Big Telcos

[User14]

2016-09-20  What does this news today mean for Bell, Telus and Rogers?

Big telcos must provide small ISPs access to their fibre networks, says CRTC.  Bell Canada launched unsuccessful appeals to both the federal cabinet and the CRTC

People are discussing new business models such as ordering a "robot" car and not having to own one. Will we be able to order our TV channels or individual shows through the internet? Let's say we want to watch the National right now. Will you be able to just order it with your "device" and have it delivered for a nominal fee?  Are there any small ISPs that are providing this type of service right now? 

[BS]

It is an interesting question, with lots of opportunity for both the big telcos, and the smaller ISP's, and smaller companies currently operating in smaller communities in the province.

Technologically, the only thing holding us back at the moment is the providers of content, and the business model and licensing to make it all happen.  I know that in the U.S., this is basically what my daughter does with one of the smaller companies - she has unlimited fast Internet, and it includes the smallest Cable option she can get. She then does everything off a computer they built to be very high end video and gaming box and accesses it via bluetooth keyboard and mouse and their gaming devices. They never ever switch the HDMI over to the cable box, it just sits there - just a terminal, no PVR which they don't worry about because they can watch everything when they choose on demand from the cable/internet provider, and then they have three on demand services they have chosen that best fits their needs - when they get tired of one of them, they just dump it, and find another and make the switch when the last month runs out. Plus the amazing thing is that in the US they still have redboxes and they just order a blu ray for 1.99, pick it up on way to work, and take it back the next day.  She also is able to access her TV anywhere she goes in the U.S. using her WIFI.  She sees no reason to do it over LTE because as she says (she is my daughter after all), why would I pay to watch TV on my phone - I can wait, or even do without - she would rather go out for a walk, a bike ride, down to the ocean beach, or log in to work and get a project done from home. Best of all worlds for them.  

My other daughter in Toronto, just went to Bell for TV, it wasn't the TV they cared about it was the true FTTH Gb speed, unlimited, although she has said they may actually start watching TV due to the new wireless connection anywhere in the house - the wireless is pushed from a router and they take a small wireless box to the TV. The pricing model for them as first in the building switching over is basically 2 services for free and paying for Internet (TV and home phone are just things they didn't use before, so just bonuses) - and Bell has also announced that in 2017 (just as Rogers plans to put out full GB and 4K), that you won't have to have Internet to get TV services - sure they will build some financial incentives to do so, but you won't have to - you could have Internet from another provider, and TV from them. 

Keep an eye on the news announcements, because it doesn't seem that we will get this information directly from the companies, we will here it from the news, then at some point, they will make the offerings available - we just sit and wait and live with what we have.

Lots of new models of delivery are definitely coming, and it is clear that CRTC and government want to make the big telcos to make their backbones available to all who are willing to pay, at a fair price.

Kind of like the railways have always been - railways paid other railways to deliver to a location not on their lines and the companies paid what were called per diem rates for each KM of use of the other company's trackage.  And it really is a win win for the big companies too as they now have access to the areas they don't have access too.  For example, under that ruling, I would suspect that Bell could also deliver over Rogers infrastructure, and visa versa.

Interesting times, lots of risks for all companies, as there is no clear picture where things are going right now, whether big or small.

Bruce

[Gdkitty]

Will we be able to order our TV channels or individual shows through the internet? Let's say we want to watch the National right now. Will you be able to just order it with your "device" and have it delivered for a nominal fee?  Are there any small ISPs that are providing this type of service right now? Will we be able to order our TV channels or individual shows through the internet? Let's say we want to watch the National right now. Will you be able to just order it with your "device" and have it delivered for a nominal fee?  Are there any small ISPs that are providing this type of service right now? 

---

---

Not that i know of.
There are some services more like bell, which are allowing more FULL access across more devices.. android, iOS, etc as well as the setop box.  But thats about it.

I know the US is going through stuff with this right now, to make it so that they have to be allowed to do this.
In the US, at least cable wise, its a little easier, as they generally are on Cablecard.. where its more that you have to get the cable card activated, then can put into any supported device.

