JGROCKY Premium Member join:2005-05-19 Chatham, ON |
to AkFubar
Re: From Rocky: OUTRAGEOUS CRTC Descisionsaid by AkFubar:I am outraged as much as the rest of you at this decision. I would however, like to know what the bottom line effect is to me as a Teksavvy customer. I will wait to see what Rocky's interpretation of all of this is. What it means is this will likely require some restraint from the heavier downloaders from month to month until this gets sorted out. We'll all need to make a concerted effort to curb our downloading to ensure we don't give a dime more to Bell than we need to. We all know this is a cash grab and anti-competitive tactic, so what they're not expecting is our actually falling in line for a sec, organizing ourselves and figuring out how to fix the mess they're attempting to make. They're not playing nice to all of us alike (customer/competitor) so, I think right now is time to say ok, you've won this battle, but the war is far from over! We have something they don't have; informed users that know just how to work the internet, computers, etc..... so, I think the next move will be one where we take a breather, setup shop and dig in for the battle that will be! |
|
otty join:2008-10-24 Revelstoke, BC 1 edit |
otty
Member
2009-Aug-12 8:55 pm
said by shopkins:I am not seeing in that document where they are going to charge for overages over 60GB. From what I see they are going to charge for over 300GB. Can someone point me to the reference in that decision for the 60GB claim ? The interim decision does not explicitly say this but DOES imply it: "The Commission approves on an interim basis, with one change, Bell Aliant's and Bell Canada's requests to introduce, for Gateway Access Services, two new speed options, usage-based billing rates, and a charge for excessive usage." The one change is the "uncorrelated charges". That leaves the 60GB cap intact as I read it. I hope I'm wrong. Side note: I think the CRTC bought the congestion BS (with no evidence) and liked the cost-based approach to handling it. This is the first step. |
|
|
to JGROCKY
said by JGROCKY:said by AkFubar:I am outraged as much as the rest of you at this decision. I would however, like to know what the bottom line effect is to me as a Teksavvy customer. I will wait to see what Rocky's interpretation of all of this is. What it means is this will likely require some restraint from the heavier downloaders from month to month until this gets sorted out. We'll all need to make a concerted effort to curb our downloading to ensure we don't give a dime more to Bell than we need to. We all know this is a cash grab and anti-competitive tactic, so what they're not expecting is our actually falling in line for a sec, organizing ourselves and figuring out how to fix the mess they're attempting to make. They're not playing nice to all of us alike (customer/competitor) so, I think right now is time to say ok, you've won this battle, but the war is far from over! We have something they don't have; informed users that know just how to work the internet, computers, etc..... so, I think the next move will be one where we take a breather, setup shop and dig in for the battle that will be! Um..waving the white flag? I dont think so. I wont go to Bell, but I sure wont have my ISP dictating to me what I can and cant download on my PREMIUM subscribed newsserver (or VOIP, P2P, whatever). It is unreal that no backup plan exists for this predicament. Just UNREAL. |
|
1 edit |
to JGROCKY
said by JGROCKY:We have something they don't have; informed users that know just how to work the internet, computers, etc..... so, I think the next move will be one where we take a breather, setup shop and dig in for the battle that will be! I just performed a random sampling of all the comments the CRTC has posted on the case. There were 6270 unique names on the list, after removing duplicates. I used a random number generator to give me 147 random comments, enough to ensure my stats are within 8%, 19 times out of 20. (5% would need a couple hundred more, maybe later!) So the results: Anti Bell/CRTC/UBB: 146 (99.3%) Pro Bell/CRTC/UBB: 0 (0%) Blank entry: 1 (0.7%) There were literally more people who forgot to enter their comment than were supporting Bell, the CRTC, or UBB. If the CRTC puts so little value in what citizens think, why bother allowing us any input at all? Update: (201 samples, good for +/- 7% 19/20) Anti Bell/CRTC/UBB: 200 (99.5%) Pro Bell/CRTC/UBB: 0 (0%) Blank entry: 1 (0.5%) |
|
otty join:2008-10-24 Revelstoke, BC 1 edit |
to JGROCKY
