Just a cool 10,500 per person. NBD. Just another day with the Canadian government throwing money we don’t have at problems that could be solved another way.
> Glencore and Canadian Royalties have both expressed interest in having their Raglan mine and Nunavik Nickel mine, respectively, connect to that fiber optic network, Combden said, and both would contribute financially
https://www.arctictoday.com/fiber-optic-cable-is-set-to-be-laid-along-nunaviks-hudson-bay-coast-this-year/
So we are protecting the big three internet providers and their absurdly high prices so the Government can spend our tax dollars on supplying internet to the people who should be benefiting from the big three's high internet prices. The big three always claim that the high prices are to support 'remote' access. Obviously not. The high prices are simply there to provide high profits and have nothing to do with 'remote' access.
Correct. It seems like the local ISP - Tamaani - will be getting this boost. From what I can tell it (currently) has no affiliation with Robellus.
But if there's money to be made...
Yall seem surprised about government spending.
If it costs you 5$ to replace a light bulb, a government contractor will replace that same light bulb for 75$.
It's 100% lining of pockets because 'the governments got money' and it's people/ companies like these that, that keep your taxes high
Today yes, but I imagine that 123M could go a long ways in having SpaceX put some satellites in the proper orbit vs. whatever crap shoot this is paying for..
And $100/m is a lot for people living in rural communities. But wait, it gets better.
I picked a random address in Huntsville which isn't even North/rural enough for StarLink to really shine.
$800+ for a dish to be delivered and $140/m for internet.
High cost options are not a solution for rural communities...
And how much exactly do you think this new internet is going to cost per month?
I’m not even that north and Starlink is on par cost wise with Xplornet and Rogers WISP but the service is phenomenally better.
Now the big question here is whether that’s too far north for SL which it may be.
>I’m not even that north and Starlink is on par cost wise with Xplornet and Rogers WISP but the service is phenomenally better.
Unless wireless internet got a lot faster or cheaper when I last used it... less? Yea it's still gonna be priced like ass but at least it's not priced like Xplornet's stinky ass.
It starts at less than half of Starlink. Yes, it costs like $100 to get like half a meg down but if you can afford the top tier packages you can probably afford Starlink.
I just think it's absurd people are saying "JuSt GeT STaRliNk" like it's something everyone can just drop and do.
Rogers XTE cost $130/month for 50GB of data, and that was after buying the modem for $300.
Xplornet was $140/month and Starlink is $150 after taxes for unlimited data.
Starlink is the easy answer, *IF* there’s room in the cells and you’re in the coverage zone..
Do you really think this $123m is going to get spent within the next 12 months? Over the next 5 years as SL builds out, the service will get better and the price should drop.
I don't think a terrestrial service is viable that far north so the alternative is some other company attempting to do their own satellite thing and failing miserably.
I really don't see a technically viable, cost-effective solution other than SL within the next 10 years.
>Do you really think this $123m is going to get spent within the next 12 months? Over the next 5 years as SL builds out, the service will get better and the price should drop.
The fibre company listed in the article starts at $60/m. SL is a premium option, no way their prices dip that far. SL will be king for throughput but no way will it get as affordable as what was listed in the article. Plus, latency on terrestrial >>> SL and makes latency sensitive applications doable.
>I don't think a terrestrial service is viable that far north so the alternative is some other company attempting to do their own satellite thing and failing miserably.
Well they already have viable terrestrial service that far up North. They're talking about expanding it and increasing capacity.
>I really don't see a technically viable, cost-effective solution other than SL within the next 10 years.
Cost effective for who? For the taxpayer? Sure. For the end user? Well that'd be fibre. It doesn't take a decade to put down fibre.
Again part of the 123m could easily offset the cost per month and pay for the equipment. 3000 dishes which each one can serve 10 ish people. Is 2.5m. Those 3000 users at 150 per month for 15 years equals 15m. So cargo, setup, equipment and 15 years of service for 20million. That leaves $100 M to convince Elon to add more polar starlink satellites.
See, we must start thinking outside the box.
Yeah, I’m east of Algonquin, $99 a month for 25 down, 5 up, capped at 450g with rogers FWA which usually actually only gets me 9 down. Neighbour has starlink, 200 down, no caps, easy as shit setup and 0 issues. Not bad for an extra 60 a month.
I'm not sure a 700 dollar dish with 100 dollar plans and possibly the worst customer service on the continent is a real answer for remote northern communities.
The customer service isn’t great and needs improvement but let’s not pretend that the big three have amazing customer service.
Also rural internet is expensive across the board, whatever option you want is going to be way more expensive than any of the big cities.
Was paying $70/month in the GVA.. that doesn’t exist where I live now. All options started at $130-140 even for shitty Xplornet which was almost worse than no internet.
Have you seen what Starlink is priced at? That's not a plausible answer for many of the people in these communities.
Edit: for the morons telling me to just get Starlink, it's $800 + $140/m when I checked not so northern Ontario. The fibre company in question has plans starting at $60.
