said by Croaker :

Will this allow me to pay for FTTH and own my last-mile connection?

I don't have a problem running it to the nearest CO if it means I can chose who to do business with from that point.

said by milnoc :

But to get those high speeds, do we have to move to Toronto? Or to Chatham? :)

said by milnoc :

But to get those high speeds, do we have to move to Toronto? Or to Chatham? :)

said by grayfox :

No this means TSI will be colocating DSLAMS.

said by grayfox :

No this means TSI will be colocating DSLAMS.

Expect much higher speeds at close distances (24megs down anyone ?) and higher speeds at further distances since theres more tones for your modem to use now. Users on 4megs now can get 5megs.

Also no more dealing with bell when its a line card issue. (Assuming TSI gets there own line cards too). Or for sync speed changes.

said by MaynardKrebs :

Nope. Kapuskasing. They're starting out small.

said by grayfox :

Also no more dealing with bell when its a line card issue. (Assuming TSI gets there own line cards too). Or for sync speed changes.

said by hemzer :

That should take the lying middleman out of the equation.

said by andyb :

Don't get your hopes up guys.These are proposals being put forth.The crtc will have final say on any aspects if it does anything at all.Its a long process and bell would probably appeal it to the cabinet also.

said by MaynardKrebs :

Bell will say that they don't have room in each CO....

said by milnoc :

I love the name of the location at the bottom-left corner.

"Bells Corners"

:D

said by Thislilfishy :

Ah, no, you have to come to Orangeville, ..think of the opportunities!

said by seaway35 :

Here in Cornwall we have at least 9 Tim Hortons and for the size of Cornwall about 50000 that pretty good, Great coverage for coffee and donuts....lol

said by InvalidError :

Not really, the CO-DSLAM is about enabling wholesale ISPs to access Bell's remotes and disaggregating their subscriber's traffic from Bell's network at the CO, municipal, regional or provincial level (instead of global with AHSSPI) without the ISPs necessarily having their own DSLAMs.

said by freejazz_RdJ :

What will it change? The throttle and UBB, for those people who are served by a CO that's big enough to justify it for the ISP.

said by STN :

Interesting proposition, but the ILEC could still claim congestion at the trunk of the DSLAM which would necessitate throttling. So I don't see this resolving the issue completely.

said by iamdrumming :

We have about 14 or so Tim Hortons in Niagara Falls.

In that thought, why doesn't Teksavvy colocate the DSLAMS inside each Timmy's? Coverage would be way better, because there are thousands of more Timmy's than Bell CO's.

The only problem would be though, that Timmy's would want a slice of the donut, er, I mean pie. :)

I'm sure they would want the business model name changed to something like Timsavvy :) lol

said by freejazz_RdJ :

Exactly. This will change the transport stuff, but there are still real limits to the uplink from DSLAM. In some models, you can scale up to 5K connections onto a single aggregation shelf that supports 2 Gigabit SFP's. Not exactly pretty.

said by STN :

Right. In theory the only way this could be done is if the DSLAM had multiple trunks and each could be used for a specific ISP. Right now the technology doesn't support this. Going forward I suppose it may be possible, but that's a big "if".

said by STN :

Understood, but throttling anywhere in the network provides relief throughout the whole link. You don't have to put throttling in the DSLAM to be able to control the bandwidth there. Throttled traffic is consistently throttled from end-to-end.

said by STN :

Right. In theory the only way this could be done is if the DSLAM had multiple trunks and each could be used for a specific ISP. Right now the technology doesn't support this. Going forward I suppose it may be possible, but that's a big "if".

said by STN :

What am I saying is look at their argument for throttling your traffic now. They appear to have won (at least for now) the opinion of the CRTC that they must do this to provide "fair contention" for a link between your customers and theirs.

Right now this contention happens all the way to Toronto (guessing) and you guys are saying "Ok, we'll pick it up at the CO". The problem for this is there is still contention on the DSLAM trunk, even in your new submission. I'm sure they will argue that there is still "unfair" contention on the DSLAM link if your traffic is not throttled.

said by STN :

Ah ok, I see. Then this would be a good fit then. Only thing is it seems you've gotten the run around before, so hopefully they wouldn't play this card in the future.

said by TSI Marc :

the definition of a "co" is somewhat unclear in fact. so, I don't know what that would would fall under. these details need to be cleared up.

said by grayfox :

Cable co-location + ADSL, If what you guys have pre-posed is approved this will remove the monopoly that Bell and Rogers currently have over the industry.

said by STN :

But we're talking the DSLAM trunk link. Currently 10GgE is not available.

said by freejazz_RdJ :

I'm a bit confused here about what the end results will be. If each CO or wire centre requires a unique presence, that is there is no regional transport or aggregation to a single PoP for an area, this will be of much less value.

said by mlerner :

They'd be more profitable in Ottawa, if they start now they could deploy DSLAMs everywhere before Bell actually finishes those damn remotes which have been "coming soon" for at least 4 years.

said by bjlockie :

I need a remote.
How would my data get from a TSI-DSLAM in Ottawa to the Internet?

said by confuseddsl :

I dont think the cable is ever gonna happen.

Rogers paid for that shit fair and scare 100 % with their own capital.

How can you just ask them to say you have to sell to whole salers at X price for X amount.

I can see in bell's case where alot of that copper and original network was built with tax payer funds but with rogers cable thats a different story.

said by HeadSpinning :

Cable TV operators were granted a monopoly in each serving area for television. Their networks were built under monopoly protection.

said by InvalidError :

but after about three decades of walled gardens, neither side is in any hurry to start a price war - a few jabs here and there to keep up appearances but that's all.

said by pnjunction :

The only threat to this arrangement is regulation, which is why the 'free market' types are so far off how to fix this situation.

said by InvalidError :

Now, where do you find $600M worth of non-foreign long-term capital to get started on Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec?

said by Guspaz :

What are we supposed to do in the mean time? Throttling has been going on for two years already, and nothing has changed in two years.

said by Croaker :

We can try to convince someone to roll fiber to my premises. If it's only going to cost $3000 - where do I sign?

said by Gruesome :

I'd pay a thousand, if my wife found out I paid 3000, it wouldn't matter how hard it was she's find something that could cut it off

said by Gruesome :

Someone in another forum was quoted this from cogent

$2500 installation, $820 / month for 200/200

he was thinking of reselling to his neighbours

There was some talk of a coop in my neighbourhood but it died down pretty fast although I hear its not dead

said by iansltx :

I mean, look at cable. 250 subscribers per node. 38 Mbps per node and they're selling 15 Mbps service!

said by Gruesome :

That's what he was quoted bandwidth was on top of that but it was really cheap

said by InvalidError :

Now, where do you find $600M worth of non-foreign long-term capital to get started on Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec?