said by theninjasqua :

Is Bell required to get CRTC approval before it can make the switch to usage based billing?

said by Woofer :

Bell will never charge "reasonable rates". I briefly worked for one of their call centers a years ago (eew) and the trainer out right said bell does try to be the cheapest.

said by Ikarasu :

Almost makes me laugh... haven't been around bell much, have you? :P

said by DKS :

And those privately owned companies are responsible, not to you or to me, but solely to their shareholders and to the regulatory authorities.

said by theninjasqua :

The CBC is now reporting on this...

»www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008···?ref=rss

said by R0CKY :

and you, the people. As obscure the last portion is, it's also very powerful if harnessed. Many larger companies are starting to see what the bigs are lining up to do and aren't taking it, so that combined with the customers, something good should come of this.
Rocky

said by R0CKY :

The problem with the lawsuit idea is funds.... You're talking about a company that can literally run us dry.

We're doing it through the CRTC with CAIP (and a little on our own as will be seen shortly), the various organizations, Lobbying (We are officially doing this now), and you, the people. As obscure the last portion is, it's also very powerful if harnessed. Many larger companies are starting to see what the bigs are lining up to do and aren't taking it, so that combined with the customers, something good should come of this.

said by DKS :

The internet is not property owned in common. It is privately owned property linked together by other privately owned companies. When things are privately owned, the owners have the right to set the rules. Like it or not, that is reality. And those privately owned companies are responsible, not to you or to me, but solely to their shareholders and to the regulatory authorities.

said by DKS :

The internet is not property owned in common. It is privately owned property linked together by other privately owned companies. When things are privately owned, the owners have the right to set the rules. Like it or not, that is reality. And those privately owned companies are responsible, not to you or to me, but solely to their shareholders and to the regulatory authorities.

said by SALAMANCA :

As I see it, Bell wants to be the Gate Keeper of the Internet, as does Rogers. Bell will limit your ability of what you can and cannot do on the Internet, at the same time drain your bank account in the process.

said by j3richo :

I hope the ISPs do more than just rely on the CRTC to make the right decision on this, multiple lawsuits maybe required. IMO this issue is even more important than the throttling.

said by j3richo :

I hope the ISPs do more than just rely on the CRTC to make the right decision on this, multiple lawsuits maybe required. IMO this issue is even more important than the throttling.

said by laff at bell :

They want all the wholesaler to be no better than them. hence less competitition, less loss.

Teksavvy/CAIP going to fight this or what?

said by Frozty2k :

So they want to Throttle AND have a cap? Should one or the other not take care of their "problems" ?

For the wholesalers, with throttling and caping, are they not providing less service ? Should they be able to charge the same amount per client when they have butchered the service a wholesaler can offer?

said by mr_hexen :

wow, 512kbps 2GB, 5mbps 60GB.

they are forgetting wholesalers are not resellers of symcrapico.

Ridiculous.

said by j3richo :

this is unbelievable, there can be absolutely no doubt that they are trying to destroy wholesalers,

said by mr_hexen :

wow, 512kbps 2GB, 5mbps 60GB.

they are forgetting wholesalers are not resellers of symcrapico.

Ridiculous.

said by xdrag :

»www.speedtest.net/global.php?continent=4

Japan is the global leader in download and upload. With or without caps or throttling, they're have almost double the speed of any country.

»www.speedtest.net/global.php?con···untry=91

Most users in hong kong still only have DSL as you can see from the charts. However, city telecom is able to offer fibre-based services at an affordable price. That's the shocking difference.

said by ultracat :

From a network standpoint they are. You make it sound like the higher the density, the better. That's fine in general, but really you just have to look at it this way: low density = not affordable to run all the cable. Then you hit a certain density where it becomes affordable. As density increases, it's all the better but really a moot point once you've passed the "it's affordable" level, know what I mean?

said by mr_hexen :

but lets not forget the state of the economy there and the actual population.

I was just mentioning that evenly a country with clearly less money and less technology can get it right.

and it's 37 sq.miles :)

said by jat :

Just did a little math. Hong Kong has 40% more people than Toronto+Peel+York+Durham, in only 1/6th the area. They're not really comparable if you ask me.

said by LittleStone :

Wasn't CityPlace developed by a HK developer with business in telecom?

said by jat :

The City of Toronto proper only has 2.5 million people, and a population density of 4000/km^2. It only hits 5 million when you tack on Peel, York, and Durham, which have population densities of 900/km^2, 500/km^2, and 200/km^2, respectively. (See Wikipedia.) Compare that to Hong Kong's 7 million people with a population density of 6000/km^2, and suddenly Toronto seems tiny.

said by ultracat :

Toronto has 5+ million people and that's not even including GTA cities.

said by ultracat :

But who says we shouldn't/can't get a better service in areas with a pop. density that will support it?

said by TOPDAWG :

Don't think they said end of unlimited yet. However from what I can tell from the thread the CRTC has to first approve bell to bill by the bite on 3rd party's. So it may not happen.

said by jat :

I assume you're getting 15/2 from the assumption that there's about 17mbps available for each user, which is wrong. 2x10Gig-E has 20gbps of bandwidth in each direction. By your math, that means it should support a sustained 17/17 connection for all 1152 users. :P

said by Maynard G Krebs :

Ethernet collision sensing/retry and other protocol overhead can actually drop that by anywhere between about 30-70% on heavily used links.

said by mr_hexen :

24 x 48 = 1152 possible ports(users)
20,000gbps / 1152 = 17.3611111mbps each. thats not terrible.

15/2 service easily for ALL users, theoretically.

said by mr_hexen :

24 x 48 = 1152 possible ports(users)
20,000gbps / 1152 = 17.3611111mbps each. thats not terrible.

15/2 service easily for ALL users, theoretically.

said by drjp81 :

Can you believe this guy? It's not because available equipment has limitations that you get an automatic licence to change tariffs.

Just because there's over subscriptions at the DSLAM it doesn't mean that charging x$/gig is going to make the situation better.

said by elwoodblues :

...and has to do DIDDLY SQUAT(from a infrastructure perspective) to accomplish it.

said by drjp81 :

Can you believe this guy? It's not because available equipment has limitations that you get an automatic licence to change tariffs.

Just because there's over subscriptions at the DSLAM it doesn't mean that charging x$/gig is going to make the situation better.

If investment in better equipment is your reasoning for changing billing models, then it means that equipment is not the problem in the first place.

Come on...

said by Ironmike :

Is it fair that a healthy person has to pay for health care?

Perhaps a "pay as you go" system would be better?

Are you insane? When the Harrisites delisted eye tests the price went from oh.. FREE to $95 (I think the optometrist got 35 bucks when it was paid by OHIP)

I can't see you taxes dropping enough to pay the exorbitant
costs associated with a privatized healthcare system.

said by nitzguy :

...You could say the same thing in Ontario about Education on your property taxes. I have no children that are currently in school, but I pay Education property taxes...whats the deal with that?? Shouldn't those who have kids pay for the schooling and those who don't...don't?

So you lose your point right there.

said by Bellux_x :

I've said it once and I'll say it again: even the best of facilities & providers are designed for an oversubscription model. Take Alcatel-Lucent's next-gen DSLAM controller, which can serve up to 24 remotes (24-48 ports each). It has 2X10Gig-E max uplinks. Can you say contention? It's not carriers being stupid or lazy, it's just the product that is out there limiting things.

said by Bellux_x :

Take Alcatel-Lucent's next-gen DSLAM controller, which can serve up to 24 remotes (24-48 ports each). It has 2X10Gig-E max uplinks. Can you say contention? It's not carriers being stupid or lazy, it's just the product that is out there limiting things.

said by Bellux_x :

... It's not carriers being stupid or lazy, it's just the product that is out there limiting things.

said by Deadpool :

Now you're comparing apples to oranges. If Bell was paid for a service rendered, then it's not subsidy, now is it?

Subsidy implies financial assistance, not a paycheque for a job done.

said by elwoodblues :

No Bell was GIVEN subsidies by the Feds (which don't collect property taxes) but INCOME taxes to build out their network.

said by jpabboud :

We don't even know the details yet... :) For all you know Bell will decide to stop throttling wholesalers and charge for traffic beyond 60 GB at a reasonable rate.

said by jibby :

either i'm just not understand you correctly, or this is one of the most absurd things i've ever read

You're saying that if I pay property taxes, and a % of that property tax is handed to Bell to pay for their telecommunications infrastructure whether I'm a Bell customer or not - that ISN'T a government subsidy?

HUH?

said by En Enfer :

You would want a CEO that doesn't screw wholesale but still treat his own customers as cash cows :D

By the way, whatever happened to the good old days where the captain sinks with his own ship? In the case of bell, the ship has already hit the bottom of the ocean, the captain asks customers to give him their gold in hope the ship will magically resurface while the captain is just cashing the gold thinking about his retirement money...

said by jpabboud :

We don't even know the details yet... :) For all you know Bell will decide to stop throttling wholesalers and charge for traffic beyond 60 GB at a reasonable rate.

said by Yonsil :

I'm moving back to cable.
This is total outrage and I will not accept such.
My family is paying so much as much as it is, they expect us to pay double? No f***ing middle-class family can afford unlimited access to internet at $100 per month unless they want us to cancel our TV subscription and phone line. Truly BS from BS. Government better not approve of this or I will go active...seriously.

said by Deadpool :

Considering they had to actually bid for the project, I still don't consider that government subsidy. Bell didn't need the money after all.

Based on your argument, if the Government hires a local contractor to renovate some office or hires a local mover to move some office equipment, they're being subsidized by the Government as well!

So far I still haven't seen any proof to suggest Bell needed money from the Government and they gave it to them.

And as soon as someone can prove it, I'll be glad to concede defeat.

said by Arbalister :

It is, however, completely conceivable that that same person will wake up tomorrow with a cold, flu, or other malady that drives 'em out to the doc for a prescrip. Now - keep in mind that on this particular subject *I* am the *least* likely person you'll ever find to make use of the healthcare system - and I *do* have 2 kids in school, one starting college next year, so I've paid...

I am *not* someone with a lot of use for the healthcare system. But I recognise that anyone (even me) can find a situation in which it's needed at the drop of a hat. So I do advocate paying for it out of property taxes. I think it should include things it doesn't like dental and eyecare, because dental infections are more likely to cause other health problems then chance contact with someone with a cold or the flu.

The big difference is that with educational cost, those are not sudden nor a surprise. When you have a kid, you should start having that portion of your property taxes collected. healthcare costs typically aren't preplanned.

said by Angelo_ :

so if bell never neeeded the money why didn't they further lower pricing for the end user to benefit deadpool?

said by phosphor :

BRAND is a government program to provide funding for rural broadband access not a telecommunications company, they did not get a contract, rather they allowed telecommunication companies to bid for funding to provide this access.

said by mlerner :

Except that Allstream would gouge you in pricing. Better to go with a group of smaller ISPs.

said by Ironmike :

Is it fair that a healthy person has to pay for health care?

Perhaps a "pay as you go" system would be better?

said by Ironmike :

Is it fair that a healthy person has to pay for health care?

Perhaps a "pay as you go" system would be better?

said by Arbalister :

And no, it's *not* fair that someone with no children should have to contribute to education costs.

said by nitzguy :

...You could say the same thing in Ontario about Education on your property taxes. I have no children that are currently in school, but I pay Education property taxes...whats the deal with that?? Shouldn't those who have kids pay for the schooling and those who don't...don't?

So you lose your point right there.

said by koreyb :

In most areas, it would likely be better for all the 3rd party providers share dslams as a team effort, becoming a parter with Allstream or some company like them. If all providers paid a company like Allstream as a group to provide dslams and networking back to each provider it should be more than doable and very cost effective for most if not all areas. It also may interest a company like all stream as it would allow them to really expand their own network... I can also see this making a BETTER NETWORK vs Bell's outdated one.

said by koreyb :

In most areas, it would likely be better for all the 3rd party providers share dslams as a team effort, becoming a parter with Allstream or some company like them. If all providers paid a company like Allstream as a group to provide dslams and networking back to each provider it should be more than doable and very cost effective for most if not all areas. It also may interest a company like all stream as it would allow them to really expand their own network... I can also see this making a BETTER NETWORK vs Bell's outdated one.

said by jat :

You also can't buy a single port DSLAM, so $100/port is only the optimal price. Only have one user near a CO? Well, you still have to pay $2400 for that 24 port DSLAM. For one user. Not very cost effective.

said by heavyduty The point is still valid. The argument is not about why should he pay taxes for services not used, rather that the taxes are indeed paid, and eventually a portion of said taxes subsidizes schooling.

This in fact is an example of subsidizing -- to aid or promote with public money.

So please again explain how his point is lost "right there" ?
[/BQUOTE :

Exactly, thank you. That's all I was trying to get at....just trying to penetrate Deadpool's non-logical garbage about where public vs. private money comes from.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20823255 Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:51:22 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20823061 davidbrown :

said by Deadpool :

You guys are being very myopic. Telecommunications applies to all forms of telecommunication, not just DSL, but cable and mobile as well.

Stop thinking just "Bell" and "Sympatico" and "DSL".

