since then and have been getting 7.5Mbit and using their home phone service with relatively little trouble. The techs i've had out to do work on the lines have been prompt and efficient (aside from snipping off all of my F connectors on my lines and replacing them with "shaw standard" connectors).

Interestingly enough I find myself now faced with moving out of the city I am in and moving to a rural community not serviced by Shaw and now am having to resort to using Telus again!! WHY WHY WHY!!!!! End Rant

Emailing Elected Officials does little (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29542587)

The CRTC is not a political organization. It works at arms length from Parliament. You can email the MPs but they will tell you there isn't much they can do because they do not directly influence what happens at the committee.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?