Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » O Canada! » Canadian » Canadian Broadband » Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
3618
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Posting:
Post a:
Post a:
Almost have CIA voip via NAT router working (linksys 2102) »
« TD-8816 or TD-8616?  
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
AuthorAll Replies


mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·MTS

reply to mouser
Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary

said by mouser :

I liked both submissions, but I have to disagree with the point the CAIP makes in mentioning that UBB being used as an alternative to throttling... that could bite them back in future submissions related to tarrif's
UBB in and by itself is not evil. While information itself can (or not) be free, the carrying of that information has a cost. How UBB is implemented defines it's underlying purpose.

Properly implemented, UBB would recover the cost of delivering information in addition to a reasonable profit for infrastructure modernization along with a reasonable ROI.

The trick in UBB is that its control must be kept away from those who would most benefit from the temptation of abusing it.
--
"Vision without funds....
is a hallucination"


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX

UBB for the retail side is probably inevitable.

But it should be fairly priced, not the punitive fees currently charged by the likes of Videotron.

Also, UBB rates should vary according to line speed. The slower the line, the less congestion you can cause and hence, the lower the UBB rates should be.

BUT, on the IP transit side, it is all about capacity, not about usage. And that isn't likely to change. Transit providers need to have enough fibre to support the capacity they sell. If they don't they have congestio problems and they then lose business.

ohmer

join:2003-08-06
Quebec, QC
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Primus Talkbroadband
·Mega Qubec

said by jfmezei See Profile :

Also, UBB rates should vary according to line speed. The slower the line, the less congestion you can cause and hence, the lower the UBB rates should be.
I don't agree. Lower profile already cost less. It's stupid to have a 512kbits line with 200 gig caps while 5mbits have 30gb and pay more... (just an example).


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX

It isn't stupid. Yes, there is a way to spin it to look stupid.

But from a network instrastructure, the guy at 512kbps downloading 5gigs of data may take 5 days to do this, but during this time, he won't strain the network much.

The guy at 5mbps may only take a couple of hours to download the same, but during those hours, he will put a much greater load on the network.

10 customers at 512kbps downloading a large file at the same time take the same bandwidth as 1 customer downloading the same file at 5mbps.

ohmer

join:2003-08-06
Quebec, QC
But for the customer it's : pay more, get less. You will never be able to make this accepted by customers...


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX

It isn't a question of "pay more get less".

It is a question of:

Higher speeds enable downloads of much larger files, so you pay more for those added capabilities.

You can still download large files are slow speeds, but it will take days/weeks/months to download compared to modern speeds.

Lets face it, between 5mbps and 100mbps, downloading a web page won't make much of a difference. But downloading a movie, especially HD quality will make a big difference in time needed for the download. So it is normal you would pay more for the 100mbps usage.

ohmer

join:2003-08-06
Quebec, QC
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Primus Talkbroadband
·Mega Qubec

said by jfmezei See Profile :

It isn't a question of "pay more get less".

It is a question of:

Higher speeds enable downloads of much larger files, so you pay more for those added capabilities.

You can still download large files are slow speeds, but it will take days/weeks/months to download compared to modern speeds.

Lets face it, between 5mbps and 100mbps, downloading a web page won't make much of a difference. But downloading a movie, especially HD quality will make a big difference in time needed for the download. So it is normal you would pay more for the 100mbps usage.
But the user already pay more to compensate the load on the network (512k profil cost less than a 5m)... Now you want to let them pay still more but receive less. You will never convince a majority of subscriber with this.

There is no deal to have greater speed with less bandwith. Many Videotron customer complaints about that when Videotron increase speed without increase the caps.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX

reply to jfmezei
CRTC has issued a policy on when they will give their answer to the Thorttling.

(long interruption due to Hydro Québec power outage)

Dear Sirs:

Re: Part VII Applications Requesting a Review and Vary of Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-108

In Service standards for the disposition of telecommunications applications, Telecom Circular CRTC 2006-11, 7 December 2006, the Commission stated that it would categorize Part VII applications into two types:

Type 1 applications that generally do not involve multiple parties or raise significant policy issues and Type 2 applications that do involve multiple parties and/or raise significant policy issues

The Commission also adopted the following service standards for Part VII applications:

• Type 1 Part VII applications – 90 percent of determinations to be issued on an interim or final basis within four months of the close-of-record; and

• Type 2 Part VII applications – 85 percent of determinations to be issued on an interim or final basis within eight months of the close-of-record.
- 2 -

The Commission stated that it would inform applicants, by letter, within 10 days of the end of the comment period for applications, whether the application is considered to be a Type 1 or Type 2 application, and the applicable service standard.

