 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:12
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to R0CKY
Re: TSI R&V and Stay for UBB now in.... 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. |
|
 CanerisErikCanerisPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
kudos:2 | said by jfmezei:In the end, just as with my Stay filing, it all depends on what the CRTC's true intentions are. A greater reliance on facilities-based competition.
--
Erik - Caneris Inc. |
|
| reply to jfmezei
I agree that the cost analysis is likely to be a great insight, but I doubt it will become public. Nothing is more sensitive in terms of corporate information that cost studies. And the precedent it would set would be awful: should every participant in a proceeding have to publicly disclose all their costs?
TSI is certainly not telling the whole world it's numbers, and they shouldn't have to. |
|
1 edit | reply to CanerisErik
said by CanerisErik:said by jfmezei:In the end, just as with my Stay filing, it all depends on what the CRTC's true intentions are. A greater reliance on facilities-based competition. And that's not good news for any of the indie ISP's. In fact, it seems that moving to facilities based is the only readily identifiable common thread in the CRTC's decisions.
Edit: but clearly, the writing's been on the wall. Resale of facilities is a pretty dead end business anyways if the majority of your monthly recurring charge is paid out in carrier costs. |
|
| reply to freejazz_RdJ
said by freejazz_RdJ:TSI is certainly not telling the whole world it's numbers, and they shouldn't have to. Teksavvy used to be far more open with their internal numbers until around Jan. 2008, coincidentally with the $10/month hike on Unlimited.
said by freejazz_RdJ:> A greater reliance on facilities-based competition. And that's not good news for any of the indie ISP's. In fact, it seems that moving to facilities based is the only readily identifiable common thread in the CRTC's decisions. Facilities-based competition would not be that much of an issue if someone (could be me) stepped forward and offered to build an ETTH network all ISPs could lease links on and buy transit from. It obviously makes no economical sense for every ISP to have their own EFM network and dilute each others' attach rate to oblivion. |
|
| said by InvalidError:Facilities-based competition would not be that much of an issue if someone (could be me) stepped forward and offered to build an ETTH network all ISPs could lease links on and buy transit from. It obviously makes no economical sense for every ISP to have their own EFM network and dilute each others' attach rate to oblivion. The only other way to take advantage of existing 'last mile' wiring is to use the power lines - which go into every premises - even those that don't have telco/cableco wiring.
I've not studied this methodology in years so I don't know what the existing state-of-the art is in term of available speeds, equipment costs, and what potential pitfalls are. |
|
 R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by freejazz_RdJ:TSI is certainly not telling the whole world it's numbers, and they shouldn't have to. Teksavvy used to be far more open with their internal numbers until around Jan. 2008, coincidentally with the $10/month hike on Unlimited. said by freejazz_RdJ:> A greater reliance on facilities-based competition. And that's not good news for any of the indie ISP's. In fact, it seems that moving to facilities based is the only readily identifiable common thread in the CRTC's decisions. Facilities-based competition would not be that much of an issue if someone (could be me) stepped forward and offered to build an ETTH network all ISPs could lease links on and buy transit from. It obviously makes no economical sense for every ISP to have their own EFM network and dilute each others' attach rate to oblivion. Two things with this....
1 - TekSavvy became tight lipped from about April 2008 and on after being throttled and forced to not disclose things for Bell to use against us.
2 - This isn't about just shoving money in.... its about being able to actually get in the ground or on the poles to run fibre... To do this across Canada would take easily 3+ times more time than what it took Bell. Write of way access is major in all of this as for every hole you dig it requires Utility/Telco/Cableco/Municipal clearance.... this could take months before a green light... Sad thing is I might even be understating the 3+, which places you somewhere around year 2300 or more to do what Bell did, in just Ontario, nevermind anywhere else.
The only way to speed this up is to buy from Bell to place infrastructure but them we're back to square one.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
|
|
 GNca GeorgeGorillaNET Wireless BroadbandPremium,VIP
join:2008-07-12
Minden, ON | said by R0CKY:Sad thing is I might even be understating the 3+, which places you somewhere around year 2300 or more to do what Bell did, in just Ontario, nevermind anywhere else. It took two years to get all the permissions and contracts lined up for one fibre run up here and that was for a county-sponsored project where there were no municipal holdups at all. As you say, the right of way issues are horrendous and dwarf everything else involved.
--
Tough Broadband for a Tough Crowd!
GorillaNET.ca - 10Mbits to your desk, coming soon. |
|
|
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:The only other way to take advantage of existing 'last mile' wiring is to use the power lines - which go into every premises - even those that don't have telco/cableco wiring. The power line "last mile" is constituted of countless isolated 120V segments, countless electrical noise sources and wiring never meant to carry signals much beyond 60Hz over any sort of distance. Not exactly a prime choice for reliable high-speed data services.
If you look at your power line's 120V rails, chances you will see that your city block alone is split in two or more segments fed by separate transformers - my own city block is ~500m long and it has three segments. If the power company wanted to do power-line internet, they would likely have to bring fiber all the way to each 120V rail, within 300m of potential subscribers to provide remotely decent internet service. Makes little sense to cheap out this much with such inferior technology once this close.
said by MaynardKrebs:I've not studied this methodology in years so I don't know what the existing state-of-the art is in term of available speeds, equipment costs, and what potential pitfalls are. Power-Line Ethernet in its latest incarnations is capable of little more than 100Mbps usable speeds within the confines of a single residence under near-ideal circumstances. I seriously doubt it would scale remotely well to a neighborhood's 120V rails under real-world conditions... just look at what happens to WiFi APs' usable bandwidth as you increase attachment rates and distances to get an idea. Now, on top of the basic shared-access scalability issue, you also have to imagine that your sub-watt broadband signals will have to compete against 100-5000W mixed (transient, impulse, gaussian, poorly filtered AC-DC converters, etc.) noise sources.
