said by Jman99 :

That's having the cake and eating it too.

said by anon149 :

You are conveniently forgetting the AHSSPI component of GAS.
ISPs ALREADY PAY FOR THAT BANDWIDTH.

said by mazhurg :

Wow bud... Independent ISPs pay that 20 buck a month for the DSLAM port... they also pay big bucks for the transport from that DSLAM to their servers.

Now Bell appears to be wanting to double dip.

said by jpabboud :

That's where you're wrong. That cost was based on a lower speed and lower traffic average. Speeds have increased but the port charge is still the same so how can you say that the $20 covers the DSLAM+full transport price to the ISP?

Bell is now limiting its own customers, the all you can eat buffet business model will not work as far as broadband is concerned. But that doesn't give Bell the right to throttle wholesalers so if they do implement a per GB billing I hope that 1) Their pricing is very reasonable, close to cost price and not an other cash cow 2) They stop the traffic shaping on wholesale clients since they're now paying for what they're using.

said by mazhurg

Missed part of your reply... No, the 20$ is solely for the DSLAM access. The cost to then transport that packet to the ISP is another thing altogether, and the independent ISPs are paying big bucks for that. Let me rephrase that: The independent ISP are already paying the cost of transporting all the data (whether there is data or not) from the user to the server.

said by jpabboud :

I was under the impression that the transport was included in the $20 and the rest was for the physical link between the wholesalers network and the Bell cloud.

said by jat :

If you pay Peer1 a fixed monthly fee for a Gig-E connection, you don't pay extra for how much bandwidth goes through it. The cost of traversing Peer1's network (and thus the cost of building/maintaining the network) is included in the monthly fee. Why would you expect a connection with Bell to be any different? It's not like it costs them $1750/mo to string some cat6 through 151 Front.

As others have suggested, if it's costing Bell more to maintain their infrastructure, then petition the CRTC to allow them to raise the AHSSPI price. Even if the per user price was supposed to include part of the infrastructure costs, why couldn't they petition the CRTC to raise that instead of going with usage-based billing?

said by jpabboud :

2) They stop the traffic shaping on wholesale clients since they're now paying for what they're using.

said by jpabboud :

That's where you're wrong. That cost was based on a lower speed and lower traffic average. Speeds have increased but the port charge is still the same so how can you say that the $20 covers the DSLAM+full transport price to the ISP?

Bell is now limiting its own customers, the all you can eat buffet business model will not work as far as broadband is concerned. But that doesn't give Bell the right to throttle wholesalers so if they do implement a per GB billing I hope that 1) Their pricing is very reasonable, close to cost price and not an other cash cow 2) They stop the traffic shaping on wholesale clients since they're now paying for what they're using.

said by R0CKY :

]I think this is false on both fronts. As the capacity increased, so did our backbone and infrastructure aggregation costs.... When we went to AGAS Gig-E connections to aggregate (AHSSPI) DSL connections a new rate was established, so we're covered on that front. If the non-internet "pipes" are half or 95% full it still costs the same and being as we're paying for aggregation point rates, plus a rate on a per customer basis, which was priced at $20ish/user/month for a 5Meg connection.... What's in it is both irrelevant from a common carrier perspective and none of their business!

said by soundslikeaplan :

If you renounce your citizenship then the few "rights" you have won't apply to you anymore.

said by jpabboud :

My understanding is that TSI is paying for the hand-off and the Bell pricing of $20 is designed to cover the port fee + some transport. A few years ago Bell had no problem carrying 1-3Mbits/s of traffic to the ISP, only today we're talking about 16Meg per user more than 5x that amount.

said by Bellus_2 :

Even though Bell doesn't provide your transit to the net, they still carry that traffic accross their internal network to Toronto or Montreal where the wholesale client ISP then routes it over its own internet/peering links. As usage goes up, so does the need for internal Bell transport capacity to backhaul the traffic to the AGAS PoP.

said by TOPDAWG :

So that mean you'd be forced to do caps on everyone? So no more unlimited?

said by Acanac Inc :

From my understanding the 5Mbps service will be affected. This was made clear to us.

said by Fire642 :

quote:

---

The small ISPs can't be at the mercy of Bell anymore. They should form a consortium and build their own network.

---

This would be impossible as it would require BILLIONS. Small ISPs don't have that kind of currency. I am guessing some revolutionary new tech will have to be implemented which bypasses Bell 100%, but knowing Bell as the snakes they are would try to destroy that as well.

Sigh, very depressing.