Up here, its a little more difficult.. as then the box has to be registered on the back end to work. 
Could they allow it? yeah.  But also then gets much more difficult to support.. would more have to be a "Yeah you can add it, but beyond that we cant help much".  Cant expect them to support every hardware under the sun.

Now as everything seems to be moving towards IPTV, thats where it opens up that its potentially much more easy/possible then to have more devices supported.. as it would be more APP driven on the device.

[BS]

An update on my daughter's experience - they have tested and have full gb from Bell Fibe in their apartment building. Whole building is wired now to each unit - and Bell is pushing in fast to the whole building and the others in the area (Toronto, 5 unity 25 story buildings, so lots of units).

Don't know their upload, but they don't do much, and they said it is very fast too, but did't tell me the figure.

Well tonight, two Rogers sales guys come to the door and try to tell them that they can only get 250 from Bell and 50 up, Rogers can do 500.  Well sort of true I guess, depending upon whether you know that Bell has already provisinioned for FTTH.  They said we get 1GB, showed them the test, and the second die started to wave at the other guy to move on - no market sale will work here.  

So another confusing sale, with twisting of the facts - yes, if you were to get Bell or had bell currently, and have not obtained fibre - then you get 250, and Bell appears better at 500, but if you know that you can get rid of existng Rogers, or upgrade your Bell copper to Fibe, you will get 1GB, TV (Best pacakge), basic home phone, and all the bells and whistles of the new box, wireless TV, etc and full IPTV.

Tough to compete if you tell the full truth of what they have available in their building.

I suggested that they ask if the sellers have permissin to solicit in the building through the managment office - she said she was going down to check, and if they don't have the permission,, the management office will call the police, and contact Rogers too, and could ban them from the building at all, except for service to customers on a unit by unit call.

So the games continue - it used to be the whole discussion about we all have hybrid fibre, ignite fibre, etc, which has limits due to not FTTH and cable to house, and those maxs, and true for Bell, but both companies are bringing both out as fast as they can and it is a horse race - Come on guys, be fully honest on the comparisons, and buyer beware.

My daughter is certainly letting their neighbours now what is going on - they get a referral credit for everyone in the building - so they are motivated.

There is one area for sure that the two companies can't compete - technology and box when fully provisioned with GB to the home - the setboxs just don't compare and my daughter just went from one to other and she said any cmparison is laughable, and they pay the lowest price for Internet, and 20.00 for the rest of the full bundle on best TV, basic home phone, no contract and fixed costs - minimal installation fees, and pay for balance of install to $150.00 if they leave before 2 years. Reduces every month.

And I see that htere has been marketing by the smaller companies starting to show with CRTC ruling.

It is intereting to watch for sure, but do not jump on an offer that sounds too good to be true - compare all your options.

Wonder what it costs to run fibre to my home from Bell - they actually have the runs all provisioned and coiled ready to go, and to be pulled in the new conduit they put in our area - run the line out to the home, secure it to the old copper run, then provision the equipment necessary to make it happen.  Many places in my town in Ontario - the older sections of on thepoles are fully provisioned to go.

Bruce

[Pauly]

A lot of people have been going severely off topic in response to the OP's post.  What this really means is this: The big 3 telcos have to make their FIBER TO THE HOME networks available to THIRD PARTY ISPs.  Right now only their COPPER plant is abailable to thurd party isps.  It also only deals with internet right now from a thhird party.  Has nothing to do with tv.  So what that means is if you live in an area where your serviced by Rogers Coaxial infastructure you DONT Have to use Rogers Yahoo high speed internet,  you can go with thurd parties like Teksavvy or Acanac or start.ca. BUT if you live in a home (Like my friend) that is serviced by ROGERS FIBER TO THE HOME. Your only choice for Internet provider is ROGERS (thru ur fiber connection)  the announcement means that will change, not now but in the near future.

[BS]

Yes, in particular I have been off topic - I didn't know whether to put my discussion here or in another location.  Both companies involved in the selling I described will soon have to make their to the home provisions available to third party providers.

I reviewed the ruling by the CRTC last year and the companies had 45 days to define their pricing and implementation structures, so in July, the legislature and minister ruled against Bell's appeal, Bell said they were studying the decision, but their window is small as the original CRTC decision now applies which was 45 days from the annnouncement last year.

