Reference number: *****

This is an automatic confirmation that we have received your message. If you have requested a response, we will contact you shortly. You may wish to print a copy of this confirmation by clicking on the small printer in the upper right-hand corner.

quote:

---

Just got me wondering... has anybody questioned those bastards if they actually did upgrades or did that money just went to somebody's bonus?

If not, CRTC should be.

---

quote:

---

Repeatedly Bell and other incumbents have shown strong arm tactics to stifle competition and innovation. Trying to stuff UBB (User Based Billing) down wholesalers throats is quite possibly the biggest slight Bell has shown the CRTC, by not bringing about speed parity but rather going 180 on the whole intention of improving service. We the consumers are held hostage by our incumbents, and yet hear how our American neighbors are improving their broadband infrastructure, and how Australia is investing $33billion in their broadband infrastructure. We are being left behind because of incumbents who all too willingly stifle the consumer by placing UBB, Caps, and Throttling on users who already pay way too much for a simple Internet connection. As a consumer if UBB is implemented, and speed parity doesn't happen within the year then I will leave my small ISP and rather go back to Dial-up. I am beginning to lose the benefits of High speed as all these obstacles leave me with just checking my email and surfing a webpage. Is this is the image of what Internet in Canada is supposed to be? A bland landscape where individuals just surf and check emails or rather a media enriched place where information is shared at the press of a button.

In conclusion UBB is not a good idea and will lead to abuse by the incumbents. Wholesalers already pay for getting their data back hauled ... I think our government would call this after-(Bell)tax dollars. The reason for this is because incumbents want to make the internet a generically packaged item, leaving wholesalers without any competitive edge. Also speed parity is a must, 5Mbps is the Internet of 2000 we are almost a decade in with the same speeds while the rest of the developed world have offerings ranging from 20Mbps to 150Mbps. CRTC must show a keen interest in the growth of the nations Broadband, as the policies made do have a significant impact on it.

---

quote:

---

I think that Bell Canada's proposal for usage based billing is absolutely ridiculous.

First of all, the tariff change is supposed to be for matching speeds, not usage limits. The fact that Bell completely ignored this point shows contempt to the CRTC and to due process.

Secondly, there is absolutely no reason for Bell Canada to implement usage based billing other than as a punitive measure against competitors.

Why would this be a punitive measure?? Because the amount of bandwidth that flows through the last mile connections has absolutely no correlation with the costs of maintaining this infrastructure. The amount the wholesale ISPs pay to Bell as a part of the tariff already covers the cost of maintaining the final mile infrastructure.

Canada is already lagging behind the rest of the developed world and a large part of the developing world when it comes to internet connectivity. What Bell is proposing would set Canada back even further. It's not a matter of being the laughing stock of the connected world - we already are. It's a matter of becoming a technological pariah that is incapable of competing with any other nation, except on the most basic level.

Your decision against Bell's proposal for usage based billing is a necessary first step in creating a Canada that is able to compete on the national stage as a serious player.

Thank you for your consideration

---

quote:

---

I would like to write in opposition to Bell's filing TN 7181. It's a blatant attempt to stifle whatever little competition remains in Canadian Internet market.

Bell wishes to cap wholesale ISP's at 60GB and does not want to allow higher speeds (ADSL2+), while their own retail service has speeds up to 16mbps, and the wholesale end is stuck with an archaic 5mbps.

By allowing Bell to cap wholesale to 60GB, it will create an advantage for Bell, because their cap limits will not be regulated and they can raise them at any time, therefore putting wholesalers at an even greater disadvantage. Bell already offers 10mbps/100GB tiers. How is that not anti-competitive if all that wholesale ISP's are allowed to offer is 5mbps/60GB?

I ask the Commission to recognize this would be a fatal blow to the competition in the Internet market and deny Bell's request, and also Bell should be forced to implement a FAIR tariff to allow the wholesale ISP's to access its ADSL2+ network so they may fairly compete with Bell's retail sector.

Thank you.

---

quote:

---

What Bell is trying to do is cut out all resellers who add extra value by adding more bandwidth and services. If they are allowed to charge unlimited amounts of money for traffic which costs them nothing then they will put all of these 3rd party ISPs out of business which would be anti-competitive and monopolistic.

Bell needs to be honest and provide these ISPs with the access they already pay for. If Bell's internal network cannot handle the load then they should upgrade it with the money they get every month from these ISPs.

I also wonder if Bell's own Sympatico service will be subject to these fees of if they will write them off internally. If they hide the fees then they violating the law and the spirit of the CRTCs rulings.

I implore you to look at the evidence and talk to some of these 3rd party ISPs to find out what is really going on.
Thanks very much

---