dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
19258

Jay_P
join:2005-12-12
Montreal, QC

1 edit

Jay_P

Member

Colba net is rubbing salt in the wound, UBB on ADSL2+

What a bunch of hypocrites, they now enforce a "120 GB" cap on their ADSL2+ customers effectively doubling Bell's 60 GB. They make it sound like the CRTC decision will affect ADSL2+ customers connected to their own equipments, BULLSHIT.

Cher Client,

Comme vous le savez peut-être, le CRTC (ordonnance 2009-484) acquiesce aux demandes présentées par Bell Canada, qui impose dorénavant une tarification à l’usage pour les clients résidentiels à partir de 60 Go. Ceci débute le 10 novembre 2009.

Pour les clients ADSL2+, nous doublons cette limite pour la fixer à 120 Go.

Veuillez SVP trouver ci-joint, la communication officielle de Colba.Net.

Nous vous prions de recevoir nos meilleures salutations,

Dear Valued Customer,

As you may know, the CRTC (Ordinance 2009-484) has accepted Bell Canada’s requests, which now imposes a fee for the data transfer for 60 GB residential customers. This begins as of November 10th, 2009.

For ADSL2+ customers, we will double this limit to be set at 120 GB.


Farchord
Lost somewhere.
join:2004-08-28
Shawinigan, QC

Farchord

Member

said by Jay_P:

What a bunch of hypocrites, they now enforce a "120 GB" cap on their ADSL2+ customers effectively doubling Bell's 60 GB. They make it sound like the CRTC decision will affect ADSL2+ customers connected to their own equipments, BULLSHIT.

Cher Client,

Comme vous le savez peut-être, le CRTC (ordonnance 2009-484) acquiesce aux demandes présentées par Bell Canada, qui impose dorénavant une tarification à l’usage pour les clients résidentiels à partir de 60 Go. Ceci débute le 10 novembre 2009.

Pour les clients ADSL2+, nous doublons cette limite pour la fixer à 120 Go.

Veuillez SVP trouver ci-joint, la communication officielle de Colba.Net.

Nous vous prions de recevoir nos meilleures salutations,

Dear Valued Customer,

As you may know, the CRTC (Ordinance 2009-484) has accepted Bell Canada’s requests, which now imposes a fee for the data transfer for 60 GB residential customers. This begins as of November 10th, 2009.

For ADSL2+ customers, we will double this limit to be set at 120 GB.

It's not BS it makes sense mate..... Thousands of people, pissed of the 60gb limit flowing to Colba on the unlimited adsl2+, slowing down your net to a crawl, you really want that?

They're just covering their bases.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz

MVM

said by Farchord:

It's not BS it makes sense mate..... Thousands of people, pissed of the 60gb limit flowing to Colba on the unlimited adsl2+, slowing down your net to a crawl, you really want that?

They're just covering their bases.
Bell has had caps for years, and has such an enormous majority market share, that the impact from UBB on Colba's average usage should be nil.

They're implying that they're affected by the CRTC decision when they're not. That's borderline fraudulent! They're not trying to cover their bases, they're using a false premise as an excuse to increase profits.
freejazz_RdJ
join:2009-03-10

freejazz_RdJ

Member

I think this is reasonable. Colba and I think Primus have both predicted that because they're outside of the UBB, they may be flooded with the highest usage subscribers, driving up their costs.

This is precisely the impetus for the ILEC's UBB: they moderated their own users usage as did cable. But users went to GAS ISP's. The flat rate nature of GAS flooded their infrastructure with the highest consumption users which generated no more revenue than an average user while increasing utilization of the network.

Farchord
Lost somewhere.
join:2004-08-28
Shawinigan, QC

Farchord to Jay_P

Member

to Jay_P
Bah.

I stopped being unimpressed by the constant inaptitude of canadian ISPs. I just do the canadian thing: Bend over, and take it like a..... hum, what's lower than dog, but can still be spanked...?

Oinktastic
Let them use fibre
join:2005-08-24
Scarborough

Oinktastic

Member

said by Farchord:

Bah.

I stopped being unimpressed by the constant inaptitude of canadian ISPs. I just do the canadian thing: Bend over, and take it like a..... hum, what's lower than dog, but can still be spanked...?
Gilles Duceppe? j/k!

diskace
Retired
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21

1 edit

diskace

Premium Member

CRTC decision 2009-484 is having ZERO impact on companies in a carrier-hotel colocation. They have their own equipment for the end-mile and dictate their bandwidth caps.

Protecting their network with caps is a corporate decision. However blaming decision 2009-484 is misleading.

Jay_P
join:2005-12-12
Montreal, QC

Jay_P to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

Bell has had caps for years, and has such an enormous majority market share, that the impact from UBB on Colba's average usage should be nil.

