Trudeau government promises to connect 98% of Canadians to high-speed internet by 2026

[justpoet]

I'm in a rural spot in US, but have gigabit fiber.  Business models work fine at these types of places and speeds and with reasonable rates too.  It just isn't the kind of gouge people senseless profit that makes big business want to do it across the whole country.

[justpoet]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

None of the money was spent on fibre trunks up the country and the ocean/costal trunks, they already exist. The money was entirely spent on FTTH and FTTN (VDSL2, rural areas) to properties. Fibre trunk infrastructure is typically adequate and already exist in most places as it is, none of that is actually very expensive at all. It's far most costly to break ground in cities, far far more.

 

No because that's not how FTTH deployments work and makes zero difference at all. And also no we are a farming nation i.e no greater amount of coast or inland population.

 

Being an island literally makes zero difference at all. Also you should probably get more acquainted with our land geography i.e. it's difficult and damn expansive to work with. Flat land is a rarity here. It's also why roading and rail is very expensive here to comparatively. 

 

P.S. Basically every country has these same challenges which is also why it makes no difference. There isn't anything particularly unique about us or anyone else, only scale changes to any kind of significant degree.

NZ is awesome BTW.  Tied for favorite place I've been with Norway.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, justpoet said:

I'm in a rural spot in US, but have gigabit fiber.  Business models work fine at these types of places and speeds and with reasonable rates too.  It just isn't the kind of gouge people senseless profit that makes big business want to do it across the whole country.

One point examples have limited value.  Makes a case for “doesn’t always have to” but I’m not so sure about “doesnt”

[Bombastinator]

Just now, justpoet said:

NZ is awesome BTW.  Tied for favorite place I've been with Norway.

They do have surprisingly similar topology looking at the two countries on a world map.

[leadeater]

40 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Range is way too short for low density areas which makes it pretty expensive.

No it's not, RBI here is 700MHz 4G and will be upgraded to 5G when possible. It's very long range and good bandwdith.

 

Anything red has coverage:

https://www.farmside.co.nz/coverage-check

[GhostRoadieBL]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

You can't do both. If you force them to expand into unprofitable and expensive projects, then they will have to dramatically increase prices.

That's not actually true, it's legislating equal internet for everyone then knocking down the monopoly which causes the higher prices and anti-competitive practices Canadian internet companies are doing. 

When Telus' annual revenue is over $10billion and they have been buying and disbanding every other upstart to prevent choice and avoiding any infrastructure upgrades what is 1.7billion going to do other than fund another quarter of doing nothing? 

[GDRRiley]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

P.S To the people that don't know the world map is not to proper scale or proportion and NZ actually is not that small land size. Sure not even close to Canada scale but like has been pointed out they don't use all of it for cities etc. So spent wisely a billions dollars will do just fine at connecting a lot of people to fast reliable internet

https://thetruesize.com/

just a tad bigger than California

 

now if only the US could follow suit

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

just a tad bigger than California

 

now if only the US could follow suit

That's the sad thing, proportionally the US GDP is way higher than ours, by a lot mind you, so FTTH to the majority of the population is well within the means of the US, privately or publicly (or public private partnership like we did). But yea, other thing seem to be more important now and in the past.

[GDRRiley]

Just now, leadeater said:

That's the sad thing, proportionally the US GDP is way higher than ours, by a lot mind you, so FTTH to the majority of the population is well within the means of the US, privately or publicly (or public private partnership like we did). But yea, other thing seem to be more important now and in the past.

It’s so stupid when I watch us spend 20 billion and get like 20k people connect to horrible service. 
rant on how dumb we are 

1. Spoiler

Ars technica just had an article about how a street of 14 houses a bit outside a city only had AT&T DSL giving them maybe 1mbps down out of the max 5. 
like why the hell isn’t their a fixed based wireless system getting 1-2.5GB to the street and then even dam copper could get them 100/100.  Gets everyone connected and allows a cell tower nearby 

Like that needs maybe 10K in funding

 

my city laid a massive 250 strand loop 20 miles almost 10 years ago with a cost under 10m. Fiber really isn’t all that expensive and lays the groundwork for decades. 

