HiVolt
29
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
clubs:
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to bryanviper
Re: Bell's upcoming plans for Wholesalers!
Hmm, after digesting this a little bit, let me know if i've got this straight...
They want to introduce Usage Based Billing...
For whom? the wholesale ISP? They pay whatever $20/month for a DSL line to Bell, and Bell wants to charge the ISP usage fees for the user's bandwidth? The ISP would then have to (obviously) pass that cost to the customer.
How would this be profitable to the ISP, unless they added another usage charge themselves
--
,,!,,('-'),,!,, |
|
Quake110
join:2003-12-20
Ottawa, ON
·Velcom
1 edit | reply to R0CKY
This is clearly a conflict of interest. No way is Bell going to let the 3rd party ISPs steal the show from Bell Sympatico, hence, they introduce throttling and usage based billing...
I don't think it's going to stop unless the CRTC or the government does something. And we know for whom Prentice is working for... |
|
Rastan
join:2007-04-25
Canada
 ·VBUZZER
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | reply to R0CKY
Bell might agree to let the wholesalers keep the overage fees. Bell realizes that Teksavvy, Acanac & other wholesalers & resellers are offering more than they are and they're also charging less than Bell.
Bell can't afford to keep losing customers so they have decided to screw the wholesalers in order to make their service less appealing to customers who are considering leaving Bell.
One thing that sticks out is that Bell is selling this as a way for wholesalers to make more money. If Teksavvy, Acanac or any other company gets lured in by this offer they will be just as bad as Bell. In addition to that, Bell will use this against them and paint these companies as greedy. This will give some people even less motivation to leave Bell for a wholesaler.
Don't fall for Bell's tricks. They're only out for their own interests, they don't care about you. |
|
oh ummm
@videotron.ca
| reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt  :Bell wants to charge the ISP usage fees for the user's bandwidth? Bell wants to charge the ISP usage fees for the user's INTERNAL bandwidth before it reaches the net |
|
Topher92
join:2008-06-07
Mississauga, ON
| reply to Fire642
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. What about partnering up with a wireless provider? (no, not one of the current three, but one of the winners in the recent $4.5billion auction.) Team up with them to build a backbone, and go with wireless DSL from the towers, if you want to run fibre or whatever at a later point, you can provision for that. This way, the costs are shared, and the consumers aren't stuck with Bell for wireless or internet. Just my 2 cents. |
|
MisawaGQ
Divi Filius
Premium
join:2002-12-19
Mississauga
| reply to R0CKY
Another bizarre move. Surely Bell isn't so insane and out of touch to think the CRTC is going to approve of this? All this ends up doing is further destroying Bell's reputation. But maybe they figure it can't get any lower than rock-bottom, so they're just trying to desperately destroy their competition before things really get bad for them.
--
"Let them hate, so long as they fear" -- Lucius Accius |
|
Sears
join:2008-02-17 | reply to R0CKY
Am I to understand, that in addition to the $20 a month that goes to Bell, now they want users to pay for bandwidth that travels on their internal network?
That's insanity. What in the world is that $20 fee for then? |
|
Stewy
Premium
join:2007-12-12
Kitchener, ON
| reply to R0CKY
said by R0CKY :I think we're the in the middle of defining how Monopolies are to function in the future. By 2010 we will see a new era of innovation! Fibre/service/transparency/etc.... These are all going to be very big. Those who are willing to step up and do things right are going to be rewarded as hiding behind contracts, tariffs, etc won't be enough... »What's the future of 3rd party ISP's?
This is what Bell fears most, bell wants to crush the CAIP plain and simple before they step up. Throttling, UBB (usage base billing) and there will be other scams that we have yet seen that will come to light in the next year or two. All are geared to control and crush the competition.
This has strengthen my resolve even more to remain a client of a CAIP reseller. Like I said in that post on July 2nd when there are $Millions at stake do not underestimate the power and greed of the Telco's.
The battle lines are being drawn, this is a battle of greed and control over honesty, fairness and principals. I know which side I'm on.
