Canada-Wide Wireless Broadband Network Planned 227
twilight30 writes "From the Globe and Mail, Rogers Communications Inc. and Bell Canada have said they will put aside their competitive differences to jointly build and manage a Canada-wide wireless broadband network. It is hoped they will initially reach more than two-thirds of Canadians in less than three years." From the article: "The two communications companies will pool their wireless broadband spectrum into a joint venture called Inukshuk Internet Inc. The network will cover more than 40 cities, and 50 rural and remote communities across the country. Users will be able to access the Internet and use voice, video streaming and data applications both inside their home, as well as on the go."
Will they use... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Will they use... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Will they use... (Score:2)
When I moved from a suburb of Toronto to a suburb of Seattle, I had to take a drivers' test to get my Washington State license. Almost failed the eye test because I pronounced "Z" in a sequence of five letters and numbers as "zed".
Of course, when I moved to that suburb of Toronto from a suburb of Dallas, I once went into a convenience store, and, not finding where the cold soft drinks were, asked the manager, "Where do you keep the cold 20oz. Mountain Dews?". He acted as if he didn't understand, and it took me a while to realize that it was the "20oz." he didn't grok. I said "600 mills" (millilitres), and his face lit up in a fit of understanding.
CRA (the Canadian eqivalent of the IRS) was not amused, however, when I tried to file jointly with my wife. :-)
Re:Will they use... (Score:2)
Great name (Score:1, Troll)
IN UK SHUK - yah - people won't have a field day with that.
Re:Great name (Score:2)
Re:Great name (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, over the past few decades they've become a common roadside feature in rockier areas of the country. Northwestern Ontario is positively LITTERED with these things, in some places several per kilometre on both sides of the Trans-Canada Highway. Regular folk, aboriginal or otherwise, climb up the rock cliffs on either side of the road and build them for fun.
Don't worry, we're cool with it
Surprised? (Score:1)
Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide? (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, I can see some problems with huge microwave transmitters trying to operate on top of permafrost.
Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, isn't a lot of the limits of WiFi caused by the radio signals being blocked by buildings or the landscape... or getting messed up by other radio signals? Shouldn't this mean that a normal WiFi station could cover a lot more area in say some barren northern tundra? Wouldn't the nature of most rural areas (lots of wide open spaces) make WiFi a lot cheaper for those areas?
Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide? (Score:3, Insightful)
Antennas, Up Canada Way (Score:2)
__ __
___ ___
__________ >>>>> __________ >>>>>
___ ___
_______ _______
__ __ __ __
__ __ __ __
Re:Canada wide, or inhabited canada wide? (Score:2)
How do you think some communities in the north get phone service?
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
The original microwave system was built in 1962. Parts of Ontario and Quebec are also served by microwave links built in the same era. Some of them are probably still on analog links too.
Details, please? (Score:2)
Re:Details, please? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Details, please? (Score:4, Funny)
Might be usefull to link the inukshuk web page (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.inukshuk.ca/anglais/index.html [slashdot.org]
I used to work for Fido, the creator of the Inukshuk project. I'm glad Rogers picked it up after they bought Fido, I could never phantom how the smallest cell network in Canada could have implemented it by themselves.
(They did try some lame attemp a wireless internet behind the Inukshuk banner, but you needed a bulky wireless modem to go with it... It wasn't very fast and the price was not very competitive)
Message to Bell (Score:5, Funny)
Wireless Broadband (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wireless Broadband (Score:2)
Hi there. I submitted the article - not so interesting.
Howewver, what I've quoted above - this is no longer true. You can now ask Bell for 'dry loop' DSL, which is essentially DSL without landline charges. Bell have only in the last 6 weeks rolled this out, and they are not advertising it (for obvious reasons) -- so anyone can reasonably ask to discontinue their landline, and continue with Sympatico HS as desired.
Thought you might want to know.
T_T Good on Bell! (Score:2, Interesting)
the article says rogers was pretty much forced into it. Good.