 

[GoodBytes]

Can't wait... /s "5Mbps is high speed compared to 28.8 kbps!", "it's only 200$ a month", and CRTC: "As competition is bad for consumers, consumers should have only 1 choice.!"

 

And that is assuming that it gets built... probably be like in the US, companies will take the money and put it their pocket, and everyone forgets about it.

[Teddy07]

I doubt any country kept their promise about internet speeds

[captain_to_fire]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

700MHz 4G and will be upgraded to 5G when possible

wait, so they're shuting down 4G and refarm that as 5G or use something like dynamic spectrum sharing?

[Franck]

6 hours ago, Gaires said:

Seems like 50mbps download and 10mbps upload.

Yes, very likely 50/10 to 50/50. I don't think it will be any higher download wise.

 

8 hours ago, Warin said:

this is a speedtest from about 15 minutes ago. I pay ~76 USD per month.  I live in a small city.  I think the vast majority of any funding will be to get providers to expand rural infrastructure.

I wish we could have those extremely low prices here but the problem lay in the amount of clients. We do have 1/10 the US population for a very large country which drive infrastructure cost through the roof and us poor customer pay the price. for 75$ USD which translate to 98$ CAD you can barely get 50 mbps maybe 100 mbps. Oh yeah sure if you check the "first year new client" prices you can say oh but i pay 50$ CAD per month for that. yeah the first year. Once that year is passed the price bump by 30$ / month extra. I depend where you live. In vancouver for example they have incredibly low price compared to everywhere else. Go nova scottia and it's terrible, PEI not much better, Ontario in small cities far (2-3hr drive north) from toronto or ottawa as well.

[WkdPaul]

4 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Can't wait... /s "5Mbps is high speed compared to 28.8 kbps!", "it's only 200$ a month", and CRTC: "As competition is bad for consumers, consumers should have only 1 choice.!"

 

And that is assuming that it gets built... probably be like in the US, companies will take the money and put it their pocket, and everyone forgets about it.

 

Actually, when they say "high speed internet", they mean 50mbps down, 10 Mbps up, that's from the Gov page from the program itself, but as you said, they mention access, not affordability, so all an ISP has to do, is have a 50Mbps plan available (for 200$+ per month for exemple) and they would meet the criteria ;

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/139.nsf/eng/h_00006.html

Quote

Q2. When we talk about high-speed Internet, what do we mean?

The Government's goal is for all Canadians to have access to high-speed Internet of at least 50 Megabits per second download and 10 megabits per second upload speeds.

 

The last question on the FAQ pretty much explains it better, they're looking for a 100% coverage of 50/10Mbps internet speed, coverage doesn't mean it'll be affordable ;

Quote

Q.10 Are you on track to reach your goal of connecting all Canadians to high-speed Internet, defined as speeds of at least 50 Megabits per second (Mbps) download / 10 Mbps upload, by 2030?

In High-Speed Access for All: Canada's Connectivity Strategy, the government committed to getting 95% of Canadians connected by 2026 and 100% by 2030. Now, the government is on track to get 98% of Canadians connected by 2026. By leveraging funding from all levels of government, Indigenous and private sector partners, the government is on track to achieving its objective of full 50/10 Mbps broadband coverage in Canada by 2030.

 

 

IMO, affordable internet is more important than speed.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, like_ooh_ahh said:

wait, so they're shuting down 4G and refarm that as 5G or use something like dynamic spectrum sharing?

Don't know, it'll be hybrid 4G+5G as my guess. Most of the time things get deployed side by side.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

What if I told you you could get 30~40% more range with same everything by changing the modulation and coding scheme? That's what were working on.

Well unlikely as they will be configured to the best possible for the equipment in the legally allowed radio laws of our country. These 700MHz 4G installations are all brand new, still getting deployed now and a lot of field testing was done to get it right.

