riojew04532
@cia.com
| reply to Acanac Inc
Re: Acanac
Thank you for your reply. Few people seem to acknowledge that the economics aren't quite what some suggest they are... on both sides of the equation. Or that there may actually be a contention issue at some point in the network.
To follow up, if the cost is the issue, you prefer they increase the overall rates, correct rather than constrain service? Should they break down GAS charges further into a port/loop charge, a transit charge, and an interconnect charge? Do you believe that different ISP's are impacted to a different degree if the cost of transit is not billed as an individual component (example: local ISP who just does internet subsidises the providers offering VOD/IPTV & internet over the same tariff because he would likely use less bandwidth)?
What do you think of this model: the physical links are a fixed cost and actual consumptive use (transit) billed at wholesale, regulated prices that are costed out by CRTC & Bell (instead of the absurd prices they charge their retail clients)? Isn't that the fairest way? No caps, maybe they could say that a 512K GAS includes xGB, 5Mbps xGB, etc and then have it PPU thereafter, at the same rate as before, also reserving the right to disconnect crazy abusers, who use 90%+ of their xMbps link 24/7 (servers).
--------
And my response to a few things: billing per physical port is the only real way of doing it. As the sale of PPPoE logins has shown, this would make any type of per-GAS port (which should equal subscribers) included bandwidth impossible to bill. Want to circumvent usage billing; just create another login, which Bell gets no more revenue for! Furthermore, if there was to be a congestion management solution implemented that is enabled only during contention, even if it wasn't P2P specific, applying the constraint to the whole port is more effective (ie. "fair"). That is, creating N sessions won't increase your share of the pie by N times.
Lastly, in future the transfer rate won't be set by sync if you look around at other providers. BT, Telus, ATT, and others limit the PPPoE session throughput on a per-circuit basis at the BRAS in part because the internet PPPoE is only one of the services delivered over the last mile in next-gen-networks because other services (multicast IPTV pipeline, VoIP pipeline, femtocell pipeline, etc.) over the last mile are also sold... 60Mbps VDSL2 to the home isn't going to mean 60Mbps GAS. And furthermore, in the next-gen network, the network owner has to be much more demanding/restrictive in terms of what is connected to the network... thinks like dynamic spectrum management, power spectral desnity, loop testing, throughput testing and require compliance and a compatible software extension in the end user hardware. A line that has to increase TX/RX power because of bad splitters, inside wiring, poor quality equipment has a negative effect on stability and attainable sync for others that share the same distribution copper. |
|
Walter Dnes
join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Acanac Inc
said by Acanac Inc  :Just got back from the conference and here is what Bell is proposing. 512Kbps service will be limited to 2GB per month 5Mbps service will be limited to 60GB per month Let me get this straight. Bell sells X bandwidth to a re-seller. Why is it any of Bell's f***ing business whether those 3rd-party ADSL re-sellers doled out the 10 or 20 gigs at 512 kbits or 5 megabits to their customers??? If Bell's network can stand the hit at 5 megabits, why can't it stand the hit of half-a-megabit.
Full disclosure... I recently switched down from 5 megabits to 512 kbits on Teksavvy, saving $5/month in the process. I don't do P2P. Here's a dirty little secret. I find the half-meg speeds perfectly sufficient *FOR MY NEEDS*. YMMV. With the exception of a few really graphics-heavy sites, webpages load just as fast as at 5 megs. The usual roadblock is an overloaded ad-server on the other side of the planet. Even 128-kbit radio streams on Live365 come in fine, thank you.
Here's what I think happened. Bell is like a Detoit auto company, which lures in customers with basic cars, but generates its biggest profit margins by bait-n-switching buyers to more expensive models. With the recent upgrade of the "Lite" profile to 512 kbits SDSL, I believe that many people have come to the same conclusion as me, i.e. 512 kbits is perfectly sufficient. The result is that many new signups are going for 512K, rather than 5 or 6 megabits, and quite a few people are downgrading their 5 or 6 megabit connections to 512 kbits. This will result in reduced profits, and more importantly, reduced bonuses for the Board of Directors.