I'm not really much of a wireless person. Things don't have to be wireless if all they ever do is sit on my desk anyway. And perhaps I'm mistaken but there are a lot more things wireless networks have to take care of than wired devices no? So I for one won't be jumping on the band wagon of wireless things unless it's much cheaper, much more effective and gets me stuff faster than plain old cable broadband.
and even if I were I wouldn't sign up with Rogers. I'm not about to forgive them for renaming the Skydome to Rogers Center and buying out my old faithful cell phone service provider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcell [wikipedia.org]
Re:T_T Good on Bell! (Score:2)
The irony in this is that Inushuk was actually owned by Sprint and THEY were going to do something like that together with Microcell.
It is sort of ironic to now have Rogers do this after they gobbled up both Sprint AND Microcell.
But yeah, I am with you. I have a kick ass plan from Fido and I won't part with it, alone the per second billing is worth it and thanks to them being GSM I can just buy whatever phone I like and use anyways.
Antenna (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Antenna (Score:2)
Unfortunately when I looked into it they were maxed out and only offered me DSL instead.
Re:Antenna (Score:2)
D'ya see that white "donut" just under the observation level? Well, it's a radome. Inside it are a bunch of antennas for Rogers (among others) existing cell system.
Re:Antenna (Score:3, Funny)
Wireless Internet in Canada? Been there, done that (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wireless Internet in Canada? Been there, done t (Score:2, Informative)
Not to mention the fact that i was there 2 days ago at gerstein in the morison pavilion getting over 40mbps downstream and 10 up. Essentially maxing out my laptops hdd.
Re:Wireless Internet in Canada? Been there, done t (Score:2)
They are planning to use moose-based APs (Score:3, Funny)
Cartel? (Score:2, Interesting)
Works perfectly fine for NY mob families & OPEC
A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:5, Informative)
It's availabe to most as long as you're living close to the valley and not behind some of the hills in town. I just bring my laptop from work, to coffee shop, to home... always connected for free.
People are under the impression that Canada is huge and is sparsely populated. I can tell you that most cities are south by the US border, and only a small portion of Canada actually has people living together densely. It would be easier to build this type of infrastructure here in Canada than it would be in the States I would guess... just because most major cities are along the border.
Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:2)
Frankly a lot of it seem to cover the river. Maybe that is where the mayor's boat is.
Frankly I think fiber to the door every where would be more important to business than wifi. I mean for at least 3 months a year you really can not "work" in the park.
What will it cost? Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:2)
TFA indicates a cost of $200 million over 3 years for the infrastructure. I wonder what monthly payments that will mean for end users. If their track record is any indication, these companies are likely to overcharge and provide piss-poor customer service.
If Rogers and Bell are what capitalism is all about, I'll take municipal anarcho-socialism any day.
It is more than free, it is a profit generator (Score:2)
So not only is the spinoff WiFi free, it makes money for the city.
Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Fredericton too, and I don't use the e-Zone much but it's handy to have available. And I pay my taxes (happily).
Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:2)
See, this is why the West feels so alianted (well Alberta anyways)
Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:2)
Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:2)
Heck - I just moved from Red Deer to Victoria and the whole bloody city is south of the 49th. Oh and your numbers are rather off too try:
Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:2)
Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:2)
As of the '04 census:P op.pdf [gov.ab.ca]
Edmonton, AB 666,104
Red Deer, AB 75,923
Calgary, AB 933,495
Source: http://www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/ms/pdf/2004
The 2001 census (back to Wikipedia article now) recorded 30,007,094 in Canada.
Quick math shows those cities come out to be about 5.5% of the population.
Alberta is pretty damn empty compared to Southern Ontario/Quebec/BC. The cities you mentioned are not the norm.
Quick searching only found a 1976 version, but here's a population distribution map of Canada. Pay special attention to the Southern Ontario/Quebec region: http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/archives/5the dition/peopleandsociety/population/mcr4064 [atlas.gc.ca]
Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:2)
C'mon, we don't drive THAT slow (Score:2)
Red Deer, AB is 6 hours.
Calgary, AB is 4 hours.