--
I'd rather have 5Mbps on my feet than 10Mbps on my knees |
|
mr_hexen
join:2007-08-02
Brampton, ON
| reply to morisato
said by morisato :Luckily Since you don;t use bell as a transit provider i hope it can be made Clear Your actual usage is going thru Peer1 or Cognet.. and Not thru Bell. etc.. so usage based billing shouldn;t exist for a thirdparty company merely using last mile to connect to customers. BINGO!
Bell does not provide TRANSIT to the internet. There is no per GB bill that they are paying for. TSI might be paying Peer1 for xxx GB of transit per month, but Bell doesnt provide this. They plop the line in the ground and plug it in, voila. why the constant need for bandwidth charging!? |
|
recneps
join:2006-06-24
Whitby, ON
1 edit | Yes, but bell will be charging for throughput on the DSLAM - doesn't matter that it hasn't hit the internet yet.
Or did I interpret it wrong?
Throughput might be the wrong word.. I mean to say any and all data that passes through it will be metered. |
|
KPaul
join:2007-02-08 | reply to R0CKY
all aboard the fuck off bell boat.........
I wanna sueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee em' |
|
Rand2k1
join:2003-12-09
Canada
| reply to mr_hexen
said by mr_hexen :Bell does not provide TRANSIT to the internet. There is no per GB bill that they are paying for. TSI might be paying Peer1 for xxx GB of transit per month, but Bell doesnt provide this. They plop the line in the ground and plug it in, voila. why the constant need for bandwidth charging!? Because they (think) they can.
Its not hard to convince people you should be charging for something when you can wave big (potential) sacks of cash at them. |
|
dont forget
@videotron.ca | Lets not forget the 16-meg service is CRIPPLED on top of it. |
|
jibby
join:2008-03-31 | reply to R0CKY
I'd rather have my original Bell 1.5M line with no throttling that i had EIGHT YEARS ago than pay for 16M throttled and capped.
It's sad when we can look back 8 years and think 'wow, my internet connection was wayyyy better back then...' |
|
Omr
join:2004-01-10
M1S-1B3
| reply to R0CKY
How about the option to remain on 5Mbps, or is this effectively saying "join the new rates or hit he road!"? Before we jump the gun, maybe this just makes it $5-10 more expensive on average ... best to react with more concrete numbers. Bell is stupid, but they are in a transition phase, the new guys will be running things I believe starting 1st quarter next year so maybe they have different ideas on where to take Bell.
Honestly there is a great opportunity for Bell to get out of the costly ISP business and be solely a Carrier/ Business/ and the Extreme Technological edge service. This way generic ISP headaches go to 3rd parties and all Bell needs to do is provide for the Hardcore low latency/ low cap (75GB-100GB)/ un-throttled/ and High Speed (newest Speed tiers like they could rock a 24mbit profile a year before general availability). For Business they can offer Fiber setup, T1 connections, and etc. The carrier service they can offer both IPTV and the Transit to 3rd parties. This way they can trim the fat that comes with Sympatico (technicians, management, and the sales-man). They can greatly reduce the technical services department ... heck even resell the service to 3rd parties. I think Sympatico can be better geared at just a niche market rather then just the general public ... and you got 3rd parties doing all the leg work of expanding your network ... a guaranteed $20/ user is a better offering then one you had to advertise, offer technical services to, and provide IP transit for.
My 2cents |
|
Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
| reply to jibby
said by jibby :I'd rather have my original Bell 1.5M line with no throttling that i had EIGHT YEARS ago than pay for 16M throttled and capped. It's sad when we can look back 8 years and think 'wow, my internet connection was wayyyy better back then...' Yeah, the internet status in Canada is saddening. Just like the cell phone industry, the internet business is heading down the drain in a "pay more/receive less" kind of way. |
|
TilhasBB
Formally Goden99
Premium
join:2000-08-05
canada
2 edits | reply to R0CKY
Wholesalers should agree to this Usage Based Billing if there is no base rate.
So just 0.1$/G for 16Megabits up to 200G and 0.05$/G over 200G. Not 20$ a link which is UPTO 5 Meg.
That would fly. But 20$ + X/G is ludicrous |
|
DJMASACRE
join:2008-05-27
Nepean, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to R0CKY
YOu know, now that i see this happening.
It suddenly makes sense.
I knew from day one Cell Phones was going to be a crazy advertising/merchandising monopoly .. and bravo.. they got all the consumers to buy in to all the crap... ( obviously we can see it 1/5 people playing with a mobile device all day ) .