How we also get TV mixed in here is that TV alternative companies currently use the same infrastructure of the Telco, cable to the home to provide TV and Internet over IPTV, so the technologies are blending quickly.

So my only point now would be, be careful of the sales pitches by the telco's and the smaller guys as this decision is fully implemented to know what is available to your home. So yes off task, but this is a topic that begins to blend together as amost all services such as TV, Internet, home phone, cutting the cord options are all going to be coming down the same pipes to the home as it becomes available in your area. So it is not here yet, but since we are already 45 days past the legislative decision, we shold be seeing models coming our way very soon once the implemenation models are finalized and contracts finalized beteen big telco and smaller companies.

The world she is a changing.

Bruce

[BS · Accepted solution]

---

@User14 wrote:

2016-09-20  What does this news today mean for Bell, Telus and Rogers?

Big telcos must provide small ISPs access to their fibre networks, says CRTC.  Bell Canada launched unsuccessful appeals to both the federal cabinet and the CRTC

People are discussing new business models such as ordering a "robot" car and not having to own one. Will we be able to order our TV channels or individual shows through the internet? Let's say we want to watch the National right now. Will you be able to just order it with your "device" and have it delivered for a nominal fee?  Are there any small ISPs that are providing this type of service right now? 

---

All of these questions, theoretically the answer would be yes, depending upon whether ISP's want to provide it.  There are small companies like Zazeen who are already doing something close to this with their TV model running over the previous copper framework, and you don't have to buy their Internet.  You can add and remove stations, but you have to pay for at least one month.   The fees are not that high per month for the choices.  And since the legislator and minister have said Bell cannot appeal the decision for allowing use of the Big Telco fiber, in June, and the original CRTC ruling was that all companies had 45 days from the original ruling to provide pricing, and implementation models, it can be expected that all of these models will be changing up soon. Who knows what it will look like, but Zazeen and V-media and others provide us with a framework.  Bell was studying the ruling, but that just means that they have to figure out what they will put forward in 45 days, as will be required by all big Telco's.

Like IPTV on Rogers, we will have to see what it all looks like.  Be patient everybody, but my message along the way is be cautious about signing up to any term agreement right now, and do your own technical review of what can come to your home, what you have.  Like buying a car, shop around, and don't be bound to any particular manufacturer, if price and functionality is your key decision, along with reliability.

Bruce

[User14]

@BS  I think a glossary or lexicon to understand the terminology is necessary for these newspaper articles.  The article did not make it clear that the ruling only applied to the internet and to the fibre optic network between the main line and apartments. You almost have to become an expert in co-axial vs fibre and single/semi-detached residences vs condominiums. The times really are changing.

TV isn't really off topic as you can talk about anything in "The Lounge" as long as it is polite. The services all comes through the same cable (co-ax or fibre).  I am seriously looking around to find a better service provider or providers for TV, wireless, internet and home phone. Once I tell them I am leaving, I am sure they will find a cheaper package for me.    Clients are not treated well. They left me on the more expensive Internet Lite package for 8 months instead of switching me to the cheaper Internet 5 package with faster speeds. Now I read:

Big telcos hoard fibre optic networks despite CRTC order

One guy (Sep 2016) said he was paying $49.95 per month for his home copper connection with TekSavvy. He moved to an apartment, but the fibre connection with Rogers was $65 per month.  In order to get that price, he also had to sign a two-year contract.  When the two years were up, he said the price would jump to $87.  Like most of us, he was not a happy camper. 

[BS]

@User14 the headline on hoarding leaves me thinking, "doesn't surprise me".

It seems that our big telcos are more than willing to disregard, and try to push it as far as they can and wait for the fines, or slap on the wrist.

And we hear often that we are concerned that government agencies aren't efficient and we pay too much  taxes.

Doesn't help when the big telco's treat CRTC and legislation as mere nuciances to ignore or manipulate as much as they can get away with it.

Our government spent a long time consulting with the big players, and the users to try to develop a more competetive market and something that hopefully would level the playing field for all.

They will follow it, later, not sooner, but they also will make sure they get every penny and more if they can.

