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

[progamer21]

On 11/9/2020 at 7:17 PM, wkdpaul said:

Summary

The Canadian government announced the launch of the universal broadband fund, a $1.75 billion program unveiled in the federal government's 2019 budget. It's goal is to build broadband infrastructure in remote communities.

 

Quotes

 

 

My thoughts

Seems like good news IMO, we're a large landmass with a huge concentration of the population near the US border, so it makes sense that companies won't invest in infrastructure in remote location without incentives. This will help in the long run, if not before.

 

 

Sources

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5794901

 

Government page about the program ;

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

how is he going to accomplish this especially in remote communities? bold claim

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, progamer21 said:

how is he going to accomplish this especially in remote communities? bold claim

There has been some supposition on that in this thread.  One is some sort of satellite system.  There’s probably a plan though.  The number doesn’t sound very round to me.

[progamer21]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

There has been some supposition on that in this thread.  One is some sort of satellite system.  There’s probably a plan though.  The number doesn’t sound very round to me.

ya idk how a satallite would work especially when they are far away from the satallite

[Bombastinator]

31 minutes ago, progamer21 said:

ya idk how a satallite would work especially when they are far away from the satallite

Well they’re not exactly close to anyone.  Satellite stuff is the Elon musk star link thing. 

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

Anyone can get a raspberry pi to browse the web for $35 but the internet connection to browse said web is still a problem for some people. 
 

crazy how much effort and work it takes. 
 

I hope projects like starlink are successful 

Physical infrastructure is expensive. Also expensive to maintain.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

If telephone poles are up and being serviced it’s just a matter of hanging more wire. It also means they already can get DSL though, so there’s a good chance anyplace with telephone poles isn’t being considered. 

No because a lot of places the phone lines are too old or too long for even DSL and you're also going to have a very hard time convincing someone with 1.5Mbps DSL that they indeed do have highspeed internet and do not need an upgraded service.

 

Internet over phonelines has only ever been a convenience thing since they already exist but there has always been serious draw backs to doing so, but for many has been the best option even if the only option. DSL service can be very bad for customers at distance from the equipment and maintenance of the copper lines is another serious issue, a lot of them have water ingress issues that don't affected calling but cause internet outages, so rain is a big problem, internet while it's not raining isn't particularly good service.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

No because a lot of places the phone lines are too old or too long for even DSL and you're also going to have a very hard time convincing someone with 1.5Mbps DSL that they indeed do have highspeed internet and do not need an upgraded service.

 

Internet over phonelines has only ever been a convenience thing since they already exist but there has always been serious draw backs to doing so, but for many has been the best option even if the only option. DSL service can be very bad for customers at distance from the equipment and maintenance of the copper lines is another serious issue, a lot of them have water ingress issues that don't affected calling but cause internet outages, so rain is a big problem, internet while it's not raining isn't particularly good service.

This was the problem the Obama administration ran into when it tried a similar thing some years ago.  Canada like the US, is big enough that it’s more or less always going to be raining somewhere.  Hanging fiber in the air has its own problems though.  Glass fiber is made of glass, and the plastic stuff doesn’t work as well so it has the same problems if for different reasons.  It can’t be copper in any case.  Copper has gotten too expensive though fiber isn’t any cheaper either. So poles may just not work for very long runs.  Different issue but same problem. As for defining what “high speed” means that’s a whole other can of worms. 

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

As for defining what “high speed” means that’s a whole other can of worms. 

Not really, if the delivered bandwidth is below that of commonly used services to be usable then it cannot be called highspeed. If Skype is compressing the hell out of the image and audio so it sounds terrible and you can't really see anything that is not "usable". If you cannot time seek in Netflix or only get the worst video quality and it still buffers that is not "usable".

 

You don't need to set a bandwidth figure, that's a bad way to do it and become outdated. You use different metric that inherently stays up to date as things change over time. Say for example Netflix stop serving 360p quality options, the usability bar has just been raised without having to change a bandwidth figure in legislation somewhere.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Not really, if the delivered bandwidth it below that of commonly used services to be usable then it cannot be called highspeed. If Skype is compressing the hell out of the image and audio so it sounds terrible and you can't really see anything that is not "usable". If you cannot time seek in Netflix or only test the worst video quality and it still buffers that is not "usable".

 

You don't need to set a bandwidth figure, that's a bad way to do it and become outdated. You use different metric that inherently stays up to date as things change over time. Say for example Netflix stop serving 360p quality options, the usability bar has just been raised without having to change a bandwidth figure in legislation somewhere.