And the whole government subsidy thing has yet to be proved by anyone! Yet you still all seem to be stuck on the idea!

I also believe that the initial argument was in reference to the Government willingly subsidizing Bell in order to advance. Again, no one has been able to prove that's true.

Whereas I've been able to prove that their capital has all been raise by private or public measures.

Edit: Forgot to mention, Virgin is partly owned by BCE and they use Bell's mobile network.

You got be kidding.

Prove it...lol.

This so not a secret and is public and very common knowledge.
So much so that you can watch parts of it on the history channel for heavens sake.

I think i just hurt a rib...lol.

They do and whether or not its direct it still ends up there and to think otherwise is living in a fantasy land.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20823061 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:56:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822980 heavyduty :

said by nitzguy :

...You could say the same thing in Ontario about Education on your property taxes. I have no children that are currently in school, but I pay Education property taxes...whats the deal with that?? Shouldn't those who have kids pay for the schooling and those who don't...don't?

So you lose your point right there.

The point is still valid. The argument is not about why should he pay taxes for services not used, rather that the taxes are indeed paid, and eventually a portion of said taxes subsidizes schooling.

This in fact is an example of subsidizing -- to aid or promote with public money.

So please again explain how his point is lost "right there" ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822980 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:31:57 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822938 recneps : Schools are non-profit, though.

Also: are you still bickering in here?
Its been like 4 pages. Just let it go for now ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822938 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:23:07 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822923 nitzguy :

said by ultracat :

said by Deadpool :

You guys are being very myopic. Telecommunications applies to all forms of telecommunication, not just DSL, but cable and mobile as well.Stop thinking just "Bell" and "Sympatico" and "DSL".And the whole government subsidy thing has yet to be proved by anyone! Yet you still all seem to be stuck on the idea!I also believe that the initial argument was in reference to the Government willingly subsidizing Bell in order to advance. Again, no one has been able to prove that's true.Whereas I've been able to prove that their capital has all been raise by private or public measures.Edit: Forgot to mention, Virgin is partly owned by BCE and they use Bell's mobile network. 

LOL and I suppose you've 100% missed the point of my post.  OK, so forget I threw in my theoretical dude used a virgin mobile phone for his home phone.  HE HAS NO TELEPHONE WHATSOEVER.  Think that's crazy?  My dad lives in rural Quebec and has no phone, or internet connection whatsoever.  He hates talking on the telephone, has no real need for one.  No, it isn't a typical example, but it is a real example and it illustrates the point YET ONE MORE TIME.  So, now what is your response?  I own a house and pay my property taxes.  Some of my property tax money ends up getting paid to the telcos.  I have no phone, no internet, no satellite, just a friggin house.  I'm Amish OK?  I'm a luddite Mennonite.  Yet, some of my property tax is going to the telcos to support this infrastructure.  And you're still going to say that that is not a subsidy?  You're going to say that that money taken from me and my Amish family, I would have paid to Bell anyway directly if not indirectly?  Deadpool, really? 

...You could say the same thing in Ontario about Education on your property taxes. I have no children that are currently in school, but I pay Education property taxes...whats the deal with that?? Shouldn't those who have kids pay for the schooling and those who don't...don't?

So you lose your point right there.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822923 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:19:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822453 drjp81 : I believe the term is sophistry.
--
Cheers!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822453 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:49:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822039 heavyduty :

said by ultracat :

And you're still going to say that that is not a subsidy?  You're going to say that that money taken from me and my Amish family, I would have paid to Bell anyway directly if not indirectly?  Deadpool, really? 

Of course he is... because he cannot see his own myopia!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822039 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:18:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822029 ultracat :

said by Deadpool :

You guys are being very myopic. Telecommunications applies to all forms of telecommunication, not just DSL, but cable and mobile as well.Stop thinking just "Bell" and "Sympatico" and "DSL".And the whole government subsidy thing has yet to be proved by anyone! Yet you still all seem to be stuck on the idea!I also believe that the initial argument was in reference to the Government willingly subsidizing Bell in order to advance. Again, no one has been able to prove that's true.Whereas I've been able to prove that their capital has all been raise by private or public measures.Edit: Forgot to mention, Virgin is partly owned by BCE and they use Bell's mobile network. 

LOL and I suppose you've 100% missed the point of my post.  OK, so forget I threw in my theoretical dude used a virgin mobile phone for his home phone.  HE HAS NO TELEPHONE WHATSOEVER.  Think that's crazy?  My dad lives in rural Quebec and has no phone, or internet connection whatsoever.  He hates talking on the telephone, has no real need for one.  No, it isn't a typical example, but it is a real example and it illustrates the point YET ONE MORE TIME.  So, now what is your response?  I own a house and pay my property taxes.  Some of my property tax money ends up getting paid to the telcos.  I have no phone, no internet, no satellite, just a friggin house.  I'm Amish OK?  I'm a luddite Mennonite.  Yet, some of my property tax is going to the telcos to support this infrastructure.  And you're still going to say that that is not a subsidy?  You're going to say that that money taken from me and my Amish family, I would have paid to Bell anyway directly if not indirectly?  Deadpool, really?  ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822029 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:15:36 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822002 Arbalister :

said by Deadpool :

said by Rastan :

And who controls where the taxpayer's money goes to? Another "Bingo!" moment?

And who's to say any of that money goes into actually repairing the roads/damage?

It's like the CRTC filing by Bell claiming billions in investment, yet they don't actually specify which parts of the network they invested in.

So how do I know the City is actually undoing the damage done by the telecommunications company? How do I know that damage was even done in the first place? I'm sure that some instances there is - but 100% of the time? Not likely based on the figures in the report.

So - I guess it's okay for me to keep cutting these wires that lead into that green box on my front yard, and the buried cables in my backyard ... because *obviously* they don't belong to anyone but me. And then I'll just wait for the phone company to reimburse the property tax office, who in turn can cut me a cheque for my help in 'disimproving' the network.

All those wires strung to houses? Must not belong to anyone so yank 'em out won't hurt, will it?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822002 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:08:40 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821928 nitzguy : All I know is there is a lot of dark fibre laying around, so backhauling traffic around shouldn't be an issue. TSI can lease lines from other non-bell providers, because I"m sure Rogers has fibre to the cities they provide service for, same with Cogeco and Persona as well. So TSI could "partner" with those providers to provide service to those cities.

I completely understand the remotes and the CO situation...
Its tough as they'd have to make a decision about what areas they can and can't service...and for their long term survival, if that meant me having to go to Bell for my DSL service, I'd completely understand if that was a decision they'd have to make.

Having recently had to spend $5000 to just bring Hydro service an extra 300 feet, that's just the poles, the wiring and the man hours/labour to put it in, I can imagine how much it would be to build a network from the ground up.

But, like any business, if you had a solid business plan and went to banking institutions and tried to "sell" them on this idea, many of them may infact indulge someone in this, but it'd require a LOT of work and a LOT of time.

Everyone knows the easy way out is just to use whats there...but if you truly built up your own network from the ground up, you could do it your way, and while you may not see profit today, or tommorrow, but as a private company, you would probably be able to better act in your interests of your customers vs. share price and the "Bottom line".

But the question is...would anyone be willing to put up that kind of risk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821928 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:48:50 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821909 heavyduty :

said by Deadpool :

said by Omr :

Keyword is taken, and in this case the Property Tax payer is footed the bill. Now that is a form of subsidy if you ask me :( .

But again, not from the Government, from the local taxpayer.

Around here paying property tax is not optional. Is it optional for you? Because that's the only way your point-of-view could in any way shape or form be considered lucid.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821909 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:44:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821903 lcdguy : This is what is more like :)

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK-esBqKyLM]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821903 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:42:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821879 heavyduty :

said by Deadpool :

You guys are being very myopic.

And the whole government subsidy thing has yet to be proved by anyone! Yet you still all seem to be stuck on the idea!

I also believe that the initial argument was in reference to the Government willingly subsidizing Bell in order to advance. Again, no one has been able to prove that's true.

Whereas I've been able to prove that their capital has all been raise by private or public measures.

1. pot. kettle. black.

2. government subsidy comes in many forms. my home was built in the '70s and Bell Canada received subsidies in the form of rights of way for cables and other equipment. They had them before anyone else, and exclusive before anyone else, and to this day have more privilege in this part of town than any other telco. And no I cannot put a dollar value but if its not worth anything, then why doesn't Bell give up their right-of-ways ? Uh huh. That's what I thought.

3. This certainly sounds like the government 'willingly' subsidizing Bell. Maybe not directly with funds in *this* particular case, but that certainly doesn't rule out other subsidies which have taken place, both before and after.

4. Sorry, you have not proved anything except you tow Bell Canada's company line. Do you have any degrees directly relevant to the financial industry?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821879 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:38:20 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821852 Rastan : lol. I get it now. You're not actually being serious. In case you were being serious, allow me to reply using the same logic you're using.

People tell me that the sky is blue but who's to say what the colour blue really is? Maybe it's really green but everyone thinks it's blue because the English language evolved incorrectly and mistakenly labeled the colour blue incorrectly.

P.S. You haven't proved anything.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821852 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:34:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821779 Deadpool :

said by Rastan :

And who controls where the taxpayer's money goes to? Another "Bingo!" moment?

And who's to say any of that money goes into actually repairing the roads/damage?

It's like the CRTC filing by Bell claiming billions in investment, yet they don't actually specify which parts of the network they invested in.

So how do I know the City is actually undoing the damage done by the telecommunications company? How do I know that damage was even done in the first place? I'm sure that some instances there is - but 100% of the time? Not likely based on the figures in the report.
--
Disclaimer: If I express an opinion, it is my own opinion, not that of Bell or its related companies.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821779 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:17:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821759 Deadpool : You guys are being very myopic. Telecommunications applies to all forms of telecommunication, not just DSL, but cable and mobile as well.

Stop thinking just "Bell" and "Sympatico" and "DSL".

And the whole government subsidy thing has yet to be proved by anyone! Yet you still all seem to be stuck on the idea!

I also believe that the initial argument was in reference to the Government willingly subsidizing Bell in order to advance. Again, no one has been able to prove that's true.

Whereas I've been able to prove that their capital has all been raise by private or public measures.

Edit: Forgot to mention, Virgin is partly owned by BCE and they use Bell's mobile network.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821759 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:14:07 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821725 ultracat : Deadpool, your logic is only correct if you believe there is no such thing as taxes at all. Taxes are paid from private individual/busines incomes to the government. The government then redirects that money to things like social services, building national infrastructure, paying for public healthcare, etc. So, by your logic there is no such thing as taxes because the source of the money is the individual/business. Based on your logic, paying a doctor directly out of your own pocket is the equivalent to paying taxes, such that the government pays the doctor and I don't have to. Makes no sense at all man. You're just playing with semantics (as per usual).

People have already given you the perfect counter-argument, which you've ignored (as per usual). The counter-argument is simply: I live on a street where everyone has wonderful Bell Sympatico DSL service. But I don't have Internet at all, not even from a competitor of Bell's. I also do not have a landline telephone of any kind (maybe I have a nice Virgin mobile phone as my "home phone"). However, some portion of my property taxes goes towards building or maintaining this telecom infrastructure on my street, which I do not in any way use. I'm paying the (local) government for a service I don't use and perhaps never will, the (local) government passes the money onto the telcos. Are you still going to say that in that scenario the telcos are not getting a government subsidy? Just be logical dude. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821725 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:07:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821719 jibby :

said by Deadpool :

said by Omr :

Keyword is taken, and in this case the Property Tax payer is footed the bill. Now that is a form of subsidy if you ask me :( .

But again, not from the Government, from the local taxpayer.

And who does the local taxpayer pay their taxes to? Do i write the check out to Bell Canada from now on?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821719 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:05:07 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821715 Rastan : And who controls where the taxpayer's money goes to? Another "Bingo!" moment?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821715 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:04:38 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821682 Omr : Let me put it in a simple way anyone can understand.

Now everyone has seen that Capital One commercial "Hands in my Pocket"

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iVCfYQPUUI

Anyways Bell has there hands in the Governments pocket, the Government has there hands in the Tax payers pocket. Now if you follow the money trail you'll see that the Tax Payer pays the Government and the Government pays the Telcos ... in no way is that Porperty Tax bill come with a Telco logo. It is as simple as that ... anything else you are then contorting reality to suit your viewpoint.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821682 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:57:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821660 jat :

said by Deadpool :

Bingo!

I didn't actually think that's what you meant. It's just what I thought it sounded like. And it's so ridiculous, I thought it warranted a heavy dose of sarcasm.

Grab a dictionary and look up subsidy. It's generally defined as giving aid, and more specifically by a government to a business. When the government gives a corporation financial aid, it's called a subsidy. It doesn't matter who funded it, or who it benefits, the correct term to describe it is still government subsidy.

Now, I'll give it to you that the scheme described in the linked article is not government subsidy by this definition. At best it's an indirect subsidy, but I wouldn't even call it that.

