this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025

24 points (87.5% liked)

Canada

9611 readers

1097 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

otter@lemmy.ca

mp3@lemmy.ca

otters_raft@lemmy.ca

Ontario's severed ties with Starlink impedes access to legal services in remote First Nations (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 2 weeks ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Indigenous legal advocates in northwestern Ontario are sounding the alarm over the Ontario government's cancellation of its contract with Starlink, citing concerns with people's access to legal services in remote First Nations.

Last month, Premier Doug Ford announced he'd be ripping up the $100-million deal with Elon Musk's internet provider, as a retaliatory measure in the ongoing Canada-U.S. trade war.

But in northwestern Ontario, this means the end of the Starlink-Navigator Program delivered by Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services Corporation (NALSC), which "permitted community members, who often do not have access to internet, or reliable internet, an opportunity to participate in virtual courts."

top 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] UnderFreyja@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 weeks ago

It's shit but it was also really bad that they had to use that. We need our own infrastructure for stuff like this.

[–] Akuchimoya@startrek.website 2 points 2 weeks ago

I feel badly for remote communities that were looking forward to these services, but Starlink is a security threat directly connected to a hostile nation that has been making overt threats to Canada. Moreover, we have already seen Musk will direct the company to turn off access to people he doesn't like. There would have been nothing stopping Musk (his lackeys) from eavesdropping on communications and then cutting it off when he felt like it.

The only real way is to invest in other providers, preferably Canadian, preferably public, but most fundamentally anyone that's not MAGA.

[–] deeferg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe I'm missing something, but he ripped up a contract that was just recently signed. This seems to be related to existing contracts that are separate from the 100m contract.

It's tough to balance the worth for me on this one. Should we expect these communities to have to rely on internet when they are clearly so broken off, or should we be providing these services as infrastructure as a country through installation of cables to connect them (which would likely admittedly be tough with the distances through bushes).

I'd argue the best option is to continue funding this service separately, just to keep the users up north online for their court visits, while working on establishing our own service. I'd prefer if we didn't have to litter the skies with satellites for our solution as well, I don't like the amount of space junk above us currently.

At which point that would require funding from our government, and it looks like regardless of who gets in, we're going into austerity measures, so I won't be holding breath that our R&D goes into this service.

Tough one and unfortunately it looks like the north is going to be underserved. Which, also unfortunately, with the number of voters/people up there, is likely to continue as I doubt this will be a focus on people's voting decisions. Especially not 4 years from now when we have another provincial election.

[+] Kobek@sh.itjust.works -6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

This is what I was talking about the other day, but the regressives just mass downvoted and claimed I was some kind of Trump lover. You can't just get rid of excellent technologies just because you're emotional about who runs the company.

You can't just yell and cry at Tesla dealerships, block roads or harass citizens because of whatever political justification you've got in your head. That's selfish and serves only to vindicate your personal feelings while holding back progress.

A more viable solution would have been to let Starlink build the infrastructure and then lobby for a Canadian telecommunications company to buy them out once they have the means to maintain and expand that infrastructure.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Starlink isn't the only satellite phones and internet available in Canada, not to mention all the alternatives you could get.

For example, how about cell towers? If the government paid for them, then no individual company can monopolize them, so anybody could get access to their use.

Not to mention that Spain's setting up their own satellite internet services as well Starlink style, so why pay the Trumpist when we can pay an actual ally that hasn't blatantly betrayed all their alliances and agreements?

[–] Mugmoor@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

There is no Canadian alternative that can provide a service like Starlink. I live in a rural area, and they're literally the only way I can get a reliable internet connection. I've tried Xplornet and Mobile Broadband, neither can provide a reliable connection, or are have prohibitive bandwidth caps.

I'm not even that far from Toronto, I'm technically still in the GTA. There are no cell towers nearby due to the community protesting against them going up. I'm lucky to get a single bar on a clear day.

I'm all for using a Canadian alternative, but there just isn't one for a lot of people.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What about wired, if you're in the GTA? I remember a few years back Bell offered free hookup if you signed up for Fibe. Don't know if they still do it, or what sort of restrictions there are, but it seemed to be a blanket offer at the time.