said by JGROCKY:They're not playing nice to all of us alike (customer/competitor) so, I think right now is time to say ok, you've won this battle, but the war is far from over! We have something they don't have; informed users that know just how to work the internet, computers, etc..... so, I think the next move will be one where we take a breather, setup shop and dig in for the battle that will be! That's right. THey don't play nice. Gotta say, i'm not really happy with anything except a court challenge. Bell doesn't even obey CRTC orders. We need the Federal Court to lay down the law. Then even Cabinet can't save their a**. This is the only thing they will understand. Even then they may have the law changed in Parliament, but then they'll have to air in public their dirty laundry. No Canadian has much love for bHell. IT'S ALL OR NOTHING NOW |
|
|
to Abattoir
said by Abattoir:said by JGROCKY:We have something they don't have; informed users that know just how to work the internet, computers, etc..... so, I think the next move will be one where we take a breather, setup shop and dig in for the battle that will be! I just performed a random sampling of all the comments the CRTC has posted on the case. There were 6270 unique names on the list, after removing duplicates. I used a random number generator to give me 147 random comments, enough to ensure my stats are within 8%, 19 times out of 20. (5% would need a couple hundred more, maybe later!) So the results: Anti Bell/CRTC/UBB: 146 (99.3%) Pro Bell/CRTC/UBB: 0 (0%) Blank entry: 1 (0.7%) There were literally more people who forgot to enter their comment than were supporting Bell, the CRTC, or UBB. If the CRTC puts so little value in what citizens think, why bother allowing us any input at all? Just because they decided in a way that is unpopular doesnt mean that they dont value what citizens think. |
|
|
said by justsomeguy8:said by Abattoir:said by JGROCKY:We have something they don't have; informed users that know just how to work the internet, computers, etc..... so, I think the next move will be one where we take a breather, setup shop and dig in for the battle that will be! I just performed a random sampling of all the comments the CRTC has posted on the case. There were 6270 unique names on the list, after removing duplicates. I used a random number generator to give me 147 random comments, enough to ensure my stats are within 8%, 19 times out of 20. (5% would need a couple hundred more, maybe later!) So the results: Anti Bell/CRTC/UBB: 146 (99.3%) Pro Bell/CRTC/UBB: 0 (0%) Blank entry: 1 (0.7%) There were literally more people who forgot to enter their comment than were supporting Bell, the CRTC, or UBB. If the CRTC puts so little value in what citizens think, why bother allowing us any input at all? Just because they decided in a way that is unpopular doesnt mean that they dont value what citizens think. hahahahahhahahahahahahha |
|
|
to justsomeguy8
said by justsomeguy8:Just because they decided in a way that is unpopular doesnt mean that they dont value what citizens think. There's some truth to that. However, in this case, the public's opinion is so overwhelmingly against the proposal, and the CRTC rolled over and gave them practically everything they asked for, without too much trouble. They did not even acknowledge the massive, unprecedented outpouring of opposition to this measure in their decision. Not a nod, an acknowledgement that citizens might actually have something useful to contribute. This is not how democratic governments are supposed to behave. Might as well change the business cards at the CRTC: CRTC - a joint venture of Bell Canada and Rogers Corporation. |
|
|
said by Abattoir:said by justsomeguy8:Just because they decided in a way that is unpopular doesnt mean that they dont value what citizens think. There's some truth to that. However, in this case, the public's opinion is so overwhelmingly against the proposal, and the CRTC rolled over and gave them practically everything they asked for, without too much trouble. They did not even acknowledge the massive, unprecedented outpouring of opposition to this measure in their decision. Not a nod, an acknowledgement that citizens might actually have something useful to contribute. This is not how democratic governments are supposed to behave. Might as well change the business cards at the CRTC: CRTC - a joint venture of Bell Canada and Rogers Corporation. The CRTC did not give Bell everything they asked for, if Bell got everything they have asked the CRTC for then none of these bell wholesalers like Teksavvy would even exist, because Bell doesnt want to to share their copper with these companies and the CRTC stepped in and forced them to.) (Maybe they would exist, but they wouldn't be offering DSL over Bell's lines!.) And as for today's decision, its not a popularity contest and should never be one. |
|
jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2009-Aug-12 9:57 pm
>And as for today's decision, its not a popularity contest and should >never be one.
