andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | reply to Jaggie
Re: Acanac
Thats why I asked if it's legal under the regulations inplace now.May need to launch a lawsuit or somethin. |
|
Jaggie
join:2007-08-09
Mississauga, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
2 edits | reply to Newbies
Bell's Next Step:
Telling wholesalers the have to offload there call support to India so bell can compete with Acanc/Teksavvy/Ebox etc... far Superior call centers.
This seems to be bell's new line of thinking in competing with there wholesale brotherins. THROTTLE/CAP/CRIPPLE so they offer roughly the same service as sympatico does or til wholesalers fizzle out and fade away leaving only Bell.
You can bet if bell had it's way there would be no wholesalers just Bell and a few Resellers like Robbers. |
|
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON | reply to Newbies
So this idea has to go before the CRTC first before bell can do it right? They may tell bell to fork off on the idea. |
|
dataiv
join:2002-02-25
Ottawa, ON
 ·Cogeco Voip
 ·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Jaggie
Jaggie, hate to nitpick, but you have a few posts in this thread already and you keep using "there" in every single post ...
said by Jaggie  :Telling wholesalers the have to offload there call support to India so bell ... ... Telling wholesalers they have to offload THEIR call support ...
said by Jaggie :You can bet if bell had it's way there would be no wholesalers just Bell and a few Resellers like Robbers. You can bet if bell had ITS way there would ... (if you write "it's", just think of it as meaning "it is" ... so does "if bell had it is way there would ..." make any sense? not really.
But basically,
The boy went over there. The boy pointed over there. The boy lived in the Arctic. It was cold there.
vs.
The boy pointed at their house. Their office is too small. Bell tries to mess with their customers... etc.
Use "there" when referring to a concrete or abstract object, or when referring to a place.
Use "their" to indicate possession. So in the case of bell offloading "their" call support .. it is their call centre, so use "their".
End rant... Please, please, please try to use there/their/they're correctly. |
|
jam_bongo
join:2002-07-17
Toronto, ON | reply to Newbies
you're saying it doesn't affect current customers, does that include people who signed up for service this month? |
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON | From my understanding it will only affect new clients as of Jan 1 2009. |
|
mr_hexen
join:2007-08-02
Brampton, ON
1 edit | said by Acanac Inc :From my understanding it will only affect new clients as of Jan 1 2009. lets not forget how Bell likes to accidently change your account and then claim the "old deals" are no longer available.
you can bet THERE  will be some of those cases. |
|
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·MTS
1 edit | reply to Acanac Inc
said by Acanac Inc :From my understanding it will only affect new clients as of Jan 1 2009. Again, is it legal within the tariff framework, for them to impose caps on raw data?
If so, how would that work? they bill the ISPs for total bandwidth? You have to tell them how many users you have? They get to record all your users communications?
This is outrageous!
Essentially what you are saying is that there will no longer be independents as of Jan 1st. It's will all be white label... |
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
1 edit | As for the legality that's for the commission to decide. I hope they will refuse it, but from the legal opinion's I have gotten it does not look good.
They will track the usage based on the circuit ID. We pointed out some potential problems with this method. One for example would be if a user where to get a second user name and password from a second provider. The primary provider would have no way to tell how much bandwidth this client would be using through out that specific month. The primary provider would only get a bill at the end of the period. Then the provider would have to pass on the bill to the client or absorb the cost.
In the end this entire scheme if approved will be a logistical nightmare. Bell's billing system is from stone ages and I don't expect it to get any better. |
|
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
1 edit | They put down anything on paper yet for the unwashed masses to sift through? |
|
ancodia
join:2006-07-10
·Cogeco Cable
3 edits | reply to Newbies
doesnt it strike anyone as odd that ALL the big providers are pushing a 60 gig cap? You can't tell me that with all the different infrastructures in place from various providers they all can only support 60 gig per customer. There is something going on behind the scene that is driving all this.