They're implying that they're affected by the CRTC decision when they're not. That's borderline fraudulent! They're not trying to cover their bases, they're using a false premise as an excuse to increase profits.
Exactly... at least now we know their stance on net neutrality. Their website stills shows unlimited transfer. I got the email this morning so maybe they didn't have time to change it but common sense dictates that the website be changed prior to the announcement. A new client signing up with them today is expecting unlimited transfer.

jfc
@enter-net.com

jfc to Jay_P

Anon

to Jay_P
if only ppl would be aware of how expensive the bandwidth is, and how fast the needs are increasing...

I'd say it's absolutely normal to do this, but I agree it shouldn't be "because of the decision on the UBB case" but it could have been explained in a different way.

Briaeros
join:2008-08-29
Canada

Briaeros to Jay_P

Member

to Jay_P
It's funny how there's so much contradiction on this topic; some people say it's bullshit, others say it's logical and reasonable.

Most people who understand the infrastructure of the internet and who have a clue as to how expensive all that equipment is as well as the traffic limitations that the imply tend towards saying that it's a reasonable business decision.
I myself tend towards that but there is one BIG question that plagues my mind on this subject.
Why is it that Internet services in Canada are so much more expensive and limiting as anywhere else around the world? Can it really be attributed only to large territory and relatively low population density?
Analytic
join:2009-02-09

Analytic to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

They're implying that they're affected by the CRTC decision when they're not. That's borderline fraudulent! They're not trying to cover their bases, they're using a false premise as an excuse to increase profits.
Any business is looking for ways to maintain and to increase profits.
Analytic

Analytic to Briaeros

Member

to Briaeros
said by Briaeros:

Why is it that Internet services in Canada are so much more expensive and limiting as anywhere else around the world? Can it really be attributed only to large territory and relatively low population density?
For the same reason we have the cell phone rates we have. Market is dominated by several players that establish the price level that maximizes the profitability while avoiding the major public/political upheaval. Smaller players, lacking major marketing $$, economies of scale and worrying for their bottom line are undercutting the established price level just enough to get new customers while maintaining the overall profitability.

Jay_P
join:2005-12-12
Montreal, QC

1 edit

Jay_P

Member

said by Analytic:

For the same reason we have the cell phone rates we have. Market is dominated by several players that establish the price level that maximizes the profitability while avoiding the major public/political upheaval. Smaller players, lacking major marketing $$, economies of scale and worrying for their bottom line are undercutting the established price level just enough to get new customers while maintaining the overall profitability.
Internet transit is not a problem anymore, I can get $2.5/Mbps in Toronto today. The problem is the transport to the end user from the telcos, I don't need to tell you primus is paying an arm and a leg to colocate in Bell COs.

There's a problem when you pay half the price it costs you to transmit a bit from Hong Kong to Toronto on Bell's internal network.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to diskace

Member

to diskace
said by diskace:

CRTC decision 2009-484 is having ZERO impact on companies in a carrier-hotel colocation. They have their own equipment for the end-mile and dictate their bandwidth caps.

Protecting their network with caps is a corporate decision. However blaming decision 2009-484 is misleading.
It may not be a direct cause but it would have a definitive direct correlation: several people on unlimited or high-cap GAS who routinely do well over 60GB/month will be shopping for new ISPs when Bell's UBB hits and the only tickets in town for better-than-60GB will be co-lo ISPs. Imagine the network impact of potentially inheriting thousands of heavy users (200+GB/month) in a matter of weeks.

At 120GB/month, Colba simply ensured that they will be spared the worst part of this initial flood. If I was an ISP or carrier, the prospect of inheriting this many heavy users over a very short time span would bother me as well.

diskace
Retired
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21

diskace

Premium Member

The point is that you can't blame 2009-484 for that. Lying to customers is a big no-no.

We had the same problem with unlimited speedcable 2 years ago and were extremely transparent on why we had to put caps. People complained but at least we were honest.
jfc9
join:2009-10-01
Repentigny, QC

jfc9 to Jay_P

Member

to Jay_P
well, I kept reading the letter jpabboud received, they do talk about the CRTC, for regular DSL, but they do not say : BECAUSE OF THAT, we have to put a cap...

I guess it could have been presented in a different way.. but it's how ppl get the message that makes it sounds "harsh"
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to Briaeros

Member

to Briaeros
said by Briaeros:

Why is it that Internet services in Canada are so much more expensive and limiting as anywhere else around the world? Can it really be attributed only to large territory and relatively low population density?
I would blame a good chunk of it on Canadian subscribers expecting dedicated-like service on consumer-grade data services. If you want proof of that, look at all the people complaining that they are only getting 4.2Mbps out of their "Up to 5Mbps" service.

Elsewhere around the world, the "speed entitlement" we see here is nowhere near as strong since they have advertising laws that require that ISPs disclose their worst-case oversubscription rates... so you may see "1Gbps fiber oversubscribed to 1000:1" which basically means you are only guaranteed ~1Mbps when the network is under heavy load in otherwise normal operating conditions.