This is actually debatable. In a democracy, the government is to work for the good of the citizens first, not the good of donnors to political parties. |
|
|
to justsomeguy8
said by justsomeguy8:said by Abattoir:said by justsomeguy8:Just because they decided in a way that is unpopular doesnt mean that they dont value what citizens think. There's some truth to that. However, in this case, the public's opinion is so overwhelmingly against the proposal, and the CRTC rolled over and gave them practically everything they asked for, without too much trouble. They did not even acknowledge the massive, unprecedented outpouring of opposition to this measure in their decision. Not a nod, an acknowledgement that citizens might actually have something useful to contribute. This is not how democratic governments are supposed to behave. Might as well change the business cards at the CRTC: CRTC - a joint venture of Bell Canada and Rogers Corporation. The CRTC did not give Bell everything they asked for, if Bell got everything they have asked the CRTC for then none of these bell wholesalers like Teksavvy would even exist, because Bell doesnt want to to share their copper with these companies and the CRTC stepped in and forced them to.) (Maybe they would exist, but they wouldn't be offering DSL over Bell's lines!.) And as for today's decision, its not a popularity contest and should never be one. no, it is doing what the BEST most LOGICAL thing is for our Country and our Internet. Its just too fortunate that maybe that FEW time, the popularity comes from intelligent people for once ... theres a lot of crap that is "popular" that still is shit. This isnt one of them. |
|
|
said by DJMASACRE:no, it is doing what the BEST most LOGICAL thing is for our Country and our Internet. Its just too fortunate that maybe that FEW time, the popularity comes from intelligent people for once ... theres a lot of crap that is "popular" that still is shit. This isnt one of them. Companies have rights too you know. Obviously nobody is going to want to pay more and get less. I certainly don't. Imagine if you owned a company that sold a product or service and you were not satisfied with the amount of money you were receiving for that product or service. Would you like a government body telling you that you cant raise your prices and the reason being because they received complaints that nobody wanted to pay more? |
|
1 edit |
said by justsomeguy8:Would you like a government body telling you that you cant raise your prices and the reason being because they received complaints that nobody wanted to pay more? In an unregulated, free market economy, of course not. This is not one of those situations. Bell has a natural monopoly over its competitors, and in our form of capitalism we do not like monopolies. Therefore, if they want to raise their rates, they must demonstrate that the proposed rates are justified for the proposed services. People are seeing this as a giant rollback of service while jacking up prices, simultaneously reinforcing their monopolistic position. Of course people complain because their bills are going up. They still have to listen to citizens when they claim that Bell hasn't made its case sufficiently well. If the CRTC isn't going to listen to citizens whatsoever, then they should stop pretending they will and stop allowing citizens to comment. The system as it stands is a patronizing effort to placate the public into thinking they are contributing to the process, when nothing could be further from the truth. Moo. |
|
|
said by Abattoir:said by justsomeguy8:Would you like a government body telling you that you cant raise your prices and the reason being because they received complaints that nobody wanted to pay more? In an unregulated, free market economy, of course not. This is not one of those situations. Bell has a natural monopoly over its competitors, and in our form of capitalism we do not like monopolies. Therefore, if they want to raise their rates, they must demonstrate that the proposed rates are justified for the proposed services. People are seeing this as a giant rollback of service while jacking up prices, simultaneously reinforcing their monopolistic position. Of course people complain because their bills are going up. They still have to listen to citizens when they claim that Bell hasn't made its case sufficiently well. There is competition though, there is Rogers, Cogeco, Primus to name a few. Maybe you are forgetting that these Bell Wholesalers fought the CRTC tooth and nail to be able to have wholesale access to Bell's copper network, they have to live with the consequences of this action. Typically when you force your way into getting access to something you dont own you have to put up with certain problems and what we are seeing is some of those problems. Nobody forced these companies to enter into this agreement with Bell! See Primus for an example of a company that took a different path. |
|
PXATech Ninja Premium Member join:2008-04-02 Almonte, ON |
PXA
Premium Member
2009-Aug-12 10:41 pm