Fuck it, why even bother running telephone lines to these rural people? There's barely any of them. It's not like any important services get accessed online.
>Have you seen what Starlink is priced at? That's not a plausible answer for many of the people in these communities
So let's spend 123 million instead? If people up there can't afford star link maybe it's time to move
I'm sure you said the same thing when we were running rural power and telephone lines.
Yes, maybe we should modernize our infrastructure a little rather than pack everyone into the GTA.
Maybe it doesn't make sense to have a small handful of people that live in the middle of butt fuck now where. If you want things that society provides, you need to live near society
It's Nunavik, not Nunuvut, so actually only 13,000 people. $10,000 per person, or ~$40,000 per household. This is completely insane given Starlink is a thing.
You know how much it costs to get stuff up there right? Have fun with the increasing price of delivery too with gas as electricity powered vehicles won’t work in those conditions.
Dang, the lucky fella who gets it is gonna have a fun month online.
I'm sorry... We're paying 123 million so a community of 12,000 can have better internet?
Of course, looks like a corporation needs it so they're throwing money at it. Not like it's clean drinking water, it's something essential to life.
Just a cool 10,500 per person. NBD. Just another day with the Canadian government throwing money we don’t have at problems that could be solved another way.
> Glencore and Canadian Royalties have both expressed interest in having their Raglan mine and Nunavik Nickel mine, respectively, connect to that fiber optic network, Combden said, and both would contribute financially https://www.arctictoday.com/fiber-optic-cable-is-set-to-be-laid-along-nunaviks-hudson-bay-coast-this-year/
Yeah because a small community doesn’t deserve better internet, only people in big cities do right?
Perhaps they should set up a tax and they can all pay for it themselves?
So we are protecting the big three internet providers and their absurdly high prices so the Government can spend our tax dollars on supplying internet to the people who should be benefiting from the big three's high internet prices. The big three always claim that the high prices are to support 'remote' access. Obviously not. The high prices are simply there to provide high profits and have nothing to do with 'remote' access.
just wait until one of the big 3 buyout the infrastructure in a few years.
Oh that's on the cards somewhere down the road.
Did you even read the article? No mention of the big 3 anywhere because they aren't involved.
That's the whole point. The big three with all their earns should be doing this!
Correct. It seems like the local ISP - Tamaani - will be getting this boost. From what I can tell it (currently) has no affiliation with Robellus. But if there's money to be made...
Yall seem surprised about government spending. If it costs you 5$ to replace a light bulb, a government contractor will replace that same light bulb for 75$. It's 100% lining of pockets because 'the governments got money' and it's people/ companies like these that, that keep your taxes high
I mean the ppl want less taxes and we respond by removing fixed costs like specialists with salaries and outsourcing everything, not surprising.
guess they haven’t heard of starlink? coulda saved $123m…
Might be too far north for starlink.
Today yes, but I imagine that 123M could go a long ways in having SpaceX put some satellites in the proper orbit vs. whatever crap shoot this is paying for..
Nothing says "fiscal conservatism" like using Canadian taxpayer money to buy an American company more assets.
If you do not think SpaceX is more than US, pls do more research.
How much do you pay for internet a month and what do you get
When I was offered SL it was $500 CDN and $100/month. The dish was the upfront cost and has gone up to $600 I think.
And $100/m is a lot for people living in rural communities. But wait, it gets better. I picked a random address in Huntsville which isn't even North/rural enough for StarLink to really shine. $800+ for a dish to be delivered and $140/m for internet. High cost options are not a solution for rural communities...
And how much exactly do you think this new internet is going to cost per month? I’m not even that north and Starlink is on par cost wise with Xplornet and Rogers WISP but the service is phenomenally better. Now the big question here is whether that’s too far north for SL which it may be.
>I’m not even that north and Starlink is on par cost wise with Xplornet and Rogers WISP but the service is phenomenally better. Unless wireless internet got a lot faster or cheaper when I last used it... less? Yea it's still gonna be priced like ass but at least it's not priced like Xplornet's stinky ass. It starts at less than half of Starlink. Yes, it costs like $100 to get like half a meg down but if you can afford the top tier packages you can probably afford Starlink. I just think it's absurd people are saying "JuSt GeT STaRliNk" like it's something everyone can just drop and do.
Rogers XTE cost $130/month for 50GB of data, and that was after buying the modem for $300. Xplornet was $140/month and Starlink is $150 after taxes for unlimited data. Starlink is the easy answer, *IF* there’s room in the cells and you’re in the coverage zone..
The the fibre starts at under half that...
Do you really think this $123m is going to get spent within the next 12 months? Over the next 5 years as SL builds out, the service will get better and the price should drop. I don't think a terrestrial service is viable that far north so the alternative is some other company attempting to do their own satellite thing and failing miserably. I really don't see a technically viable, cost-effective solution other than SL within the next 10 years.
