| reply to TSI Gabe
Re: CRTC delays ruling on Bell's throttling And with the economy, you know this will take a backseat too... |
|
| reply to TSI Gabe
I have a simple solution.
Bell is providing us with partial service, selling us a 6MBps contract then giving us 1MBps? Fine, I will accept that. As long as they accept me only paying 1/6th of the monthly contracts bill. It is 100% logical, there is no flaw in that thinking, I pay for a service, only part of the service is provided, then I am only responsible to pay for what service is provided to me.
If I goto a car dealership and buy a car. Let's say I spend $100,000 to buy a porshe, they hand me the keys to a GEO, I'm going to laugh in their face as I take back $95,000.
If I hire a contractor to build me a house. He pores the foundation and tells me he's 100% done the entire house, despite the fact it's only a foundation. Then he asks politely for $400,000 for the entire house, I'm going to pay him for the work he did, he gets paid for the foundation, beyond that he can expect a foot to the ass and a lawsuit.
So why is this different? I am BUYING A PRODUCT/SERVICE. I PAY THE FULL AMOUNT, SO WHY AM I NOT GETTING WHAT I PAID FOR, WHAT IS IN MY CONTRACT!
Bell, you owe me a lot of money. When they started this, in October of last year, I CANCELED my home phone service, I've been 1 year without a home phone and couldn't be happier. I CANCELED my cellphone, and honestly it doesn't bug me. I switched ISP's to a smaller company (Velcom in Toronto, which has WAYYYY BETTER SERVICE AND SUPPORT!), and still Bell screws with MY internet? Screw you too Bell! You want to be a morally questionable, vile, pathetic excuse for a company, that's fine, but your not going to have me as a customer. |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | said by Chris N :
So why is this different? I am BUYING A PRODUCT/SERVICE. I PAY THE FULL AMOUNT, SO WHY AM I NOT GETTING WHAT I PAID FOR, WHAT IS IN MY CONTRACT!
The flaw in your argument is that the contract only specifies UP TO 6 Mbps. |
|
| And the flaw in your argument is that they say 6Mbs,
Why not say 200Mbs, on best effort? |
|
| Because the link between you and them is not set up for that speed, even if no one else was using their network. |
|
|
|
| ...even if no one was using their network you would not get 200mbps because your link speed is 6mbps (max)
however, i believe that people who cannot sync at 6mbps should not be paying as much as others |
|
mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | reply to lolhaha
said by lolhaha :
And the flaw in your argument is that they say 6Mbs,
Why not say 200Mbs, on best effort?
No they do not say 6 mbps and what parallel universe are you living in?
quote:
7. Service Availability. The Service is only available for use in Ontario and Quebec where technology permits and on Bell Canada residential telephone lines or on residential telephone lines supplied by other local exchange carriers which use local loop (telephone line) facilities from Bell Canada. A maximum of two (2) Service connections per residential address is permitted. You acknowledge and agree that Your Service Provider shall conduct a telephone number check upon your placing an order, which will be used only as a preliminary, geographical check to determine if the Service is available in your geographical area. Due to the nature of the Service technology, Your Service Provider reserves the right to deem the Service unavailable to you up to, including, and after the installation. Your Service Provider assumes no liability whatsoever for any claims, damages, losses or expenses arising out of or otherwise relating to the unavailability of the Service in your geographical area, even where such unavailability occurs after installation of the Service.
quote:
Performance Levels. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Your Service Provider does not guarantee or warrant the performance of the Service. Speed is a function of the bottlenecks experienced upon the wider network architecture of the Internet itself. As such Your Service Provider does not guarantee the maximum Service performance (throughput speeds) levels. You understand that any content that you may access through the Service may be subject to "caching" at intermediate locations on the Internet. Similarly, simultaneous use of high bandwidth applications (example, streaming media) by one or more (example, home networking) users may result in an experience that is slower when compared to a single application used by a single user.