This is what I mean.  “High speed” is a relative term.  Defined that way It can never be reached, because it keeps on going up.  It  can mean “multiple times faster than dialup” and still not be what a person might expect.  A can of worms.  

[WkdPaul]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

This is what I mean.  “High speed” is a relative term.  Defined that way It can never be reached, because it keeps on going up.  It  can mean “multiple times faster than dialup” and still not be what a person might expect.  A can of worms.  

The plan sets the minimum at 50/10, under that, it's not highspeed.

[Bombastinator]

16 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

The plan sets the minimum at 50/10, under that, it's not highspeed.

Obama admin set it at 786kb up or something because at the time the plan was created that was “highspeed”.  By the end it wasn’t though.  50/10 is a speed. “Highspeed” is relative though. 

[MageTank]

11 hours ago, poochyena said:

i'm not.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/22/21231758/nikola-sba-loan-pandemic-tesla-patent-lawsuit

Quote

The loan, which can be forgiven as long as Nikola hangs on to most of its employees, comes a little more than one month after the startup received a $525 million investment and announced it was becoming a publicly traded company. 

Sounds like the SBA found the necessary collateral required to make this loan.

 

Like I said, most tech startups receive investments, not loans. This one happened to get a loan after investors already got on board, which is what allowed them the necessary collateral required to secure the loan in the first place. Lenders are not stupid. They are not in the business of giving their money away to failing endeavors, not without the means to recoup most if not all of their losses entirely (and in most cases, with guaranteed interest). Your own source leans more in agreeance to my point over yours.

 

At this point, it's really not worth putting in the effort defending your original analogy when it didn't make much sense in the first place. There were far better analogies to make in that context that would have been concrete. It's just bad luck that I happen to have been going through the home buying process at this very moment and felt very jaded dealing with lenders, otherwise I wouldn't have put in the effort of responding in the first place, lol.

[WkdPaul]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Obama admin set it at 786kb up or something because at the time the plan was created that was “highspeed”.  By the end it wasn’t though. 

Seems like in Canada we're changing the highspeed definition as time goes on. In 2016, when internet access was declared a basic service, they declared 50/10 was highspeed (source https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/crtc-internet-essential-service-1.3906664). Oh, and they also said no-data cap was also to be in that basic service (source ; https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/crtc-rules-high-speed-internet-a-basic-telecom-service/article33405960/)

 

Before that, 15Mbps was highspeed (source, from 2011 ; https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/process/2011/ex0711c.htm)

 

 

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

50/10 is a speed. “Highspeed” is relative though. 

it's highspeed though ... not sure what you mean by "it's relative" ? 50/10 is what the CRTC has declared highspeed to be in Canada (and that's likely to change in the future when it's not going to be considered fast enough).

 

 

 

8 hours ago, progamer21 said:

how is he going to accomplish this especially in remote communities? bold claim

He ??? Who?
And what do you mean by "bold claim" ????

 

The government set aside $1.75B for infrastructure projects for remote locations in Canada, it's on the telco's to submit projects to be approved and get some subsidy from that program, did you read the article ?

[Bombastinator]

How is “high-speed” relative? My grandmother for a time was a holder of the north/south US land speed record. They did it using one of the fastest cars that existed, and using parts of a freeway so brand new that it was unfinished at the time.  It existed only in parts.  They would drive on sections of the freeway when possible and used railway service roads to get from one section to another.  The new land speed record was multiple times faster than the earlier one.  They managed to average 15mph.  Not exactly quick by modern standards but for the period extremely “high-speed”.  She was 17 when the record was set.  She died of old age in the 1970’s. Things change.  How high is high?  Higher than what? “High” is by definition relative.

[WkdPaul]

9 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

How is “high-speed” relative? My grandmother for a time was a holder of the north/south US land speed record. They did it using one of the fastest cars that existed, and using parts of a freeway so brand new that was unfinished at the time.  It existed only in parts.  They would drive on sections of the freeway when possible and used railway service roads to get from one section to another.  The new land speed record was multiple times faster than the earlier one.  They managed to average 15mph.  Not exactly quick by modern standards but for the period extremely “high-speed”.  She was 17 when the record was set.  She died of old age in the 1970’s. Things change.  How high is high?  Higher than what? “High” is by definition relative.

But nobody mentioned 1970's internet standards, and as you can see with the sources I linked to, the CRTC (and I frankly) agree that as time change, the Mbps considered for what is highspeed internet changes ... but again, we're not talking about what was considered highspeed 15 years ago, or what highspeed will be considered in 15 years.