And yes, it all sounds like a lot of gobbly goop with the terms, acronyms, and for a user you are just left thinking, my TV and Internet comes into my house on the same cable, I don't get it.  The average user won't have any idea that it is "provisioned" differently as the data goes down the cable and back again.  Maybe that is the message here - if the industry keeps us confused, we won't know what to do and they could say anything and we wouldn't understand what we were being told.

Enough of a rant.

Bruce

[BS]

Looking at the article on hoarding, it would appear that we should see access and pricing models in place by end of 2017.  The companies have to put the models forward, then CRTC reviews them, then sends them back for changes, then back to CRTC for final approvals - CRTC will ultimately end up setting the price structure after getting all proposals in I would expect.

So end of 2017 seems about right.

Bell went to legislature and CRTC, but CRTC didn't rule until legislature ruled because it originally came from legislative changes.  Seems like a crazy ping pong game on multiple tables, and we are the ball.

It will come, but the article suggests the companies will delay it as long as possible while marketing to get as many customers on contracts as possible, making it less likely that people will switch to the new companies.  Any wonder we are seeing low priced, unlimited packages, and take a look at the cancellation fees.  They are way over the top and insane for bundles - something like max 400.00 per service in first year if I read it right, or may have been 400 for the bundle with 200 max in the second year, decreasing 25.00 a month if I recall.  Like I said, insane - with that level of cancellation fee, who is going to drop during the budget, and in the meantime, the smaller telecos can't get into the game until probably 2017.  That means if the Big guys get us all on contracts this year and next, unlikely we will switch before 2018 and up to 2020 (mine expires fall of 2017), but if it appears that the smaller companies can get in, I will just go no contract, or even no service, or just go slower with a TekSavy or something like that until Fiber access comes.

What a game - can we all say, Oligopoly?

Bruce

[User14]

---

@BS wrote:

Looking at the article on hoarding, it would appear that we should see access and pricing models in place by end of 2017.  The companies have to put the models forward, then CRTC reviews them, then sends them back for changes, then back to CRTC for final approvals - CRTC will ultimately end up setting the price structure after getting all proposals in I would expect.

So end of 2017 seems about right.

Bell went to legislature and CRTC, but CRTC didn't rule until legislature ruled because it originally came from legislative changes.  Seems like a crazy ping pong game on multiple tables, and we are the ball.

It will come, but the article suggests the companies will delay it as long as possible while marketing to get as many customers on contracts as possible, making it less likely that people will switch to the new companies.  Any wonder we are seeing low priced, unlimited packages, and take a look at the cancellation fees.  They are way over the top and insane for bundles - something like max 400.00 per service in first year if I read it right, or may have been 400 for the bundle with 200 max in the second year, decreasing 25.00 a month if I recall.  Like I said, insane - with that level of cancellation fee, who is going to drop during the budget, and in the meantime, the smaller telecos can't get into the game until probably 2017.  That means if the Big guys get us all on contracts this year and next, unlikely we will switch before 2018 and up to 2020 (mine expires fall of 2017), but if it appears that the smaller companies can get in, I will just go no contract, or even no service, or just go slower with a TekSavy or something like that until Fiber access comes.

What a game - can we all say, Oligopoly?

Bruce

---

To get needed competition, someone suggested that governments and municipalities should provide the infrastructure and then lease it out to the Telcos or others small firms for services such as phones, Internet, TV and whatever else is on the horizon. Basically it becomes infrastructure like roads, sewers and water lines. I think Coquitlam is trying to do it.  If some governments are getting out of the hydro business, they will need to replace it with something to make up the revenues.  Coquitlam installs QNet fibre optic network

[BS]

@User14 It wouldn't surprise me if some rural areas go with their own systems.  I was just reading about the upgrade in the communications required for smart monitoring and distribution controls in the Hydro industry across Ontario.  They are relying a lot on existing networks piggy backing on the big telcos for the fibre and wireless feeds, as well as bringing their microwave towers across Ontario (the ones that have been around for decades, about 40 miles between each, line of site), but they are running into problems in the rural areas and gaps within the telco data systems and some areas that are still on POTS (voice only).  So in some of those communities, they are pairing up with hydro delivery, communication communications on gas and water delivery systems and within region governmental communications.  The article indicated that the telcos aren't moving fast enough for them to fully modernize and it is impacting their ability to be competetive in the new electronic world, so they are moving ahead on their own, and federal and provincial governements are putting backbones into some areas too.  In BC, they are targeting with the federal, municipal, and BC governments along with ten telco service providers to develop a backbone to serve rural BC.  So they certainly see the benefits of cooperation and sharing - it is of benefit to our economy for the government to force our big companies to share since they won't do it on their own.  We have large areas of the province not served by the big guys, or using locally developed services.