said by justsomeguy8:Maybe you are forgetting that these Bell Wholesalers fought the CRTC tooth and nail to be able to have wholesale access to Bell's copper network, they have to live with the consequences of this action. Typically when you force your way into getting access to something you dont own you have to put up with certain problems and what we are seeing is some of those problems. Nobody forced these companies to enter into this agreement with Bell! See Primus for an example of a company that took a different path. The network Bell is claiming sole ownership over was largely built with taxpayer dollars so I'm sorry but other companies damn well have the right to use it. And they're paying out the ass for access to it and being screwed over for the privilege. And most competition doesn't have a massive US parent company backing them like Primus does. You think TekSavvy wouldn't build their own COs if they had the money? Sorry but when you need billions of dollars to have even a shred of a chance to compete with the established players who didn't have to pay a lot of the upfront costs in the first place, that is not a level playing field. Bell was given their infrastructure by us and now they think they get to gouge consumers for access to it just to protect their obsolete TV delivery business model? I don't think so. This isn't about fairness, this is about them preventing people from utilizing more economical and intelligent video delivery solutions that are available online. This is about keeping you paying for overpriced channel packages that you use maybe a quarter of. You ever notice how all the companies that are fighting competition like this provide not only Internet service but TV service as well? Funny that. Sorry but Bell has no high ground here. None. |
|
|
salmonz
Member
2009-Aug-12 10:52 pm
said by PXA:said by justsomeguy8:Maybe you are forgetting that these Bell Wholesalers fought the CRTC tooth and nail to be able to have wholesale access to Bell's copper network, they have to live with the consequences of this action. Typically when you force your way into getting access to something you dont own you have to put up with certain problems and what we are seeing is some of those problems. Nobody forced these companies to enter into this agreement with Bell! See Primus for an example of a company that took a different path. The network Bell is claiming sole ownership over was largely built with taxpayer dollars so I'm sorry but other companies damn well have the right to use it. And they're paying out the ass for access to it and being screwed over for the privilege. And most competition doesn't have a massive US parent company backing them like Primus does. You think TekSavvy wouldn't build their own COs if they had the money? Sorry but when you need billions of dollars to have even a shred of a chance to compete with the established players who didn't have to pay a lot of the upfront costs in the first place, that is not a level playing field. Bell was given their infrastructure by us and now they think they get to gouge consumers for access to it just to protect their obsolete TV delivery business model? I don't think so. This isn't about fairness, this is about them preventing people from utilizing more economical and intelligent video delivery solutions that are available online. This is about keeping you paying for overpriced channel packages that you use maybe a quarter of. You ever notice how all the companies that are fighting competition like this provide not only Internet service but TV service as well? Funny that. Sorry but Bell has no high ground here. None. If the infrastructure was giving by us, then we should take it back. Perhaps the government should mandate creation of a "public utility" to take over the lines managed exclusively by Bell from your house to a facility that can be used by third party providers. If there's a right-of-way that is exclusive, it should be taken away in favour of public access. It's illogical to have 5-10 companies hook up phone wires or fiber to your house and 5-10 companies digging up your yard, sidewalk, and roads, just to remain competitive. Fact of the matter is, there is no competition, and I believe it's our right to take back what's rightfully ours, "respect", and start protecting consumers rights. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to justsomeguy8
said by justsomeguy8:said by Abattoir:said by justsomeguy8:Would you like a government body telling you that you cant raise your prices and the reason being because they received complaints that nobody wanted to pay more? In an unregulated, free market economy, of course not. This is not one of those situations. Bell has a natural monopoly over its competitors, and in our form of capitalism we do not like monopolies. Therefore, if they want to raise their rates, they must demonstrate that the proposed rates are justified for the proposed services. People are seeing this as a giant rollback of service while jacking up prices, simultaneously reinforcing their monopolistic position. Of course people complain because their bills are going up. They still have to listen to citizens when they claim that Bell hasn't