Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09
Port Coquitlam, BC
 ·ITalkBB
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to R0CKY
Re: Bell's upcoming plans for Wholesalers!
If this is going to affect all plans... I don't see how it'll work.
Most their wholesalers offer unlimited Internet, and on contract... a change this late into the game would be unfair both to the subscriber, and to the ISP offering these plans.
Bandwidth isn't unlimited, I'm sure most people understand that... And if bell were to charge an appropriate fee, and actually put that funding towards upgrades... I'm sure people wouldn't mind, but who wants to bet Gb's will be in to 1.xx range, and not the x.1 range?
Canada used to be leading in the broadband market... now we're falling far behind. |
|
wonders
join:2007-08-21
Canada
1 edit | reply to R0CKY
I think teksavvy should do this:
"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:"
Nice post Bellus_2. Thanks! |
|
jpabboud
join:2005-12-12
Montreal, QC
1 edit | reply to R0CKY
Re: Bell's upcoming plans for Wholesalers!
I think what Bellus_2 says makes a lot of sense. Technically Bell could offer VDSL2+ with 100+Mbits if they wanted at no additional cost to them if you see it from a RDSLAM viewpoint.
What matters is the backhaul from these RDSLAMs to the Bell cloud, these are costly and having lots of 16 Meg users will inevitably increase usage on these existing links. The faster the speeds you provide, the higher the average will be. Not long ago TSI discontinued unlimited logins for that reason, some clients were signing up for 16Meg DSL with Bell and using their unlimited logins to download. TSI saw an increase in the average bw usage per user right away. |
|
grayfox
join:2007-12-10
Whitby, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
4 edits | reply to R0CKY
This is truly outrageous. Teksavvy already pays bell over 2/3's of what they charge.
Rocky how should we go abouts doing something about this.
Should we write a letter to are mp's ?.
Also I use between 30GB and 130GB a month, Any idea yet how much will I be effected ?.
I plan to start buying movies on my ps3 when the service launches in Canada. These are quite big files and could easily double my monthly usage.
edit: Why does bell keep insisting that more speed is necessary when their infrastructure clearly cannot support it.
With teksavvy its great how it is now, if you want more speed just get another adsl line and bond the lines with ml-ppp.
I also was hoping to sign up with a video over ip service like netflix's .... but clearly this crushes that idea. |
|
soundslikeaplan
@teksavvy.com | reply to R0CKY
I already have Usage Based Billing for 5meg service with 200G month at $29.95. |
|
recneps
join:2006-06-24
Whitby, ON | except the "new" UBB would be 29.95 + whatever bell decides per gb.
If its $0.50, you're lookin at $129.95
Or if they get rid of the $20/user charge, Probably $109.95 |
|
anon149
@vaxination.ca
| reply to 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.
You are conveniently forgetting the AHSSPI component of GAS.
ISPs ALREADY PAY FOR THAT BANDWIDTH.
The more the customers use, the more AHSSPI capacity they need to purchase, just as ISPs have to purachse more transit capacity.
Core networks don't "bill by the byte", they bill by capacity. (generally 95 percentile rules). There is no reason Bell should start charging "by the byte" in its wholesale arrengements since this is not the normal for wholesale.
If the clueless Bell uppper management were really convinced by some powerpoint presentation that the independants were really just reselling a white label Sympatico service, their wish to go usage billing for everyone can be explained.
But for the 227th time, the ISPS do not resell a Bell service, They buy bandwdith from bell.
If Banks increase their use of Bell's service, will Bell throttle them and start to look into bank transaction to discard 20% of the ones Bell doesn't like ? NO. Bell will be more than happy to sell them more bandwidth.
Why isn't Bell happy to sell more bandwdith to ISPs then ?
Look at the graphs provided by Bell in its 86 page work of fiction. Bell has tremendously increased "backbone" capacity. Where there has been VERY LITLE investment is links between BAS and DSLAMS. Yet, bell has continued to increase DSLAM speeds without investing to match the DSLAM capacity.
Instead of pocketing dividends to hand over to Teachers, Bell should be upgrading its aggregation network ASAP because it has conveniently forgotten to do that in the last few years. |
|
soundslikeaplan
@teksavvy.com
| reply to recneps
"except the "new" UBB would be 29.95 + whatever bell decides per gb."
If that happens the internet would die in Canada. Maybe it should; that way the government can actually say it did something. Guess Rocky better take the gloves off this time and stop worrying about everyone not being nice to Bell or it's employees because if Bell gets away with this I guess Rocky will be out of a company. |
|
Bellus_2
@cia.com
| reply to R0CKY
A further thought: I believe that if Bell wants to charge for usage based billing on data services, it must be regulated to ensure it is invested back into the infrastructure. Now, not regulate internet services or anything, just as a condition make the rate reasonable and that most of it must be invested back into the broadband access network.