So its only the thing to think that now they can do it with the internet ... ( since according to Bell, the average person is clueless or will buy into anything "cool" that is advertised )
Its too bad we are like that... most have no power to see the evil with all of this, or they do but continue to go with it, because we still feel like its part of the norm..
.... sad sad sad... this is happening around the time those " COOL iPHONES " came out with the " ridiculous plans " ..
maybe this will be good timing to teach many of you a lesson about what these corporations are trying to drive down your throats..
... |
|
Bellus_2
@cia.com
 from:
TSI Martin
| reply to Acanac Inc
As an FYI to here who don't understand the cost structure behind why they (ILEC's like Bell) want usage based billing for wholesale here it is:
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. The AGAS costs reflect a cost not necessarily proportional to the backhaul costs in Bell's network. So yes, the amount of traffic does impact the cost of delivery for the CLEC. It's like all types of rentals/leases: you pay a base cost for the product, plus an extra cost for use like with a rental car because there is an incremental cost to the provider for that extra use.
Look at the UK (lots of good competition) or Australia (lots of people upset). In their system, companies that need access to a DSLAM & copper loop have a choice... pay use based billing/deal with ILEC traffic management and oversubscription ratios and get backhaul to a central POP (IPstream, which has a BW usage charge above a certain monthly throughput but is otherwise like GAS). OR lease a dedicated link from each serving CO to their POP to allow them to aggregate traffic closer to the edge and take oversubscription into their own hands (1:1 ratio, 1:50, whatever you want). More details on how the 21 Cent. Network at BT will be billed: »www.samknows.com/broadband/21cn_···band.php
I can see the CRTC having mixed feelings about this issue. On one hand, yes, it seems a bit draconian and uncompetitive. But on the other hand, if they offered a GAS-like 16Mbps product and ppl. streamed IPTV over it, the costs would be enormous to the CLEC carrier because transport/usage under the current model is free up until the AGAS PoP. The costs in terms of backhaul/aggregation/edge for their own IPTV service are much lower due to multicast... a 1Gbps uplink from CO to the Video Hub carries at least 300 SD channels with unlimited viewers, but in unicast that same pipe carries 300 streams with 1 viewer. If Bell had to transfer all this video data to GAS clients, it would take an inordinate amount of capacity to deliver, and require even more shaping than today to provide QoS.
And that is why perhaps the CRTC will say that as long as the treatment isn't any different than their own retail clients, tough beans. Or maybe allow Bell to offer differentiated types of GAS with varying QoS. After all, isn't the goal of regulated competition and LLunbundling to promote investment by CLEC's in their own facilities? If these upgrades are as inexpensive as some people believe, why aren't other providers getting their own networks?
Also Bell has over 4000 FTTN nodes in place, using a variety of technologies (Alcatel 7300, Lucent Stinger FS+ & CR with ADSL/ADSL2+/VDSL2, ADSL1/2/+ Anymedia Access System + misc. others), some of which are or will be ADSL2+ or VDSL2 upgraded. That said, the uplink doesn't exist in different layers to offer these svcs. mass-market until some upgrades are completed, nor will many loops be eligible outside urban/suburban densities. Nor will Bell want to keep wholesale clients on CO units just to be evil... in an FTTN deployment, CO-based clients in an FTTN area cause major interference issues and clients will be migrated to remotes as part of network grooming (but slowly, because LTR's are very labour and facility intensive) especially because to reduce xtalk, power output of FTTN/remotes will be capped at +8.5, +12.5 or +14 dbm.
I'm anxious to hear what people think of the GAS like services abroad. |
|
Bellus_2
@cia.com
| reply to TilhasBB
Tilhas:There still needs to be a base rate for each port provided because there really are 2 elements to the GAS... the actual loop + dslam physical equipment (dedicated to the client) and the aggregation transport to the 3rd-party ISP's site.
And more generally:
Here is where I am very much like those who dislike ILEC's: I think we should view cost for data services like xDSL as similar to hydro or gas except not essential. There is both a base connection fee, plus a usage fee composed of the cost of generating power and the transit costs. You can sign up to any supplier you want, but they all share a common infrastructure. |
|