made its case sufficiently well. There is competition though, there is Rogers, Cogeco, Primus to name a few. Maybe you are forgetting that these Bell Wholesalers fought the CRTC tooth and nail to be able to have wholesale access to Bell's copper network, they have to live with the consequences of this action. Typically when you force your way into getting access to something you dont own you have to put up with certain problems and what we are seeing is some of those problems. Nobody forced these companies to enter into this agreement with Bell! See Primus for an example of a company that took a different path. Primus started in Canada with the benefit of a big bankroll from their American parent (even though Primus Canada is 'technically' a Canadian company). They could afford to take a different approach. Ever read the CRTC annual reports to The Governor in Council? I thought not based on your comments. In them one of the CRTC's self-described mandates is to foster competition in the internet access space. I guess we all lost sight of the fact that for the CRTC that means one telco ILEC vs. one cable ILEC in each geographic area. Silly us. |
|
|
to salmonz
said by salmonz:said by PXA:said by justsomeguy8:Maybe you are forgetting that these Bell Wholesalers fought the CRTC tooth and nail to be able to have wholesale access to Bell's copper network, they have to live with the consequences of this action. Typically when you force your way into getting access to something you dont own you have to put up with certain problems and what we are seeing is some of those problems. Nobody forced these companies to enter into this agreement with Bell! See Primus for an example of a company that took a different path. The network Bell is claiming sole ownership over was largely built with taxpayer dollars so I'm sorry but other companies damn well have the right to use it. And they're paying out the ass for access to it and being screwed over for the privilege. And most competition doesn't have a massive US parent company backing them like Primus does. You think TekSavvy wouldn't build their own COs if they had the money? Sorry but when you need billions of dollars to have even a shred of a chance to compete with the established players who didn't have to pay a lot of the upfront costs in the first place, that is not a level playing field. Bell was given their infrastructure by us and now they think they get to gouge consumers for access to it just to protect their obsolete TV delivery business model? I don't think so. This isn't about fairness, this is about them preventing people from utilizing more economical and intelligent video delivery solutions that are available online. This is about keeping you paying for overpriced channel packages that you use maybe a quarter of. You ever notice how all the companies that are fighting competition like this provide not only Internet service but TV service as well? Funny that. Sorry but Bell has no high ground here. None. If the infrastructure was giving by us, then we should take it back. Perhaps the government should mandate creation of a "public utility" to take over the lines managed exclusively by Bell from your house to a facility that can be used by third party providers. If there's a right-of-way that is exclusive, it should be taken away in favour of public access. It's illogical to have 5-10 companies hook up phone wires or fiber to your house and 5-10 companies digging up your yard, sidewalk, and roads, just to remain competitive. Fact of the matter is, there is no competition, and I believe it's our right to take back what's rightfully ours, "respect", and start protecting consumers rights. The problem is that he was incorrect in his statements, we did not "give" Bell their infrastructure. Bell has not been given "our tax dollars" to build their network. Back when Canada needed a phone system, a monopoly was granted to them by the Canadian Government in order to allow them to build the phone system and then make back the money that it cost them to build it. This was an absolute necessity as Canadians kinda needed a phone system. Maybe you do, but I dont think that the monopoly and network that was built 100 years ago has anything to do with their current DSL access network of today. And I am not going to make any claim as to "owning it." |
|
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON |
to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:>And as for today's decision, its not a popularity contest and should >never be one. This is actually debatable. In a democracy, the government is to work for the good of the citizens first, not the good of donnors to political parties. That is how it is supposed to work, but that isn't how it really works in the real world. |
|
34764170 |
to DJMASACRE
said by DJMASACRE:theres a lot of crap that is "popular" that still is shit. Pretty much everything popular = shit. |
|
|
pnjunctionTeksavvy Extreme Premium Member join:2008-01-24 Toronto, ON |
to justsomeguy8
I think more important than the monopoly status they were granted is the right-of-way Bell enjoys on public land.