Secondly, if they're going to offer IPTV, there should be some provision that allows a 3rd party provider to get a portion of the surplus bandwidth up to xMbps for internet for a portion of the loop/GAS fee (Example, loop split 3 ways between voice, video and inet provider using look, GAS fee discounted by 30-40% because its over an existing Bell line & VDSL2 port being used for voice & IPTV). This is because realistically, no other provider can do IPTV with the same efficiency, once again, due to the end VDSL2 DSLAM being IGMP proxies. Unless they provide bandwidth up to the DSLAM. |
|
Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Bellus_2
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.
And ISP's pay for that. They pay $23.00 per user, per month. Each DSL link can run at a max of 7 Mb. Since DSL service launched, for every customer of an indy. Not usage based...so if they downloaded 1 Mb, 1 Gb or nothing...we paid.
We also pay for backhaul from the aggregation network to our servers - in TSI's case, multiple Gig-E connections, to 151 Front.
AND they pay for the bandwidth out to the net from 151 Front. |
|
jpabboud
join:2005-12-12
Montreal, QC
| reply to anon149
said by anon149 :
You are conveniently forgetting the AHSSPI component of GAS.
ISPs ALREADY PAY FOR THAT BANDWIDTH. They do pay for an aggregation link between the bell cloud and theirs but that doesn't mean it covers Bell's cost from A to Z. For example TSI will rely on Bell's internal net for traffic coming from Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa just to name a few of the cities they serve. 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.
Transport costs do not drop as quickly so they're facing a problem where the demand is growing more rapidly than their infrastructure. So you have two options on the table, one is oversubscribing your network at a higher level and hope for the best. The second is trying to keep up with the demand (bigger links == $$$$$) and charging the end user if he passes a predetermined level included in the $20/port charge.
If that's the case I hope Bell will give the wholesalers the option of capping the speed at say 3 or 5 Mbits and still provide an unlimited service. Or even have a minimum port charge (for example $14) and bill the ISP per GB transferred by the client. That way they wouldn't need to have a basic profile and ISPs would have more flexibility on their plans.
It also removes the ties between speed and price, a person could have a 16Meg connection but only pay $29.95 for the basic connection + 50 GB. As long as the price per GB is reasonable (close to cost price) I don't see why wholesalers and Bell wouldn't be happy. |
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
 from:
tux 
| reply to R0CKY
Rocky,
Looks like Bell is attempting to litigate you and fellow CAIP members out of business.
Bell can outspend you on lawyers 100-fold to make submissions to the CRTC, changing one thing at a time so you have to respond over-and-over, paying your lawyers each time.
CAIP would gave been better off spending their money buying Toronto Hydro Telecom and stealing all the easy business from Bell/Rogers, and let Bell run wire to Moose Factory. |
|
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB | reply to jpabboud
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. |
|
nitzguy
Premium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to R0CKY
FTTH is a dream for myself...I can see that ISPs will congregate where they can benefit from economies of scale....(read Metronet back in the late 90s before Sprint gobbled them up, then Rogers gobbled them up)..
Which would leave me back with my crazy WiMax 1.5meg link from Rogers as a backup if neccessary to go back to them.
I'd rather not go back to them because DSL is an upgrade, but there's no cable since I'm about a 1/2 mile off the road, and...in reality...I don't know if I have any other options, which sucks...I don't want to go to Bell for my internet service, but if given no other option, I'd keep the DSL and go with them vs. going back to that wimax link...
I really hope there's a better option...I really do... |
|
Trisomy21
join:2006-04-27
Kingston, ON
| reply to jpabboud
If any of this happens or continues then the CRTC is clearly corrupt and needs to be replaced by some other regulatory comity that favors the customer over the large, monopolistic corporation.
Bell, you're shooting yourselves in the foot, yet again.
/facepalm |
|
jpabboud
join:2005-12-12
Montreal, QC
| reply to mazhurg
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. 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. |
|
soundslikeaplan
@teksavvy.com
| reply to Trisomy21
Bell ISN'T shooting themselves in the foot and they know it. They are going to get your money and then decide it is not enough and get more knowing the government has them covered. Bell is greedy not stupid. But look at it this way at least now you learned the government isn't benign and is actually slowly killing you. |
|
soundslikeaplan
@teksavvy.com | reply to jpabboud
jpbboud: Bell can't live off your hopes. It is going to happen that way. |
|
Trisomy21
join:2006-04-27
Kingston, ON | reply to soundslikeaplan
If they can get away with this then I renounce my Canadian citizenship. |
|
