 R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
1 edit | TSI R&V and Stay for UBB now in.... Here you go!
Rocky |
|
 MacGyverDon't Waste Your EnergyPremium,ExMod 2003-05
join:2001-10-14
Canada
kudos:1 | quote:
As a private company, TSI is not required to disclose this information publicly.
Way to go taking a page out of Bell's playbook. Might as well play by their rules... |
|
R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON |  |
|
| reply to R0CKY
OK... I am a tad dissapointed here...
THIS is IT????
So, TSI is going back to the bully and asking... puleeese Mr. Bully, puleeese, would you stop kicking me? I'll be a good boy... puleeese... yes?
Sorry Rock, but I wholeheartedly believe you are beating a dead snake. How many times do you have to get the same answer to understand that NO means NO. It's pointless. The CRTC is a dead end. Sorry. I know you are trying. I know you have no support. I know it is hard. Just hoping you see the only way out, which is judicial review.... or... a massive campaing THROUGH your customers AND CAIPs' customers...
Best of luck! |
|
| said by globus999:OK... I am a tad dissapointed here... THIS is IT???? If after these arguments presented, the CRTC still keeps up their indefensible position, then the competitors will have just that much more evidence of misconduct on the part of the regulator in a judicial review. |
|
| reply to R0CKY
Rocky,
You need to make one more filing...not sure where or how but that's what you pay your lawyers for......
Break up all the ILEC's into at least two parts:
a) wholesale common carriers who owe all the outside plant wiring and remotes and all the CO's, and
b) retail service providers (covering both individual and businesses of all sizes) |
|
| reply to R0CKY
well done Rocky! |
|
| reply to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:said by globus999:OK... I am a tad dissapointed here... THIS is IT???? If after these arguments presented, the CRTC still keeps up their indefensible position, then the competitors will have just that much more evidence of misconduct on the part of the regulator in a judicial review. Sorry but I disagree. Too little too late. By then UBB will be firmly encroached and TSI out of business. It sucks but such is reality. We are already living on borrowed time. |
|
| reply to R0CKY
You used the word "interlocutory" and "inextricably"!
Bell will get their 5 finest lawyers on that.  |
|
1 edit | reply to R0CKY
Your company is such a joke. A while ago I read that UBB will be $0.75-$1.25. Now ur bumping it up to $1.50. Besides the fact that these are simply outrageous to begin with. Your the only independent ISP that is capable of launching a lawsuit against the CRTC and Bell. Now ur giving into their demands and upping the UBB charges. I see a maximum overcharge of $22.50 and it's only 100GB to begin with.
What happens for customers who regularly use 300GB-500GB or even up to 1TB a month?
Even if there's a maximum overcharge this is only going to get worse overtime. Your giving them a base to start with.
We need to start a new ISP, one run on fiber. It's as clear as day that Teksavvy doesn't care about the situation, because they would launch a fullscale lawsuit against these 2 cooperations if they did care. |
|
rlhess
join:2009-09-11
Aurora, ON | reply to R0CKY
Hi, Rocky,
Congratulations on this and good luck!
Is it possible to start looking at a different business model where connectivity is offered by wireless but not at the price of ZingNet?
It would be great to not have to rely on the Rogers and Bells of the world. Aurora Cable Internet was better than Rogers in many regards. |
|
 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:12 | reply to R0CKY
Good stuff Rocky. That took a while to read, but its easily understandable without any techno-babble, so that the CRTC pigeons can understand it.
--
GO LEAFS GO! |
|
grunze510
join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
kudos:1 | reply to R0CKY
Congratulations on finally getting this out. Good luck! |
|
|
|
| reply to R0CKY
If the CRTC ignores TSI's application and allows Bell to continue with UBB, then this will ultimately prove that the CRTC is squarely in Bell's back pocket. Even though we already knew this.  |
|
| reply to rollaster
said by rollaster:We need to start a new ISP, one run on fiber. It's as clear as day that Teksavvy doesn't care about the situation, because they would launch a fullscale lawsuit against these 2 cooperations if they did care. I think you should do it. It sounds like a great plan. Start with a really cool website talkin' about how much better you'll be than all the other jokers out there, and how your ISP is gonna rock soooooo much more than they do, and how you're gonna put 'em all outta business by doing what is just so obviously easy - run fiber everywhere!
I'll bet if you sell it for $9.95/month you'll steal all the customers from those looozers at Teksavvy.
Its gonna be really awesome. Your website should have animated flash on it too, just because its so much way cooler and better than the other guys. |
|
| reply to R0CKY
#39 and #40 & #50 is excellent, but it isn't "harsh" (lack of a better word) enough.
#46 Good point.
#53. Yeah exactly. Seems Bell can screw you with help from the CRTC any time they see fit.
#54. This can be seen over more than a year with Bell over-charging their very own customers, and it still isn't fixed to this day.
#58 Bingo!
Section 8 to 9.3 brought tears to my eyes. 
Short and sweet. No BS.