In the first place, this is an issue for legal cases, and I think that the province providing a temporary connection to those who need virtual court services makes more sense than giving Musk 100 million to give everybody permanent internet. This doesn't stop anybody who has no viable alternatives for day-to-day use from using Starlink, just that I think it's not the province's business spending so much money for a small selection's decisions. The cities already massively subsidize rural Canadians, so I can't help but feel like this is a poor way to give a much needed service to those in need.

We don't need to give all rural Canadians free internet at a cost of 1.5% of the entire provincial budget.

[–] Mugmoor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Wired isn't an option. ISP's no longer 56k service over phone, nor Broadband DSL.

Fibre requires a main trunk line nearby, which are typically routed through cell towers. No cell tower, no fibre or cable service.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you have electricity? That probably means you have poles erected for your area. Fibre can be installed onto those same poles, and it's the ISPs' job to ensure as complete coverage as possible.

Like I said before, this is specific to Bell Fibe, not 56k modems. In the first place, DSL is still more than good enough for such a purpose, or do you not remember the early days of streaming where pretty much nobody had fiber optics and had to run dedicated cable or DSL that piggybacked on regular phone lines?

[–] Mugmoor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Lol tell the ISPs to do their job then. As I already stated earlier, Fibre and DSL are not available in quite a few areas. It isn't as simple as you think.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Isn't the the sort of thing you're supposed to complain to the CRTC if the providers refuse to deliver their services within the city? You said you're in the GTA, right? So it's well within their official coverage range.

And even if not, cell coverage according to their maps, extend to almost the whole of Southern Ontario. Together with a decent plan, you could piggyback on that (though I suppose speed would vary on location).

[+] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world -6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Starlink offers the low latency that others can't provide which is needed for more real time applications and at a much more affordable rate. Maybe in the future there will be another (edit: low latency) network that rural people can rely on, but that isn't today, or tomorrow, or next year, or the year after.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

More affordable for high use, sure, but this article is speaking about for emergency use, which means that you'll almost never use it. Besides, the smallest version of Starlink still requires you to carry a laptop sized satellite antennae, compared to internet phone which is literally just a mobile phone the size of some of the early bar phones. One you can carry in your pocket at all times, the other useless unless if you're with your car at minimum along with any other devices needed to make it work.

Besides that, latency matters for shit in this case anyways.

The only use for Starlink that isn't serviced by more traditional means is high speed high bandwidth internet, but it doesn't make any sense why the province should give Adolf Musk any money to do so, let alone a tenth of a billion. People who want that service can pay for it themselves while the province can provide something more suited for lower level or emergency use that costs only a fraction the price and doesn't require signing with an overgrown child that manically laughs as he helps put his own country into the toilet.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Where are you going on about emergency use? The article is talking about how this is going to impact northern first nations communities who were going to use the service for virtual court appearances which require good bandwidth and low latency.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

My bad. I guess I mixed this up with something else.

Even still, the bandwidth and latency of traditional satellite internet isn't bad enough to be an issue for this. You can still stream with latency below 1s, more than enough for streaming, just not good enough for online games.

Besides, Xplore is a Canadian provider that does this already to service these areas specifically. Why go for a foreign provider when we have a perfectly serviceable local one for such a purpose? Yes, it's not a great provider, but for this use case, it is good enough and doesn't require giving a hundred million to a guy who's helping to destroy this country.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Traditional geostationary satellite latency really causes problems with real time communication which this is trying to help with. You end up in a situation where you talk over each other frequently unless you go into radio style communication of always waiting for the other person to clearly be done talking with a long pause which hampers fluid conversations. Reactions to things you hear or say become delayed making for a jarring experience.

You can do it yes, but it's subpar.

Edit: Imagine a lawyer not being able to interject properly during a court case or read non verbal queues of whats going on in court in real time.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree its subpar. But my question is, is the solution worth 1.5% the entire province's budget?

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Connecting these homes properly is worth it, yes.

The question was always is it worth giving it to SpaceX specifically given Elons ties, or a US based company due to Trump. Xplore is US owned as well now, and was the other option.

In June 2020, Xplore announced its sale to New York private equity firm Stonepeak Infrastructure Partners

During the pandemic

According to Lis McWalter, a Carling, Ontario resident and chair of the West Parry Sound SMART Community Network, speeds are so slow that audio calls are impeded, and said “Even at the best of times we don’t get the speed that’s promised.”.