 

So yeah, it's relative with the time you're in, but the CRTC does change those definitions, just like they're changing their definitions of affordable cellphone plans or the data "acceptable"' caps on cellphone plans.

 

I get what you mean now, but you're completely in the left field here, the current, past, and future definition of highspeed isn't what this news is about.

Edited November 11, 2020 by wkdpaul

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

But nobody mentioned 1970's internet standards, and as you can see with the sources I linked to, the CRTC (and I frankly) agree that as time change, the Mbps considered for what is highspeed internet changes ... but again, we're not talking about what was considered highspeed 15 years ago, or what highspeed will be considered in 15 years.

 

So yeah, it's relative with the time you're in, but the CRTC does change those definitions, just like they're changing their definitions of affordable cellphone plans or the data caps on cellphone plans.

 

I get what you mean now, but you're completely in the left field here, the current, past and future definition of highspeed isn't what this news is about.

But planning a network takes time, and building it takes more time.  Meanwhile the definitions change but the network plan is set, and the laws of physics stay the same. What will “high-speed” be when the plan is fully set up? If the network is still 50/10 as was planned people will complain that it is not “high speed”.  1970’s internet standards was there was no internet at all.  A 300 baud modem was the size of a suitcase, and most people not only couldn’t get one but wouldn’t even know what a modem was. The word “high” though?  That existed.

[WkdPaul]

18 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

But planning a network takes time, and building it takes more time.  Meanwhile the definitions change but the network plan is set, and the laws of physics stay the same. What will “high-speed” be when the plan is fully set up? If the network is still 50/10 as was planned people will complain that it is not “high speed”.  1970’s internet standards was there was no internet at all.  A 300 baud modem was the size of a suitcase, and most people not only couldn’t get one but wouldn’t even know what a modem was. The word “high” though?  That existed.

Again, the CRTC change the definition of what highspeed inter is, they did it a few times in the past. Not sure how many times I have to repeat it.

 

"highspeed" in the case of this program, is a variable that the CRTC is the one defining. If the definition changes, then the telcos have to adapt and offer what is then considered highspeed.

 

Remember, the program discussed here says remote areas need to have access to a high speed plan, it doesn't set a define price or mentions affordability, it also doesn't say every home HAS to be connected to a 50/10Mbps. So if the telcos offer a 10/1 plan for $20/M, and a 50/10 for $400/M, they are following the letter of what the plan set out to do ; make 50/10 available.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, wkdpaul said:

Again, the CRTC change the definition of what highspeed inter is, they did it a few times in the past. Not sure how many times I have to repeat it.

 

"highspeed" in the case of this program, is a variable that the CRTC is the one defining. If the definition changes, then the telcos have to adapt and offer what is then considered highspeed.

 

Remember, the program discussed here says remote areas need to have access to a high speed plan, it doesn't set a define price or mentions affordability, it also doesn't say every home HAS to be connected to a 50/10Mbps. So if the telcos offer a 10/1 plan for $20/M, and a 50/10 for $400/M, they are following the letter of what the plan set out to do ; make 50/10 available.

So it does effectively nothing.  No one actually has to DO anything. It has always been the case that it is possible to lay cable to an area.  It might cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single home, but it could always be done.  Rock can be drilled through, etc..   Sounds more like an act of paperwork than an act of construction.  It doesn’t require a system to be created or work to progress.  If no actual network system has to be created then it doesn’t matter what the definitions are.  There is no stepping off the moving belt of technological progress to actually create something required. 

[WkdPaul]

16 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

So it does effectively nothing.  No one actually has to DO anything. It has always been the case that it is possible to lay cable to an area.  It might cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single home, but it could always be done.  Rock can be drilled through, etc..   Sounds more like an act of paperwork than an act of construction.  It doesn’t require a system to be created or work to progress.  If no actual network system has to be created then it doesn’t matter what the definitions are.  There is no stepping off the moving belt of technological progress to actually create something required. 

Except for the part where telcos have to submit a project for an new infrastructure, or to expand a current one, into an area with no coverage, if not, then no money.

 

Seems like you have an "American" view of the whole thing (no offence here, but your views and arguments really don't reflect what we're experiencing up here as far as gov interventions), that's a program made to expand the infrastructure of telcos so that they can offer 50/10 connections to all Canadians (because, sadly, we have lots of small remote areas), and in the current day and age, internet is a basic service (as declared by the gov. in 2016). 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by wkdpaul

[poochyena]

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

Sounds like the SBA found the necessary collateral required to make this loan.