The recent quarterly report addressed the unknowns of the forced changes in bundle charging for copper services to the smaller ISP's, and not sure where Cable fits in here, but there are companies that are also pushing their IPTV services down both Cable and telephone copper. Many of these companies are based out of small communities, and they need the ability to build their customer base in order to modernize their systems.  Win win for the whole economy and hopefully customers too.

Interesting things coming.

I enjoy this conversation, as I have a brother in law who was involved in the original microwave towers installed by Hydro and the railways before CNCP telecommunications became Cantel and the story goes on and I always listened with great interest as he predicted the future, and he was always annoyed that most of the original infrastructure was originally installed with government support (some of this was installed for security during the cold war - another story and failures of our telephone/communications and hydro systems), and then private companies ended up buying it and they were always annoyed that government kept a level of control over them through the CRTC as they wanted to make sure that although the big companies would be running and profiting off the systems, it would still be to the benefit of the country and consumers.

Bruce

[User14]

Thanks @BS  Where this business is going in the future is an interesting topic. Given that I had a CompuServe Account a very long time ago, I have seen how changes in technology and infrastructure can make companies like CompuServe and AOL rise then fall unless they change. These companies fell into the trap of trying to protect what they had, and they forget about the future by not investing in R&D and new services. Our big telcos also tend to protect their turf and their bottom line which is the wrong strategy for the long term.  One example is putting caps on data for example in order to keep out data streaming companies.  See:   What-big-isps-dont-want-you-to-know-about-data-caps

It will be interesting to see how long the big Telcos last when they can't think ahead or think outside the box. 

[BS]

My first ISP was a dial up, free service with freeware, and discussion boards on a originally Apple based board called First Class.  Basically a text bulletin board with a very nice graphic interface for file transfers.  You could communicate to anyone with an email address.  My second service was the company that Look bought out, then look following that, then another company after that.  I went Rogers when they brought higher speeds than the standard dialup 128 - anybody remember having a 16 bit modem, I do, then a 32 bit with an upgrade that took it to a huge 64, that was depending upon what the speed of the servers and bottlenecks across ISP's that existed.

From Rogers, I went Bell, ADSL when Rogers did a completely failed implementation to speed up their Internet with a major infrastructure upgrade in much of the GTA, which failed all over the place - rather than keeping the old redundant structure available when implementing the new faster services with new cabling, they stripped out the old cable once the new was in - if I recall they lost around 60% of customers over that one in some areas - my own local area, we were the last ones on Rogers, and we took the Internet to Bell - we couldn't get any reliable service from Rogers, and impossible to get a CSR for hours at a time, or sometimes even days at a time.

When we moved, no Bell infrastructure, so we went Rogers again, and have stayed since, although I can assure you, I am open to looking as the new models come out.  They are definitely going to have to seriously be looking ahead and out of the box - if they stay focussed purely on bottom line and keeping profits up by adding valued added services that people have no choice over getting with higher prices, providing service levels at levels beyond what many people will ever use, and not successfully implementing technology without adequate design and testing, and keeping redundant services in place until the new models are proven.

They have to get out of that old box, or yes, they may go the route of Look Communications (still around), but minimally, AOL, still around, and Compuserve.  I too had compuserve for a while too with their dedicated local dialup numbers.

Interesting watching changes.

Bruce

[User14]

---

@BS wrote:

When we moved, no Bell infrastructure, so we went Rogers again, and have stayed since, although I can assure you, I am open to looking as the new models come out.  They are definitely going to have to seriously be looking ahead and out of the box - if they stay focussed purely on bottom line and keeping profits up by adding valued added services that people have no choice over getting with higher prices, providing service levels at levels beyond what many people will ever use, and not successfully implementing technology without adequate design and testing, and keeping redundant services in place until the new models are proven.