»service.sympatico.ca/index.cfm?m···id=11013 |
|
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:I'm still hoping that the independents will band together and colocate DSLAMs. It won't cover all users (remotes), but there are still a decent number near COs... Why would we do that, when Bell would still control the copper from the Customer to our box in the CO? Why would we do that when Bell keeps trying to remove Co-lo from the Tariff so that they can set the pricing without oversight? Why would we do that when Bell keeps applying to the CRTC to *stop* selling unbundled local loops? (An unbundled local loop is what we'd have to buy to get copper from the customer to the CO...)
Why would we go through the expense, now, after seeing how likely Bell is to honor any pre-existing contracts? |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | Because, what other choice is there? I mean, I can bond together 5-10 DSL lines together to get a decent upstream going, but that costs a fortune and the only software that might be able to handle that many lines properly (Tomato/MLPPP) doesn't run on any hardware remotely powerful enough to handle it. Best you could hope for is maybe 4 with an overclocked WRTSL54GS.
The alternatives then are the RouterBoards, but it seems that the Microtik RouterOS has some serious flaws connecting multiple lines such that it takes 15 minutes or more to establish the connection when it should take no more time than 2 lines (our guess is they disconnect all lines when one hits the wrong ERX instead of just retrying that one line).
And again, that would cost a fortune. Reasonable internet costs only allow for two to three DSL lines. |
|
| As I've said before, the only way to control the customer experience is to own your own infrastructure to the greatest extent possible. I think that if the were carriers looking to setup their own infrastructure, the CRTC would oblige with loop unbundling and possibly some regulated co-lo pricing. But nobody's really stepping up to the plate.
At the same time, you could avoid Bell co-lo altogether if you built small scale FTTN... you'd just need to get a right of way and interconnect with the copper loop at the Serving Area Interface. Then you're half-way to FTTP... convert the DSLAM uplink to a GPON feeder.
The middle of the road compromise COULD be that ISP's purchase the PORT and provide their own backhaul from the serving CO, although this still won't solve all contention issues: a DSLAM with 144 or 192 ports and 2 Gig-E uplinks, some 50-75% of which are reserved for POTS-SIP and IPTV multicast channels. But this is still a better ratio than at the DSLAM and Ethernet aggregation points.
Enjoy some pics I scammed from a friend who was recently exiled from the beast. The first is a bandwidth calculation... the per-port engineered bandwidth is 50Mbps, but this is only possible with multicast traffic because of uplinks and fabric limitations. But that's what FTTN is made for: TV. Second is the latest DSLAM architecture, while the last shows the legacy ATM and legacy (Pre-IPTV/VDSL2) ethernetIP DSLAM architectures.
And a quote from the Annual Report to inspire us: "With the rapid growth in video and other bandwidth intensive applications on the Internet, we may need to incur significant capital expenditures to provide additional capacity on our Internet network. We may not be able to recover these costs from customers due to
competitors’ short term pricing of comparable Internet services. There is also a risk that our efforts to optimize
network performance, as a result of significantly increasing
broadband demand, through paced FTTN roll-out, traffic management and rate plan changes, could be unsuccessful and result in an increase in our Internet subscriber churn rate beyond our current expectations thereby adversely affecting achievement of our expected number of Internet subscribers in 2008. This could have an adverse effect on our results of operations." |
|
GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | The "middle of the road" compromise that you describe is exactly what I already said, although you need to provide your own DSLAM to do that. The problems with that is that you don't get access to customers served by remotes, and Bell is busy trying to get the CRTC to drop the requirement to offer that access. |
|
| reply to TSI Gabe
Anyways, back to the original discussion.
It is still on track then for an announcement on Friday? Or could they just announce on Friday that they are delaying a decision?