However, that doesn't make your argument that there's no such thing as a government subsidy any less ridiculous. Nor does it counter the argument being made. Namely that Bell is given preferential treatment that potential telco operators may not be able to get. It also doesn't make it right that consumers have to foot the bill for Bell (or Rogers, or whoever else) to dig up public property.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821660 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:53:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821599 Deadpool :

said by Omr :

Keyword is taken, and in this case the Property Tax payer is footed the bill. Now that is a form of subsidy if you ask me :( .

But again, not from the Government, from the local taxpayer.
--
Disclaimer: If I express an opinion, it is my own opinion, not that of Bell or its related companies.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821599 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:40:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821592 Omr : Well it isn't really the same deal though ... not everyone is a Bell customer. If I was a property owner and didn't have a Rogers or Bell service is it fair for me to foot the bill for whatever they do in front of my front law.

These are Eminent Domain issues, and from Wikipedia a quick excerpt:

quote:

---

The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development.

---

Keyword is taken, and in this case the Property Tax payer is footed the bill. Now that is a form of subsidy if you ask me :( .]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821592 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:38:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821531 Deadpool :

said by Arbalister :

said by Deadpool :

Cable companies are considered 'telecommunications' companies as well. And since the report doesn't name a specific company, I fear there is more then one.

In the other thread I also point out that it's no different then TSI passing on the Bell GAS charge to you.

And again, I point out that I don't pay a Bell bill. But I still get hit for this cost. And I submit that it's no different then a vandal submitting a bill to me directly. It'd hit the trash fast enough to make his head spin.

And I (re)point out that Bell isn't the only telecommunications company that tears up the streets. So in actually, you may not even be paying Bell if they never did any work. You'd be paying Rogers, or any other company that did the work.
--
Disclaimer: If I express an opinion, it is my own opinion, not that of Bell or its related companies.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821531 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:23:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821529 Deadpool :

said by jat :

said by jibby :

said by Deadpool :

If those respective cities charged it all back to tax payers, then no, it wasn't government subsidy since they didn't actually "foot the bill", it was, as always, passed on the consumer.

IMO, it's the equivalent of Bell adding the charge to your phone bill.

You're saying that if I pay property taxes, and a % of that property tax is handed to Bell to pay for their telecommunications infrastructure whether I'm a Bell customer or not - that ISN'T a government subsidy?

No, he's saying there's no such thing as a government subsidy. See, when the government helps a company with funding, it does so with taxpayer money. Since some taxpayers are also customers of said company, they're really just passing it on to the consumer. Therefore, these "government subsidies" you hear about all the time don't really exist.

Bingo!
--
Disclaimer: If I express an opinion, it is my own opinion, not that of Bell or its related companies.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821529 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:21:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821443 Capharnaum :

said by Bellux_x :

Whoa! Bell's got an 80% net margin on their wholesale product? I find that extremely hard to believe. If they had that kind of profit margin, they wouldn't need a buyout to get the share price up!

Bell needed a buyout because they're the most inept business around. Sabia turned a customer friendly business that had high satisfaction level into a customer sieve business.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821443 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:59:37 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821440 Arbalister :

said by jat :

Of course, it's all moot since you can't put your own DSLAMs in remotes. Personally, I will never get 5mbit service, let alone 16mbit service, from anything but Bell's DSLAMs, simply because I'm too far from the CO. And what's the point of such a large investment if all it does is allow you to offer a lesser service than what the $20/mo already gives you?

AMEN! Finally, someone that *gets* it.

Bell's entire Colocation offer is *designed* to be an inferior service to what we can currently offer by wholesaling GAS. And guess which solution was the first one offered to us? Resale of GAS. Once Bell realized that we could use that tariffed service to actually show a profit *and* compete with Sympatico, they've done everything they can to go back on the deal.

Here's a thing for you to consider. I run an indie ISP, just like TSI. Unlike TSI, I didn't jump on highspeed as soon as it rolled out. There were a few companies - TSI, Acanac, Execulink - that did, and they made their own deals with Bell. None of them are quite the same as anyone else's deal ... because they were made before Bell had a formalized GAS deal.

Why do I resell TSI's service? Because now, since Bell *has* a formalized plan for GAS wholesale, TSI can actually sell me the *exact same service* for a much better price then I can get from Bell.

Let me say that again - TSI can *profit* by selling me the service for less then Bell will.

Do you *seriously* think Bell is happy with those deals? Of course they aren't. So they come up with crap like throttling and usage based billing... and "if you don't like it, you could colocate and build your own last mile..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821440 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:58:29 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821394 jat :

said by En Enfer :

Since you give away 20$ per customer to bell each month:
21000 x 20$ = 420 000$ goes to Bell every month.

After 5 months, it's paid off:
420 000$ x 5 months = 2 100 000$ ;)

By logic, after 10 months bell already made 100% profit (200$) on the port.

Keyword being on the port. As Arbalister pointed out, that doesn't include service costs. Nor does it include colocation or backhaul, both of which eat into your $20/mo savings even if you don't need any servicing done.

You also can't buy a single port DSLAM, so $100/port is only the optimal price. Only have one user near a CO? Well, you still have to pay $2400 for that 24 port DSLAM. For one user. Not very cost effective.

Of course, it's all moot since you can't put your own DSLAMs in remotes. Personally, I will never get 5mbit service, let alone 16mbit service, from anything but Bell's DSLAMs, simply because I'm too far from the CO. And what's the point of such a large investment if all it does is allow you to offer a lesser service than what the $20/mo already gives you?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821394 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:47:56 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821358 Arbalister :

said by Deadpool :

Cable companies are considered 'telecommunications' companies as well. And since the report doesn't name a specific company, I fear there is more then one.

In the other thread I also point out that it's no different then TSI passing on the Bell GAS charge to you.

And again, I point out that I don't pay a Bell bill. But I still get hit for this cost. And I submit that it's no different then a vandal submitting a bill to me directly. It'd hit the trash fast enough to make his head spin.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821358 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:38:54 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821347 Arbalister :

said by En Enfer :

So... buying a port on a DSLAM is like buying a router, once it's paid off, it's yours. It's not like a rental car.

True - you've paid off the hardware once you pay for it. But you're still paying monthly rent to Bell for the rack space in each CO.

Since you give away 20$ per customer to bell each month:
21000 x 20$ = 420 000$ goes to Bell every month.

After 5 months, it's paid off:
420 000$ x 5 months = 2 100 000$ ;)

Cost to change 21000 customers to my ports, 21,000 X $100 =
2,100,00 in service charges, on startup. This is in addition to the 2.1 million worth of hardware. So it takes me 5 months to pay break even on the hardware, and 5 more to break even on the install fees. Assuming that *NONE* of those customers cancel, move, or change their service ... and that I don't bother adding any more at the $100 per rate.

See, this is how Bell prices things. I can pay $20 bucks a month for 5 months ... or link into my own DSLAM at the trivial fee of 5 months worth of GAS per change.

Let me say that again - if I colocate, every time I make a change to a customer, it costs me 5 months of revenue from that customer. Any customer that leaves within a year, I've lost money on.

100$ per hour to pay a tech to plug and unplug a wire which takes maximum 5 minutes to setup? Hey! Any idiot can do that kind of job! Where's the difficulty level for such a high demand?

Yup. Makes it really cost effective for me to put my hardware in their CO doesn't it?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821347 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:34:47 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821340 jat :

said by jibby :

said by Deadpool :

If those respective cities charged it all back to tax payers, then no, it wasn't government subsidy since they didn't actually "foot the bill", it was, as always, passed on the consumer.

IMO, it's the equivalent of Bell adding the charge to your phone bill.

You're saying that if I pay property taxes, and a % of that property tax is handed to Bell to pay for their telecommunications infrastructure whether I'm a Bell customer or not - that ISN'T a government subsidy?

No, he's saying there's no such thing as a government subsidy. See, when the government helps a company with funding, it does so with taxpayer money. Since some taxpayers are also customers of said company, they're really just passing it on to the consumer. Therefore, these "government subsidies" you hear about all the time don't really exist.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821340 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:31:44 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821339 anon :

said by jibby :

either i'm just not understand you correctly, or this is one of the most absurd things i've ever read

What does one expect from an employee paid to troll the forums?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821339 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:31:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821282 jibby :

said by Deadpool :

If those respective cities charged it all back to tax payers, then no, it wasn't government subsidy since they didn't actually "foot the bill", it was, as always, passed on the consumer.

IMO, it's the equivalent of Bell adding the charge to your phone bill.

either i'm just not understand you correctly, or this is one of the most absurd things i've ever read

You're saying that if I pay property taxes, and a % of that property tax is handed to Bell to pay for their telecommunications infrastructure whether I'm a Bell customer or not - that ISN'T a government subsidy?

HUH?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821282 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:15:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821097 Deadpool :

said by Arbalister :

said by his opinion :

said by Deadpool :

If those respective cities charged it all back to tax payers, then no, it wasn't government subsidy since they didn't actually "foot the bill", it was, as always, passed on the consumer.

IMO, it's the equivalent of Bell adding the charge to your phone bill.

That's his thought on the idea of it taken from the other thread..

In his opinion it's like Bell adding the charge to our phone bill.

Except that I don't pay Bell for phone service. I get no bills from Bell. Up until this year I didn't even pay for a Dry Loop - VoIP over Cable. But I sure as heck get a property tax bill. Since I'm not a user of Bell's infrastructure, where is my option to opt out of paying for it?

In *MY* opinion, it's no different then a vandal destroying public property, and *me* having to pay to repair it via property taxes.

Again, it's a government subsidy. The government is taking *my* money, and using it to pay for Bell's "upgrades".

Cable companies are considered 'telecommunications' companies as well. And since the report doesn't name a specific company, I fear there is more then one.

In the other thread I also point out that it's no different then TSI passing on the Bell GAS charge to you.
--
Disclaimer: If I express an opinion, it is my own opinion, not that of Bell or its related companies.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20821097 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:18:59 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820551 anon : Cost per hour of service delivered for most Bell techs (CEP xDSL/Centrex/Voice) is well above $140. An activation and install tech averages 2.78 installs per 8 hour day. So that's why truck rolls are so expensive. Installing a Stinger is expensive, but the labour costs are also massive.

Consider this: in some cases, carriers are choosing to do 100% subscription buildouts, that is every home is provisioned for VDSL2 or FTTP service at buildout (ie. wired, every home has an ONT/iNID installed and tested) when it is rolled out in an area. Huge extra capital cost, but over time, being able to simply "flick a switch" to provision a service without requiring frame, field, CO techs to get involved will pay for it. Plus you won't have do to all sorts of DaVar and grooming all the time because everyone is groomed/tested at rollout.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820551 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:49:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820542 alekssavvy : if its around 2-3 million that is not big money, teksavvy should have a revenue of about 10% that monthly, that is a pretty descent ratio for such an investment. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820542 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:47:07 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820490 anon : Well, aren't the costs for tariff-regulated DSLAM usage fees supposed to be cost + a reasonable markup?

Perhaps we should start hitting Bell via the CRTC on this sort of thing too?

It is a regulated service, and many of us are getting some good experience writing up documents that screw over Bell...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820490 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:34:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820474 En Enfer :

said by Arbalister :

DSLAM's price out at about $100 per port. 1 port per customer, since DSL is 24/7. TSI has 21,000 DSL customers.

2.1 million in hardware.

So... buying a port on a DSLAM is like buying a router, once it's paid off, it's yours. It's not like a rental car.

Since you give away 20$ per customer to bell each month:
21000 x 20$ = 420 000$ goes to Bell every month.

After 5 months, it's paid off:
420 000$ x 5 months = 2 100 000$ ;)

By logic, after 10 months bell already made 100% profit (200$) on the port.

100$ per hour to pay a tech to plug and unplug a wire which takes maximum 5 minutes to setup? Hey! Any idiot can do that kind of job! Where's the difficulty level for such a high demand?
--
"I unofficially declare Beaver Hunting Season is on!" (© DR_JAYMAHDI)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820474 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:29:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820428 En Enfer :

said by mlerner :

They only need the buyout because the CEO got lazy and just wanted the cash. If they put a smart CEO in the first place then they would have been able to turn around the company.

You would want a CEO that doesn't screw wholesale but still treat his own customers as cash cows :D

By the way, whatever happened to the good old days where the captain sinks with his own ship? In the case of bell, the ship has already hit the bottom of the ocean, the captain asks customers to give him their gold in hope the ship will magically resurface while the captain is just cashing the gold thinking about his retirement money...
--
"I unofficially declare Beaver Hunting Season is on!" (© DR_JAYMAHDI)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820428 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:16:22 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820173 anon : Are government subsidies really that? I could say I subsidise the trucking industry by paying so much for roads. Or the utility company because I have no choice but to go with them. In the hyperlinked article, I think they mean that telcos don't necessarily pay 100% of the lifecycle costs that their installs/repairs/maintenance cause on roadways. But the figure they provide is just as much posturing as the next political group trying to get something changed, so take it with a grain of salt.

