[ergo98]

So, again, what choice do they have?

Twisted-pair sucks, actually, and Bell's monopoly is on dead technology. We only use it as a backup line in a worst case situation. We actually had a number of options, which is what we used for our primary line.

Though I'm not even sure what your point is.

If that were really true don't you think these ISPs would switch to those competitors with their 'competitive options' instead of waging silly lawsuits?

IT IS TRUE. Accept that as a reality, because it is reality. If bandwidth is as cheap as you claim, they WOULD use those alternatives, now wouldn't they? They have an economic model based upon basically an agreement that was punitively pushed onto Bell because of their monopoly, back when being the big telco made them the top dog.

I'm not cheering on anything but reality. You have ignored or sidestepped every reality I have presented, and keep up with this ridiculous illusion that Bell has any ounce of a provider monopoly in Canada.

[jacquesm]

> Twisted-pair sucks, actually

The reason we're having this debate is because twisted pair easily does 20MBit these days.

> and Bell's monopoly is on dead technology.

Not quite dead. Maybe not on par with fiber to the home, but not all that bad either.

ITU G.992.5 Annex M: 24 Mbit/s down, 3.3 Mbit/s up.

> Though I'm not even sure what your point is.

I think we can agree on that :)

ISPs on metered billing is going about 10 years back, I really can't see any justification for it.

> keep up with this ridiculous illusion that Bell has any ounce of a provider monopoly in Canada.

You've provided more examples of that than I have actually.

[ergo98]

The reason we're having this debate is because twisted pair easily does 20MBit these days.

Easily? Hardly. Over an absurdly short distance from the switching station, with perfect copper, as a tech trial sure. In the real world most ADSL users find that their experience is nowhere near that.

ADSL sucks. ADSL has always sucked. It is a dead technology that is constantly simply being replaced.

We're having this discussion because Bell, due to their ILEC status, was forced into agreements that favored some businesses that pandered to, essentially, the "problem users" who were kicked off every other network. Teksavvy didn't go to ADSL because it's such a great technology. They went to it because the CRTC cleared a sweetheart deal for them.

[jacquesm]

> Over an absurdly short distance from the switching station

That's sort of the whole idea ADSL is founded on.

> with perfect copper, as a tech trial sure. In the real world most ADSL users find that their experience is nowhere near that.

Actually, in the 'real world' it's doing pretty good. If there are limitations it is more often than not because of oversubscribing of pipes further down the line.

> ADSL sucks.

So you keep saying ;)

> ADSL has always sucked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_speed_digital_subscri...

Seriously, that does not 'suck', that's a pretty impressive technological hack. To take lines that were meant to carry voice and to get them to function at bitrates that a HF transmitter would be jealous of is not all that bad.

ADSL is constantly being upgraded to supply a market demand, it is not being 'replaced because it is dead'.

There is an awful lot of copper in the ground and will remain like that for a long time, ADSL has in this sense been a great enabler in bringing broadband to the masses, the other side of that coin has been internet over the TV cable.

From that wikipedia article:

"VDSL2 deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at source to 100 Mbit/s at 0.5 km (1,600 ft) and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km (3,300 ft), but degrades at a much slower rate from there, and still outperforms VDSL. Starting from 1.6 km (1 mi) its performance is equal to ADSL2+."

1 km is not an 'absurdely short distance' for a maximum of 50 Mbit. In practice at that distance VDSL2 (which is currently only available from a select few providers where I live) does anywhere from 20 to 40 Mbit, not all that shabby, in fact I can hardly imagine what I'd use that for and I'm a pretty big consumer. Oh, and I live about as far away as you could possibly get from the nearest POP.

> We're having this discussion because Bell, due to their ILEC status, was forced into agreements that favored some businesses that pandered to, essentially, the "problem users" who were kicked off every other network. Teksavvy didn't go to ADSL because it's such a great technology. They went to it because the CRTC cleared a sweetheart deal for them.

The bandwidth charges that Bell is trying to levy here are not based in reality, regardless of the position of Teksavvy, and I don't see any reason why people that simply use 'dropbox' or 'netflix' should be punished for that with these outrageous charges. No other developed country has such a backwards system. 'Problem Users' don't exist, that's simply people using the capacity of the bandwidth that was sold to them. If you don't want users to use a fat pipe: don't sell them one.

Anyway, this thread is becoming ridiculously indented, I'm going to let it go with this. Thanks for the exchange!

[Swannie]

Well here in the UK, BT are rolling out FTTC (Fiber to the Cabinet). Third Party ISPs can install their min-DSLAMs into the cabinet, which is usually not very far away in an urban or semi-urban environment. This will be VDSL, delivering 50mbps!

If I were Teksavvy I'd be doing a projection on the costs of rolling out my own DSLAMs, and the value of reselling that on to other customers, really really fast. Probably approaching some UK companies like TalkTalk to buy in their experience for 2 weeks of consultation and costing models. Then contacting Huawei, and getting their army of Chinese engineers to come out and install these DSLAMs, or train Canadian engineers how to do it.