Nor are we that bad at math...
When I last drove from Coutts (US border crossing) to Calgary it took about 3 hours or so...I believe the distance is 300 to 350 km.
Red Deer is 140km further north along the QE2. It takes no more than 1.5 hours (I usually get there in 1:15)
Edmonton is about 150km or 160km further north yet--another 1.5 hours past Red Deer.
So I humble submit a revision to your statement:
Edmonton, AB is 6 hours drive from the border.
Red Deer, AB is 4.5 hours.
Calgary, AB is 3 hours.
Please don't confuse our poor American bretheren regarding our geography--they have a rough time of it as it is--like US suppliers in Washington state or California shipping things to Vancouver via a distribution centre in Toronto--because it is "easier" since Toronto and Vancouver are in the same country (for those who don't get it, Toronto is 4,500 km from Vancouver...more than twice the distance between LA and Vancouver).
I don't mean to belittle the intelligence of US citizens as they are no dumber or smarter than any other people--their education curriculums are just severely lacking in the World Geography dept. We Canadians have our flaws too--like our tendency to measure distance in units of time.
As for this Bell/Rogers partnership for wireless broadband, I'll believe it when I see it...it'll probably happen but it won't be all that soon judging by how Albert Supernet has been dragging on. Of course this isn't a government project so it may be different. Can you imagine if this thing was cooked up by the wonks in Ottawa?
* it would take 5X as long as promised to finish
* it would cost a billion or so dollars more than budgeted
* it would be run by Paul Martin's children
* Very few people would know about it, despite hefty sums being paid to obscure advertising agencies in Quebec--usually bay way of unmarked brown envelopes stuffed with cash and delivered to agency executives by staffers from the prime minister's office.
Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:2)
Umm... How do you drive to border???
Edmonton --> Calgary can be done in ~3 hours (or 2 if you really don't care if the RCMP is after you).
Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:2)
Err
Re:A Canadian's $0.02 (Score:2)
The fact that my little shitty car couldn't outrun the cruiser
My fastest way back though was from Calgary --> Edmonton. Under two hours. It's nice if you have some Frat boys in front of you who drive a freaking hummer and kick everybody out of the way (plus the slip stream helps you save on gas)
Personal record though must be three hours from Grande Cache to Edmonton
Wipe out competition before it starts (Score:2)
There's already a Canada-wide wireless network (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There's already a Canada-wide wireless network (Score:2)
Collusion? (Score:4, Insightful)
I admit, There would still be competition in other forms and the telco's couldn't continuously raise their prices. However, I would imagine that the same telco's would also own most of those other means to get broadband.
I'm a little rusty on my business law, but isn't this overt collusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion [wikipedia.org]
Quick call GW Bush... (Score:2)
In typical fashion us Canadians will wait for somebody else to put and end to this evil while we complain about taxes and mutter under our breath.
Maybe if we get Tim Hortons coupons too it will be ok.
Aagh (Score:2, Informative)
What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten... (Score:4, Informative)
We're part of the 'Bell Wireless Alliance' which is a resource/competition sharing agreement between Bell, Sasktel, Aliant, MTS and most of the other CDMA cellular carriers (excluding Telus) - and yet Bell always seems to trump Sasktel where new technology is concerned.
First company to roll out DSL in Canada - Sasktel. Who got credit? Bell.
First company to have broadband/dsl television services in Canada - Sasktel. Who gets credit, Bell and a handful of US carriers who are still working on it.
First company to have MTC wiress broadband in Canada - you guessed it, Sasktel. Who gets credit - Bell and Rogers.
An example of this service can be found here https://commerce.sasktel.com/esales/start.swe?SWE
[/rant]
Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten... (Score:2)
Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten... (Score:2)
And on the same breath they will tell you how it's a bad idea to privatize the remaining Saskatchewan Crown's.
That being said - you're wrong about the only thing preventing Rogers from buying out Sasktel being the BWA (Bell Wireless Alliance). It's Saskatchewan politics and only Saskatchewan politcs preventing it (and I'm on the fence here, I have arguements both for and against privatization).
