 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16
1 edit | Primus makes their CRTC filing »www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/20···1007.pdf
To sum it up, they basically say that they agree with the CAIP on every single point, that the CRTC should grant CAIP's request for an immediate injunction, and "oh, BTW, here are a bunch more reasons why you should do so that the CAIP forgot".
In other words, this is a very positive thing, that a large company like Primus has come out completely in favour of the CAIP's filing. This can only help the CRTC come to a favourable decision.
Everybody has, to date, ignored JF's filing 
EDIT: If my postings are low in volume over the next few days, it's because my DSL line is down and I'm relying on the "free" WiFi in my apartment building (provided by the building, one WAP per floor). I'm currently downloading an anime episode at about 2KB/s. Dialup would be faster (would avoid the 50%+ packetloss), except I have a dry loop :P |
|
 damirSFRJPremium
join:2003-05-24 | good  |
|
2 edits | reply to Guspaz
This is time for celebration.
P.S. If you have a more modern cellphone, and USB cable or bluetooth, you can use it as a 56k modem. |
|
 Steve JobsAmerican living in CanadaPremium
join:2002-06-23
Scarborough, ON | reply to Guspaz
Awesome. |
|
|
|
 AngeloThe Network GuyPremium
join:2002-06-18 | i never ignored jf's.... bell sure didn't they dedicated a whole page to him! |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to Guspaz
>Everybody has, to date, ignored JF's filing
Primus mentions it in their filing. (as in "we've read it").
The response from Bell covers only the CAIP letter. Bell must respond in a separate letter to my letter. The deadline for Bell's response to mine should be this friday unless the CRTC has changed it. (normally 10 business days).
Expect Bell to act as a politician and respond to mine with a 4 page letter that says absolutely nothing except they have the right to manage their network bla bla bla (aka: not cover any points I have made).
I am not sure if Bell will respond to the Primus letter since it doesn't really add anything to the CAIP letter. |
|
Reviews:
·Primustel Canada
| said by jfmezei:>Everybody has, to date, ignored JF's filing Primus mentions it in their filing. (as in "we've read it"). The response from Bell covers only the CAIP letter. Bell must respond in a separate letter to my letter. The deadline for Bell's response to mine should be this friday unless the CRTC has changed it. (normally 10 business days). Expect Bell to act as a politician and respond to mine with a 4 page letter that says absolutely nothing except they have the right to manage their network bla bla bla (aka: not cover any points I have made). I am not sure if Bell will respond to the Primus letter since it doesn't really add anything to the CAIP letter. I was under the impression that anything filed through the CRTC had to be responded to. I'm just glad that people like yourself have stepped forward and are fighting for many others, and I'm glad my ISP is no longer silent about this. |
|
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:>I am not sure if Bell will respond to the Primus letter since it doesn't really add anything to the CAIP letter. It adds quite important stuff. Firstly, they request the CRTC at least for the interim order throttling of GAS turned off. If you don't ask for it, CRTC could (and would) simply let Bell Canada continue wholesale throttling while this all plays out. Primus is correct to ask that while this plays out, to revert to no-throttling.
Secondly, point #12 is very appropriate -market forces alone cannot address the competitive impact Bell is unilaterally imposing on wholesalers.
As an example: prior to GAS throttling, TSI was able to differentiate itself from other ISPs by investing heavily in their Internet Transport infrastructure. This is a strategic choice TSI made to draw customers from other ISPs, including other wholesalers, Bell and Rogers.
Once GAS throttling was enabled, Bell automatically rendered the bulk of TSI's strategic investment and planning by marginalizing the positive effect TSI investment would have on TSI service. By throttling, Bell Canada has effectively cost TSI a huge amount of capital and recurring expense to which TSI is obligated per contracts to continue to finance. That's a lot of benefit for Bell Canada - make your competitor spend a ton of money and render that investment moot - thereby weakening your competitor through monopolistic tactics. Quite frankly, Bell Canada should be held culpable for their intentional lack of any forewarning to such a monstrous impact to GAS tarif service, and should be made to pay the costs TSI has incurred, and will incur to get out of their relevant long-term infrastructure commitments. To say "Sorry we regret not informing you" is not enough. Financially, legally, they have materially impacted GAS tarif service.