And per-port DSLAM costs vary a lot depending on manufacturer, scalability, management, etc. and even if the raw per-port cost was $100, the capital required to per port of installed capacity of several times that. You need the dslam, plus the rough ins, plus all the other relevant equipment, plus software licenses, billing, monitoring, OA&M, etc.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820173 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:00:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820070 mlerner :

said by Bellux_x :

"In 2006 their net profit was something like 80% on around $900,000,000 in income from wholesale customers..... I'd say that's a pretty healthy margin." -R0CKY
------------------------------------

Whoa! Bell's got an 80% net margin on their wholesale product? I find that extremely hard to believe. If they had that kind of profit margin, they wouldn't need a buyout to get the share price up!

Wholesale is a small part of their overall business, don't forget there's much more they operate. They only need the buyout because the CEO got lazy and just wanted the cash. If they put a smart CEO in the first place then they would have been able to turn around the company.
--
"If bullshit was money this guy would be richer that Bill Gates." - quote by olebiker on Mirko Bibic]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820070 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:29:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820055 anon : "In 2006 their net profit was something like 80% on around $900,000,000 in income from wholesale customers..... I'd say that's a pretty healthy margin." -R0CKY
------------------------------------

Whoa! Bell's got an 80% net margin on their wholesale product? I find that extremely hard to believe. If they had that kind of profit margin, they wouldn't need a buyout to get the share price up!

To illustrate:
In 2006, Other Bell Canada revenues, which include wholesale and northwestel (100% BCE owned) revenues, accounted for 8% of total revenues at BCE, or 8% of $17.7BN CAD. That they would make such a huge return doesn't make sense in light of a "profit" of only $2BN CAD that year, is seems unlikely that the wholesale & northwestel divisions that are 8% of revenue would make $720M CAD or >1/3rd of the profits (assuming you are correct that wholesale is $900M and northwestel the balance of revenues and generating no profit. If the margin was 80% combined for NWTEL & wholesale, well, they would have made >$1.1BN CAD of their profit from that division alone!).

Bell is like a lot of other unpopular giants, like KBR or Haliburton: despite huge revenues from certain operations, analysts believe they only make a slim profit.

Finally, regarding access to the network: any provider can lease access from the ILEC (Bell, Telus) on the local loop to whatever degree they wish: just the copper, copper + wholesale POTS, copper alone to connect their own equipment, copper + GAS, etc. Others can install DSLAM's, and have. What is difficult is doing FTTN as a CLEC because the high capital costs, which is why Bell is looking to ensure it can do the triple-play without breaking the bank, which means tightly managed services & networks. It's not like they can sell 30-100Mbps VDSL2 to resellers and have enough bandwidth at very uplink to support it. It's why in future, the speed won't be limited or controlled by sync rate, but by a profile in the BAS associated with your line and the PPPoE provider.... an up to 5Mbps PPPoE vlan/VPI over a VDSL2 line would be the new GAS. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820055 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:24:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820020 Guspaz : You can get DSLAMs cheaper than $100 per port, though. I've seen them priced as low as half that. And that was just for a 24-port DSLAM. I couldn't find pricing for the bigger ones from the same company.

It's clearly not an impossible proposition for an ISP to take. Some do. You're just limiting your reach and your growth is constrained. But it's not impossible.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820020 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:13:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820015 vintagewino :

said by Arbalister :

said by his opinion :

said by Deadpool :

If those respective cities charged it all back to tax payers, then no, it wasn't government subsidy since they didn't actually "foot the bill", it was, as always, passed on the consumer.

IMO, it's the equivalent of Bell adding the charge to your phone bill.

That's his thought on the idea of it taken from the other thread..

In his opinion it's like Bell adding the charge to our phone bill.

Except that I don't pay Bell for phone service. I get no bills from Bell. Up until this year I didn't even pay for a Dry Loop - VoIP over Cable. But I sure as heck get a property tax bill. Since I'm not a user of Bell's infrastructure, where is my option to opt out of paying for it?

In *MY* opinion, it's no different then a vandal destroying public property, and *me* having to pay to repair it via property taxes.

Again, it's a government subsidy. The government is taking *my* money, and using it to pay for Bell's "upgrades".

I saw that report almost a month ago. Thought it would be appropriate to bring it up again.

Actually, it's worse than that.

If a company performs a job, then gets some outfit to do a cheap, substandard restoration that falls apart after a couple of months, the taxpayer at either the municipal, provincial, or federal level, has to shell out to repair the damage.

That, to me, is subsidizing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820015 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:12:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819910 Arbalister :

said by his opinion :

said by Deadpool :

If those respective cities charged it all back to tax payers, then no, it wasn't government subsidy since they didn't actually "foot the bill", it was, as always, passed on the consumer.

IMO, it's the equivalent of Bell adding the charge to your phone bill.

That's his thought on the idea of it taken from the other thread..

In his opinion it's like Bell adding the charge to our phone bill.

Except that I don't pay Bell for phone service. I get no bills from Bell. Up until this year I didn't even pay for a Dry Loop - VoIP over Cable. But I sure as heck get a property tax bill. Since I'm not a user of Bell's infrastructure, where is my option to opt out of paying for it?

In *MY* opinion, it's no different then a vandal destroying public property, and *me* having to pay to repair it via property taxes.

Again, it's a government subsidy. The government is taking *my* money, and using it to pay for Bell's "upgrades".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819910 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:41:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819787 anon :

said by Deadpool :

If those respective cities charged it all back to tax payers, then no, it wasn't government subsidy since they didn't actually "foot the bill", it was, as always, passed on the consumer.

IMO, it's the equivalent of Bell adding the charge to your phone bill.

That's his thought on the idea of it taken from the other thread..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819787 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:55:11 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819759 Arbalister :

said by vintagewino And the subsidizing continues:
»www.fcm.ca/english/View.asp?mp=1&x=922
[/BQUOTE :

Good catch.

Um...Deadpool? What were you saying about an urban legend?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819759 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:44:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819750 Arbalister :

said by donny593 :

also, who ever said you need new copper? installing some dslams like primus did isnt such a massive investment either

DSLAM's price out at about $100 per port. 1 port per customer, since DSL is 24/7. TSI has 21,000 DSL customers.

2.1 million in hardware.

And that's *not* taking into consideration Bell's charges to colocate the DSLAM in a CO, nor is it taking into account *how many* CO's you'd have to colocate into. I know for a fact that there are at least 21 CO's covering downtown toronto. Now, I'm not saying you're looking at 2.1 million per CO - you're not, each CO is a portion of those 21,000 ports. But your equipment cost will rise over that 2.1 million simple because you're not going to put the exact number of ports in a CO as you have customers there. That leaves no room for growth.

Add to that the $100 per hour Bell charges to cross connect their wire to your DSLAM...or to remove or change it...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819750 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:41:25 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819647 vintagewino :

said by eots :

said by puhlease :

Fact is, no one is willing to get the dollars to build their own network or challenge the CRTC to allow them to build their own. Until that day comes, those ISP's will keep bitching about how they have to use Bell's lines and do nothing about changing it. Maybe due to fear that it will fail? Well, you can't make money without spending money now can you?!

Your ignorance I astounding! The government helped finance the building of the Bell network in the first place and they will never make that level of contribution again to duplicate the infrastructure. You're dreaming if you think it's ever going to happen and no independent company is capable of doing it on their own.

And the subsidizing continues:
»www.fcm.ca/english/View.asp?mp=1&x=922]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819647 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:49:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819570 GNca George :

said by Arbalister :

So, simple. We should go out and build out own network. That really fries my butt when people come up with that little gem. Does anyone out there *seriously* think we *like* giving Bell 2/3rds of our income? Hands up anyone?
Does anyone *seriously* think that if it were as simple as you make it out to be that some big telco out of the US wouldn't have swooped in to compete here, against Bell? God I wish they would.

Giving 2/3rd of your (and recently my) income to Bell is not the end of the world.

Good points - you don't have to build much network infrastructure, Bell takes all the technology risk. Bell maintains the system. Bell spends 99% plus of the capital required.

Bad points - you are in bed with an elephant. If it gets restless in the night, you're toast. And the elephant is sneaky and constantly thinks up ways to flatten you. You don't own or control your service delivery system, you have no say over service levels, build out rates or technology choices. You have limited opportunity to out-shine your competitors, and even when you do, along comes the elephant who changes the rules with no notice and blows your strategy out of the water.

As far as a foreign telco coming here and building infrastructure, the only reason they haven't is the foreign ownership regulations, otherwise we might be speaking Korean on our phone lines. :) AT&T dipped a toe in the water with Rogers if you recall, but never went very far.

The serious attempts at new infrastructure haven't done so well from a small end-user perspective. The various flavours of Hydro Telecoms are exceptions, as are projects like SCAN, but none of them did much for smaller end users. Cogent lit a few building themselves, but again no so much use to the small guys.

Anyone remember Stream Intelligent Networks and fibre through the sewers?

George
--
Powered by Candlelight Wireless Broadband and Teksavvy MultiLink DSL!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819570 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:08:39 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819545 GNca George :

said by donny593 :

ok so its obviously too expensive to lay new fibre and copper, but why not set up a wireless network? whats wrong with wimax or various other standards?

Bell/Rogers/Telus have all the desirable frequencies locked in already. They paid a stunning amount of money for the privilege over the years.

Backhaul is an issue. Very hard to buy/build good rural backhaul at a decent price point.

Getting good performance with decent customer density for services like Wi Max are another issue. Wi Max was designed for bulk markets in the third world where small pipes are fine. As a result, with both .16d and e you have a hard time achieving data rates better than DSL despite all the hype you hear.

In urban areas over the next few years, its going to be Roger/Bell/Telus copper, gradually moving to a fibre hybrid and eventually to full fibre to the premises. Deployment will be patchy.

In rural areas over the next few years, its going to be Bell copper (Bell is expanding rural DSL services quite rapidly, usually where an alternative wireless provider has installed service), coupled with Bell EVDO Rev A/B wireless and eventually LTE (or something similar) for fast wireless services.

Pretty much everyone else is going to be toast due to the monopoly on existing infrastructure (harder to get permission to build cell towers since 1 Jan this year) and spectrum licenses that Bell/Rogers/Telus enjoy. Rogers cell data mostly sucks outside the core urban areas btw whereas Bell has EVDO Rev A nearly fully deployed.

If we're lucky, perhaps the CRTC will force the cellcos to offer wholesale opportunities on cell data services...

See LTE for why this matters.

George
--
Powered by Candlelight Wireless Broadband and Teksavvy MultiLink DSL!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819545 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:49:38 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819349 Angelo_ : 1 issue with that who would have the control and who sets the pricing?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819349 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 04:06:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819333 anon : ok so its obviously too expensive to lay new fibre and copper, but why not set up a wireless network? whats wrong with wimax or various other standards?

dare i say even get a deal to resell over rogers lines? 3web seems to do it without many issues

also, who ever said you need new copper? installing some dslams like primus did isnt such a massive investment either

either way, copper is overrated and the current dsl system is highly inefficient. what needs to happen is companies all joining a consortium to lay fibre

teksavvy sure cant do it alone, but get all the wholesalers together, call up primus and investors, a few lenders and should be good to go ... regulations permitting ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819333 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 03:47:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819306 nyt : Nobody noticed that Bell is already charging for bandwidth, by offering different prices based on throughput? All things being equal but speed, you can easily compute the actual mbps price to see how much of an increase their new 'offering' will represent. If they are not stupid, overall price should go down for the majority of users (i.e <60GB to match Sympatico) but anything above that.. let's wait and see :)
By the way I wonder how an ISP in France (not even the ILEC) can offer 20mbit uncapped for 22$ (taxes included), also including the dry loop. Something doesn't add up.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819306 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 03:25:11 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819108 Arbalister :

said by jyeung :

You try to compete with Bell over their own lines. You have to rely on a competitor to provide your own service. Naturally, they'll give preference to their own service and try to squeeze you out of business. That's just the way things work. If there was no mandatory line sharing, Bell would never wholesale its lines.

I've been in this business since 1996. I was, by a matter of weeks, the 4th ISP in my area. All 4 of us still operate, and I don't think any of us consider any of the others "competition." Most of us are in contact at least once in a while, with at least a couple of the others. We don't see a lot of movement of subscribers between us - if someone leaves me, it's for Bell or Cable.

Both of which are newcomers to the market.

The cablecos setting up internet services I can't really complain about - they have the same rights-of-way etc, that gets them the last mile link to their customers. But that, like Telecos is a CRTC regulated service, and its subject to being shared by competitors that choose to pay to meet the other requirements of providing highspeed over cable.

It's not cheap.

I *do* have a problem with Bell entering the ISP market. See ... previous to DSL in 1999 - 2000, ISP's business model was based on dial up. We needed incoming telephone lines to operate, and the only way to get 'em was via Bell.

Then, after 4 or 5 years of soaking up our cash, they announced their entry into *our* market. We didn't start out trying to compete with Bell, we started out as their paying customers - who they screwed by migrating into a market that *we* built. The CRTC decision that allowed them into this market was the direct cause of what we are seeing today, and many of us said so, 10 years ago.

So, simple. We should go out and build out own network. That really fries my butt when people come up with that little gem. Does anyone out there *seriously* think we *like* giving Bell 2/3rds of our income? Hands up anyone?
Does anyone *seriously* think that if it were as simple as you make it out to be that some big telco out of the US wouldn't have swooped in to compete here, against Bell? God I wish they would.

