edugas
join:2004-03-18
Montreal, QC | reply to cacruden
Re: Hands off our network, Bell tells CRTC
Hands off our copper, population tells Bell.
Our taxes paid for these. |
|
climber
join:2005-11-15
Stirling, ON
| that is what I read too. Wasn't the copper infrastructure subsidized by the taxpayer OH so long ago..yet bell says that it is theirs?!Maybe they should pay the government back at todays dollars in order to say that..if not then shut up aqnd let other play too! |
|
alphaz18
join:2005-02-26
CANADA | hmm i think bells master plan is working.. they know this is obviously going to fail, but. its creating a huge commotion.. when the dust settles everyone will have forgotten about the throttling issue....
problem solved.... |
|
other hand
@videotron.ca
| Or Bell is trying to move as fast as possible on this while the leaders like prentice remain dumb on the issue at hand and before more of the public realize this will double (or more) their costs of internet. Gone would be the affordable teksavvy serivce or acanac type services.
this one says it good: »Re: Charlie Angus, an Honourable man. VIDEO OF GOVERNMENT DEBATE |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
 ·Colbanet
| reply to cacruden
I'm really starting to think that splitting up Bell is the only option. Break Sympatico off and mandate that Bell not be permitted to roll out their own consumer internet services. Make Sympatico into a wholesaler in name *AND* in fact. That'd pretty much solve any issues about anti-competitive practices. Although it wouldn't necessarily get them to stop throttling. |
|
umm no
@videotron.ca
| That would do nothing Guspaz.
If their new court filing goes through, Bell would be allowed to charge each wholesaler what it wants to charge them. Price discrimination is in the works now.
If Bell wins, they can double the cost of what they charge teksavvy for access and triple the cost to the likes of acanac.
End result (even with sympatico split off) is a doubling (or more) of cost that YOU (all of us) will pay. And no one would be able to do a damn thing. |
|
Shark_615
join:2006-01-17
Pickering, ON
| reply to Malovech
said by Malovech  :Goddamn conservative governments! I'm sorry but what the hell does the conservative government have to do with this? The last time I checked the CRTC worked separate of whatever government is in power. |
|
Black Moon
join:2005-02-01
Scarborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to cacruden
One thing that I cannot understand is in a country as vast as this, where the distances between towns is measured in tens or hundreds of kilometres, is telelcommunications not partially subsidised?
From what I have noticed, the reason it isn't partially subsidised is probably due to the North American mindset of low taxes and no regulation (i.e. have market forces decide things), but that only works when the number of providers is large (say 10 or so), and not for an oligopoly. |
|
Laidback
join:2001-09-30
Woodstock, ON | reply to cacruden
Will this move not kill off VoIP also if you are not with bell? |
|
Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by Laidback :Will this move not kill off VoIP also if you are not with bell? VoIP - unless you have cable internet, local phone service from any carrier other then Bell (or possibly Bell and the cablecos assuming they get the phone service down coax) any service that requires backhaul down a phone line to you. |
|
thorne anon
@teksavvy.com
| reply to cacruden
I love how both the gov't and bell are talking about market pressure and ignoring Bell's actions that negate the markets ability to put pressure on them
lets see....
I live in Ontario, if I want internet access my choices are;
capped and throttled Cable internet or,
capped and throttled Dsl from Bell or,
uncapped and un-throttled service through a small ISP.
I chose the third. There, I'm exerting market pressure, I'm spending my dollars how I see fit according to the things I believe. Only now it doesn't matter because Bell is throttling the third option too. If Bell is allowed to sell connectivity at 'market' rates they can price the third option so high that price alone will be a 'barrier to entry' for the majority of the market.
edugas has it right, both the 'last mile' and the long haul backbones need to be held as a public trust. That is the only way to 'level' the playing field for network access.
and the nerve to suggest that Small ISP are forever going to be parasites on Bells network is revolting. Stating that their not investing in there own networks is garbage! I would love to hear them come up with a business proposal for a company with 1/2 million in assets and market capital of ~100 000$ to present to a bank to get them to finance a 10 million dollar network expansion. There is a whole world of difference between 'not investing' and 'not being ABLE to invest' |
|
Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by thorne anon :
edugas has it right, both the 'last mile' and the long haul backbones need to be held as a public trust. That is the only way to 'level' the playing field for network access.
