phosphor
join:2008-04-06
Ottawa, ON
| reply to GearHead360
Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?
I'm pretty sure that with Primus's arguments and references to essential service and due process that they are perhaps hoping to use Bell's arguments against them in order to carve themselves a new chunk of last mile access.
Bell says that if ISP's want un-throttled access they should invest in their own infrastructure.
Primus says Bell already owns all the infrastructure, however they would be happy to take some it off there hands at a discount price as it is an essential service, and they are only helping alleviate Bell's great burden of managing this large infrastructure all by themselves. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| the whole issue to me boils down to:
Bell is forced to share this infrastucture with the indy ISP's.
They are trying to take the teeth out of the CRCT decision by forcing ISP's to buy this infrasturcture that has been deemed by the CRTC as a shared asset.
jfmezei_ i work for the governement in public safety and i can tell you its not your fault. The people you are speaking to are not in a position to field the complaints you are making. The governement hires temps to man the phones or they put the lowest guy on the totem pole on it.
Best bet is to search GEDS (government directory) and find someone with an actuall title to communicate
link to geds:
with.»direct.srv.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/BE |
|
looking
@videotron.ca | Geist questions Bells "apparant" Bandwidth Problem?
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2844/125/
But this is stuff us users already pointed out i do believe. |
|
DSL_Ricer
Premium
join:2007-07-22
| reply to GearHead360
I'm surprised no one pulled out this gem from the document. From paragraph 49:
quote:
The "GAS service
components" that CAIP refers to actually relate to bandwidth and the components needed by independent ISPs between the Company's central office and the ISP's location. These service components have nothing to do with the GAS Tariff.
AFAIK, Teksavvy and co. pay two different fees to deliver us service: the GAS tariff and the AHSSPI fees.
Thereby, from the above "the components needed by independent ISPs between the Company's central office and the ISP's location", we can deduce that it's not payed for by the GAS tariff. Thereby it must be the AHSSPI that pays for it. From the figure under paragraph 19 we also see that it is this component, in between the CO and the ISP, where the throttling happens.
This therefor means that bell has not correctly provisioned their backbone or aggregation network. Yet, they are still selling more bandwidth on it. For instance, Teksavvy recently added it's fifth(?) AHSSPI Gig-E connection. If bell sold it to them, I believe it would be reasonable for them to expect provisioned bandwidth to be at least in the 4Gbps range.Yet, Tekssavy is only using in the 2.5GBps range and is still subject to throttling.
Now, bell may claim that there simply isn't enough bandwidth with those fees and that the DPI boxes resolve this issue. Except, from the numbers in paragraph 21, they're seeing a 10% reduction in overall bandwidth usage at peak times (Teksavvy's graphs also seem to indicate a 10-20% reduction). However, if you consider that, from Cisco's recent quotes, the internet is growing at a rate of 35-45% a year, that simply delays the need to upgrade by 3 to 5 months, and simultaneously decrease costs by 10%, since the cost of equipment drops at the same rate). If the fees previously calculated were insufficient, wouldn't it be better for Bell to ask for a readjustment? That said, they were set in 2005. They should have seen a decrease in cost since then.
Also, this service is payed per Gbps delivered. The addition of the DPI equipment increases the cost per megabit. Wouldn't it be simpler, and more financially sound to not throttle? to "force" ISP's to purchase more AHSSPIs to be able to cope this growth, thereby increasing revenues? |
|
ShadPTR
join:2008-01-23
Markham, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to waterguy
said by waterguy :
how about a more realistic analogy. In my town the city water supply is flat rate x dollars a month, the pipe suppling us is so big diameter. Not everyone can have full pressure at once but when I use it I get full pressure. Now a golf course sets up and uses gallons of water, placing stress on the supply but so far so good. Then some farmers hook up for irrigation more stress, then a water bottler shows up and starts bottling in a fancy green bottle and people can't get enough he is running 24/7 and all of a sudden my taps are flowing very slow. The main needs upgrade everyone yells, or at least the bottler, the farmer and the golf course owner. I think I should help pay for the upgrade NOT!!1
As much as I like how analogies get the point across with similar circumstances to make the person understand better, as someone said before, I think we should stay away from them for this particular subject, analogies are open to different types of interpretation (whether biased for or against). What we need here are cold hard facts to substantiate that what is being done is wrong.
In short, I hope Bell burns.  |
|
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
| said by ShadPTR  :said by waterguy :
how about a more realistic analogy. In my town the city water supply is flat rate x dollars a month, the pipe suppling us is so big diameter. Not everyone can have full pressure at once but when I use it I get full pressure. Now a golf course sets up and uses gallons of water, placing stress on the supply but so far so good. Then some farmers hook up for irrigation more stress, then a water bottler shows up and starts bottling in a fancy green bottle and people can't get enough he is running 24/7 and all of a sudden my taps are flowing very slow. The main needs upgrade everyone yells, or at least the bottler, the farmer and the golf course owner. I think I should help pay for the upgrade NOT!!1
As much as I like how analogies get the point across with similar circumstances to make the person understand better, as someone said before, I think we should stay away from them for this particular subject, analogies are open to different types of interpretation (whether biased for or against). What we need here are cold hard facts to substantiate that what is being done is wrong. Preach on, brother... |
|
SmithCanada
join:2003-06-22
Canada
| reply to DSL_Ricer
Buried in this is a related question - how is the number of AHSSPI interfaces decided?