It's one thing to set up a business and expect to take a loss until you grow it - I've been there, I've done that. Build an ISP sometime - you lose a lot of money before you start to just break even. But what we have here is no different then the local Hydro company deciding to roll out Highspeed over AC wires (which they've talked about) and then doubling the electricity price for all the local ISps. It's an anti-competitive move.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819108 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:24:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818886 R0CKY : The strategy behind regulating prices for Monopolies is to guarantee prices and profits. If everyone has to use them then the rates are set in such a way that guarantees no one will get a more favoured treatment without the others knowing.

The thing with government and government bodies is that they guaranteed that everyone had to use bell to go over phone lines.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818886 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:04:13 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818876 eots : I didn't say they financed it entirely, I said they helped. The government is always involved in major infrastructure projects.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818876 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:00:24 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818852 ultracat :

said by jyeung I thought that was just a rumour from somewhere and that the government didn't finance anything - or at least there's no proof that they did.

- Jason
[/BQUOTE :

Yeah, well that's what Deadpool said. So, take it for what it's worth.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818852 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:53:47 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818829 PXA :

said by puhlease :

Those hellish DPI boxes cost a fraction of the cost to upgrade the network, despite what you *think* they actually cost. It probably cost less then 10 million to buy all of them.

You got any proof of those costs? All I've read from your posts is someone defending Bell's position, throwing around claims without any evidence to support them. Not unlike Bell themselves really. If you're confident in your position, show us numbers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818829 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:47:02 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818797 jyeung :

said by eots :

Your ignorance I astounding! The government helped finance the building of the Bell network in the first place and they will never make that level of contribution again to duplicate the infrastructure.

I thought that was just a rumour from somewhere and that the government didn't finance anything - or at least there's no proof that they did.

- Jason]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818797 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:37:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818790 jyeung : On a side note, you look at a market like Hong Kong, where the government has withdrawn the line sharing requirement as there is sufficient competition.

Last I checked, there was six telcos there each having their own network, offering gigabit internet speeds to the home for low prices.

Unfortunately, it'll be a long time before we ever reach that. :(

- Jason
--
IISNet Instelink | web hosting, telephone, high speed internet]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818790 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:35:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818760 jyeung : Bell is a corporation just like any other. All management cares about is shareholder value - and same goes for every other CEO of big companies. That's how things work and that's their job as CEO.

You try to compete with Bell over their own lines. You have to rely on a competitor to provide your own service. Naturally, they'll give preference to their own service and try to squeeze you out of business. That's just the way things work. If there was no mandatory line sharing, Bell would never wholesale its lines.

Bell in its current form needs to disappear before anything becomes fair. We need a separate unaffiliated company to own the lines - and Bell is just a client like any other provider. Then, maybe all this crap will stop.

Until then, keep fighting.

- Jason]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818760 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:28:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818748 R0CKY :

said by puhlease :

So now you know what you have to look forward to once you start building your own network. :)

hehehe.... These margins are as a result of Bell being able to leverage multiple businesses over the same infrastructure.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818748 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:26:21 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818745 eots :

said by puhlease :

Fact is, no one is willing to get the dollars to build their own network or challenge the CRTC to allow them to build their own. Until that day comes, those ISP's will keep bitching about how they have to use Bell's lines and do nothing about changing it. Maybe due to fear that it will fail? Well, you can't make money without spending money now can you?!

Your ignorance I astounding! The government helped finance the building of the Bell network in the first place and they will never make that level of contribution again to duplicate the infrastructure. You're dreaming if you think it's ever going to happen and no independent company is capable of doing it on their own.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818745 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:26:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818736 anon : So now you know what you have to look forward to once you start building your own network. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818736 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:22:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818710 R0CKY :

said by puhlease :

And you don't think Bell prices DSL at a loss and has been since they launched it in '97? Be serious.

In 2006 their net profit was something like 80% on around $900,000,000 in income from wholesale customers..... I'd say that's a pretty healthy margin.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818710 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:16:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818655 anon : And you don't think Bell prices DSL at a loss and has been since they launched it in '97? Be serious.

And Gig-E connection are what's congested. :uhh:

It's the ATM network that's problematic. And if you do in fact know how much it costs, then you already know that there's more then just a single piece of the pie. There are multiple pieces to the pie. Pieces that all need to be replaced altogether to fix the issues.

Do you seriously think you can buy this shit at WalMart at discount prices? If you do, then you need to tell every ISP where they can buy that equipment at that bargain basement price.

Those hellish DPI boxes cost a fraction of the cost to upgrade the network, despite what you *think* they actually cost. It probably cost less then 10 million to buy all of them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818655 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:59:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818613 Arbalister :

said by puhlease :

Agreed that it's more expensive to LAUNCH the airlines, but once it's launched and you make your money back, then you start making profit.

Fact is, no one is willing to get the dollars to build their own network or challenge the CRTC to allow them to build their own. Until that day comes, those ISP's will keep bitching about how they have to use Bell's lines and do nothing about changing it. Maybe due to fear that it will fail? Well, you can't make money without spending money now can you?!

So how many people are going to be willing to pay $1000+ a month for DSL service? Because there's no way you're going to sustain your own network on $35 bucks a month.

Know what Bell charges to run a 10 meg connection 4.5 km? $18,000 plus $1200 a month. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and become my first customer on my new network?

And I seriously doubt it would have been cheaper to upgrade Bell's current infrastructure versus the purchase of the DPI boxes from hell.

Doubt all you like. Go out and price one of those boxes, then price a Gig-e connection.

Do you know how much it costs to upgrade all the pieces of the network supposedly congested?

Yes. In fact I do.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818613 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:48:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818561 anon : Agreed that it's more expensive to LAUNCH the airlines, but once it's launched and you make your money back, then you start making profit.

Fact is, no one is willing to get the dollars to build their own network or challenge the CRTC to allow them to build their own. Until that day comes, those ISP's will keep bitching about how they have to use Bell's lines and do nothing about changing it. Maybe due to fear that it will fail? Well, you can't make money without spending money now can you?!

And I seriously doubt it would have been cheaper to upgrade Bell's current infrastructure versus the purchase of the DPI boxes from hell.

Do you know how much it costs to upgrade all the pieces of the network supposedly congested? A hell of lot more then buying some upgraded versions of a Linksys load balancing router with QOS!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818561 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:38:55 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818515 Arbalister :

said by pick_oneFunny how whenever someone challenges Teksavvy to build their own infrastructure, this is the common reply (ie: it's too expensive and not cost effective).

Yet the typical response to Bell's CRTC filings and DPI is always: build, build, build - it's not that expensive! As if they can use every dime behind BCE. News flash: that's not how corporations work!

Building a network to link every home in Ontario and Quebec back to TSI's presence at 151 Front is hideously expensive. You need to lay wire or fibre, you need people that can do that, you need rights-of-way, you need central offices linked to the backbone, you need staff in those offices, you need DSLAM ports in those CO's for all of your customers.

Upgrading existing systems to increase available bandwidth is trivial by comparison. In fact, the upgrade would have been less expensive then the hardware they purchased to use for throttling.

What's more expensive, launching a new international airline, or adding a plane to a busy route?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818515 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:28:23 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818494 Arbalister :

said by BennyParsons :

TSI is lucky to even be allowed to piggyback on bell

they piggyback on their DSL and now their phone service.

Maybe if they take some step at being more than just a piggybacker and I'd have some sympathy for them.

No, they use CRTC mandated services that an ILEC like Bell must provide to independant competitors, because Bell has the competitive advantage of government mandated rights-of-way to connect wires to every home in their area of operation. Since no other companies have the access needed to build out the wire networks, Bell must share those wires. Or they violate anti-monopoly regulations.

Every single company that offers you some sort of service over a telephone line enters into the same sort of contract with Bell. All the long-distance providers, all the VoIP services, all the ISP's, all the local phone service providers. Even alarm companies that use dedicated lines to monitor the alarms lease that wire from Bell.

So, I'd recommend pulling your head out of whatever dark, damp place it's in before you again choose to publicly display your ignorance of the topic at hand. Really. It's embarassing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818494 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:22:29 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818463 anon :

said by Kareeser :

Maybe nobody's told you before, but the upfront costs of constructing and maintaining their own copper lines and central offices numbers in the millions, if not billions.

Show me a bank that'll allow that kind of loan, and I'll show you a bank that'll go belly-up in less than a year.

Get yer facts straight first.

Funny how whenever someone challenges Teksavvy to build their own infrastructure, this is the common reply (ie: it's too expensive and not cost effective).

Yet the typical response to Bell's CRTC filings and DPI is always: build, build, build - it's not that expensive! As if they can use every dime behind BCE. News flash: that's not how corporations work!

You guys need to make up your mind and stick to one story. :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818463 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:15:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818107 recneps :

said by BennyParsons :

TSI is lucky to even be allowed to piggyback on bell

they piggyback on their DSL and now their phone service.

Maybe if they take some step at being more than just a piggybacker and I'd have some sympathy for them.

TSI has had ample time to try and build their own stuff, but instead they chose to whine to the CRTC to legislate things so they can just be more comfortable piggybacking instead of doing something innovative.

Yeah.. uhh.. that's not even true (for the phone maybe)
but internet is entirely's teksavvy's - they just lease bell's line so that they can connect to the customer.
Maybe you should research things before you make bold statements like that.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818107 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:34:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818103 Kareeser : Maybe nobody's told you before, but the upfront costs of constructing and maintaining their own copper lines and central offices numbers in the millions, if not billions.

Show me a bank that'll allow that kind of loan, and I'll show you a bank that'll go belly-up in less than a year.

Get yer facts straight first.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818103 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:33:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818021 anon :

said by BennyParsons :

TSI is lucky to even be allowed to piggyback on bell

they piggyback on their DSL and now their phone service.

Maybe if they take some step at being more than just a piggybacker and I'd have some sympathy for them.

TSI has had ample time to try and build their own stuff, but instead they chose to whine to the CRTC to legislate things so they can just be more comfortable piggybacking instead of doing something innovative.

deleted by moderators in 3.....2......1]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818021 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:08:18 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817997 anon : TSI is lucky to even be allowed to piggyback on bell

they piggyback on their DSL and now their phone service.

Maybe if they take some step at being more than just a piggybacker and I'd have some sympathy for them.

TSI has had ample time to try and build their own stuff, but instead they chose to whine to the CRTC to legislate things so they can just be more comfortable piggybacking instead of doing something innovative.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817997 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:01:47 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817741 Arbalister :

said by jpabboud I agree but there are ISPs colocating their own equipments (see Primus/ColbaNet). I think if they regrouped and found some government funding (via a broadband access fee, see cell phone industry) they could potentially service a lot of CO's and diminish their reliance on Bell.

Primus isn't an ISP. Not primarily. They are a long distance carrier. They provide some internet services, but I'd be willing to bet that the CO's they run their own DSLAMs in are the same ones that they're already colocated in for LD and Local Phone services.

You'll also note that they aren't in *all* CO's and are are in *no* remotes. :-P

My point being that this is a company that's primary business can finance some expansion in to the DSL market, and that is probably leveraging their existing presence to make it workable. If you're already paying for a rack in a CO, adding a few more machines is peanuts.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817741 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:41:40 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20815647 anon :

said by R0CKY :

Believe there will be an opportunity to speak on this matter yes...

You know Rocky/Marc.... This may sound corny (is that a word?) but...

I have to admire how you are both able to grin and bear it, and fight on.

If it was me and someone was trying to go to these lengths to destroy my business, one shot after another, the last CRTC fight would have taken all the fight out of me.

Just keeping people up to date with a level head w/o lashing out at this point would be a chore with me.

I hope you guys hang in there and not stress out to much. I know this would take a toll on my well-being/family.

You are both good leaders to have had in this fight. Others went to bat, but none stood up and stood out as TekSavvy has.

Anyhow just want to say thanks i guess, and no one can take away from you guys what you have done and accomplished to date.

Rest before round 2.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20815647 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:03:02 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20815546 anon : It was apple that made rogers charge less for bandwidth. Oops, now wait isn't rogers going to rob everyone blind after 3 months time? Why of course they are. You'll see bankruptcies and millions more living on the sidewalks all because of rogers. My guess is apple will cut Canada off completely since ted won't change and provide a service instead of robbing people.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20815546 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:17:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20815513 anon : Bell has been herding the crowd into the pay per usage model...

Think of it this way:
1. Bell throttles everybody.
2. Crowd went mad. Some even suggested pay per usage is preferable to throttling.
3. ??? (Bell starts pay per usage.)
4. Profit!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20815513 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:57:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20814535 GNca George : Eureka!

Except you don't need high synch rates for VoIP. Big difference between quantity and quality.

The problem is bulk usage on a network that was not and can not be provisioned for it. Oversubsciption ratios were designed in and cannot be changed overnight by waving some magic wand.

If the Primus submission about 65K of backhaul per port is accurate, we are all screwed in the short to medium term.

But why is Bell playing games instead of being up front and honest with the CRTC? That is the several billion dollar question...

