I know from experience that living in the country; and I mean the type situation where your nearest neighbor is miles rather than blocks away, isn’t always fun especially for techies. Even in small towns like where I live now the amount of choices in connecting to the web typically boils down to two – Ma Bell and some cable company. In the country you’re damn lucky to get either let alone pick between two options.
One of the regulations that telecoms have had to agree to in order to do business in Canada is what is referred to as “obligation to serve” which simply stated means telecoms were given certain incentives to provide basic telecom services to rural areas. However in this Internet Age there appears to be a disagreement over what basic means any more.
In a recent appearance before the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) Michael Hennessy the senior vice-president at Telus for regulatory and government affairs said that the regulator could not apply this age old “obligation to serve” to broadband Internet. He went on to say in an interview
“The idea of an obligation to provide broadband is really a solution in search of a problem. To the extent some Canadians in remote or rural areas don’t have service, the cost of providing service tends to be prohibitive and the commission’s framework for meeting those obligations don’t adequately cover the costs.”
Both Telus and Bell have argued that they already covers 93 percent of the population and for those in areas that are remote, hilly or to tree covered they would have to wait for the next generation satellites that are being launched in the next few years.
So in other words be happy with what you’ve got and wait until we decide to launch new satellites at some point in the future.
Nice attitude considering the telephone and Internet bills we have to pay for services that are seeing us slide down the world
courtesy of Speedtest.net
Thanks guys
The problem in their thinking is that they treat people as consumers only, not as producers too (of ideas, content, software, rural products etc.). They don’t see that broadband opens up lots of opportunities for the usually disfavored rural places
.-= George Birbilis´s last blog ..ΥΠΕΠΘ: Συγχωνεύονται ΠΙ, ΚΕΕ και ΟΕΠΕΚ =-.
There’s been some talk as to establishing broadband as a right. I’m not sure I agree with that but “requirement” might be a better idea. The fact is, the internet is now the dominant medium and if you can’t get hold of it… I wouldn’t say you’re completely cut off but you’re certainly at a severe disadvantage.
It sounds like “obligation to serve” sounds a lot like “obligation to serve if it’s convenient”. There’s places in the UK too that still can’t get any internet whatsoever and it’s ridiculous, not to mention downright unfair. I take it for granted, I can compare broadband packages and take my pick. Often have to remind myself that it’s not the case everywhere.