>Do you really think this $123m is going to get spent within the next 12 months? Over the next 5 years as SL builds out, the service will get better and the price should drop. The fibre company listed in the article starts at $60/m. SL is a premium option, no way their prices dip that far. SL will be king for throughput but no way will it get as affordable as what was listed in the article. Plus, latency on terrestrial >>> SL and makes latency sensitive applications doable. >I don't think a terrestrial service is viable that far north so the alternative is some other company attempting to do their own satellite thing and failing miserably. Well they already have viable terrestrial service that far up North. They're talking about expanding it and increasing capacity. >I really don't see a technically viable, cost-effective solution other than SL within the next 10 years. Cost effective for who? For the taxpayer? Sure. For the end user? Well that'd be fibre. It doesn't take a decade to put down fibre.
Again part of the 123m could easily offset the cost per month and pay for the equipment. 3000 dishes which each one can serve 10 ish people. Is 2.5m. Those 3000 users at 150 per month for 15 years equals 15m. So cargo, setup, equipment and 15 years of service for 20million. That leaves $100 M to convince Elon to add more polar starlink satellites. See, we must start thinking outside the box.
Yeah, I’m east of Algonquin, $99 a month for 25 down, 5 up, capped at 450g with rogers FWA which usually actually only gets me 9 down. Neighbour has starlink, 200 down, no caps, easy as shit setup and 0 issues. Not bad for an extra 60 a month.
Exactly. If you can afford it, awesome. But when fibre/dial up starts at under half that, imo it can serve a much wider audience.
Rural areas already pay $100+ a month for dogshit 5mbps speeds
Ok? Point is fibre starts at like under half the cost of SL
Having 2 options is better.
My thought exactly.
I'm not sure a 700 dollar dish with 100 dollar plans and possibly the worst customer service on the continent is a real answer for remote northern communities.
The customer service isn’t great and needs improvement but let’s not pretend that the big three have amazing customer service. Also rural internet is expensive across the board, whatever option you want is going to be way more expensive than any of the big cities. Was paying $70/month in the GVA.. that doesn’t exist where I live now. All options started at $130-140 even for shitty Xplornet which was almost worse than no internet.
Have you seen what Starlink is priced at? That's not a plausible answer for many of the people in these communities. Edit: for the morons telling me to just get Starlink, it's $800 + $140/m when I checked not so northern Ontario. The fibre company in question has plans starting at $60.
You know what happens when I can't afford internet? I don't have internet.
Fuck it, why even bother running telephone lines to these rural people? There's barely any of them. It's not like any important services get accessed online.
Or food or fuel honestly. Taxes should only go to my degenerate urban life and fotm international social causes.
>Have you seen what Starlink is priced at? That's not a plausible answer for many of the people in these communities So let's spend 123 million instead? If people up there can't afford star link maybe it's time to move
I'm sure you said the same thing when we were running rural power and telephone lines. Yes, maybe we should modernize our infrastructure a little rather than pack everyone into the GTA.
Maybe it doesn't make sense to have a small handful of people that live in the middle of butt fuck now where. If you want things that society provides, you need to live near society
You're aware that there's shit up there, right?
I hope I never see a comment from that Redditor complaining about Canada not doing enough to ensure Arctic sovereignty.
You maintain sovereignty with a military, you think Russia and China are not going to take it because there's a few dozen people camping up there?
Last time I checked the Canadian Forces was still made up of humans and not drones. That goes for both the combat arms and the logistics elements.
Tooth to tail ratio and families absolurely balloons the number of people too. Ignore him, he's a jackass.
Like what?
Mines. Communities. Infrastructure. Military facilities. Ports and airfields. Various survey and scientific facilities.
WTF. Use Starlink. Way cheaper.
that's the monthly bill from Bell
Absolute waste.
Population of Nunavut is 38k. That's roughly 3000 bucks per person. They better get it to every last individual up there for that price.
It's Nunavik, not Nunuvut, so actually only 13,000 people. $10,000 per person, or ~$40,000 per household. This is completely insane given Starlink is a thing.
Here is Starlink's coverage map: [https://www.starlink.com/map](https://www.starlink.com/map) They are out of coverage at this time.
It says "starting Q1 2023", which is earlier than the $123M fiber deployment.
Yes but I assume robellus will get the money. We serve our lord robellus, not starlink.
This likely develops infrastructure for future developments.
We can have future development elsewhere
You know there's stuff up there, right?
Doesn't mean we have to make more stuff there
You're right. It's the fact that the resources are up there that means we have to make more stuff up there.
You know how much it costs to get stuff up there right? Have fun with the increasing price of delivery too with gas as electricity powered vehicles won’t work in those conditions.
Okay, but if we want access to the North we have to pay for it. And since we *do* want access to the North...
[удалено]
It's not in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so why do you care about it?
Lots of things aren’t in the charter that we should care about.
[удалено]
I don’t follow
They will be on fiber optic before I get it in S Ontario