Commission staff has assessed the above application and considers it to be a Type 2 application. Accordingly, the Commission expects to issue an interim or final determination within eight months of the close-of-record.

Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Yvan Davidson,
Senior Manager,
Competition, Costing & Tariffs


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
reply to jfmezei
Has any of these proceedings *ever* been given type 1? I mean I know they have to do research and such but up to 8 months?

MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
And then there is one, which for political reasons may be delayed for 5-6 years.


WaitForGodot

join:2009-01-07
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..

said by MaynardKrebs See Profile :

And then there is one, which for political reasons may be delayed for 5-6 years.
... maybe till after the next Government is elected.

freejazz_RdJ

join:2009-03-10

reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei See Profile :

It isn't stupid. Yes, there is a way to spin it to look stupid.

But from a network instrastructure, the guy at 512kbps downloading 5gigs of data may take 5 days to do this, but during this time, he won't strain the network much.

The guy at 5mbps may only take a couple of hours to download the same, but during those hours, he will put a much greater load on the network.

10 customers at 512kbps downloading a large file at the same time take the same bandwidth as 1 customer downloading the same file at 5mbps.
JF: Isn't this saying you're looking towards a time time-of-day pricing flavor of UBB? Or one in which the cost per bit increases as the user places a greater and greater strain on the network and the overall demand on the network increases?

I haven't read all the submissions yet, but I'll do so tomorrow on my clot-inducing Halifax-Toronto-Vancouver flight. Lots of time to kill since the content on AC's VOD is pretty weak.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX

Consider that ISTOP had a plan where you have unlimited during overnight hours, and limited t 100gigs (I think) during the day/evening.

So it wasn't so much the cost of bits changing during the day, but rather that you had unmetered during the overnight, and metered during the day. Nobody complained about that. The package was primarily 100gigs, with the overnight-unlimited being icing on the cake.

Jazdi

join:2009-07-06
Ottawa, ON

reply to jfmezei
Time of day billing is a good idea, the goal of which should be to flatten out the daily usage graph so as to be making the most effective use of the network's capacity. Unfortunately, none of the current UBB offerings have this effect. With a 60gb cap, I have no incentive to not use all those 60gb during peak hours. Instead, it would seem appropriate if a somewhat lower cap was offered during peak hours, while leaving off-peak hours completely unmetered.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX

reply to jfmezei
Now I am confused.... They just said that it was Type 2, now they say it is type 1.

quote:

Dear Sirs:

Re: Part VII Applications Requesting a Review and Vary of Telecom
Decision CRTC 2008-108

Further to Commission staff’s letter dated 15 July 2009 regarding the time by which the
Commission expects to issue an interim or final determination in the above-noted
applications: Commission staff notes that, consistent with the service standard for a
Type 1 application, the Commission expects to issue an interim or final determination
with respect to these applications within four months of the close-of-record.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Yvan Davidson,
Senior Manager,
Competition, Costing & Tariffs




mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
Difference is? Not on the determination time-line but what makes it a type 1 vs 2?
--
"Vision without funds....
is a hallucination"


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
reply to jfmezei
Well now that is on public record, if they change it again we can challenge them and hopefully get a verdict faster.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX

reply to jfmezei
On July 31, the Commission issued a new process letter for the Review and Vary of the 2008-108 decision (granting Bell the right to throttle competitors).

Some highlights:

quote:
Commission staff notes that at paragraph 18 of its 22 June 2009 comments on CAIP et al.’s
Part VII application Bell Canada et al. provided information related to the bandwidth
consumed by wholesale end-users in confidence. As CAIP et al. noted in its 24 July 2009
letter, Bell Canada subsequently placed similar information on the public record of the PN
2008-19 proceeding.

Commission staff considers that in light of Bell Canada et al.’s voluntary public disclosures
in the PN 2008-19 proceeding, it would not be appropriate to maintain the confidentiality of
similar information filed in confidence at paragraph 18 of Bell Canada et al.’s 22 June 2009
comments on CAIP et al,’s Part VII application, as such information is not consistently
treated as confidential by Bell Canada. In this regard, Commission staff considers that the
harm likely to result from the disclosure of the information in question does not outweigh the
public interest in its disclosure. Therefore, Bell Canada et al. is to provide on the public
record the information filed in confidence at paragraph 18 of its 22 June 2009 comments by
4 August 2009.