George
--
Powered by Candlelight Wireless Broadband and Teksavvy MultiLink DSL!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20814535 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:46:36 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20814461 anon : You make a good point: why do usage based billing when you can in theory get the rates raised? But the issue here is more than Bell is looking at others as well and learning lessons based on their experiences. For IPTV/7330/FTTN, they look to SBC/ATT U-verse which is the equivalent situation, but using VDSL instead of VDSL2. And they're seeing that whatever B/W you add, the users will take advantage of. You just can't satiate them yet still increase speeds to match cable. So make a compromise: high syncs for streaming video/web/flash/voip, but some restrictions on P2P to manage contention. So they seek to increase realtime and medium-BW application QoS at the expense of P2P. I'm frankly surprised they haven't already cracked down on MLPPP somehow.

I think that charging for the port and aggregation interface at a fixed rate is the right model, but transit has to be costed because no network can have limitless bandwidth, so a fixed cost doesn't lead to the most efficient usage or allocation of cost. Upgrade costs are linear... at one point, you reach a shar slope because you need a new chassis or costly interface/fabric/route engine to scale within your fiber limits (40G line cards for example).

On another note, I think people underestimate the cost of upgrades/installs. If it was so affordable, wouldn't there be more local loop unbundling by CAIP members?
Upgrading 1 CO's equipment to handle GE DSLAM aggregation with redundant 10G edge aggregation & core uplink costs a couple million including negotiated carrier discounts (Replace control+optics+management boards on DSLAM/controller, upgrade edge PP8600/Alu7450 & add 10G uplink to E320 BRAS via e100 DPI box, replace ERX with E320, and finally E320 requires 10G to the CO's core router, which costs a bundle on Cisco gear, and so on plus the labour, design, validation, license, support and integration costs).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20814461 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:29:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20814373 GNca George :

said by Kareeser :

That's right, and that's what I was getting at. Before I discovered TSI and DSLR, I was fine with my 300 Kbps "DSL" connection from Bell Sympatico!

We only want more because we know we can get more, not because we need to get more :)

Not sure I agree. I don't use many Gigs over the course of a month, but the few I do use I want right now.

Fast is good, really fast is even better. The serious downloaders are the noisy minority on this forum, but they in no way represent the majority of DSL users in Canada.

Bell thinks at least two ways. Really, really long term. Think fibre amortization long term. Twenty years plus.

They also think about the next quarter results.

The two kinds of thinking induce several kinds of multiple personality disorder. But writing them off as crazy is short sighted on our part.

George
--
Powered by Candlelight Wireless Broadband and Teksavvy MultiLink DSL!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20814373 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:06:02 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813658 Capharnaum :

said by Acanac Inc :

Each 1Gbp AGAS interconnect cost $1750 per month on a three year term. This does not include a few other fee's associated with these lines. This fee is just for your AGAS. This works out to
$1.75 per Mbps. This is a bit lower the the average transit cost we pay to connect to the rest of the world, but let's not forget that this traffic is all internal for Bell. This fee is also above and beyond the $20.50 we pay for each and every client we service. Once again if it's no longer cost effect show proof and increase the AGAS rates. It's that simple. This is what we will be asking the CRTC to consider.

For a 5Mbps link, wouldn't that be cheaper if it works out at $1.75/Mbps? (like $8.75 per month instead of $20.50)

Also that would work to $28 per month for a 16Mbps? If you sell it at $39.95 (still cheaper than Bell), then your margin would be close to what it is currently?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813658 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:22:24 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813627 Kareeser : That's right, and that's what I was getting at. Before I discovered TSI and DSLR, I was fine with my 300 Kbps "DSL" connection from Bell Sympatico!

We only want more because we know we can get more, not because we need to get more :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813627 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:16:18 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813616 Capharnaum :

said by Kareeser :

Hmph. If in the end of this, we can all make it out with 5 MBits unthrottled and 16 MBits throttled/capped, I'll take the 5 any day.

Best of luck to you all. Just tell me how to help you out :)

Really, is 16MBits that important? 99% of what people do on the internet gets home fine with 5 MBits. The things that would benefit from 16 MBits are huge bandwidth eating apps and would be useless with the throttling and the huge bandwidth fees.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813616 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:14:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813440 onlyrh40 : Since ISPs' came on the scene they have been over promising and under delivering. This is happening to the extent that stated speeds related to basic, medium and premium services have no meaning whatsoever. The only way to hold ISPs' accountable is if there is a usage based fee, little usage little fees. Deliver the goods or wither on the vine.
However if Bell implements a usage fee that results in a large increase in revenue without a compensating increase in traffic, then it is simply a ploy to pay the debt on the $20 Billion excess that Teachers Pension Plan paid BCE shareholders. In other words the users (you and I for the next month) will pay the cost of enriching BCE shareholders who are laughing on their way to the bank.
Times will get even more interesting over the next couple of months. The problem is "political" and the solution is ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813440 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:35:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813441 LittleStone : The timing of telling the clients is ... interesting. Should CAIP include this informal message into the response of the throttling complaint as evidence of Bell's anti-competitive behaviour? Bell may want to drag the throttling case into this new submission. Any government agency is going to get confused with the massive and complicated matters Bell thrown to them. Bell is going to get away with something in all this chaos.

I still think TSI et al. should go on offensive in marketing/PR to snatch as many customers as they can. When the market share is large enough, CRTC will think carefully about the effects of any decision on the public.

Right at the moment I'm ready to switch comes this news. I will wait a few more weeks to see whether TSI's business model is sustainable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813441 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:35:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813286 recneps :

said by j3richo :

google doesn't have any physical lines that run to people's homes, that's what the wholesalers need Bell for. 3rd party ISPs have all the bandwidth and infrastructure they need in place already.

Yes, but google potentially has the $$ to get those lines in there (aka fibre)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813286 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:04:50 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813253 LastDon : thats exactly my POINT

no one knows what the f' is going on.

Its not getting attention.

U think peopel would know what the iphone was if it didn't get attention?

for this to get out it NEEDS more attention and more boycotting websites, etc etc then what is being done.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813253 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:56:24 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813052 davidbrown : Backup plan not exactly.

Bell wanted to do this on top of the throttling for reasons anyone can see.

This was in the works at the same time as bell came up with the throttling and only now that bell is in danger of loosing its case with the crtc does it seem like a backup.

There still remains a chance we could end up with both.

Upside is the crtc shut down something like this a few years ago because it became too much of a sore spot.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20813052 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:16:31 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812986 EC : there's more people that know what the iphone is than what throttling is and how it affects them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812986 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:00:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812718 LastDon : I thought monopolies and trying to control the market was illegal?

isn't this what bell is doing, or do they have that much money they can pay off people and make them believe they are dumb?

this ALLIANCE of the CIAP do they do anything in reality?

It seems they are very slow acting and doing anything.

In all Honesty an example of this and how slow things are going are, if you just compared the APPLE IPHONE on rogers and their plans

people made a website Ruined Iphone petition and you saw how fast rogers acted.

Its actually a very good comparison, data prices are high right.. People Complain and what happend?

There doesn't seem enough interest in what bell is doing for people to act.

We are a small bunch , but if Rogers can get the IDEA via one website and a lot of complaints

WE NEED to get together, and make something that makes sense, and PIN POINTS the problem .]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812718 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:07:16 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812624 j3richo : google doesn't have any physical lines that run to people's homes, that's what the wholesalers need Bell for. 3rd party ISPs have all the bandwidth and infrastructure they need in place already.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812624 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:47:21 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812497 Scrappy2 : Guess it's about time to pack up and leave the internet
I've hated bHELL FOREVER.
If they think this move is going force people back to them because they are the only choice "THEY HAVE ANOTHER THING COMING"
There was life before the internet and will be life after it.
Some people who NEED it for their jobs may have to find other ways of doing things
and for those who download may have to go back to old ways of doing things (rent and rip or trade through the mail.)
For those who play online gaming(maybe try a board game)
All I know is if Bell gets their way I will never get a internet connection again.
I don't have a landline because of Bell and never will again.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812497 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:20:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812453 Trisomy21 : or "turn your head and cough"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812453 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:09:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812384 lcdguy : Maybe CAIP should propose a joint venture with google to implement their own infrastrucre in canada. could call it gnet :). On another note, this proposed plan by bell is disgusting. Perhaps should change their motto to.

"Welcome to bell, Please assume the position so wecan mug you. Thank you and have a nice day"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812384 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:55:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812376 anon : I'm a customer of one of resellers (teksavvy) and I'd like to voice my concern! Throttling didn't affect me so much personally since I don't use P2P applications that often, but Bell's continuing practice of trying to take away choice for consumers has me absolutely disgusted. To whom should I voice my concerns? Is there anyone at CRTC or the government I can send a letter to?

Thanks]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812376 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:53:38 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812341 jpabboud :

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?

You're very right on all your points, can't disagree with you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812341 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:44:10 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812161 anon : Remember our lessons from jr. high school folks. Bullies like to work in implements of torment and greed..it starts with shoving and teasing before moving on to the more painful stuff. Trick is, fight back while we have the chance. Both Liberals and Cons can be bought..so don't depend on the "Party" to get us through this. It is a citizen's fight to the death.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812161 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:01:14 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812148 R0CKY :

said by sMURF :

said by R0CKY :

IOW what equipment will they be doing this with!!

The throttle boxes, perhaps? Wasn't that one of their stated reasons for using them? To count bandwidth usage?

Hehehe.. they'd restated with something else after that first submission/statement....
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812148 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:58:16 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812145 sMURF :

said by R0CKY :

IOW what equipment will they be doing this with!!

The throttle boxes, perhaps? Wasn't that one of their stated reasons for using them? To count bandwidth usage?
--
Bell sucks. So does the CRTC.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812145 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:57:22 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812140 R0CKY : Believe there will be an opportunity to speak on this matter yes...
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812140 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:54:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812128 Trisomy21 : Will anyone be able to respond or argue the submission when they make it? Or is it entirely up to the CRTC? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812128 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:52:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812115 R0CKY : Looking forward to their submission to see how they plan to log and bill our traffic should this be what will be... IOW what equipment will they be doing this with!!
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812115 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:48:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812039 Trisomy21 : Exactly, I'll just move back to Europe, everything is better there, except of course gas prices.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812039 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:34:40 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812028 jat :

said by soundslikeaplan :

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

Most of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all persons in Canada, whether they're citizens or not. For most people, citizenship just means you get a passport and the right to vote. Oh, and you can be called up for jury duty. But personally, that's not something I'd miss. :P]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812028 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:32:36 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812009 jat :

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.

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20812009 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:29:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811999 Trisomy21 : Hence the class action lawsuit against Bell, Telus and Rogers for the system access fee. They'll gouge you any way they can.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811999 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:28:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811889 En Enfer :

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.

That 20$ per month already looks over-priced but it was like, "with that price, go on Bell, do the usual upgrades to the network required to provide us a good reliable service". Many of us expected for that price to go down over the years once the majority of areas are covered with a DSLAM.

Back in the 90's when Bell was still a monopoly, they went to the CRTC and told them there's still areas that one phone line covers 4 houses, each having a different ringtone, and asked a prices raise to phone service in order to upgrade those networks. Then they figured out they can't ask other increases anymore so they added Network Access Fees. Then they asked for deregulation so they can compete with ever-growing competition while their own customer services was on their way to India. During that time, CEO is a multi-millionaire and they're still looking for funding network upgrades...

Fast-Forward to 2008. Anything changed? No. Does the 20$ per customer they receive per month serves to upgrade their network? No, that goes directly into the CEO's pockets. They need funding to "maintain" the current network!

Something I find ridiculous is the idea to charge by usage. I did not brought a router and told myself, "When it reaches 5 years or 20 Tb, it's time for maintenance and out of warranty". IT'S NOT A VEHICULE FOR GOD'S SAKE!!! Enough with that insanity.

Bell want 3rd party ISPs to build their own network or get the hell out of business, but they keep eating up their profits.

A deal should be made. Lower that price since the Quality Of Service is not the same as it used to be (throttled) and due to Bell's inaction to upgrade the network they're all paying for, this proposition will help increasing the ISP's profits in order to find financing for their own network. Your network, your rules, your bandwidth, your prices.

Amen.
--
"I unofficially declare Beaver Hunting Season is on!" (© DR_JAYMAHDI)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811889 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:03:35 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811784 j3richo : yes that's what I thought. I wonder how Bell is going to justify this, maybe they'll use their "when user A uses too much bandwidth, user B will run out of available bandwidth!!!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811784 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:41:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811750 Guspaz : The CRTC has to accept this one. Pricing and such are regulated. Net neutrality isn't.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811750 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:33:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811731 j3richo : so how does this work exactly? does the CRTC have to accept Bell's proposal before they can implement it or are they gonna implement it and then we have to fight it to get reversed like with the whole throttling deal?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811731 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:29:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811723 Guspaz : Theoretically that $20 doesn't go to pay for usage. That's for the physical parts (equipment/line). TekSavvy is paying per-megabit for the AHSSPI connections, and that is supposed to cover all such costs.

