 otty
join:2008-10-24
Revelstoke, BC | reply to mlerner
Re: Bell appeals CRTC decision Me too. In the end Bell may end up losing a lot more than they gain with this. They may screw the wholesalers and get rid of some competition that way, but probably they'll lose more to cable.
...could be that Rogers would see that as an opportunity to put their foot further up their customers' a**es as well though. |
|
| I like the model that cold squirrel described and it should really be implemented.
I hate the fact that Bell has such a monopoly its dragging us down. |
|
 andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 | Untill we see tariffs and the end of the crtc dicussion on throtlling you all are just speculating.Get a grip and lets see what happens first.Emailing your MP would be good thou. |
|
|
|
 El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·voip.ms
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| said by andyb:Emailing your MP would be good thou. Write a letter and send it via snail mail. Makes more of an impression.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 | Registered is even better lol.But any comunication is good. |
|
El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 | +1
Boris must be so sick of my ass by now.
 |
|
| The whole argument is a crock.
"As in any other competitive industry in Canada, we should be able to choose who distributes our services and how, be it wholesale, retail, direct or any other creative form of distribution channel," said George Cope, President and CEO of BCE and Bell. "The alternative of regulated access will have significant implications for our network and other investments going forward. Despite current economic conditions, BCE has committed to investing
more than $2.5 billion in the Canadian economy in 2009 alone." The first statement there is patently false - as an incumbent LEC Bell is required by law to make these services available to competitors. Second - he's saying "if we can't pick and choose customers, we can't afford to upgrade." Bull. The CRTC decisions mandates that they have to make the services available to anyone and everyone that asks for them, at a regulated price. That price, currently, is within a buck or two of what they charge *RETAIL* for the same service. If they can retail it for that price, *and* expect to upgrade, they lose not one cent. Unless their ultimate plan is to gouge as much as they can out of each individual customer company, in separately negotiated deals.
You know, if every other ISP in Bell's service area wanted to toss me 90% of their subscription income, I wouldn't fight it like Bell does... |
|
 R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | said by Arbalister:The whole argument is a crock. "As in any other competitive industry in Canada, we should be able to choose who distributes our services and how, be it wholesale, retail, direct or any other creative form of distribution channel," said George Cope, President and CEO of BCE and Bell. "The alternative of regulated access will have significant implications for our network and other investments going forward. Despite current economic conditions, BCE has committed to investing
more than $2.5 billion in the Canadian economy in 2009 alone." The first statement there is patently false - as an incumbent LEC Bell is required by law to make these services available to competitors. Second - he's saying "if we can't pick and choose customers, we can't afford to upgrade." Bull. The CRTC decisions mandates that they have to make the services available to anyone and everyone that asks for them, at a regulated price. That price, currently, is within a buck or two of what they charge *RETAIL* for the same service. If they can retail it for that price, *and* expect to upgrade, they lose not one cent. Unless their ultimate plan is to gouge as much as they can out of each individual customer company, in separately negotiated deals. You know, if every other ISP in Bell's service area wanted to toss me 90% of their subscription income, I wouldn't fight it like Bell does... The Bell statement is an interesting one that would likely deserve some looking into... I'd be curious to see just on what they spent the 2.5 billion on.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
|
|
| Well Rocky that's easy to answer lol. They spent 2.5 billion on those DPI boxes. Oh and I can't for get the other 99% went in their pockets hah. |
|
 gdogg
join:2006-02-06
39123
1 edit | Haha, so true heynow123
Self created, un-necessary costs.
Like fighting piracy
There was no loss, due to P2P use, until they installed the DPI boxes.
Just as there was no loss from piracy, until they started fighting it. |
|
| Let hope Rocky is considering Hydro One's fiber network. He sounds interested What do you think gdogg? |
|
gdogg
join:2006-02-06
39123
4 edits | I think my city once claimed to have fiber to curb, to all my city, being laid for the past 30 years
And Hydro One, goes right through my city
Even the last mile, might be ready, in fiber.
Well minus the 30 feet to my door, but my dad has 2 fiber crimper's he used to make for secor lying around. |
|
| reply to Arbalister
said by Arbalister:You know, if every other ISP in Bell's service area wanted to toss me 90% of their subscription income, I wouldn't fight it like Bell does... Look at it from Bell's POV...
a) $21 per customer from a 3rd-party reseller for 5 megabits service
b) $51.90 per direct customer for 7 megabits service, plus the potential for a bunch of overage charges
Assume they're f***ing greedy. Which one do you think they'd choose? |
|
andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to R0CKY
said by R0CKY:The Bell statement is an interesting one that would likely deserve some looking into... I'd be curious to see just on what they spent the 2.5 billion on. Most of thier money goes into cellular.They group that into any talk about about broadband "upgrades".This year the money will go to the 3G network they are building. |
|
R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | said by andyb:said by R0CKY:The Bell statement is an interesting one that would likely deserve some looking into... I'd be curious to see just on what they spent the 2.5 billion on. Most of thier money goes into cellular.They group that into any talk about about broadband "upgrades".This year the money will go to the 3G network they are building. Which has me interested in their various money statements these days. Throttling didn't consider a variety of things. They only talked about the ATM component of things which were being phased out and where likely almost non of our payments went to, etc...
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
|
|
| reply to Walter Dnes
said by Walter Dnes:said by Arbalister:You know, if every other ISP in Bell's service area wanted to toss me 90% of their subscription income, I wouldn't fight it like Bell does... Look at it from Bell's POV... a) $21 per customer from a 3rd-party reseller for 5 megabits service b) $51.90 per direct customer for 7 megabits service, plus the potential for a bunch of overage charges Assume they're f***ing greedy. Which one do you think they'd choose? Minus all the tech support calls, all the billing issues, all the "my email doesn't work" calls, and all the other drek that independant ISP's do *before* Bell gets involved. Don't doubt that a big portion of that extra 30 bucks goes towards customer maintanence. |
|
