Canadian Internet Service

[TurnedTheCorner]

Interesting article here.

http://www.canada.com/technology/Can...229/story.html

Some highlights:

Canada is relatively expensive by OECD standards, ranking 14th for monthly subscription costs at $45.65 U.S. per month. By comparison, Japanese consumers pay an average of $30.46 U.S. per month and consumers in Britain spend an average of $30.63 U.S.

Not only is the Canadian Internet relatively expensive, it is also comparatively slow, ranking 24th out of the 30 OECD countries.

When price and speed are combined, Canada sinks toward the very bottom of the OECD rankings. As measured by price per megabyte -- effectively the price for speed -- Canada ranks 28th out of 30 countries, ahead of only Mexico and Poland. This may be the most telling metric, since it confirms that Canadians pay more for less.

[DESS]

Could part of that premium be due to our large geographic area? We have to lay down a LOT of cable to connect this country. Just wondering.

[ken0042]

And what level of internet are they comparing? At $46US or over $50 CDN that would quite often be a "Shaw Extreme" level of service. If we are paying more for 10+ MBPS and other countirs are happy with 1MBPS, or even dial up, then the numbers don't tell the whole story.

[4X4]

I wish there was a link to the study so I could see these countries that are cheaper than Canada for internet. I know in Europe internet is pretty damn expensive compared to here. My bill here is $30 or $35 per month. Put that into USD and that's $25-$30. In Italy, my internet bill was something insane like 60 euro per month. That's about $80USD.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by ken0042

And what level of internet are they comparing? At $46US or over $50 CDN that would quite often be a "Shaw Extreme" level of service. If we are paying more for 10+ MBPS and other countirs are happy with 1MBPS, or even dial up, then the numbers don't tell the whole story.

That was pretty explicitly expressed in the original post.

We're 24/30 for speed. So not good news.

However I'm with Dess on this one. We need to put a lot more tubes in the ground to get onto the interweb, so it makes sense that we would be paying more.

[BlackArcher101]

I'm guessing this is pretty close to the way our cell system would be rated as well.

[mykalberta]

I pay 5$/Mbps with Shaw ($50ish/month). To me that seems very reasonable.

You cant compare us to Japan. US is not the same but its the closest and I cant see us being to much more. If its less than 20% more for Alberta, I would be fine with that given our population density.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That was pretty explicitly expressed in the original post.

We're 24/30 for speed. So not good news.

However I'm with Dess on this one. We need to put a lot more tubes in the ground to get onto the interweb, so it makes sense that we would be paying more.

I'm not sure I buy that. They are only speaking broadband so that will probably only include urban areas. On that measure then I don't think the "big country" argument counts.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm not sure I buy that. They are only speaking broadband so that will probably only include urban areas. On that measure then I don't think the "big country" argument counts.

Well you might have a good point there, and I'm definitely no expert on how all those tubes get hooked up, but would it not cost more to build the infrasturcture between urban "Hubs".
I mean you still have to be able to connect the high density areas with enough capacity to move all that data right?

If 1 million in Toronto try to download something off a server in Calgary, it's going to use a lot more infrastructure than if 1 million people in New York try to download something off a server in Boston right?

[FurnaceFace]

Another way to look at it is users per kilometer or 100 meters of pipe, or some other such common unit cost measure. If in the major hubs we have 10 users per unit, and Japan has 100 or 1000 then the provider is able to charge less per user but make more money.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Well you might have a good point there, and I'm definitely no expert on how all those tubes get hooked up, but would it not cost more to build the infrasturcture between urban "Hubs".

Its not really all that complicated...
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got...an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Another way to look at it is users per kilometer or 100 meters of pipe, or some other such common unit cost measure. If in the major hubs we have 10 users per unit, and Japan has 100 or 1000 then the provider is able to charge less per user but make more money.

You're ignoring the volume of the pipe in that equation. If there are 10x the amount of users, then the pipe has to be able accomodate 10x the traffic to provide the same speed.

[mykalberta]

The "Internet" wasnt tangled. Your email delayed because of some other issue. Likely a routing issue which has nothing to do with "enormous amounts of material on the Internet"

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Another way to look at it is users per kilometer or 100 meters of pipe, or some other such common unit cost measure. If in the major hubs we have 10 users per unit, and Japan has 100 or 1000 then the provider is able to charge less per user but make more money.

Which is the exact same system of infrastructure for numerous other things, including trains, roads, fire services and garbage pickup.

It just makes so much more sense for everyone to live close together, but that's another can of worms for another day.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

You're ignoring the volume of the pipe in that equation. If there are 10x the amount of users, then the pipe has to be able accomodate 10x the traffic to provide the same speed.

Correct, but the cable itself cheap, running the cable is whats expensive.

Also, the routers and repeaters required are what boosts its cost. The cable itself is the cheapest part of that equation.

That is why when you run lines at an office, you get them to run 10 lines instead of the one you need because the cost of cable is cheap compared to the cost of labour.

ROW access is another reason why he have issues in Canada. Its the reason why all the pipeline companies now run fibre with all their pipelines and why some pipeline companies in the states have buisnesses build on the fibre they ran with the pipeline.

Also, for Japan you have to realize that alot of the stuff they access is Japan local. They dont need to cross alot of borders to access what they need. Where as in Canada less than 5% of my traffic comes from servers that originate in Canada, its mostly US based.

I think a comparable internet price for Calgary would be what Salt Lake or Denver pays which isnt much less than what we pay. They do have more competition down there but that is becasue of the number of people again. Why would another player enter the Alberta ISP market when you already have Shaw and Telus as heavyweitghts and a number of other smaller providers handling the niches.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

It just makes so much more sense for everyone to live close together, but that's another can of worms for another day.

But then how are we going to enjoy our fire pits?