Might the DSLAMs have higher backend bandwidth usage due to rising speeds? Sure. Except:

1) Bell is the one raising sync rates
2) That $20 should be covering maintenance and upgrades as required.
3) Faster equipment gets cheaper constantly, so it's not like more money needs to be spent. A fixed amount of capex per period for upgrades should keep that DSLAM modern.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811723 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:28:10 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811722 j3richo : read what Paul from acanac said on the previous page, Bell told him that the 5M service IS affected.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811722 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:28:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811565 jpabboud :

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!

No doubt that your AGAS connections were upgraded but what about the links between the DSLAMS and the Bell cloud ? For those on a remote there's also the link between the remote and the CO to add to that.

You're right that before Bell had no problem delivering an unlimited 5Mb for $20 but they were probably counting on a lower bandwidth average per customer. What I'd like to know is how Bell came up with a fixed price when there are so many variables that come into play.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811565 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:54:24 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811512 Gnaraktol : I was wondering Rocky, does this in any way affect the existing customer's on the 5 meg service?

If so, what are the projected changes that we as customers are to expect?

I doubt they'll change the existing service and do this only for the new provisioning of the higher speeds, hopefully......]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811512 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:43:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811482 phosphor : personally I think the problem here is the government.

I find it hard to believe that it's coincidence that Telus, Rogers, and Bell all have basically the same usage plans for the internet, and want to shape something where you pay not only by usage but fees based on type of protocol being used.

While at the same time Telus, and Bell decide to start charging for incoming text messages. Hard to believe there was no collusion involved and that these actions are not detrimental to the free market.

Although in Bells defense it is a good business plan, after all people download movies from their video store and then Bell not only gets the movie fee, but they also get paid for each byte of the movie as it streams across their network. You must admit it is a good way to rape the consumer, and as long as the government keeps handing them the Vaseline, it will continue to happen.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811482 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:37:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811460 R0CKY :

said by jpabboud :

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.

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!
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811460 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:33:21 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811415 mr_hexen :

said by jpabboud :

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.

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

exactly. if I am paying $0.xxc PER GB then i want that GB at FULL speed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811415 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:23:36 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811086 jpabboud :

said by Arbalister :

You have it backwards.

We all *did* run our own nets, with our own backbone connectivity, based on our own customer bases and growth predictions. Subscribers *chose* to connect to our networks by dialing our access number rather then someone elses. We had to buy incoming phone lines, at first from Bell, but later there sprang up other local phone providers that we could use.

You can't compare dialup technology and broadband technologies. Sure most ISPs had their own pool of modems and only relied on the big guys to sell them DS1's but it did not involve running a link to every CO from your HQ and buying/colocating DSLAMs.

My point was that if it was that easy financially, you'd see more ISPs with their own DSLAMS. The costs are astronomical and I don't blame them for relying on Bell.

said by Arbalister :

We all still love to be able to do that. We can't. DSL requires a DSLAM at the CO end of every subs phone line. We can't go out there and start disconnecting and reconnecting peoples phone lines. Only Bell can. The subscriber can't choose, simply by routing a call to a different number, what service he wants to use. Only Bell can.

I agree but there are ISPs colocating their own equipments (see Primus/ColbaNet). I think if they regrouped and found some government funding (via a broadband access fee, see cell phone industry) they could potentially service a lot of CO's and diminish their reliance on Bell.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20811086 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:24:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810942 Arbalister :

said by jpabbou :

dThe internet is going to be pay as you go, transporting massive volumes of data is not free. If it was TSI and the rest of the wholesalers would be running off their own networks. The important thing is that the CRTC regulates the price per GB that Bell will charge to its wholesalers.

You have it backwards.

We all *did* run our own nets, with our own backbone connectivity, based on our own customer bases and growth predictions. Subscribers *chose* to connect to our networks by dialing our access number rather then someone elses. We had to buy incoming phone lines, at first from Bell, but later there sprang up other local phone providers that we could use.

We all still love to be able to do that. We can't. DSL requires a DSLAM at the CO end of every subs phone line. We can't go out there and start disconnecting and reconnecting peoples phone lines. Only Bell can. The subscriber can't choose, simply by routing a call to a different number, what service he wants to use. Only Bell can.

How many lines did you want strung to your house? I could start offering DSL down my own network. You'd have to pay for the linesman to come out and hang new wire, for the construction and right of way from my premises to yours, a portion of the cost of the DSLAM, and the facilities...

It's either that, or use the pre-existing DSL facilities...that Bell controls.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810942 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:53:56 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810928 mlerner :

said by PuZo8902 :

WHY DOES EVERYONE MISS THE MAIN POINT. SAME WITH ROGERS AND THEIR DATA PLANS FOR INTERNET.

Instead of improving the network, ie new equipment, they just raise their prices to play with the law of supply and demand. They want to see how much they can get out of us. Ie Bell/Telus charging for incoming txt messages. If they were improving their networks, then they wouldn't have to worry about how much data is being sent over their networks.

Well Rogers has been slowly decreasing data prices (very slowly) while Bell continues to increase prices hoping no one will notice. Unfortunately to improve their network, Bell would have to have the money first and with the poor sales and their buyout they just don't have the cash. This is why I've been trying to get people to move over to Rogers, sure they won't be any less expensive but they're not trying to nickle and dime you as much as they used to.

Although most of that was way off-topic, if things don't improve than Bell will continue to nickel and dime with all of their services for the foreseeable future and if they can do it with wholesale than they will.
--
"If bullshit was money this guy would be richer that Bill Gates." - quote by olebiker on Mirko Bibic]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810928 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:50:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810831 anon : WHY DOES EVERYONE MISS THE MAIN POINT. SAME WITH ROGERS AND THEIR DATA PLANS FOR INTERNET.

Instead of improving the network, ie new equipment, they just raise their prices to play with the law of supply and demand. They want to see how much they can get out of us. Ie Bell/Telus charging for incoming txt messages. If they were improving their networks, then they wouldn't have to worry about how much data is being sent over their networks.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810831 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:25:38 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810542 anon : This is the world of Bell under its new CEO Geirge Cope.

»www.p2pnet.net/story/16421

Everyone knew once the teachers union take over was a go that prices would increase, layoffs would come, and nickle and diming all bell services would happen.

This is the new Bell with its 32+ billion dollar dept under g. cope.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810542 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:40:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810097 Ikarasu : Ah, weird, I heard cable wasn't regulated...weird.

Well, hopefully this fight is just the first of many then. Bell is a good start, but if things are really going to change, all other wholesalers need to speak up also.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810097 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:33:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810082 Guspaz : Videotron/Rogers both allow wholesalers, and are regulated just like DSL is. It's just that the regulations aren't exactly the same.

Examples of wholesalers are 3web for Rogers and Electronic Box for Videotron.

Videotron is actually already doing usage-based billing for their wholesalers. That's why eBox's cable service costs $65. They're reselling Videotron's 7meg business cable lines to consumers, since that's the only Videotron profile that has no cap. eBox used to offer cheaper 10meg cable, but it had a low cap due to Videotron.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810082 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:27:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810053 Ikarasu : Videotron/Rogers don't allow wholesalers, just resellers I thought? And isn't it not regulated like DSL is?

Regardless... Rogers/Videotron don't throttle downloads, just uploads. I'd much prefer that then being throttled on the downstream to 30 Kb/s during prime hours everyone is on.

But even still... I think people care so much, because wholesalers are peoples last option for a decent ISP. And the Practices bell has been showing, make it obvious they're doing it to be anti-competitive, which ticks a lot of the loyal customers of wholesalers off. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20810053 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:07:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809986 jpabboud :

said by Ikarasu :

Almost makes me laugh... haven't been around bell much, have you? :P

I have for a long long time, I was there when they decided to go with PPPoE over DHCP and people were having the same reaction. Oh my god they're making me dial!!!!

Today it's a non-issue even though it made it easier for them to throttle wholesalers. It's not like it's only Bell, Bell was the first one to open up its network to wholesalers, what about Videotron or Rogers? Why do we treat them differently?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809986 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:32:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809984 anon : Bell changing their price structure again so no one knows what's going on. Let me guess they'll tell you it ************----->MIGHT -----************ be cheaper somehow but they will they will end up making more for less.

So Rocky, I guess I'll stop telling people to switch until I hear you won. I pay 29.95 for 5M at 200g (throttled now). If anything changes you will end up being worse then Bell. At least I could go a full year with them before the gave me less for my money. And Rocky I don't wanna hear you blame Bell this time. Take the gloves off.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809984 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:31:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809983 Slot Zero :

said by Stewy :

This has strengthen my resolve even more to remain a client of a CAIP reseller.
[...]
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.

Well said, Stewy. I feel exactly the same as you and this latest garbage has only made me want to convince more people to dump Bell as soon as possible.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809983 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:31:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809963 Angelo_ :

said by jpabboud :

said by Angelo_ :

no matter how you spin it fee per GB = more money per month! even at the 200gb usage rate...

We don't even know the details yet... :) For all you know Bell will decide to stop throttling wholesalers and charge for traffic beyond 60 GB at a reasonable rate.

it's bell this is to be added ontop of whats currently in place.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809963 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:19:23 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809961 Ikarasu :

said by jpabboud :

said by Angelo_ :

no matter how you spin it fee per GB = more money per month! even at the 200gb usage rate...

We don't even know the details yet... :) For all you know Bell will decide to stop throttling wholesalers and charge for traffic beyond 60 GB at a reasonable rate.

Almost makes me laugh... haven't been around bell much, have you? :P ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809961 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:19:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809945 koreyb : I think we have hit the point now, Teksavvy, Acanac and others need to pool funds and get partners to build their own end user network. Enough is enough...

Bell should not be able to hold on to sympatico nor offer anything but end user network services. This is the only way to end this once and for all..

I hope this new announcement is used in CAIP's submission as anti-competitive examples... This needs to be stopped before it begins]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809945 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:09:17 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809927 jpabboud :

said by Angelo_ :

no matter how you spin it fee per GB = more money per month! even at the 200gb usage rate...

We don't even know the details yet... :) For all you know Bell will decide to stop throttling wholesalers and charge for traffic beyond 60 GB at a reasonable rate. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809927 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:05:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809920 Angelo_ : no matter how you spin it fee per GB = more money per month! even at the 200gb usage rate...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809920 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:03:24 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809879 anon : when the higher speeds becomes available, Bell's going to try to justify throttling again because of higher congestion. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809879 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:46:24 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809865 jpabboud :

said by Acanac Inc

Each 1Gbp AGAS interconnect cost $1750 per month on a three year term. This does not include a few other fee's associated with these lines. This fee is just for your AGAS.

So Paul if I understand correctly I was right and the $1750 does not include the traffic transported all the way from the DSLAM, the $20.50 does... it's just basically an interconnection fee.

1750 is within Bell's standards for a point to point transport link. I think the fact that they're refusing to raise the monthly per port charge does not necessarily mean that they want to crush the competition.

Raising the price would be a band-aid solution, it would fix some issues in the short term but in the long run you'll experience the same issues with available infrastructure and demand.

The internet is going to be pay as you go, transporting massive volumes of data is not free. If it was TSI and the rest of the wholesalers would be running off their own networks. The important thing is that the CRTC regulates the price per GB that Bell will charge to its wholesalers.

Some of you might see your bills lowered if Bell decides to charge a base monthly fee+per GB.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809865 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:40:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809808 Acanac Inc : It's not about costs. When the Bell rep called to inform Acanac of the proposed usage based billing I recommend that they increase the AGAS fee's if it's no longer cost effect. ( This is assuming they can provide proof) This was rejected. The upper management of Bell wants to make sure that we are not able to offer alternative services from Bell Sympatico. I also believe they want to prevent third party ISP's from ever offering triple play services. They know this is the key to long term success. The more services you have bundled the lower the attrition rate. Your also able to lower the cost of each individual service.

Each 1Gbp AGAS interconnect cost $1750 per month on a three year term. This does not include a few other fee's associated with these lines. This fee is just for your AGAS. This works out to
$1.75 per Mbps. This is a bit lower the the average transit cost we pay to connect to the rest of the world, but let's not forget that this traffic is all internal for Bell. This fee is also above and beyond the $20.50 we pay for each and every client we service. Once again if it's no longer cost effect show proof and increase the AGAS rates. It's that simple. This is what we will be asking the CRTC to consider.

Below you will find a direct link to the tariffs.
»www.bce.ca/en/aboutbce/regulator···=%205410

Best Regards,
Paul
»www.acanac.ca]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809808 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:21:07 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809799 Yonsil : I'm moving back to cable.
This is total outrage and I will not accept such.
My family is paying so much as much as it is, they expect us to pay double? No f***ing middle-class family can afford unlimited access to internet at $100 per month unless they want us to cancel our TV subscription and phone line. Truly BS from BS. Government better not approve of this or I will go active...seriously. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809799 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:18:48 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809711 anon : 5M is going to get hit the same way.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809711 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:09:56 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809748 jpabboud :

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.

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.