--
-theninjasquad |
|
| said by theninjasqua:It is still on track then for an announcement on Friday? Or could they just announce on Friday that they are delaying a decision? Very good question. The only record of the "delay" is the CBC news article. They do not give many hard facts in that article. Someone involved contact the CBC and CRTC to see if in fact it is true. |
|
| reply to mlerner
Speed is a function of the bottlenecks experienced upon the wider network architecture of the Internet itself. As such Your Service Provider does not guarantee the maximum Service performance (throughput speeds) levels.
that's interesting... that seems to be incomplete at best, since it is also a function of when Your Service Provider wants to diminish your performance (throughput speed) levels. |
|
| reply to TSI Gabe
i think one of the issues argued here about the contracts etc is simple. They advertise "uninterrupted" service and max speeds even during "PEEK" hours on commercials.
False advertising, they reel me in on a 3 year contract on lies and then laugh in my face when they got me yellin "SUCKER" when i get a throttled from near 1pm to 4am in the mississauga area. I pay nearly $70 for my internet with bell and i get 1\3 of that service. I want some of my money back. I don't even use torrents, simple downloads from gaming sites going at 20kb\s but come 6am boom, up pass 600kb\s.
I want to setup voip in my home but afraid todo this due to the throttling.
It goes the same for the third party companies, they paid for this line to resell to their own customers to only have NO control over the slowdown with their own customers. They pay for a line with advertised speeds they dont even get |
|
mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | said by pat2008 :
i think one of the issues argued here about the contracts etc is simple. They advertise "uninterrupted" service and max speeds even during "PEEK" hours on commercials.
False advertising, they reel me in on a 3 year contract on lies and then laugh in my face when they got me yellin "SUCKER" when i get a throttled from near 1pm to 4am in the mississauga area. I pay nearly $70 for my internet with bell and i get 1\3 of that service. I want some of my money back. I don't even use torrents, simple downloads from gaming sites going at 20kb\s but come 6am boom, up pass 600kb\s.
Yup, but it's Bell. Did you really expect anything else?  |
|
| reply to TSI Gabe
bell used to be a decent service for both home phone and internet. i couldn't believe a homephone bill with a light long distance plan, answering machine and caller id could make near $80 for a phone.
BUT and i mean a big BUT, when i pay $80 for that phone line i get what i pay for...
I feel scammed, reeled into this bs contract for 3 years with "promises" but not telling me about their little secrets over the phone.
I post on this thread because i switched to teksavvy and broke my contract, take me to collections i'll fight it in court.
I switched to teksavvy last week i have to wait until november 24'th to be setup but at least even with bell throttling their customers the prices are good and i have a 200 gig allowance.
Once i heard teksavvy was fighting for it's customers i thought it's the company i should be with, i pay quite literally half the cost for more then i get with bell now.
In quebec there is right now a lawsuit for false advertising for a lady that was reeled in on a contract as well told hopes and dreams but never got what she paid for.
If ever a class action lawsuit starts up, i'll be joining in a heartbeat and i know many many people that will also do the same.
This CRTC delay i wish i had a good gut feeling but as i've read in previous posts i have to agree i believe they are trying to word a polite FU to the public and siding with bell to continue playing puppets with it customers using the lines.
If only everyone would protest bell, switch to new providers and let them feel the pinch for once.
I think if i went to a gas station and paid for 50L of gas @ 1.15 a litre but only received 35 litres due to supply and demand but paid for 50 litres i'd be pissed.
It's my example simply because it's how i feel with using bells lines, i pay but dont receive |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
 ·TELUS
| There's definitely the feel of letting the storm pass and then come out, with the CRTC's move to delay the announcement. It reeks of: "oh but what if we have an new industry minister with a new orientation?"
The digusting part is that they can entirely disregard the public's opinion.
Makes me sick. |
|
| reply to TSI Gabe
The CRTC is expected to be coming out with a major ruling regarding fee for carriage and broadcasting policy tomorrow. That may well be why they moved the CAIP thing, to not conflict with this. |
|
| reply to drjp81
said by drjp81:The digusting part is that they can entirely disregard the public's opinion. Makes me sick. Yup. I also don't think they ever had so many people submitt comments in the history of the CRTC.
But they will disregard this. |
|