The usual reaction would be to cripple Sympatico's "Lite" service to the point of uselessness, to drive subscribers to Sympatico's more expensive options. Sympatico was probably telling the truth that the average user uses 10 gigs/month or less. Therefore, the bandwidth had to be reduced to something utterly ridiculous, like 2 gigs. However, the marketeers remembered that last time they tried such a stunt, people left in droves for Sympatico's competitors, which hadn't made followed Sympatico's footsteps. Sympatico realized that they would have make their competitors' Lite offering just as unattractive as Sympatico's. Hence the limits on reseller users' bandwidth. |
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
4 edits | reply to riojew04532
I would have no issues paying per port if the following conditions were met. The per GB rate is as cost effect as the 1Gbps interconnects. Lets also be clear that Bell does not provided us with any transit. They are simply a local loop back to our POP. The wholesalers are then responsible to provide transit to the rest of the world.
We are currently paying about $20.50 per GAS user each and every month. (every 5Mbps DSL client)
We also pay about $1, 800.00 per month for each 1Gbps interconnect. This portion of the bill is suppose to cover the cost of the internal Bell bandwidth. I want to be clear once again that this is not transit. It's is simply internal traffic and allot cheaper to provide than external transit.
Lets say worst case scenario Bell were to charge us wholesalers based on external transit costs. At this moment in time one is able to get a full 1Gbps connection for less than $10 per Mbps. In some cases for allot less.
Each 1Mbps can do roughly 320GB per month.
1Gbps connection can do approximately 320TB each direction every month.
Based on $10 per Mbps each GB of usage would costs 0.03 cents. This is just for one direction. In reality you can cut the price by a further half by using the other direction. Bell wants to charge us for both directions. This is unheard of in the industry.
Once again lets not forget that this is for real transit. Bell does not even have peer with anybody else in the entire planet. It's all internal traffic.
From the bit of information I got at the Bell conference they will be charging us wholesalers anywhere from 50 cents up to $2 per GB for internal traffic. Not even the most expensive transit providers in Canada come close to these ridicules rates. Even if they tried they would be out of business. On second thought not even Bell charges this much for real transit, but some how they can justify it for internal traffic. This is like rolling back the clock to the 1990's. They want us to be Sympatico clones and nothing more.
If Bell wants to charge per port based on usage I have no issues. Get rid of the $1,800 interconnect fees and charge us about 0.01 cent per GB. This is only fair since it's not real transit.
Best Regards,
Paul
»www.acanac.ca |
|
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| With the figures that you have given here, and that Rocky has previously stated TSI shells out to Bell each month, how is Bell rationalizing to you, the Indies, the caps and the overage charges that they want to apply? It would seem that they are already making their fair share of the game. Besides their more than obvious reasons, how do they justify this? |
|
TFArchive
Premium
join:2003-02-03
Gloucester, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | reply to Newbies
Isn't a gig-e capable of 640TB a month? A 10Mbit can do 3.2TB each direction, 100mbit 32TB each direction, 1000mbit should be 320TB each direction.
Of course you can only expect max 80% usage before issues could start occurring but that is still a lot of bandwidth. |
|
theninjasqua
join:2007-09-26
Oakville, ON
| reply to Newbies
It is really mind boggling seeing the way Bell is digging themselves a hole this past year. This company has really taken a dive bomb.
If in a terrifying world and the CRTC denies the CAIP injunction, and allows Bell to get away with these new shenanigans, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot. It would drive a lot of people to cable I think. I know I would consider it, that is of course until cable starts being just as limiting as Bell is.
Our country is seriously in distress when it comes to internet.
--
-theninjasquad |
|
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
1 edit | reply to TFArchive
said by TFArchive :Isn't a gig-e capable of 640TB a month? A 10Mbit can do 3.2TB each direction, 100mbit 32TB each direction, 1000mbit should be 320TB each direction. Of course you can only expect max 80% usage before issues could start occurring but that is still a lot of bandwidth. Thank you for the correction. I have now updated the above post. The per GB prices do remain the same.
Once again thank you for caching that mistake. |
|
HeadSpinning
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
| reply to theninjasqua
said by theninjasqua : It would drive a lot of people to cable I think. I know I would consider it, that is of course until cable starts being just as limiting as Bell is. Cable already caps and throttles. |
|
theninjasqua
join:2007-09-26
Oakville, ON
| said by HeadSpinning :said by theninjasqua : It would drive a lot of people to cable I think. I know I would consider it, that is of course until cable starts being just as limiting as Bell is. Cable already caps and throttles. I know, but the throttling is no where near as invasive as Bell is. Plus the price/speed ratio is much better, and they do have some options for more bandwidth tiers.
--
-theninjasquad |
|
riojew04532
@cia.com
| reply to Acanac Inc
Thank you Paul for your replies. I really appreciate hearing the ISP's take on how they would like costs to change if they need to (CRTC finds that proposed costs & billing models are ok and needed).