Plus Roger's existing infrastructure is different enough that if the privitization were to happen, AND if a company were to consider a hostile buyout of the now privatized Sasktel - it'd be much more likely to be Bell - not Rogers. You buy what works with what you have, so CDMA for their existing GSM network is a square plug for a round hole.
Re:What about Sasktel?! Always forgotten... (Score:2)
If they would "sell off" Sasktel chances are good you'd see a bidding war between Telus and Bell. Bell wants West (Hence Bell West) and Telus wants to go east, and more importantly, keep Bell as far away as possible.
They could make quite a profit there.
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
What this is really about is allowing Rogers and Bell to compete on 2 levels with Telco's in other provinces with a minimal investment in infrastructure. This is a comparatively minimal investment because they do not have to trench lines to every house to provide service.
It will allow them to:
A) Provide high speed internet access in markets they couldn't access before
B) Allow them to provide VOIP service in markets they couldn't access before
C) If they can get wireless VOIP handhelds... they will have coverage about as good as GSM based cell phone services in Canada.
Its a very strategic move. As it stands the individual telcos, which either WERE or ARE publicly owned put the physical infrastructure in. There have been a series of rulings by the CRTC (our FCC equivalent) regarding what fees must be paid by competing organizations to access that infrastructure, but this bypasses all of that.
I'm very intrigued.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
I'm curious... why do you say "Saskatchewan included"? You make it sound as though Saskatchewan is or should be way behind other provinces broadband-wise.
Saskatoon and Regina were pretty much the first two cities in Canada to have DSL service.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
What I am really getting at is that in other countries and states it is rural areas that are largely left behind. I wanted to use an example of a province that has a significant rural population and was still able to deliver broadband to a significant portion of its populace.
I said 500 population in my initail post. In my talks with Sasktel representatives they have stated any community with more than 40 people.
I suspect that many Americans can look around and see communities of 500 or larger in states that are not predominantly rural and still have poor broadband access.
Given Saskatchewans population and that population's distribution it SHOULD be behind other provinces and states. The fact that is not is a testament to crown corporation investment, Sasktel's innovation.
The lack of access in other areas is due to the, very reasonable, unwillingness of a private corporation to provide services that are not profitable. Urban customers definitely subsidize the delivery of services to rural areas.
Rather long winded, but that's why I chose Saskatchewan as my example.
To bad the US won't do the same... (Score:2)
would this be anti-competitive? (Score:2)
or, i may be too synical.
Re:would this be anti-competitive? (Score:2)
Only $200M in deployment costs? (Score:2, Interesting)
That would be 1/1000th the amount of money Bush pledged the Feds to throw in to rebuilding the Gulf coast.
Wow.
Re:Only $200M in deployment costs? (Score:2)
Alberta for example is building the Supernet [wikipedia.org]which is done by Bell, so they already run Fibre etc. in that province and it IS supposed to be Wireless, so they can probably build on top of that.
I'd be surprised if there aren't similar efforts being made in other areas.
Whatever (Score:2)
Yes i know about Roger's home phone thing but no, it's not the same.
Re:Whatever (Score:2)
Rogers may be a while though, I worked there for a while and when I left (a year ago) it was still in the "internal testing" phase I think they called it.
They're not using Haliburton (Score:5, Funny)
Did I read that right in the article? They're only budgeting $200M to deploy a nationwide wireless network?
The Canadians are not using Haliburton.
Re:They're not using Haliburton (Score:2)
We're 1/10 your size, so we have to do more with less. I think I speak for all Canadians when I singlehandedly apologize for Celine Dion [torontosun.com].
Re:They're not using Haliburton (Score:2)
Haliburton is a county in Ontario. Halliburton is different.
Is the county seat for Haliburton a town named "Cheney?"
I hope that Inukshuk (Score:4, Funny)
It's freakin' cold up there.