He has it half right - the last mile should be. Last mile is the connection from ISP to user. Whether that user is in vancouver or St. John and the ISP is in Medicine Hat.
Backbone, more typically, is the connection between the ISP and the Internet...and that is perfectly safe as it is, right now. There are *tons* of competitors in that market. Hence Teksavvy being able to offer the price they do offer on premium bandwidth.
I don't even want to think what 100GB of bandwidth would cost from Bell. |
|
En Enfer
This account has been compromised
join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC
·VIF Internet
| reply to cacruden
I've read almost all your replies (yeah, took some time), and as bad as Bell's plan looks, it has a little good in it.
People here who worked for an ISP other than Bell will know what I mean: new clients installations ending up without sync at the CO, existing long time customers suddently lose sync and following your ticket at wholesale they have the nerve to tell you the DSLAM is full and you'll have to re-open a ticket in a week in hope there'll be an empty room. Or a new customer is too far from the CO and they refuse to put him on the remote because he ain't Pathetico's... When a Bell technician visit is required, some techs have the guts to tell your customer something like "If you were with Pathetico, you wouldn't be experiencing this problem"... and I can go on and on with examples.
Well, Bell already seems to do a good job for 3rd party ISPs to hate them, as Bell knows that 3rd party CARES about their customer service, and Bell counts on the general public's ignorance of the way things works (Bell manipulates DSLAMs, long distance wires decrease sync rate, etc.) in order for the customer to want to drop their 3rd party ISP and hopefully get back with pathetico.
Adding throttle to everyone can be translated into a message: "Our vision of Internet usage is this way and we think you will want to throttle as well, we're now doing it to you for free".
90% of 3rd party ISPs probably said "fine with us" and it would have been difficult for Teksavvy to find partners in this battle.
By giving an ultimatum to all DSL ISPs at the same time is gonna help the cause of throttling against Bell, which I see as a plus.
I wanna take an example. In St-Hyacinthe (I think), customers have a choice of Maskatel or Bell as your local phone company. Maskatel has their own wire network, but 3rd party providers can't use their network for the internet.
I think that Bell's message is that right now there's competition only between Cable (Rogers/Videotron) and DSL (using Bell's copper wires and DSLAM) and no other serious competitor decided to build their own network and provide services like they are doing right now. But at the same time, people and the industry are complaining about the lack of alternatives in many domains (DSL that isn't using Bell's network, wireless not using Bell/Rogers/Telus, etc.).
In other words, they threaten 3rd Party ISPs to kick them out of the network (and out of business) if one of them doesn't stand out and do something different.
Questions:
- How much would it cost for Teksavvy to provide their own DSLAM at the CO in one area and serve their own customers? (and resell?) and will Bell allow their wire coppers being used with someone else's equipment? (DSLAM)
- How much would it cost for Teksavvy to deploy wires and fiber to end-customers?
Yeah, as much as I hate the beavers, an alternative is a necessity, but the way they're doing it (ultimatum) is a very bad way. "You hate us? Build your own network!" they are saying. |
|
pegsys
@teksavvy.com
| reply to HeadSpinning
They want deregulation?
Let's give'em what they want...
Full deregulation across the whole spectrum of
telecommunications....Broadband internet,satelitte internet
and television,cellphone etc...
Let the big boys come in from the US, Europe and Asia come play with them...And let the games begin.
Bell,Rogers and Videotron have been the big fish in a small
pond for way too long,let's see how fast they will cry uncle
against the big sharks our regulations have protected them
from for so long.... |
|
Gokuu
join:2001-08-27
| dreaming
With Canada's draconian regulations on foreign ownership combined with rediculous tax regime, nobody is gonna come to Canada - a small and insignificant marketplace.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that Bell and Rogers are both collusionists trying to screw everyone. I prefer living in the real world - too bad it sucks. 
said by pegsys :
They want deregulation?