I would also like to clarify that when talking about GAS or wholesale xDSL in general, I use transit to mean the carriage cost of whatever system I describe, although I guess internal transit is more accurate. And it is a big number; if there really was 5Mbps for each user, the total internal transit would be 10Tbits downstream. I don't think all the wavelengths combined Bell has between Toronto and Montreal (ie. TO-Ottawa-Mtl + TO-NYC-MTL X 36 wavelengths X 10Gbit) could carry that much, nor could 40Gbps upgrades furnish that. I know that's not realistic use today, but in future it could be... 3Mbps iptv unicast, 10Mbps for HD. I also think that capacity has an exponential cost; 40Gbps is more expensive to buy than 4 X 10Gbps in some cases. And every element in the chain needs to be upgraded to support an upgrade at any one point.
Disclaimer: I'm formerly from the business side of IT consulting for telecoms and am pretty familiar with the ILEC infrastructure in north america in broad terms. Lots of experience in OSS, FTTN and legacy to IP network transformation (DS/OC/ATM/Sonet/T1/ISDN/DMS to IP/Ethernet/DWDM/ROADM/xDSL/metro ethernet/VoIP). I guess I sympathize with big carriers to an extent, and KNOW that their labour/integration/maintenance/support costs are absurdly high. But I'm also a consumer, and an advocate of open networks, avid P2P user and youtube fan. And I use the only non-throttled providers in both areas I live in, which means FiOS and 3web.
My dream infrastructure is that everyhome has a decent last mile link to enable a triple play, provided by VDSL2 or GPON (rural clients might suffer with bonded ADSL2+ and more limited options), where each element of the triple play has a wholesale and retail component. For example, providers can buy a 5Mbps ip/internet pipe, a 128K ultra-high QoS VoIP pipe, a business could have a 10Mbps IP/MPLS VPN and so on as discrete elements within the last mile. It reduces cost and port usage because all providers can share a single port/line/etc for the last mile, instead of say having Bell IPTV over one pair, and the ISP (Acanac/TSI/Sympatico/XYZ) over another: 2 ports, 2 modems, 2 copper pairs all mean more $ spent by everyone. This is very much like utopia in Utah: every service is provided over a single fiber regardless of provider, with each provider paying a portion of the cost of providing the link and internal transit.
Lastly, regarding FTTH: I think the big driver for FTTH for ILEC's is that they can guarantee retail-price levels of return on investment and avoid wholesale integration costs by being exempt from open access requirements. In many countries, FTTH infrastructure is exempt from resale requirements & regulation. Perhaps Bell et al are holding out for that. Or perhaps its still that the costs in the short term for FTTH are much higher than xDSL. |
|
ancodia
join:2006-07-10
 ·Cogeco Cable
1 edit | reply to Newbies
overcharge will drive people away from DSL. From my local cable provider I can get 120g/month for $65. With the new Bell rates, .50 @ 60g = $30 + my dry loop dsl, so its cheaper to go cable (and cable is faster). For an extra $25 I can upgrade to the 200g package. If Bell charges $2 per gig, well forget about it.
Like I said before, I've honestly think there must be a high level disgrunted Bell manager who is hell bent on destroying Bell. There is no way management would make these kind of decisions believing its good for business. (god help them if they do believe that!) The future is Internet based and they seem to be going out of their way to make sure every Internet user doesnt choose Bell. How can you secure your future when you alienate all your current/potential customers? Nickel & diming is the road to bankruptcy. |
|
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by ancodia :they seem to be going out of their way to make sure every Internet user doesnt choose Bell. How can you secure your future when you alienate all your current/potential customers? Because their target is mainstream Joe/Jane Average Canuck, who aren't informed and don't have a clue. Ppl will go with BS just because they have phone service with them. Case in point, my ex. She asked for a good ISP for her internet needs, and I recommended TSI, and wrote out info for her to get the connection. A few weeks later I hear thru the kids she got Inet, but went with Bell for simplicity, as her landline and mobile is with them. Many folks have this frame of mind, and Bell relies on it. |
|
bell usual
@bell.ca | reply to Newbies
The reason why companies such as Acanac and Teksavvy exist is to attenuate the Bell Monopoly. If Bell was to get the green light on this, it would undo the entire intent. |
|
intelceleron11
@acanac.net
| reply to Newbies
Ok here's the deal. What if Bell just wants to do away with all DSL customers, offloading all high volume customers (and some disgruntled others) to the cable companies' arms, effectively putting a strain on their networks (potentially). Just a thought. Surely, it's shady, and surely it's despicable, but they have the right to dictate the terms. They don't have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can and cannot be done on a leased line, when the terms at the beginning were agreed upon. This DPI technology is definately completely anticompetitive when used with their entire network. It stops becoming an issue of bandwidth control for their own networks, but goes into the realm of net neutrality, which is essentially what everyone's been talking about. IPTV is completely possible, in fact tvu player does fairly decent standard definition tv for around half a meg, using conventional p2p technology and windows media video container.