That said, the DSL providers need to join together, look at where all your customers are and get serious about installing your own equipment. I'd be more than willing to sign a 1 or 2 year deal with whatever provider can deliver using there own equipment. It's time to start driving in the final nails into the Bell coffin. |
|
j3richo
join:2007-12-08
Gatineau, QC | reply to Newbies
paul, did they say anything about ADSL2+?
also maybe each ISP can "change" the current agreements to "lifetime contracts with no cancellation penalties" with their customers, I wonder if that would work lol |
|
An0nym0us
@host36-server.com
| reply to ancodia
said by ancodia :doesnt it strike anyone as odd that ALL the big providers are pushing a 60 gig cap? maybe 'typical' (read 'low usage') bandwidth statistically peaks at 60gb/month (and some higher value for people that use p2p and stream things often). so they figure that browsing/email/etc is the 60gb peak and that's what they want their currently priced service to be used for. the new stuff: streaming/p2p/etc they want people to pay a premium for. |
|
tiger9
join:2005-08-01
Ont,Canada | reply to Newbies
Goddammit, at this rate, Rogers will be competitive compared to Bell. That's sure not a good thing. |
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
2 edits | reply to j3richo
7Mbps service was briefly brought up, but I don't recall any ETA. I believe a questions was asked if user based billing would be implemented with this upcoming service. If I recall correctly the answer was yes. |
|
GyroCaptain
@teksavvy.com
| reply to ancodia
quote:
doesnt it strike anyone as odd that ALL the big providers are pushing a 60 gig cap? You can't tell me that with all the different infrastructures in place from various providers they all can only support 60 gig per customer. There is something going on behind the scene that is driving all this.
EXACTLY what I was thinking as well. And the more I ponder this, the more I suspect that what a few posters above have said will eventually come to fruition: they want to eliminate P2P, Usenet binary groups, free youtube, and the like since it competes with their "movie download" service. Just look at the whole Utopia thing..charging dsl prices with a 50 gig cap! W..T..F!
TekSavvy/Acanac absolutely have to band up and fight Goliath (bell) otherwise we'll be at their mercy forever. This whole fiasco reminds me of the opening scene from Saving Private Ryan. You can guess who the Nazis are. |
|
grayfox
join:2007-12-10
Whitby, ON | reply to Newbies
Any ETA on the 16meg service.
Also for users like me with 2 connections in ml-ppp, can bell accurately track are usage ?. |
|
beamer69
join:2007-05-10
Burnaby, BC
| reply to Acanac Inc
said by Acanac Inc :Forming an alliance in my opinion is the only real longer term solution. While still fighting Bell against these actions in the hope at some point the last mile is broken off from the rest of Bell so everyone is treated equally. 
Right now all they are doing is moving the restrictions they have on Sympatico to wholesalers 
Keep fighting Paul this is really a joke what they are doing. Well wish it was a joke but it is not  |
|
Gnaraktol
join:2008-03-18
Gatineau, QC
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Newbies
I think the next fight should go to court and not CRTC... this last move HAS to be illegal... Too bad Bell has lots of lawyer money...
The amount of data that passes through a pipe in a month is irrelevant to them, they may have an argument about the speeds because pipes can only handle so much at a time (not that I agree with throttling) - and that's what their fight at the CRTC is about, but total bandwidth passing in a month is ridiculous... it becomes another subject.
it's not like after 1 million gigs the DSLAM craps and they need to buy a new one or the wires wear out due to "bandwidth", sigh!
this last one is not about congestion, it's about control/monopolizing... The current tarrif contracts must say something about them being able to make changes to the traffic going through, if it's allowed only as a result of "network management to prevent blah blah blah" they can't use congestion on this last one... |
|
djweis
join:2006-04-02
West Des Moines, IA
| reply to CanerisErik
said by CanerisErik :said by Guspaz :On the other hand, I guess building your own remotes would be easier as a group. *IF* the CRTC forces Bell to allow placing remote xSLAMs just like the Stingers Bell puts on the side of their OPIs. We have something in the US called a field connection point as well as remote collocation. With the field connection point you physically place a cabinet or other DSLAM near the FDI (cross connect) in remote areas and pay the LEC a large amount of money to connect in a cable you provide to the cross connect field in the box.
We've done 5 of them with Qwest with pretty good success. Some are fed with multiple T1's and a couple are fed with fiber.
I don't see a wholesale/CLEC portion of www.bell.ca so I can't say for sure if that's available but it would be an option if it was. It only made sense for us in business parks that didn't have any ILEC DSL available. |
|