 

Like I said, most tech startups receive investments, not loans. This one happened to get a loan after investors already got on board, which is what allowed them the necessary collateral required to secure the loan in the first place. Lenders are not stupid. They are not in the business of giving their money away to failing endeavors, not without the means to recoup most if not all of their losses entirely (and in most cases, with guaranteed interest). Your own source leans more in agreeance to my point over yours.

 

At this point, it's really not worth putting in the effort defending your original analogy when it didn't make much sense in the first place. There were far better analogies to make in that context that would have been concrete. It's just bad luck that I happen to have been going through the home buying process at this very moment and felt very jaded dealing with lenders, otherwise I wouldn't have put in the effort of responding in the first place, lol.

I've genuinely lost what point you are trying to make.

[Bombastinator]

14 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

Except for the part where telcos have to submit a project for an new infrastructure, or to expand a current one, into an area with no coverage, if not, then no money.

 

Seems like you have an "American" view of the whole thing (no offence here, but your views and arguments really don't reflect what we're experiencing up here as far as gov interventions), that's a program made to expand the infrastructure of telcos so that they can offer 50/10 connections to all Canadians (because, sadly, we have lots of small remote areas), and in the current day and age, internet is a basic service (as declared by the gov. in 2016). 

 

 

I don’t think it’s a fundamentally different problem.  You’re describing an incentive program for companies to do things that wouldn’t ordinarily be profitable.  This is somewhat different from previous commentary in that The replies from others has been that the amount of money sounds too small to complete the level of penetration described.  My point was based on those where they were talking about creating whole network structures.  A constantly updating system is going to have to continue changing even if there is no expansion at all. The entire budget could get sucked up with simple maintenance, because if the definition keeps changing already in place systems are going to have to keep on being updated rather than merely maintained.  Areas that already have systems would slowly get faster systems, but the system wouldn’t expand much.  There may occasionally be opportunities occasionally appearing where by extending their service range, they could acquire more customers, but that completely removes the capacity of the government to control this 98% thing they want to do.  They just have to pour the money in a pot and see what crawls out while companies will sit in the pot sucking up money and do as little crawling as possible.  Laying new lines seems mandatory.  Not merely replacing old ones in trenches already dug or poles already put up, but totally new work.  A lot of it. By having a moving requirement they have to both improve old work and build new work.  If the definition were stable, acquiring funds would require new work up to that standard, but with a moving definition they don’t have to do any new work unless they run out of old work to make claims on, and even then they don’t have to do it.  I could see whole new municipalities creating organizations based on using this money to do new work to connect their area I guess.  That was attempted in the US but blocked by the provider companies.  The lack of control still exists though and those companies would still have to continuously upgrade their systems. There is no fire and forget here as long as the target continues to move.  With landline phone it was stable.  A line used only so much data.  This was less true with cable TV, but still more true than with internet.  With “high speed” it keeps changing, and it does it pretty quickly.   If the government can maintain their definition of “highspeed” as being the same there could be a shot. Every time that changes though the entire equation shifts because different technologies with different requirements are going to be needed. 

[MageTank]

35 minutes ago, poochyena said:

I've genuinely lost what point you are trying to make.

My point was that the original analogy of selling a 10M home for 5M home and being unable to call the seller "rich" was weak based solely on the premise that selling a home for a 5M loss automatically prohibits the use of that description. I am sure the point you were making in and of itself was valid, I just took issue with the analogy you chose to use. That's all.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

My point was that the original analogy of selling a 10M home for 5M home and being unable to call the seller "rich" was weak based solely on the premise that selling a home for a 5M loss automatically prohibits the use of that description. I am sure the point you were making in and of itself was valid, I just took issue with the analogy you chose to use. That's all.

Mine was more about having the capacity to even borrow 10 million in the first place, but I agree.  It’s the analogy not the concept. 

[dizmo]

12 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

If telephone poles are up and being serviced it’s just a matter of hanging more wire. It also means they already can get DSL though, so there’s a good chance anyplace with telephone poles isn’t being considered. 

Not true at all. Just because they can hang DSL or cable internet off of it, doesn't mean they have. If there aren't enough people there to make the project work the expense, they won't have done it.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

Not true at all. Just because they can hang DSL or cable internet off of it, doesn't mean they have. If there aren't enough people there to make the project work the expense, they won't have done it.

DSL is often literally phone wire, or used to be. A variant of T1.  DSL frequently includes landline phone.  Problems with use of old phone wire were already pointed out though. Poles are a continuous maintenance  thing.  Brush has to be cut, etc..  lower initial cost higher continuing cost.