Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Candoo3
Re: Bells NEW July 11th CRTC Submission
i found this quote odd from bell
the Company is required to invest in legacy technology to support the ATM network.
considering the atm "upgrades" would be free since the old atm nodes (which are "fibre loosely quoted") those atm links are no longer needed. Or does Bell plan to buy the ATM equipment from themselves? |
|
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24 | Wasn't there something mentioned in another article (non-CRTC), that Bell already got their knuckles rapped, for installing out-dated equipment, as an upgrade? |
|
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| alot of bells answers seemed to leave you scratching your head as it didn't seem to come from the right people in the "know".
hopefully the CRTC calls Bell on this BS. it's a spin of what they orginally stated... prob rev 200 knowing bell =p. I love their cell phone quotes, as i was telling JF i bet bell thinks bell mobility is ip based since they can compare mb for mb... =p.
That also should be a easy win for CAIP as it is easily proven not the case.
DS3 was mentioned, i raise the question in todays bandwidth demands.... why is bell still purchasing ds3 links which are now very out dated and insuffiencient. It is like purchasing 14.4k dial up while trying to load a flash web page. For those of you who don't know what flash it. Web pages made up of flash content is usally 5mb+ so on 14.4k it would take you many hours to view a single page.
In this example a DSL connection would be ideal like that offered by Bell Canada prior to the throttling. I say prior because at this point Bell has never stated their plans for throttling and where their policies actually start and end.
Throughout this document they have proven the dpi boxes where orginally installed to ONLY MONITOR BANDWIDTH USAGE. but with user acceptance they are now also used to THROTTLE USERS. If this trend was to continue it is most likely Bell Canada will introduce more restrictive and privacy invassive measures in the future, when it please, and as it please with total disregard to laws of Canada and taht of the world respectively.
Bell Canada should not be allowed to argue fowl with DPI installations compared to other ISPS since every country has a different measure of calculations of bandwidth and laws which protect users for monopolic actions taken from Bell Canada.
more to come soon |
|
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to oh LOOK
also to be noticed i also seen that bell loosely states their own privacy policy on sympatico... this is very unclear whena user is a continued offender... (is taht magic number 30gb a month+???)
they seem to hint 3rd party wholesalers are also under bells policies... (which is not actually the case).
This hints that they continue to think wholesalers still as resellers.
and of course more to come  |
|
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18
1 edit | edit |
|
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | P4P improves average completion time by 23%. Most of P4P clients (in Verizon network) complete downloading the data from the other clients in Verizon network. However, none of Native clients (in Verizon network) complete downloading the data only from others in Verizon.
from »www.openp4p.net/front/fieldtests
this does not solve the "very real bandwidth issues" Bell Canada claims as they are just replacing external routing traffic with internal routing traffic. One can also argue this will cause increase load on the so called taxed nodes as being claimed by Bell Canada.
more to come... |
|
oh LOOK
@videotron.ca | reply to oh LOOK
When does CAIP have to reply to this?
Also, CAIP should file now for an extention of one day like bell did. |
|
fourboxers
Premium,Mod
join:2003-05-04
Scarborough, ON
clubs:  | • CAIP may file with the Commission, serving a copy on Bell Canada , a reply by 17 July 2008.
Is the original date not taking into account Bells time extension. |
|
Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
| reply to oh LOOK
I tried P2P the other day and it slowed down everything on my connection. HTML pages were taking minutes to load up. Did the CRTC state anything about Bell's throttling affecting other protocols because their DPI boxes start dropping packages for everything sent from the "detected IP"? |
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| reply to oh LOOK
Bell's game plan in this
I'll have to hunt for it, but I think it was in Bell's last annual report where they stated that they wanted to move towards 'usage based pricing' for internet service.
First, they throttle their own customers - to establish a new 'base' service level.
Second, they throttle GAS customers - to establish a new base service level.
Third, they begin to 'offer' faster, more responsive internet service to Sympatico customers for a higher fee by using their Ellacoya boxes to selectively not interfere (or interfere less) to those who have paid extra money to Bell.
Fourth, they continue to throttle GAS (if the CRTC lets them), thereby making CAIP member internet speeds pathetic compared to the 'new' Sympatico service. Or they apply to the CRTC for MUCH higher charges on GAS to force CAIP customer costs to rise. Or both these things. |
|
jat
join:2008-04-28
Burlington, ON
2 edits | reply to oh LOOK
Re: Bells NEW July 11th CRTC Submission
Who said the CRTC accepted Bell's request for an extension? I haven't seen them make any statements about it, and you can't say they implicitly accepted it as the submission still hasn't appeared on the CRTC website.
Just because Bell sent p2pnet and, presumably, the CRTC a copy of the document doesn't mean the submission will be accepted. For all we know, the CRTC will ignore it completely as it was submitted after the deadline.
Considering how juicy this document is, it may not be a wise idea, but CAIP could always ask the CRTC to refuse the submission because it was not filed on time according to the rules the CRTC set out. |
|
Black Moon
join:2005-02-01
Scarborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to jfmezei
JF, you're superb. I take it you save your posts for your next reply to the CRTC?
I see that you are constantly repeating yourself and it appears to be necessary because Bell is trying to fool us and you constantly bring them back to the GAS/PPPoE aspect.