I think we should try and avoid supporting the US for the moment, but if there isn't a good alternative and the other options might seriously impact the quality of life for our citizens, then I think it's worth considering still doing it until we can work something else out.

Edit: I thought this addition would be worth while... Xplore struggled during the pandemic when usage was higher, and starlink has much higher bandwidth capabilities. If we not only want to connect but encourage people to consider living in these communities, that also means more population growth, which means more demanding usage which means Xplore struggles further.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I see. Didn't realize that Xplore wasn't Canadian anymore, nor that actual performance was that bad. I just saw some speed tests and those didn't look that bad.

That said, I still don't think we should be spending $100 million on Starlink. For the purpose its suppose to serve, I would think that we could meet all the proposed needs with single digit million at most, even if we have to rely on Starlink to do so. We taxpayers are being shafted hard by such a contract.

If private individuals want to get Starlink for their normal internet, I don't oppose such a decision since it's not like we have good alternatives for high speed satellite internet until the EU's version gets fully deployed. But that's a decision on an individual level. A provincial decision should minimize excess expenditure on something that's a pure luxury and instead concentrate on meeting the needs of its people first, since Ford is already pulling so much funding from public resources to pay for his vanity projects that keep getting rejected by the courts.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I don't know all the costs, but definitely not single digits.

15,000 (people) * 500 (dish) + 15000 * 140 (service) * 12 (months) is 37.2 million. If they help with roof installs that'd be more too.

Commercial stuff costs more, so if they connect a hospital it'd be more.

There was something in the contract about paying more to ensure guaranteed bandwidth for them as well, and I wonder if the government is helping pay for some of the ground stations it'd need which might be one time costs?

Also the government has a policy of connecting all of Canada to high speed internet which is considered 50 down, 10 up with 98% in 2026 and the rest by 2030.

https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/high-speed-internet-canada/en

Edit: to be fair though that policy isn't about paying for the end user, but it would include going towards infrastructure like ground stations, guaranteeing the bandwidth and paying for SpaceX to launch a few extra satellites to help guarantee the service.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

I understand spending $100million of it's to fix Ontario's infrastructure and get more people connected, but this isn't it. It's simply paying off someone else to put in a band-aid solution that only looks good on the surface.

I understand the idea of building up the infrastructure for isolated communities to become connected, but I strongly feel that this isn't the way. It's forcing a group of people onto a monopoly that can be taken away at any point. If the government really wanted to do this, then they'd fund cell towers to these isolated communities instead. That'll give them reliable internet access that isn't beholden to a single company on top of helping local companies. Nobody would be forced to use hardware from a specific company or suffer complete loss of service.

This is likely more expensive, but it's far more beneficial and forward looking and may even bring people together more. And it doesn't exclude Starlink for those who want it as well. They just have to pay for that on their own, but Starlink is already priced to be affordable to individual families.

[–] seestheday@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do we know if it is even possible for another company to take over starlink infrastructure ? These are satellites. It’s not like they’re cables in the ground.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Satellites that have to communicate with a ground station, unless they want to do all the traffic in a region over the laser links, but those links will have their own limitations.

I'm not sure what the ground infrastructure is specifically, is it spacex hardware that connects to local ISP stuff or is it their own ground based infrastructure. That ground infrastructure is usually what part of getting approved in a country involves. Doing only laser links for a whole country would be too much. (Edit: I mean it'd technically be doable, but it'd greatly reduce their network bandwidth vs having a closer ground station, so fewer users and lower speeds)

The other option would be a hybrid situation where starlink backhauls one of our telecos internet but the local infrastructure is built and owned by them. In the future you could then backhaul with another satellite network in theory. Basically drop a 4g/5g tower in the middle of nowhere and connect it to Starlink.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

Your last paragraph makes it sound like you don’t understand what starlink is. Your middle paragraph is just wrong - peaceful protest is legal in Canada, and your paragraph doesn’t distinguish from unlawful activities like property damage. Finally, your first paragraph - I would 100% be behind you if they were talking about banning you from privately purchasing a starlink kit. This isn’t that. This is a huge public works investment, so there are many options available, and they have to consider things you don’t consider as a simple customer.