We should charge them a 'reasonable' rate for it, say $1/metre, until we raise enough money to buy them finally bring sanity and non-greed-based solutions to the market. |
|
1 edit |
to justsomeguy8
said by justsomeguy8:said by DJMASACRE:no, it is doing what the BEST most LOGICAL thing is for our Country and our Internet. Its just too fortunate that maybe that FEW time, the popularity comes from intelligent people for once ... theres a lot of crap that is "popular" that still is shit. This isnt one of them. Companies have rights too you know. Obviously nobody is going to want to pay more and get less. I certainly don't. Imagine if you owned a company that sold a product or service and you were not satisfied with the amount of money you were receiving for that product or service. Would you like a government body telling you that you cant raise your prices and the reason being because they received complaints that nobody wanted to pay more? maybe they would be receiving more money for that product or service if they actually provided -EDIT-: QUALITY product or "service". Then maybe they would regain some customer trust and subscribers. Because the way they are going now, they will be losing in the end. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
to pnjunction
said by pnjunction:I think more important than the monopoly status they were granted is the right-of-way Bell enjoys on public land. We should charge them a 'reasonable' rate for it, say $1/metre, until we raise enough money to buy them finally bring sanity and non-greed-based solutions to the market. I believe they do pay an amount to the municipality. If the municipality owns the poles (as in a municipal electrical system) It's called "pole rental". |
|
pnjunctionTeksavvy Extreme Premium Member join:2008-01-24 Toronto, ON |
said by DKS:I believe they do pay an amount to the municipality. If the municipality owns the poles (as in a municipal electrical system) It's called "pole rental". I've heard of pole rental (they had some big issue in the press about it in the maritimes a while ago), but do you know how this works in bigger cities where everything is buried? |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
said by pnjunction:said by DKS:I believe they do pay an amount to the municipality. If the municipality owns the poles (as in a municipal electrical system) It's called "pole rental". I've heard of pole rental (they had some big issue in the press about it in the maritimes a while ago), but do you know how this works in bigger cities where everything is buried? Who owns the right of way? Aerial or buried, there are still costs unless the utility has an easement. |
|
|
said by DKS:Who owns the right of way? Aerial or buried, there are still costs unless the utility has an easement. Yes, but how easily can other companies even get access to this infrastructure? If municipalities will only allow Bell access to the poles, then you have a natural monopoly that needs to be countered. All this bull about encouraging competition is meaningless unless you fix the root causes first. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
said by Abattoir:said by DKS:Who owns the right of way? Aerial or buried, there are still costs unless the utility has an easement. Yes, but how easily can other companies even get access to this infrastructure? If municipalities will only allow Bell access to the poles, then you have a natural monopoly that needs to be countered. All this bull about encouraging competition is meaningless unless you fix the root causes first. Rogers and other cablecos have access. There are also technical and safety concerns. You can only put so many wires on a pole. |
|
|
said by DKS:said by Abattoir:said by DKS:Who owns the right of way? Aerial or buried, there are still costs unless the utility has an easement. Yes, but how easily can other companies even get access to this infrastructure? If municipalities will only allow Bell access to the poles, then you have a natural monopoly that needs to be countered. All this bull about encouraging competition is meaningless unless you fix the root causes first. Rogers and other cablecos have access. There are also technical and safety concerns. You can only put so many wires on a pole. Yes but often times there is room and they simply say it can't be done. If you can't get access, how the hell will any ISP ever be able to build infrastructure? |
|
pvanb join:2009-08-13 Mississauga, ON |
to justsomeguy8
said by justsomeguy8:There is competition though, there is Rogers, Cogeco, Primus to name a few. So my options, if I don't like Bell, are: 1. Use a Bell wholesaler and get the same service for the same price 2. Switch to the cable company that serves my neighborhood (often city) 3. Pick up and move my whole household to an area or city served by another cable company? That's competition? Seriously? Seriously?! |
|
|
koreybOpen the Canadian Market NOW join:2005-01-08 Etobicoke, ON |
koreyb
Member
2009-Aug-13 11:57 am
said by pvanb:said by justsomeguy8:There is competition though, there is Rogers, Cogeco, Primus to name a few. So my options, if I don't like Bell, are: 1. Use a Bell wholesaler and get the same service for the same price 2. Switch to the cable company that serves my neighborhood (often city) 3. Pick up and move my whole household to an area or city served by another cable company? That's competition? Seriously? Seriously?! You also use a 3rd party Cable provider like CIA OR if you find your area is covered by an ISP's own DSLAM you can use them as they are not effected the same way. |
|