Many other ISPs are likely in the same situation. Blind-sided, and now weakened financially by Bell's throttling ambush. I hope they speak up, and go after Bell for financial reimbursement. |
|
AngeloThe Network GuyPremium
join:2002-06-18 | say a fiber backbone just for 3rd parties ? |
|
 GKC
join:2008-03-07
Toronto, ON | reply to heavyduty
said by heavyduty: I hope they speak up, and go after Bell for financial reimbursement. Absolutely. |
|
| reply to heavyduty
said by heavyduty:said by jfmezei:>I am not sure if Bell will respond to the Primus letter since it doesn't really add anything to the CAIP letter. It adds quite important stuff. Firstly, they request the CRTC at least for the interim order throttling of GAS turned off. If you don't ask for it, CRTC could (and would) simply let Bell Canada continue wholesale throttling while this all plays out. Primus is correct to ask that while this plays out, to revert to no-throttling. Secondly, point #12 is very appropriate -market forces alone cannot address the competitive impact Bell is unilaterally imposing on wholesalers. As an example: prior to GAS throttling, TSI was able to differentiate itself from other ISPs by investing heavily in their Internet Transport infrastructure. This is a strategic choice TSI made to draw customers from other ISPs, including other wholesalers, Bell and Rogers. Once GAS throttling was enabled, Bell automatically rendered the bulk of TSI's strategic investment and planning by marginalizing the positive effect TSI investment would have on TSI service. By throttling, Bell Canada has effectively cost TSI a huge amount of capital and recurring expense to which TSI is obligated per contracts to continue to finance. That's a lot of benefit for Bell Canada - make your competitor spend a ton of money and render that investment moot - thereby weakening your competitor through monopolistic tactics. Quite frankly, Bell Canada should be held culpable for their intentional lack of any forewarning to such a monstrous impact to GAS tarif service, and should be made to pay the costs TSI has incurred, and will incur to get out of their relevant long-term infrastructure commitments. To say "Sorry we regret not informing you" is not enough. Financially, legally, they have materially impacted GAS tarif service. Many other ISPs are likely in the same situation. Blind-sided, and now weakened financially by Bell's throttling ambush. I hope they speak up, and go after Bell for financial reimbursement. Thats exactly what I said in the beginning.  |
|
 The FlashYou don't win friends with saladPremium
join:2002-10-17
Toronto, ON
kudos:1 | reply to Guspaz
My respect for Primus just went up and my respect for Bell...I don't think it can get any lower. |
|
GKC
join:2008-03-07
Toronto, ON | said by The Flash:My respect for Primus just went up and my respect for Bell...I don't think it can get any lower. |
|
3 edits | Mad respect for Primus!
The funny thing is that Bell is sending me offers to switch to Sympatico in the mail LOL (first 3 months free lol) HELL NO!!! |
|
| reply to Guspaz
Someone should make re-post the process that we were going through to voice our support on the CAIP filing, except change it so we can voice our support on the Primus filing now. The more support we give to each of these filings, the more likely CRTC is to side with us... |
|
| reply to jfmezei
Your filing was listed "under" CAIP, do they just have to reply "generally" or specifically to each letter. |
|
| Wow, this is great news. See Bell, this problem isn't going away. You implemented DPI without even informing us, hoping that nobody would notice lol. Fools. |
|
| reply to Guspaz
Here's hoping. |
|
GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | reply to Guspaz
The CAIP did ask for an injunction, Primus just reinforced the importance of it; Primus didn't propose the injunction to begin with. |
|
| reply to Guspaz
Bravo Primus. |
|