Interesting watching changes.

Bruce

---

New news today: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/crtc-net-neutrality-bell-rogers-1.3827053?cmp=rss

Given that most people don't even know the difference between wireless and internet data caps, the big telcos will be able to obfuscate and dither around for quite some time charging Canadians as much as they can. Pity.

Sample comment from article:

"Bell has asked that the CRTC address differential pricing and data caps as unrelated issues. But advocates see the policies as interconnected. In addition to banning zero rating, they are asking the CRTC to do away with data caps on wired home internet service and to ensure all Canadians have at least an affordable unlimited option.

After all, the internet is not a luxury; it is an essential tool. The United Nations Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution in June stating that the internet is a basic human right.

Despite our growing reliance on the internet — the CRTC's annual report shows that wireless usage has surged 40 per cent in the last year — none of the big three companies offers an unlimited option for wireless."

[Gdkitty]

---

@User14 wrote:

---

---

New news today: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/crtc-net-neutrality-bell-rogers-1.3827053?cmp=rss

Given that most people don't even know the difference between wireless and internet data caps, the big telcos will be able to obfuscate and dither around for quite some time charging Canadians as much as they can. Pity.

Sample comment from article:

"Bell has asked that the CRTC address differential pricing and data caps as unrelated issues. But advocates see the policies as interconnected. In addition to banning zero rating, they are asking the CRTC to do away with data caps on wired home internet service and to ensure all Canadians have at least an affordable unlimited option.

After all, the internet is not a luxury; it is an essential tool. The United Nations Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution in June stating that the internet is a basic human right.

Despite our growing reliance on the internet — the CRTC's annual report shows that wireless usage has surged 40 per cent in the last year — none of the big three companies offers an unlimited option for wireless."

---

"In addition to banning zero rating, they are asking the CRTC to do away with data caps on wired home internet service and to ensure all Canadians have at least an affordable unlimited option.

After all, the internet is not a luxury; it is an essential tool. The United Nations Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution in June stating that the internet is a basic human right."

I think this is one key point that I see many people confusing.
Many I talk to, seem to think that it means that you will get unlimited like 200mbps internet for next to nothing.
No..
Yes, it means in the end to hopefully eliminate caps period, no matter the speeds.
"to ensure all Canadians have at least an affordable unlimited option"  So yes that EVERYONE can get say for $30/m an unlimited plan.  It may only be 6mbps.. but its still a 'high speed' internet access, enough to get information, etc and not have any cap to worry about. (as sometimes these starter plans can have like 20g limits!).
All other higher plans should follow with unlimited.. but price will go up, as you want more and more speed.

[BS]

At the end of the day, my own view is that we will continue to see the companies play around with pricing, speed and so forth done in ways that are completely confusing to all, and will push CRTC decisions to the limits.

Yes, I suspect we will see unlimited caps at each of the speeds, which is a good thing - I am happy with low speeds, don't need 4K or other high data demand apps and we will see what happens with IPTV - Bell also said they will not require Internet packages with their IPTV, so interesting to see where it all goes - things are certainly changing, and we won't know if it is for the better until it finally shows in most cases.

Bruce

[Gdkitty]

I do find that interesting with Bell as well.  Brings up many questions.

Currently, it is IPTV, so does use usage per say, across their own internet.
But the way they are set up as a provider.. it doesnt use usage on the bell internet.  As they are a provider, etc, they are sort of allowed to (at least for now), exclude it from usage.

Now.. if they go to 'not needing bell internet' to have it..  how will that change?

Will it mean, that bell tv then work over ANY internet?  Which then you could encure usage charges based on the other providers policies?  This would be the most open, true access to anyone then.
My guess though, is more that you will have a small bell internet connection segregated just for the TV.

As rogers moves to IPTV.. i wonder if they will go the same route?
If  you look at how things are done.. home phone, net, tv, all comes across the same cable.  Its just segregated by frequency ranges, that specific services only use certain ones.  The home phone is techically an VOIP service, but its segregated from the regular net connection.
IPTV could just use a specific range seperated for IPTV only.