Will it reach to Detroit? (Score:2)
Challenging, but doable (Score:2)
Re:Challenging, but doable (Score:2)
In Canada something like 80% of the population is within 4 hours drive of the US border. Most of the population (>50%) is further concentrated in four broad urban regions: the extended Golden Horseshoe in southern Ontario; Montréal and environs; British Columbia's Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island; and the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. Second largest country in terms of landmass, but a population of 30 million we're about even with Tokyo city for population. And when the ICE melts we get all that land too !!! (cue madman laughing)
30 years later in Newfoundland (Score:2)
This is kinda stupid; cause all sorts of Americas are buying up the real estate around Deer Lake (because of pristine flora, fauna, and you know there are 6 moose per square kilometer - making moose more abundand than people on the ol' rock.)
It's funny seeing them say it will be nationwide at such a small number; as I doubt small and/or remote communities will get excluded.
Is I a Newf?
Deed I is me ol' cock, long may your big jib draw!
Re:30 years later in Newfoundland (Score:2)
Re:30 years later in Newfoundland (Score:2)
Re:30 years later in Newfoundland (Score:2)
This is NOT wifi (Score:2)
basically you connect their wireless modem to the power and then via ethernet to your PC. Done.
It's been "on trial" for years I believe in Richmond BC and Cumberland Ontario.
I really hope a PC card or (better yet) a USB device will allow for laptop access to the network...
Not Cheap (Score:2, Insightful)
Many already pay:
And now they figure we'll shell out some money for wireless? What for, when we've got hardwired internet and cell phones with 3G? Guaranteed they'll charge a small fortune for access to their wireless net.
When house prices in Vancouver have doubled in the last 5 years, and gasoline approaching $1.20/litre (that's about $4USD/gallon for you americans), just who do they think will be buying this?
Wonderful. (Score:2)
Rogers sucks. They play ads while they keep you on hold for their billing department. And I don't mean ads for their other services - I mean Rolaids, Everybody Loves Raymond, etc. Plus they've just installed this crappy voice recognition system that (like most voice recognition systems) doesn't work. I watched my girlfriend have the following interaction with her cell phone:
"Tech support. TECH. SUPPORT. TECH SUPPORT!!! TECH SUPPORT!!! TECH SUPPORT!!! AIIIIEEEERRRGGHHHH!!!!!!"
Rogers: "I'm sorry! I couldn't quite catch what you were saying! Please try again!"
Country-wide broadband? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Country-wide broadband? (Score:2)
Re:Country-wide broadband? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Country-wide broadband? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Country-wide broadband? (Score:2)
I remember some years ago where "coast to coast to coast" was being used regularly (must have been CBC Radio) as some sort of bizarre "unique identifier" and call to pride for Canucks. It was most likely a pathetic attempt at a slogan from a Canadian History Ph.D with a minor in marketing (funded by the party in power, of course).
Re:Country-wide broadband? (Score:2)
Re:The meaning of the name: (Score:2)
I thought that it just meant "man has been here".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inukshuk [wikipedia.org]
The meaning of the name (Score:2)
Re:woah (Score:2)
Re:woah (Score:2)
Re:actually... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Less than 3 years. (Score:2)
Hmm, here I am, a Canadian citizen, struggling to escape a society I hate, effectively prefering to be stateless, and I'm jealous?
Re:Less than 3 years. (Score:2)
If you don't like it here, "go home". Like the Yanks say, "Love it or leave it."
Re:Less than 3 years. (Score:2)
However, governments being what they are, corruption and overhead conspire to overwhelm any possible economies of scale savings. The bottom line is that the difference between the taxes I pay in the U.S. vs. what I would pay in Canada (mostly since one can't file jointly with a spouse or deduct mortgage interest or property taxes) is far more than the best health insurance that money can buy in the U.S. Yet, the government-provided health coverage and service I can receive in Canada is abysmal, by comparison.
Canadian health care is bad value for the tax dollar. If the type of care that the difference in taxes could pay for in the U.S. were available in Canada, the pragmatist in me would have no reason to grumble. Alas, that is not the case.