In my opinion that doesn't make sense, a few years ago I was thinking of jumping in the ISP business and sat down with Bell to see how it worked. Basically they had different aggregation links available, Ethernet, Fast-E, Gig-E, DS3, OC3 etc. and that price was only for the physical link between their bell cloud and my net. The price was something like 1600 a month for a Fast-E and I had to pay a backhaul fee per mo per client if he was outside my serving area. That's why I assumed the DSL transport cost (between the users home and right before the hand-off was included in the $20.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809748 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:07:40 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809695 Kareeser : Hmph. If in the end of this, we can all make it out with 5 MBits unthrottled and 16 MBits throttled/capped, I'll take the 5 any day.

Best of luck to you all. Just tell me how to help you out :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809695 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:54:16 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809670 dre145 : I've had enough of these ..... thinking they can do what ever they want.

If you guys are going to have a rally again im taking a day off and taking a bus to ottawa with you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809670 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:48:31 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809638 mazhurg :

said by jpabboud :

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.

Sorry, once the equipment is in, the only cost is in the maintenance of such.

Now, that 20$ cost was offered *by Bell* when the CRTC asked it to set it at their cost + 15%. They had, and have the option of going to the CRTC and argue that the link cost has increased but never did avail themselves of it. Want to know why? IMHG it's because the actual cost of maintaining the link is far cheaper than the current schedule.

No, all this is is about a monopoly throwing it weight around, trying to shake nascent competition as it provides better services, and being greedy just because they can as the current political climate favours them.

With what is coming over the horizon on the Internet, you really do not want to artificially limit it's capability for simple greed.

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.

sorry, posted too fast and missed syntax]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809638 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:41:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809611 anon : Trisomy21: If you renounce your citizenship then the few "rights" you have won't apply to you anymore. Rethink your plan. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809611 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:36:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809572 Trisomy21 : If they can get away with this then I renounce my Canadian citizenship.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809572 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:28:21 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809569 anon : jpbboud: Bell can't live off your hopes. It is going to happen that way.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809569 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:27:46 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809542 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809542 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:21:14 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809532 jpabboud :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809532 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:17:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809487 Trisomy21 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809487 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:07:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809480 nitzguy : 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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809480 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:05:16 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809479 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809479 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:05:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809473 anon :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809473 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:03:29 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809448 jpabboud :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809448 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:59:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809440 Arbalister :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809440 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:57:56 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809366 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809366 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:44:13 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809320 anon : "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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809320 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:34:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809248 anon : >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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809248 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:22:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809239 recneps : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809239 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:21:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809227 anon : I already have Usage Based Billing for 5meg service with 200G month at $29.95.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809227 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:19:25 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809157 grayfox : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809157 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:09:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809119 jpabboud : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20809119 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:04:23 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808826 wonders : 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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808826 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:16:43 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808823 Ikarasu : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808823 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:16:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808785 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808785 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:08:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808750 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808750 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:00:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808680 DJMASACRE : 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..

... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808680 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:48:57 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808500 TilhasBB : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808500 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:14:12 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808240 Capharnaum :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20808240 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:18:56 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807938 Omr : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807938 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:15:38 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807745 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...']]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807745 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:40:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807704 anon : Lets not forget the 16-meg service is CRIPPLED on top of it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807704 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:32:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807679 Rand2k1 :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807679 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:28:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807640 KPaul : all aboard the fuck off bell boat.........

I wanna sueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee em']]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807640 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:20:40 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807494 recneps : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807494 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:50:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807374 mr_hexen :

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!?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807374 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:31:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807200 Stewy :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807200 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:03:17 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807190 Sears : 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807190 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:00:54 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807159 MisawaGQ : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807159 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:56:10 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807067 Topher92 :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20807067 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:41:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806974 anon :

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 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806974 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:27:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806930 Rastan : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806930 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:19:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806903 Quake110 : 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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806903 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:15:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806873 HiVolt : 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
--
,,!,,('-'),,!,,]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806873 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:10:57 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806857 bryanviper : Wow this is crazy, Ok rocky im going to run a Cat6 cable from your servers downtown to my computer... its the only way :D

But really what is this BS?! They need to just tell bell NO and take over all last mile connections so they cant do stupid crap like this.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806857 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:06:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806805 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. and even if they do enable adsl2+ for everyone not many C/os actually have the equipment anyways except in large citys ;(
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806805 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:54:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806803 Doci : I don't believe this company.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806803 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:53:54 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806779 Cyborg994 : I really hope ISP's don't have the same clause in their contracts as cell phone users... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806779 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:50:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806533 sMURF : I knew this was going to happen. Fuck you Bell.
--
Bell sucks. So does the CRTC.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806533 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:10:11 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806527 anon : Since 99.9 percent of all subscribers are connected to a central office not a remote when is bell going to get real line cards for the central office that can support 16 to 20 megabit dsl?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806527 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:08:43 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806524 anon :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806524 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:08:03 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806522 j3richo : how will the CRTC possibly tolerate this? they are literally trying to destroy the reputation of all ISPs (it's not discrimination! we treat our customers the same way!!) what happens if they change 5M and 3rd party ISPs have all their customers revolt because the contract and features have been changed??]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806522 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:07:55 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806498 j3richo :

said by Acanac Inc :

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

what??? this is absolute BULLSHIT! it's not enough they want to fuck us on 10M+! how can they change a service we already payed for? are they going to claim the same "this change does not require ISPs to change anything in their networks" BS? This is unbelievable]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806498 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:05:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806496 jpabboud : Have you heard if it's applicable to HSA or just GAS ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806496 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:05:22 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806479 anon : Anyone have a letter/email on this from Bell to post online?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806479 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:01:57 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806445 Cyborg994 : Wow, if that's not a CRTC rule violation, I wonder what is...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806445 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:57:02 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806429 Cyborg994 : One more thing, as I read it they are offering this outside of their agreement with the CRTC, so on a purely contractual basis.

Also i'm pretty sure that they will then try to use theses contracts to show that they don't need to be regulated for anything else then the 5 mbit, since they provide service...

At least now we know what these DPI boxes were installed for... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806429 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:55:13 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806417 Acanac Inc : From my understanding the 5Mbps service will be affected. This was made clear to us. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806417 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:53:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806410 Quake110 : The small ISPs can't be at the mercy of Bell anymore. They should form a consortium and build their own network.

Don't know if its feasible but minister Prentice is being controlled by the big corporations and the american movie industry.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806410 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:51:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806403 TOPDAWG : Well with 360 being used a PVR boxes and now PS3 you can brake 60 GB's a month in a legal way. It's no more a debate about it's just people downloading shit for free anymore. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806403 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:50:50 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806397 Cyborg994 : It really (again) puts reseller as a disadvantage, as they will have to bill for overusage, and hand over that money to bell... Another way to prevent differentiation of service.

At least the 5 mbit service cannot be touched, as it's CRTC regulated. I hope this will ring a bell (pun intended) somewhere that will show that those speeds have to be regulated as well.

Also it shows the bias that bell has toward it's sympatico service, as they already do in a few ways :
- no band rate to pay for sympatico subscribers
- access to 7 and 16 mbit speed

Really this is a sad day for Internet access in Canada.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806397 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:50:35 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806367 Acanac Inc : That is correct. Who knows what the over charges will be. This is Bell so one can assume it won't be cheap. For us this is ridicules. We plan to offer IPTV in the near future and this will put an end to any such attempts.

Not to mention the Good will we will loose with our client base. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806367 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:44:23 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806361 HiVolt : This will have to go before the CRTC also, no doubt... Bell simply cannot impose their greedy, ass-backwards ways onto the wholesale ISP's...

Throttling is one thing, and they will probably lose that battle, so they are trying to bring the next wave of ideas how to cripple the independents...

Pathetic...
--
,,!,,('-'),,!,,]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806361 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:44:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806359 recneps :

said by TOPDAWG :

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

Yup, and those caps would be whatever bell sets. (Probably like 10gb, since they offer 60.)

CAIP should see if they can get government support to build a fibre network.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806359 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:43:48 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806357 anon : This falls in line with this rumor from the sympatico forum:

»Is it true Bell will have Total Max 16mbps in August for $50

Also note the P2Pnet article and Rocky's reply:
»www.p2pnet.net/story/16414

All this DOES NOT add up if 5% of the user who use P2P and go over 60-gigs per month ARE the problem as Bell laid claim to.

this whole friggin thing stinks of being fixed and of anti-competitiveness.

Are wee seeing another CRTC fight unfold?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806357 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:43:23 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806335 TOPDAWG : So that mean you'd be forced to do caps on everyone? So no more unlimited?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806335 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:39:24 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806333 emerald_b : WOW this is low...even for bell... I think its time for CAIP to start to hit them where it hurts... because if they dont, this is never gonna stop. They think that this will scare off the 3rd party providers... which is their ultimate goal I suspect. This whole thing is getting so pathetic. I think its time for a massive media strike against bell... cause guess what? now EVERYONE is affected personally not just p2p users... I think people will start to listen. Plus its not a hard concept to explain to the masses. Do I sense Ottawa rally pt. 2?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806333 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:38:47 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806300 Acanac Inc : I can confirm this as well. They are pushing ahead with a user Usage Based Billing component. This is as ridicules as it gets. They even gave us the excuse that it's for the benefit of the Wholesalers. ( another revenue stream) Considering Teksavvy and Acanac make up the bulk of all new orders I don't know who they are talking too. In my opinion this is just a back up plan in case the CRTC rules against them with Caip.

For companies like Teksavvy and Acanac that have 4-6 1Gbps AGAS interconnects this could not get more ridicules. We paid setup fee's planned months or even years ahead for what?
What about IPTV.... With Usage Based Billing component it will be impractical for any of us to ever offer such services. Totally uncompetitive.

We do make up a large majority of the wholesaler client base Rocky. If we submit our objections to the CRTC together they may take notice.

Best Regards,
Paul ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806300 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:34:03 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806272 Rastan : The smaller ISP's need to get together again and hit back hard because this is complete nonsense. It's clear that Bell will not back off and won't stop abusing their power until someone stands up to them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806272 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:28:07 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806250 Kyolux :

said by Jman99 :

That's having the cake and eating it too.

You mean selling the cake and eating it too?

Anyway, usual Bell BSing the rest of the world.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806250 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:23:13 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806247 Jman99 : So first Bell wants you to pay for each Gig-e connection that you need, and then they want you to pay again for the usage.

That's having the cake and eating it too.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806247 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:22:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806195 theninjasqua : Perhaps that logic is something that Bell is looking to change in exchange for the higher speeds.
--

-theninjasquad]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806195 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:13:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806175 j3richo : how would that work exactly? don't wholesalers buy their own bandwidth? who is Bell to tell them how much they can use it for?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806175 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:10:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806110 Black Moon : 'Usage Based Billing' is basically saying they want to stop p2p and heavy users. Will they then also stop the throttle?

Baskets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806110 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:56:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806091 JayMan : Get'em Rocky.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806091 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:53:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806021 jpabboud : I think it could have something to do with Bell dropping the price on their 16Meg service to $50/mo. in August. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20806021 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:38:13 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805977 mazhurg : R0cky, something more concrete, or just the rumour mill for now?

To start metering would that not involve a change to the schedules? I would assume that there would be a proper feasibility study done first?

Don't jump at the carrot. See if it make sense first.

.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805977 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:30:20 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805952 HiVolt : Wow, that's just ridiculous... We're soon gonna be left with no f!@#$ alternative to the big telco/cableco's...
--
,,!,,('-'),,!,,]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805952 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:24:36 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805941 Angelo_ : today we are at a point were Bell is still hurting 3rd parties.

They will eventually be forced to build their own network, this seems to be the only logical action.

As nice as Bell's "Fiber" network is. It is already out dated since it is not true fiber it is a hybrid of the old and new. FTTH will not offer new speed but it will also change the way Canadians experience the internet and start a new invovation era.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805941 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:22:56 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805908 jpabboud :
I think Rocky hinted at that a while back when TSI got rid of the unlimited logins. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805908 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:17:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805861 Angelo_ : Why not include a survey witha submision of users who'd leave Bell completely if they were to go usafe based billing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805861 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:10:25 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805860 Rastan : Can they force Teksavvy to cap the 5MB speed profile as well? When I canceled my account with Sympatico, the person I spoke to seemed pretty sure that Teksavvy's 200GB/month cap wouldn't last long.

If Teksavvy is already purchasing bandwidth from Bell, how can they justify further bandwidth usage fees? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805860 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:10:14 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805858 mlerner : hmm, how would that work? Is it even legal to monitor and bill usage for 3rd party customers?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805858 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:10:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805831 R0CKY : Guess it's time to raise another stink and prepare for another end of month Bell event.

Seems Bell may be planning another submission to the CRTC at the end of July.

One part I hear is pretty good as they plan to introduce new speeds finally to the group (10Meg and 16Meg), but what absolutely stinks is seems Bell's planning on also introducing some sort of Usage Based Billing component!

CAN YOU SAY CASH-GRAB! Oish.....

If there was a time for both the CRTC and the Government to step in, this is the time! This is absolutely BS... They're trying to make us resellers or turn us into mini-Sympaticos... goodbye uniqueness! Not good!
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805831 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:07:11 EDT