[Pauly]

---

@Gdkitty wrote:

I do find that interesting with Bell as well.  Brings up many questions.

Currently, it is IPTV, so does use usage per say, across their own internet.
But the way they are set up as a provider.. it doesnt use usage on the bell internet.  As they are a provider, etc, they are sort of allowed to (at least for now), exclude it from usage.

Now.. if they go to 'not needing bell internet' to have it..  how will that change?

Will it mean, that bell tv then work over ANY internet?  Which then you could encure usage charges based on the other providers policies?  This would be the most open, true access to anyone then.
My guess though, is more that you will have a small bell internet connection segregated just for the TV.

As rogers moves to IPTV.. i wonder if they will go the same route?
If  you look at how things are done.. home phone, net, tv, all comes across the same cable.  Its just segregated by frequency ranges, that specific services only use certain ones.  The home phone is techically an VOIP service, but its segregated from the regular net connection.
IPTV could just use a specific range seperated for IPTV only.

---

Hi Gdkitty.  I have a family member with Bell IPTV So I can somewhat answer that question for you. The Bell IPTV does not use a public internet connection like other providers such as VMedia.  It will only work where bell has infastructure much like how Rogers Cable TV works where Rogers has Cable Internet.  Now with Rogers soon rolling out IPTV It can be anyones guess how they roll it out. No one knows yet but Iam very curious to know how it works thru the modem or not.

[User14]

---

@Pauly wrote:

---

@Gdkitty wrote:

I do find that interesting with Bell as well.  Brings up many questions.

Currently, it is IPTV, so does use usage per say, across their own internet.
But the way they are set up as a provider.. it doesnt use usage on the bell internet.  As they are a provider, etc, they are sort of allowed to (at least for now), exclude it from usage.

Now.. if they go to 'not needing bell internet' to have it..  how will that change?

Will it mean, that bell tv then work over ANY internet?  Which then you could encure usage charges based on the other providers policies?  This would be the most open, true access to anyone then.
My guess though, is more that you will have a small bell internet connection segregated just for the TV.

As rogers moves to IPTV.. i wonder if they will go the same route?
If  you look at how things are done.. home phone, net, tv, all comes across the same cable.  Its just segregated by frequency ranges, that specific services only use certain ones.  The home phone is techically an VOIP service, but its segregated from the regular net connection.
IPTV could just use a specific range seperated for IPTV only.

---

Hi Gdkitty.  I have a family member with Bell IPTV So I can somewhat answer that question for you. The Bell IPTV does not use a public internet connection like other providers such as VMedia.  It will only work where bell has infastructure much like how Rogers Cable TV works where Rogers has Cable Internet.  Now with Rogers soon rolling out IPTV It can be anyones guess how they roll it out. No one knows yet but Iam very curious to know how it works thru the modem or not.

---

The Bell trucks are in our neighbourhood and we are being offered a "deal" for TV, Internet and Home Phones. Wireless isn't being offered.  It seems like VoIP, IPTV and Wi-fi over fibre are converging but separate cables are owned by the big telcos so they can track the usage. They will probably lease out their bandwidth to software companies as a revenue stream. The little ISPs will be squeezed out just like the the small airlines got squeezed out by the larger ones in the 50's. They will end up providing only local service.  I see the CRTC allocating the big telcos regions and feeder lines just like they did with airline routes for big carriers and little carriers. Such regulations will take about 10 years to evolve, but fortunately there will only be systems crashes rather than aircraft crashes as the competing commerical carriers take risks to provide service.  Interesting times ahead.   

[BS]

I too got a neighbourhood mailing directly to my home postal address, offering what appeared to be a very good offer - they were offering a couple of packages 3 services with home phone (actually is still POTS over cable they are giving us), as well a package where you include wireless.  Neither deal was much to write home about, and currently in my area, it is still copper to the house, so we make out on their 50Mbs downstream, not sure what the upstream is - the tech guy indicated that they plan to bring fibre to the door in our neighbourhood in the future, depending upon new customers and that once they have enough in the neighbourhood they will push the FTTH.

So for now, since even my downstream Rogers is restricted due to currrent provisioning of the Fibre in our area, there remains no benefit in changing.  And the race is on.

Bruce