international observers have concluded that canada gets less for more money than virtually any other "advanced" country.
in truth, i really only need about 20 gb/month and the reality is that essentially nobody on the actual internet (services like netflix notwithstanding) is going to let you download even at 6 mbps. i'd be happy with 4.5, really. this is one the biggest scams out there: download rates are set by the server, not by the user. the big companies sell plans at 300 mbps. that's a ridiculous number that doesn't come to close to existing in any sort of reality - and won't for decades. netflix' suggestion for "ultra-hd" is 25 mbps. you'd have to be watching netflix simultaneously on 12 screens...
canadian observers are focusing on "competition" as a solution to the problem. yet, they won't look at the root of the problem: which is the private monopoly on the lines. so long as the lines remain controlled by private interests, there will be regulations on them that will work against consumers.
in order to get a really competitive system, we need to look at communications lines the same way we look at roads. this isn't some far leftist diatribe, it's basic liberal economics. it's infrastructure. we want to hold this in common. any serious discussion of this topic needs to begin from that point - despite it currently being outside the spectrum.
how we go from there is open to a little more discussion. there's a few different models:
1) if you don't care about competition, and i really don't, you could have a single-payer type system, where we basically get "free" internet access that's run by tax revenue. the guy on the phone talked about customer service. who needs customer service from their isp? if the system is stable, you don't call them at all. further, the costs involved in running a cable network are really pretty negligible; you're not talking about a hike in taxes. if you take the profit out of it, the whole country would end up paying $5/year or something in taxes - which is a dramatic cut for absolutely everybody. even with a mild revenue stream, costs are down dramatically across the board.
2) we could be literal about the smith analogy and set up a usage-based toll system. this could work in two ways:
a) let the government collect it. i'm paying $0.20/gb per month. that could only possibly come down under public ownership.
b) rent the lines out and then let third parties collect it.
it's only the third option that can provide for real competition, if that's really what you want. it's the only way to create a truly level playing field. i can't see any reason why that's a good idea, it's just creating an unnecessary bourgeois level of bureaucracy, but it's the only way to actually do it. otherwise, you've always got somebody owning the lines, and you've always got unfair restrictions to access.
i should take a mild step backwards.
the necessary condition to allow for competition (and, again, i see no value in this) is not necessarily state ownership of the lines, but merely a neutral party to operate the lines. if we refuse to accept the arguments of foundational capitalist philosophers and insist on reaganite nonsense, we can get around that by passing a glass-steagall type act (or a trust-buster, if you'd prefer) that separates isps and line companies. a firewall that separates running lines from running isps would allow for the same kind of level playing field.
i think it would be inefficient and wasteful, but it would at least get to the point where a competitive market is possible.
the current conditions make that outcome impossible, and there's no use in pretending otherwise.