Is it a standard number based on the number of DSL circuits a wholesaler has under contract? That is - every third party ISP with 10,000 DSL customers will have the same AHSSPI bandwidth?
Or - it is decided by the third party? So, one ISP might decide to allow for 100kbps per DSL circuit, thus needing 1 Gbps interface per 10000 customers, while another might decide to use 5Mbps per customer, thus needing 1 Gbps interface for 200 customers?
Then - does Sympatico have to purchase AHSSPI interfaces at tariffed rates just like a third party ISP? Or is that all internal to Bell/Sympatico, even though retail ISP and DSL wholesale are different markets?
Finally - if a company decided to co-locate its own DSLAMs for its customers, are they then obligated to offer phone service as well? If I only have one phone line, I'm only going to have one DSLAM on the other end. In this case, what CRTC rules, if any, come into play? Can the co-located supplier force Bell to lease/rent/acquire its services in order to offer local phone service over the non-Bell DSLAM?
All in all - I'm trying to place both the CAIP submission and Bell's response into a context that includes many more factors. |
|
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
1 edit | said by SmithCanada :it is decided by the third party? Yes
said by SmithCanada :Then - does Sympatico have to purchase AHSSPI interfaces at tariffed rates just like a third party ISP? No
said by SmithCanada :Finally - if a company decided to co-locate its own DSLAMs for its customers, are they then obligated to offer phone service as well? No
said by SmithCanada :Can the co-located supplier force Bell to lease/rent/acquire its services in order to offer local phone service over the non-Bell DSLAM? I believe the answer is No. An important point. I might be wrong, but I'm nearly 100% sure that non-Bell DSLAM -> unbundled loop. |
|
SmithCanada
join:2003-06-22
Canada
| I've been looking at the diagram Bell supplied in its answer -- the one that shows where the various parts of the network are connected to each other.
One thing puzzles me, in part because it directly contradicts something I'd heard earlier. Bell's diagram draws the "central office" box *only* around the DSLAMs. The "aggregation network" and the "broadband access server" are both outside that box.
Does this imply that there might sometimes be long-haul connections between the DSLAMs in a central office, and the broadband access server in a more distant but central location? Or is this telco-standard speak -- only the DSLAMs are really part of the "central office" which is itself a telephone company concept - and the access server is always in the same building, but its not part of the "central office". (I had heard that BRAS were always co-located with the DSLAMs.)
The answer has implications for the effects of throttling on various portions of the network. In particular, it appears that without throttling, the third party ISPs could "outspend" Bell on the aggregation network by buying more AHSSPI interface bandwidth, literally starving Sympatico.
Adding bandwidth from one part of a building to another isn't too hard, but if that CO-to-access server link is long-haul, then that is relatively expensive to add.
More than ever, this would suggest that this is a problem of Bell's making. Either they inadvertently oversold the capacity of their network to third party ISPs, or - conspiracy time! - deliberately underprovisioned their network to create a crisis.
As before -- just trying to understand how this is usually put together. |
|
Taylortbb
Premium
join:2007-02-18
Waterloo, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| I'm pretty sure each BAS serves multiple COs, at the very least if there is one in each CO it serves remotes that are run off that CO.
But adding more bandwidth there isn't that expensive. 95% of the cost of a fibre install is the labour, permits, etc. rather than the fibre itself. As a result whenever installing fibre companies install lots of extra, that way if your current pair fails you can just switch to another. Also because it's much cheaper to add capacity. The fibre is already there, they just need to add equipment on either end.
--
Taylor Byrnes
www.taylorbyrnes.org |
|
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB | reply to GearHead360
So, today is the 24th, Business day is over. Where is the CAIP reply to Bell phantasmagoria's reply to the original complaint?
..
|
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC | It will be up tomorrow. |
|
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | reply to mazhurg
The day before stuff goes up between 11am and 2 pm the next day.Goverment hours ya know. |
|
Radar73
join:2008-01-20
Ajax, ON
| reply to SmithCanada
said by SmithCanada :I've been looking at the diagram Bell supplied in its answer -- the one that shows where the various parts of the network are connected to each other. From that diagram it looks like the traffic shaping is happening after the bulk of the network is traversed. Seems kinda pointless to throttle at that location. |
|
puzz1ed
join:2005-02-20
Markham, ON | It's probably just as effective. As long as the data flow is disrupted at any point, both sender and receiver will slow the rate at which they attempt to send data. At the extreme, one or the other will eventually give up. |
|
