Awesome, some maybe in 5 years we'll see the speeds we should have seen 20 years earlier! Can't wait!
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > The government getting involved with the Internet rarely goes well. The > FCC is a shining example of how to usually do it wrong. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> > To: Nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 8:59:22 AM > Subject: Canada joins the 21st century ! > > This is more of an FYI. > > Yesterday, the CRTC released a big decision on broadband. In 2011, the > same process resulted in CRTC to not declare the Internet as "basic > service" and to set speed goals to 1990s 5/1. > > Yesterday, the CRTC declared the Internet to be a basic service (which > enables additional regulatory powers) and set speed goals to 50/10. > > Note that this is not a definition of broadband as the FCC had done, it > one of many criteria that will be weighted when proposal to get funding > is received. But hopefully, it means the end of deployment of DSL. > > > Also, as a result of declaring it a basic service, the CRTC enables > powers to force ISPs to contrtibute to a fund that will be used to > subsidize deplooyment in rural areas. > > It plans to collect $100 million/year, increasing by $25m each year to > top at $200m which will then be distributed to companies who deploy > internet to unserved areas. > > By setting the speed standard to 50/10, it basically marks any territory > not served by cableco as underserved since telco's copper can't reliably > deliver those speeds. > > > Nothing happens for now because a "follow up" process is needed to > decide how the funding mechanism will work (what portions of a companies > revenues are counted to calculated its mandated contribution to fund) > and how the process of bidding for subsidies will work. That could take > 1 to 2 years. > > Also in the decision is the phasing out of the equivalent programme for > POTS which saw telephone deployed everywhere. The difference is that the > POTS program had an "obligation to serve" whereas the internet doesn't. > > -- :o@>