 

I know a few people that use it and it's actually very good, which is surprising enough as it is. Normally the equivalent would be fixed install wireless UBNT or Mikrotik, which I have used before for 100/100 when fibre wasn't available yet. The 4G is actually more reliable in terms of performance consistency than the point to point wireless in urban area because of all the noise on the spectrum (big reason why 700MHz was chosen for RBI and legally it is the only thing allowed to use it here).

[MageTank]

Meanwhile here in the States, I will be moving from the city to the country in a couple weeks, going from gigabit down to bonded ADSL. The sad part is, my new land will be surrounded by gigabit offerings just 2 miles around me, just my land is a deadzone with no hub. 

 

 

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

A.k.a. exactly what I said in terms of advantages of being an island. Try to do that in CA, US, BR, RU, CH, AU. The nearest fiber might be thousands of kilometers away, not ~100km from the coast.

Well no because as I pointed the fibre you are talking about will 100% already be there and in close enough distances. Literally nothing changes when factoring scale, you're too busy thinking about US and CA as a whole, what if I told you to scale the land area size of NZ to the size of the USA and nothing would actually change at all, other than having to do more of the same thing.

 

This is fundamental misunderstanding of how scale works, and that all the work (99.9%) is within city and town limits digging up roads and paths to put in new cabinets and fibre runs and passive optical splitters. Even if you have to put in a new long distance fibre link it's only a smaller fraction of the cost of the real work, the actual GPON fibre laying.

 

P.S. The undersea cables going out of NZ are wildly expensive, far more so than if they were run over land. We had to fight for decades to get another one, purely cost reasons were why it didn't happen sooner.

 

Also why the hell are you so fixated on the coasts? It makes zero difference and if you check the supplied map I gave you the main fibre links are over land not coast/sea. And neither make any difference to deploying FTTH GPON to houses at all.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

going from gigabit down to bonded ADSL. The sad part is, my new land will be surrounded by gigabit offerings just 2 miles around me, just my land is a deadzone with no hub. 

RIP, RIP.  

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Meanwhile here in the States, I will be moving from the city to the country in a couple weeks, going from gigabit down to bonded ADSL. The sad part is, my new land will be surrounded by gigabit offerings just 2 miles around me, just my land is a deadzone with no hub. 

 

 

Happens in cities too.  I got a friend who’s been watching cheap high speed internet approaching his block but not entering it for years.  He’s surrounded on two sides but it’s still unavailable to him. Apparently the issue is he’s just north of a park which causes problems.

[Vanderburg]

lol

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

If this really is the case, I'm surprised that you already had all/most of the infrastructure in place. Again, you have an natural advantage for that.

No, nobody does. Simply not how things work. Natural advantage is not a thing. If anyone has that it's the USA, like look at Australia, exact same size yet vastly lower population. Hasn't helped them at all in any way, they still have garbage internet despite the majority of the population living in coast areas and vast amounts of flat land. If anyone was going to have an easy time it would have been Australia, the current best example of a failed high speed internet rollout.

 

3 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Just checked and World bank data says 12% of pop are rural. According to your government site, ~100% of population live up to 50km from the coast, ~70% of pop live up to 10km from the coast...  Everything in line with what I expected and suggested.

Where are you getting this data from, it's factually wrong to a gross degree. Literally right now I'm way, way way, more than 50km from the coast.

 

Not that I actually live in this city but look on the map where Taupo is, yea that's 100% not 50km from the coast. Like many other towns and cities here.

[poochyena]

9 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

That's not actually true

If its not true, then why don't they do it on their own?

 

9 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

Telus' annual revenue

means absolutely nothing. I could buy a 10 million dollar house and sell it for 5 million, giving me 5 million dollars in revenue, but you wouldn't say I was rich, would you?

[Kajoor]

Seems the promise on behalf of StarLink upcoming internet service 

[BuckGup]

12 hours ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

god i wish this would happen in the US, if im stuck with comcast for another year im gonna claw my eyes out, currently paying $150 a month for ~120 mbps down 10 up, im in the middle of a massive residential zone to its not like im in the middle of no where

Lol if you go to any rural town you'll be paying $100/month for 1-10Mb/s. Starlink is going to be a godsend for these people