Parties that have commented in the R&V applications proceeding may file additional
comments, serving a copy on other parties, related solely to the information provided by
Bell Canada et al. by 10 August 2009.


In short: during the R&V process, Bell submitted stuff in confidence. During the Public Hearings, they publically released information that had been made private in the R&V.

Paragraph 18 of Bell's R&V submission stated:
quote:
18. The Companies submit that the Applicants have failed to raise substantial doubt as to the correctness of Decision 2008-108. Furthermore, consistent with the Commission's finding in Decision 2008-108 that GAS customers during peak periods would contribute to the network congestion that exists in the Companies' networks , the Companies stated in their response to The Companies(CRTC)4Dec08-9 PN 2008-19 that wholesale end-users were, in

December 2008, consuming # of the bandwidth during peak periods even though they were only # of the total base of end-users. As of May 2009, these numbers have increased and wholesale users are now consuming # of the bandwidth during peak periods even though they are only # of the total base of end-users. This amount is now more than double from their consumption levels prior to deployment of traffic shaping even though their share of the total base has not really changed.

The R&V file is at:
»crtc.gc.ca/partvii/eng/2009/8662···7727.htm
and
»crtc.gc.ca/partvii/eng/2009/8662···7826.htm (they focused on the first one)


otty

join:2008-10-24
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·VBUZZER
·voip.ms
·Vonage
·3 Web

Ok too drun and tired to review links right now but:

Is a "process letter" a final decision or a temporary setting of the status quo?

I sort of flinched when I saw this and said "holy shi*t after all those hearings on throttling they just say this and it's over".

I think my knee jerk was too soon and too easy, but that's what I'vve come to expect from the CRTC (except the quick decision).

PLease clarify.

MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17

said by otty See Profile :

PLease clarify.
During the hearing in July, Bell spouted off some stats - in public - which dealt with the traffic that alleged p2p users who were independent isp customers generated.

The Commission asked Bell to clarify their statement during the hearing but the Bell lawyer didn't have all the info at his fingertips, and so an undertaking was given to the CRTC to provide that data in the final submission.

Bell did provide the data in their final submission but did so "in confidence" - meaning that, of course, the data was not subject to analysis or challenge by anyone - as JF pointed out, if it isn't challenged then the CRTC must accept it as 'fact'.

CAIP et. al. filed a petition (here »www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/20···8477.pdf ) with the CRTC almost immediately upon finding out that the data was submitted 'in confidence' to force the public release of that data. The CRTC letter/order JF posted above is the direct result of that petition.

Now anyone who participated in the R&V will be able to get Bell's stats, analyze them, and discuss their meaning with the CRTC.
-
Forums » O Canada! » Canadian » Canadian BroadbandAlmost have CIA voip via NAT router working (linksys 2102) »
« TD-8816 or TD-8616?  
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4


Sunday, 29-Nov 01:32:17 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [122] Time Warner Cable Fires Broadside At Broadcasters
· [112] New AT&T Ad Campaign Hits Back At Verizon
· [96] Apple Joins AT&T Verizon Snark Fest
· [87] New Bill Takes Aim At Higher Verizon ETFs
· [80] TiVo Sees Record Customer Losses
· [73] Weekend Open Thread
· [70] Verizon CEO: Hulu Will Be Dead Soon
· [69] In-Flight Internet Headed For Bumpy Landing?
· [62] Thanksgiving Open Thread
· [40] EFF Wages War On Fine Print
Most people now reading
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· [ PVP] 3.2 DK PvP D/W Spec... [World of Warcraft]
· sysguard2010.com [Security]
· ToC 4th boss - Preliminary Strategy for Twin Valkyr [World of Warcraft]
· Gizmo5 has added a Google Voice section in its members area. [VOIP Tech Chat]
· [How to] Install Asterisk on an Asus WL-520GU router [VOIP Tech Chat]
· [Newsgroups] Newzleech down? [Filesharing Software]
· netTalk tk6000 [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Using AirMax to provide triple play services? [Wireless Service Providers]
· Why would I want an e reader? [General Questions]