Re:Less than 3 years. (Score:2)
Yes, because people in Canada who try to go to the US for treatment get stopped by Canadian officials who arrest them, right?
A country who's Supreme Court agrees that to prevent someone from spending their own money for healthcare is unconstitutional, but can be overruled by the government's application of a constitutional "notwithstanding" clause is doubly barbaric.
Show me where the government HAS used the notwithstanding clause to do this, and then you might have a valid point.
But first you'd have to show where the federal government HAS EVER used the notwithstanding clause.
Cowards, definately.
The only coward I see here is you, using your father's death as an excuse to flame people who are sticking up for their beliefs.
I suggest you get professional help with your grief. The level of substitution you're showing isn't healthy.
Re:Less than 3 years. (Score:2)
Quebec has stated its intent to do this, and has asked the Supreme Court to stay it's decision until it passes the legislation. The court has agreed.
Unless there is massive protest, that pretty much makes it a fait-acompli.
Re:Less than 3 years. (Score:2)
Nah, I had the same degree disdain for Canada before he ever died (I had already left). The circumstances of his death just strengthened what I already believed.
Re:Less than 3 years. (Score:2)
But, as an anglo, my disdain was for all of Canada, and particularly the socialism in Quebec and BC. Alberta seamed O.K., but I never had the chance to live there.
Re:Less than 3 years. (Score:2)
Pardon me, but let's suggest that you are travelling (where - doesn't matter). You are robbed, and in the process your leg is broken, shards of bone protruding through your skin.
As you lie by the side of the road, a doctor comes by and starts to inspect you. As he begins to apply antispetic to the wound, you tell him you cannot pay.
"Ah" he says "Then this is bad luck"
And he turns away, leaving you to die.
Re:Less than 3 years. (Score:2)
The doctor has no obligation to help me, as I lie there dying.
If I am so foolish as to travel without (a) others having knowledge of my itinerary, (b) enter dangerous teritories without the means to defend my self, and (c) have no means to pay someone who offers to help me should I need help, I damn well deserve to die in such a situation.
Just because one encounters "bad luck" does not mean one can not mitigate its effects. That's the whole point of saving for a rainy day and purchasing insurance against rare, but devastating risks. In fact, the first instances of insurance were cases of mutual insurance: insureds agreeing to self-insure against a devastatic risk that each one of them faced on their own.
Make hay while the sun shines.
My family, though originally rather well off, came to Canada as WWII regugees, having lost everything, first to Nazis, and then Soviet communists. In those days, there was no hand out, no social safety net, nada. You either picked yourself up by the bootstraps, or you perished.
And, you know what? They worked hard, and by their own efforts eventually prospered enough to live a middle-class lifestyle. All that with no handouts, no help save their participation in a community of people in similar circumstances (mutual self-insurance). No damn universal healthcare either: you got a job, your employer provided health insurance. Life was good for them in the late 1950s to mid 1960s. The only "help" they got was a right to "come here and try".
Then, Trudeau starts shoving his brand of communism on the country. Suddenly, they're "the rich" that have to "help". After all, they're "fortunate" to have been born "well off".
Fuck that noise.
Work hard. Earn money. Kill those that try to rob you. Yes, I liked it when I lived in Texas.
Two things you miss in your hypothetical situation are these: (1) Most U.S. states have "Good Sameritan laws": if one stops to assist one in need, and inadvertently causes more harm them good, they are immunue from civil liability. That's particulary important when offering medical assistance with limited medical knowledge (though many employers offer free Red Cross first aid training). (2) Without overly burdensome taxes, Americans tend to be extremely charitable. The current gulf coast hurricane mess has resulted in sufficient offers of temporary housing (i.e. "taking in a family") to probably house everyone affected (over a quarter million offers to date).
In Canada, I saw people living like rats, scrambling to eke out an existence, grabbing at whatever handouts they could get, and generally expecting those in dire straits to get assistance from the government.
No thank you. I pay my way, you pay yours. No onw shits on me here, when I hire a lawn care company and a houskeeper, for being "obscenely rich".