Now the rhetoric machine of Bell will kick in. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to MaynardKrebs
Missed opportunity in paragraph 31: You should have mentioned "since the CRTC rended 484, Bell introduced new lower retail usage rates with the $5 for 40 gigs, something which competitors are not legally unable to match because their $1.125 rates are fixed and approved by the CRTC.
Your text lacked the "since the CRTC rendered 484" item. (aka, new facts that have emerged since the decision, one of the criteria for CRTC to accept R&V).
Just a reminder for other readers:
Criteria for R&V:
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1998/PT98-6.HTM
quote:
... that the applicant demonstrate, on a prima facie basis, the existence of one or more of the following:
(a) an error in law or in fact
(b) a fundamental change in circumstances or facts since the decision
(c) a failure to consider a basic principle which had been raised in the original proceeding
(d) a new principle which has arisen as a result of the decision.
Re: Transit capacity (paragraph 46). At the CRTC level, a good argument. But in reality, with 95 percentile billing, if usage drops significantly, won't your transit costs also be reduced as long as they remain above your commit level and you can keep same rates ?
(eg: if you get a 10gbps link, commit to 7mbps, and your usage drops from 9 to 7, you'd see reduction in costs, right ?)
Paragraph 54: Probably a typo:
quote:
that differences may arise between how the Bell Customers and their GAS customers
measure usage, significant billing disputes are likely to arise between the Bell Companies and
their GAS customers.
Shouldn't the "Bell Customers" be "Bell Companies" ?
TSI is perhaps unaware that there is already a Stay in progress with an already "expedited" deadline of Sept 22. There is no need to request an "expedited" special case with a date of Sept 21.
The one big thing missing from that R&V (although it is alluded to) is the fact that the CRTC accepted Bell's cost analysis as evidence without providing any means/process to challenge this evidence. The CRTC rendered a decision based on data provided by Bell which could be totally erroneous, and even the CRTC implicitely admitted this when it started a second process where parties will have an opportunity to request publication of parts of this cost analysis.
While some may complain about some of the ## in the document, I applaud them. It is about time that the Commission be given hard numbers on how the UBB will impact real ISPs. CAIP (or any association) are unable to provide such numbers, they can only provide vague arguments and the CRTC rthus can't see the real impact its decision will have.
The more the ISPs speak as themselves directly to the CRTC, the better because the CRTC will have more hard numbers, and will also see different viewpoints with many common themes instead of seeing just one watered down "lowest common denominator" filing which is all an association can do.
One final comment. I know it isn't easy to write these things. But what I didn't find was a summary at the top of the R&V which decribes in short the failures/errors of the decision (aka the criteria set out by 98-6).
It will be interesting to see how the CRTC deals with this 1 document that has both stay and R&V, and how it integrates it with the existing Stay process which has been established some time ago.
Also, in the TSI Stay request, it lacks the argument that the 90 day deadline makes it impossible for ISPs to not only device new pricing, but also develop and test billing and usage portal software in time to be deployed at least 30 days prior to implementation to abide by consumer laws which require new pricing plans by announced to all customers within 30 days.
Videotron had to postpone implementation of its UBB in sept 2000 (if I remember correctly) because it had not been able to send emails to all its customers at least 30 days before implementation. I had not received the email and complained to their customer service drones and they knew that a LOT of people had not received the email. Eventually, they had to postpone (once again) implementing UBB billing. (they had had technical problems getting DOCSIS UBB to work properly for many many many months). Videotron had UBB working from day on on the old Nortel (pre-DOCSIS) modems, but when they went with DOCSIS, their systems couldn't get to the usage information in a reliable way. |
|
R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | reply to R0CKY
Gang,
Couple comments... I would ask that no one forgets that this is an interim decision and not a final one so the arguments have to be made on the interim portion.
Also, this is the first solo run for us and we're going to do this in a very strategic manner.... Also, we're not even close to being done with the twists and turns.
Rocky
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
|
|
HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:12 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| said by R0CKY:I would ask that no one forgets that this is an interim decision and not a final one so the arguments have to be made on the interim portion. Yeah, the points you made with regards to the interim nature of the decision were excellent, that such a huge burden cannot be placed on TSI and other wholesalers, with regards to modifying and implementing this crap, when it all could be overturned.
I realize you filed the numbers/costs in confidence (and rightfully so), so I hope the numbers/costs are significant enough for the CRTC to realize at least SOME error in their original decision.
--
GO LEAFS GO! |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| In the end, just as with my Stay filing, it all depends on what the CRTC's true intentions are.
It could very well be that 484 was rendered as an interim decision with full expectation that there would be Stays, R&Vs etc and that the commission actually welcomes them because it puts even more pressure on Bell to make public its cost analysis.
So, if the Commission welcomes those, it will find ways to accomodate them (just as they did my Stay request).
In the end, it is all about getting Bell to show its cost analysis. It is the one piece of evidence presented by Bell which cannot be challenged and thus should not be used by the Commission until it is challenged. |
|