Well done! |
|
vintagewino
join:2003-07-22
Grimsby, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·magicjack.com
·Look Communications
| reply to jat
said by jat  :Who said the CRTC accepted Bell's request for a extension? ... Considering how juicy this document is, it may not be a wise idea, but CAIP could always ask the CRTC to refuse the submission because it was not filed on time according to the rules the CRTC set out.
Before getting bent out of shape, let's ascertain the delivery date and time of this document. BEFORE or AFTER the deadline? Was there an extension granted? If there was, why?
In the business I'm in, if a customer makes an RFP or RFQ to a group of vendors, a common deadline is automatically given. NO EXTENSIONS TO ANYBODY. If the requested document does not make it before the deadline, it is automatically disqualified and makes the short list directly into the garbage can without even being opened, and that particular vendor is automatically disqualified from any future negotiations; favouritism notwithstanding.
Since the CTRC stated a time deadline, they would be very wise to stick to the aforementioned deadline. Late = never sent. Otherwise, it sets a dangerous precedent in future procedures they will not be able to backtrack from.
Agreed, this is a very juicy document, the contents which should be followed up in Parliament, by the Privacy Commissioner, and criminal lawyers. |
|
ultracat
join:2008-01-30
Toronto, ON
·TELUS
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to jat
said by jat :Who said the CRTC accepted Bell's request for a extension? I haven't seen them make any statements about it, and you can't say they implicitly accepted it as the submission still hasn't appeared on the CRTC website. Just because Bell sent p2pnet and, presumably, the CRTC a copy of the document doesn't mean the submission will be accepted. For all we know, the CRTC will ignore it completely as it was submitted after the deadline. Considering how juicy this document is, it may not be a wise idea, but CAIP could always ask the CRTC to refuse the submission because it was not filed on time according to the rules the CRTC set out. Oh they should ABSOLUTELY do that. Bell's submission was a day late, isn't that correct. This is the legal world we're talking about people. CAIP's lawyers should be ALL OVER that. Bell failed to respect the CRTC's deadline. The submission should be rejected, plain and simple. It's like saying "objection" in a courtroom and having that testimony "thrown out". Legal games, but Bell's been playing them (can anyone say "unnecessary redaction"?) so CAIP should most definitely. Otherwise you have 1 party playing fair and the other playing unfair, and that's well, just plain unfair ; ) |
|
drjp81
join:2006-01-09
canada | reply to jfmezei
JF's gotta be a kickass analyst for some big firm. If not, should be.
Nice work bro.
--
Cheers! |
|
DanielMatan
@teksavvy.com
| reply to oh LOOK
I'd just like to post a snippet from my own submission, as I feel that it is quite significant:
---------------
Bell Quote: “The closest identifier to an individual subscriber that the DPI currently does maintain and store is a "subscriber id" which is actually Bell Canada's user ID assigned by network authentication in order to bind a user ID to an assigned IP address. “
Response: What does this mean for 3rd party DSL customers? My Teksavvy login ID (self-selected) is quite personally identifiable. Other ISPs may very well assign logins by firstname.lastname or firstinitial.lastname.
---------------
Perhaps the CAIP would like to address this in one of their own submissions, or are they only allowed to respond to Bell's latest interrogatory? |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| With regards to the deadline. It appearts the Bell drone spoke to the CRTC on the day before the original deadline. It is quite possible that the CRTC agreed.
It is also quite possible that the document was actually filed on the 10th on time, but they faked having it done on the 11th so that they would skip the friday news cycle.
Either way, I think thatthe dealy is inconsequential. If the CRTC were to refuse the document, Bell could *always* argue that the CRTC's decision against Bell wass unfair and did not take into account Bell's only arguments on the matter.
Remember that 1st submission was solely for the injunction. Second submission was solely to answer specific questions from the CRTC. This is Bell's only "free form" answer where they could deal with any/all subjects.
Arguing on whether Bell's submission should be accepted or not is a waste of time. |
|
davidbrown
join:2005-05-31
Toronto, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to oh LOOK
They already had it done they just wanted to avoid the press.
Up tell now nothing anyone has done was going to change the crtc bending over and taking it like always.
With the giant Google stepping into the ring though things may have changed since the one thing the crtc and bell don't want is press.
Google has the knowledge and massive press power to make the crtc look like total idiots.
It would be child's play for them to explain what bell is doing in a way everyone understands and to get it out to everyone. |
|
jat
join:2008-04-28
Burlington, ON
| reply to jfmezei
I agree that it would've been fair to give Bell a one day extension. I just think it's unfair that, presuming the request was accepted, it was a back door deal done with someone at the CRTC, and not done in public with CAIP's approval.
If the CRTC never approved of the extension, then Bell would have no right to argue the CRTC decision if they ignored the document. I mean, would CAIP be able to argue they weren't heard out if they filed their submission a month after the deadline? How many days late does a submission have to be before the CRTC can ignore it? I would've guessed zero.
In any case, regardless of the contents of the document, I don't really think CAIP should ask the CRTC to reject the submission. That would just be stooping to Bell's level. I was only pointing it out as an option.
Although you can't deny that it was pretty underhanded of Bell to do this behind everyone's back, no matter what the reason for the request was. |
|
tertech
join:2008-04-12
Ottawa, ON
| said by jat :Although you can't deny that it was pretty underhanded of Bell to do this behind everyone's back, no matter what the reason for the request was. And your point is what ? 
Bell doing something underhanded behind everyone's back? I'm shocked! |
|
