Interventions Phase 2: Intervenor 716

Document Name: 2015-134.227232.2536826.Interventions Phase 2(1$df#01!).html

Hello,As a member of one of the more remote communities where broadband internet service is not easily available, I would like to make the following points:1- It appears that the Telecom providers are using wireless delivery as a preferred means to provide internet service to remote areas, and that the CRTC has supported this strategy by allowing the Telcos to use funds from the deferral account to pay for these investments.2- Wireless networks, which require tall and unsightly transmission towers have great disadvantages in terms of the environment , and serious questions have been raised about the health impact of these transmissions. I will let others speak to the health impact.3- The cost of the internet service via Wireless network is currently extremely high and we can imagine that even in remote areas these are very profitable investments for the Telcos since they derive cell phone and internet service revenues form these installations.4- A Fiber optic based wired network, has no disadvantages environmentally or health wise, and offers the best performance in terms of speed and bandwidth.5 - I feel that the CRTC should not have allowed the Telecom companies (specifically Bell) to use funds from the deferral account to support wireless nertwork development, and should insist that these funds be used Exclusively for the development of wired fibre optic networks. 6- It is nonsense that a company that was fined for gouging its customers is allowed by the CRTC to continue gouging them at the expense of those who were overcharged in the first place. 7- It is also unacceptable to me that the CRTC is encouraging industry to ruin our visual environment for generations to come !8- I feel that the CRTC should promote and support the model of community owned fiber based data highways, that can be rented to the Telcos.