Let's give'em what they want...
Full deregulation across the whole spectrum of
telecommunications....Broadband internet,satelitte internet
and television,cellphone etc...
Let the big boys come in from the US, Europe and Asia come play with them...And let the games begin.
Bell,Rogers and Videotron have been the big fish in a small
pond for way too long,let's see how fast they will cry uncle
against the big sharks our regulations have protected them
from for so long....
|
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to En Enfer
Re: Hands off our network, Bell tells CRTC
said by En Enfer :90% of 3rd party ISPs probably said "fine with us" and it would have been difficult for Teksavvy to find partners in this battle. Sorry, not buying it. Primus, TekSavvy, eBox, and Acanac have all spoken out against this and vowed to fight it. Between those companies and their resellers, you probably have the vast majority of all customers of third party ISPs in Ontario/Quebec.
There are others (Velcom, for example) that I haven't seen responses from, but suspect they are also opposing this in league with TekSavvy, eBox, and Acanac. |
|
justsometech
join:2003-05-08
h3h4h4
·Bell Sympatico
| Absolutely, they are definitely NOT fine with this. What worries me is that, with all of our (and my) own complaining about the issue, it got mentioned in parliament debate within a week or so? I am pretty impressed by this.
What i am not impressed with is the lack of voracity that other ISP's, Teksavvy included, have shown. I would expect that these small business owners, who employee people from their perspective areas, would be setting up meetings with their prospective MP's and MPP's, detailing lawyers briefs, and movign the issue forward with the CRTC and comp. bureau (since in the end it is their business being affected).
I feel that it mostly a lot of out spoken public members and not enough of the ISP's that are doing the talking.
I hope it is just because they are finalizing their agreements with each other on how to best dela with the situation... |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| said by justsometech :Absolutely, they are definitely NOT fine with this. What worries me is that, with all of our (and my) own complaining about the issue, it got mentioned in parliament debate within a week or so? I am pretty impressed by this. What i am not impressed with is the lack of voracity that other ISP's, Teksavvy included, have shown. I would expect that these small business owners, who employee people from their perspective areas, would be setting up meetings with their prospective MP's and MPP's, detailing lawyers briefs, and movign the issue forward with the CRTC and comp. bureau (since in the end it is their business being affected). I feel that it mostly a lot of out spoken public members and not enough of the ISP's that are doing the talking. I hope it is just because they are finalizing their agreements with each other on how to best dela with the situation... They ARE doing exactly that, but their lawyer told them to clam up, so they're keeping quiet for now. Their lack of info on the issue doesn't represent lack of action. |
|
alekssavvy
join:2007-06-27
Etobicoke, ON
| said by Guspaz :said by justsometech :Absolutely, they are definitely NOT fine with this. What worries me is that, with all of our (and my) own complaining about the issue, it got mentioned in parliament debate within a week or so? I am pretty impressed by this. What i am not impressed with is the lack of voracity that other ISP's, Teksavvy included, have shown. I would expect that these small business owners, who employee people from their perspective areas, would be setting up meetings with their prospective MP's and MPP's, detailing lawyers briefs, and movign the issue forward with the CRTC and comp. bureau (since in the end it is their business being affected). I feel that it mostly a lot of out spoken public members and not enough of the ISP's that are doing the talking. I hope it is just because they are finalizing their agreements with each other on how to best dela with the situation... They ARE doing exactly that, but their lawyer told them to clam up, so they're keeping quiet for now. Their lack of info on the issue doesn't represent lack of action. i definitely noticed that by listening to rocky's call with the one radio station. like he was afraid to present his position and had to beat around the bush. the presenter was the one that really said what rocky would not |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| Paul from Acanac actually came right out and said that their lawyer (who we know is being shared by the other ISPs since this is a joint action) told them to clam up. I'm not just speculating on this |
|