Maybe it's under the conventional bandwidth amount that bell caps me. Truth be told I'm an acanac customer but I'm affected by bell. I'm seriously considering dual logins to hopefully bypass this issue. It's frustrating and irritating and really, bell just is like the crazy girlfriend that after breaking up with her goes off the deep end. Bitcapping isn't going to work, and I can't see how Bell would even be thinking that a 60 GB cap would actually be appropriate - for anyone. It's definately useful as aforementioned, for utilitarian internet uses, but a 5mbit connection should not be considered utilitarian. The internet for me is an entertainment machine - I use it for gaming, for TV, for other downloads, for telephony, but interestingly enough, telephony isn't viable any longer ever since Bell throttled me and didn't tell me. When I cancelled my service I'm sure my voip provider wasn't too happy and I honestly think that I blamed my voip provider for problems that Bell actually caused. I considered removing my landline in favor of voip but since bell was being anticompetitive in that way also.... there is nothing I can do - I don't have cable, that's what my internet is for, and in order to have cable internet I've been told I need to subscribe to basic cable - which I think is BS but no matter what I'm being screwed for not wanting to be party to someone else's capitalist dream, being forcefed things I don't want and don't need.
That's all this comes down to with bell - they're just being more stuck up and hardnosed, thinking that because others "rent" the lines they as a landlord have total and complete rights as to what happens after that point. But there's tenant's rights, and likewise there should be wholesale broadband subscriber's rights as well. It's just another area of the internet that isn't defined but should be. I think Bell is just betting on the fact that the internet is so taboo and "mystical" that their actions "on this new frontier" wouldn't be seen the same way as other types of anticompetitive behavior. I'm not one to sue, but I really hope Bell gets what's coming to them with that class action suit wanting to be started in quebec. If alexander graham bell was alive today, he'd spit on Bell Telecom and forsake it as his brainchild for being so very cutthroat when it has no reason to be. As The Acanac poster says - up the price of the lines, do whatever, but be reasonable about it, but it's something that Bell just doesn't want to play Ball about. So I say it's already 3 strikes, and they're out. |
|
Last Parade
One of the Brightest Stars
join:2002-10-07
Port Colborne, ON
·Acanac
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to bell usual
said by bell usual :
The reason why companies such as Acanac and Teksavvy exist is to attenuate the Bell Monopoly. If Bell was to get the green light on this, it would undo the entire intent.
You're more of a Bell customer than an Acanac customer. Acanac just uses spare bandwidth to route you to the Internet, the rest is all Bell. |
|
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·MTS
1 edit | reply to Newbies
I wonder how Bell & co can come up with such a scheme? While currently most traffic is pretty well defined it will come a time, in the not too far future where the web will be the computer.
You can already start to see some trace of this: with off-line storage, group computations (E.g SETI), distributed applications (Google tools) and many others. Heck, Microsoft is working on a distributed OS, where the web is the OS.
In face of all that; we can pretty well conclude that data transit will have nowhere to go but up.
Do we as a country, as this capping and throttling will spread to most other Canadian telecommunications companies and cable if successful, really want to miss this opportunity and be relegated to the third world of communications? |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to Last Parade
One might argue that the whole "internet" part of the equation is rather important.
Nevertheless, it looks like the indy ISPs are considering changing this. As soon as they have their own equipment in COs, it's them for everything but the dumb copper to the DSL modem. Effectively, they own every aspect of the chain except for the dumb copper cable. And since they'd be controlling the equipment on either end, you could argue that the indy ISPs would "control" 100% of the chain. |
|
alex6999
join:2007-10-13
North York, ON | reply to Newbies
is it true? about thorttling
 |
|
jack9999
join:2008-05-06
Richmond Hill, ON | reply to Newbies
From what i know, they dont throttle, but Bell does.
But Acanac figured a way to bypass the trottle, maybe thats how the "No throttling" come by? |
|
alex6999
join:2007-10-13
North York, ON | reply to Newbies
bell provide link from local box with dsl modems to acanac, they can do it only of harm. |
|