I know there have been some experimental power line internet service deployments in the past but I am not aware of any that made it much beyond the experimental stage. |
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
>The only other way to take advantage of existing 'last mile' wiring is to use the power lines - which go into every premises - even those that don't have telco/cableco wiring.
As an utility provider, they already have their own poles or conduits and right of way access to install new ones, so that save the years having to fight the red tape for installations. |
|
| reply to R0CKY
said by R0CKY:1 - TekSavvy became tight lipped from about April 2008 and on after being throttled and forced to not disclose things for Bell to use against us. Not quite sure how this is supposed to be secret considering that Bell could easily read byte counters on AHSSPI links and sum up DSLAM byte counters for all lines associated with TSI to obtain equivalent data. During Bell's presentation, Bell already revealed that they are capable of counting GAS traffic separately from Bell's own retail subscribers, there is little doubt that Bell could refine those statistics to a per-ISP (AHSSPI endpoint) or even per-BRAS-domain level - assuming the numbers presented by Bell were not already a summary of such refined stats.
said by R0CKY:2 - This isn't about just shoving money in.... its about being able to actually get in the ground or on the poles to run fibre... To do this across Canada would take easily 3+ times more time than what it took Bell. Good thing I do not intend to do this across Canada and have no intention of digging holes until I run out of more easily accessible utility-pole-based subscribers. For the rest, I will hopefully have an attack plan before I am done with the easy/easier ones. The RoW delays and expenses are one more reason all indies need to take this on as a common front to be economical and timely.
said by R0CKY:The only way to speed this up is to buy from Bell to place infrastructure but them we're back to square one. Bell is not the only fiber game in town for places where I may be unable to get my own across a geographic obstacle, highway or otherwise non-surface/aerial-passable area. Even if I got everything to go my way, I would still end up leasing other people's fiber for path diversity, gaining access to clients' facilities (leasing existing fiber to a CO/hotel/datacenter/etc. instead of drilling a hole for my own) and strategically relieving heavily loaded areas of my own network while I plan and deploy upgrades to soak up the unexpected extra load. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Don't forget that the government is under the mistaken impression that mobile phones provide competitive brodband service.
This makes it easier for them to aloow Bell do do what it wants with its legacy copper. |
|
 AngeloThe Network GuyPremium
join:2002-06-18 | celluar internet is another form of internet competition just not here in canada where we limit and dpi speeds to extremes. where a $60 bill for 1meg seems like we are being ripped off.
in some countries wireless internet is just as good as what we are paying for dsl. |
|
 MacGyverDon't Waste Your EnergyPremium,ExMod 2003-05
join:2001-10-14
Canada
kudos:1 | reply to jfmezei
GO TEKSAVVY GO!
SUCK BELL SUCK!
BAD CRTC BAD!
GO SENS GO!
Golf Leafs Golf!
I had to get that off my chest. Oh yeah, while I'm at it: Rogers, you suck, too.
That pretty much covers all the bases. |
|
| said by MacGyver:GO TEKSAVVY GO! SUCK BELL SUCK! BAD CRTC BAD! GO HABS GO! Golf Leafs Golf! I had to get that off my chest. Oh yeah, while I'm at it: Rogers, you suck, too. That pretty much covers all the bases. +1 simple and to the point ay  and I needed to correct only one of your typo's! |
|
| reply to An_Onymous
said by An_Onymous :
>The only other way to take advantage of existing 'last mile' wiring is to use the power lines - which go into every premises - even those that don't have telco/cableco wiring.
As an utility provider, they already have their own poles or conduits and right of way access to install new ones, so that save the years having to fight the red tape for installations.
In Toronto, you don't typically see fiber or copper telco/cableco wiring on the same poles as electricity. |
|
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:Don't forget that the government is under the mistaken impression that mobile phones provide competitive brodband service. Considering that the current cell infrastructure is owned by the same companies as the wired infrastructure, there really isn't any competition to speak of... that much should be painfully obvious to anyone capable of rational thought.
said by jfmezei:This makes it easier for them to aloow Bell do do what it wants with its legacy copper. If I had my own FTTH/EFM network, Bell could file a tariff to charge $100/ft/month to lease copper loops and I would love it: more people fleeing copper loops = larger potential subscriber pool for glass-based connectivity. |
|
CanerisErikCanerisPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
kudos:2 | reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:In Toronto, you don't typically see fiber or copper telco/cableco wiring on the same poles as electricity. Huh? You see it everywhere in Toronto, and not in Toronto, on the same poles as electricity.
--
Erik - Caneris Inc. |
|
Reviews:
·odynet
| in my area a Victorian neighbourhood near downtown London pretty much everything is overhead wiring. Cable TV and Phone are fed from a mix of Hydro poles and scary looking legacy Bell poles running down the rear of some properties.
Recently Rogers was complaining about the unfair rates London Hydro charges them for pole use IIRC it was somewhere around $22 per annum per pole. I can only assume from this that Bell gets a better deal.
As for the height of communications cable run on Hydro poles IIRC the Code requires them to be a minimum of 6 feet below the lowest electrical conductor.
Vomio |
|