Maintaining the illusion of non-blocking network performance is much more expensive than letting congestion run its course, increasingly so as speeds go up.
InvalidError

InvalidError to diskace

Member

to diskace
said by diskace:

The point is that you can't blame 2009-484 for that. Lying to customers is a big no-no.
I wouldn't say they lied: they didn't go so far as to say that the CRTC order applied to their ADSL2 service - they only said that they were doubling the GAS's cap for their own ADSL2 service.

Could they have worded it better? Certainly. Could they have been more transparent about their motives for the cap? Sure. Do they have to explain business decisions to their subscribers? Not really, they only have to give their subscribers their 30-days notice about pricing and service term changes.

Since Colba's subscribers have nowhere else to go for ADSL2 or 60+GB cap, Colba does not need to do any explaining to make most of its subscribers swallow the pill.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to Analytic

MVM

to Analytic
said by Analytic:

said by Guspaz:

They're implying that they're affected by the CRTC decision when they're not. That's borderline fraudulent! They're not trying to cover their bases, they're using a false premise as an excuse to increase profits.
Any business is looking for ways to maintain and to increase profits.
And I have no problem with that. But being misleading (at best!) about the reasons why they're doing it isn't OK.

An_Onymous
@teksavvy.com

An_Onymous to InvalidError

Anon

to InvalidError
>look at all the people complaining that they are only getting 4.2Mbps out of their "Up to 5Mbps" service.

I would not complain if there were a comsumer protection law that say that the ILEC have up to 2 years to fix it so that the customer will be within 80% of that advertised figure.

I am on the very same phone line for my DSL for close to 10 years and I am still getting 2.5M. There are absolutely no incentive for Bell to fix up their lines when they already more than their investment on my line.
jfc9
join:2009-10-01
Repentigny, QC

jfc9 to Jay_P

Member

to Jay_P
looking at the different comments you have regarding colba, I think I get it why you're being "mislead" but anyways, it all depends on how you read what they sent.
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

1- At least Colba is announcing something. How many ISPs have yet to announce how their service offering/pricing will change because of 484 ?

2- At first read, I didn't feel the text was inaccurate. But on second reading, I see a problem. By saying "for adsl2+, we are doubling the limit to 120gigs", it leads one to believe that the 60 gigs applies now and that they are raising it.

While I understand that they wish to protect themselves from an influx of Angellos who download "linux ISOs" 7/24, This is a perfect example of competing not to improve service, but to lower service standards to the lowest acceptable levels.

They could have simply stated that the limit for ADSL2 customers will be 60.1 gigs, just so that they can claim that it is higher than for other ISPs, it would have been the same.

It is frustrating to see service definitions being lowered, when everyone expects internet services to improve over time.

Expect to see a lot of similar announcements in the next few weeks as the rest of the GAS ISPs are forced to reveal their cards. Each will try to show some virtual advantage over the other.

It will be very interesting to see the reaction from Bell/CRTC if/when some ISPs continue to offer unlimited services by adding $22.50 to their price and assuming that Bell won't start the excessive usage charges.

However, they forget the tiny clause in the tariffs that lets Bell Canada
restrict,suspend,disconnect any customer who exceeds 300gigs more than once.

Only MTS and I raised the disconnection issue in the R&V process.
Cloneman
join:2002-08-29
Montreal

Cloneman to Jay_P

Member

to Jay_P
Actually, isn't Colba still renting a portion of bell's network? I mean, where does the fibre come from that link all the C.O.'s to Colba's transit links?
dsanfte
join:2005-03-15
UK

dsanfte to Jay_P

Member

to Jay_P
I think I average about 200/mo. I haven't gotten this email yet. What are the overages, does anyone know?
dsanfte

1 edit

dsanfte to Jay_P

Member

to Jay_P
VDN can give me 60Mbits/2Mbits, 120GB cap for $80, and 60GB overage for $20 if necessary. If Colba's overages are crap, I'm gonna be switching.

Jay_P
join:2005-12-12
Montreal, QC

Jay_P

Member

said by dsanfte:

VDN can give me 60Mbits/2Mbits, 120GB cap, and 60GB overage for $20. If Colba's overages are crap, I'm gonna be switching.
They seem to be following Bell for everything so they will probably take Bell's overage pricing and divide it by 2.

kewlkeed
Grouch
Premium Member
join:2005-02-05
Knowlton, QC

kewlkeed to Jay_P

Premium Member

to Jay_P
Geeee... Haven't enough people out there read all the negative reviews of Colba?? You'd think they'd get the point that it's a horrible company already, let alone needing this kick in the face?

Colba sucked before... Sucks now... and will always suck.

Jay_P
join:2005-12-12
Montreal, QC

1 edit

Jay_P

Member

said by kewlkeed:

Geeee... Haven't enough people out there read all the negative reviews of Colba?? You'd think they'd get the point that it's a horrible company already, let alone needing this kick in the face?

Colba sucked before... Sucks now... and will always suck.
I'm not a customer, but I did email them about their wholesale program once. Wasn't impressed and thank god I dropped the idea.

Keep in mind that ColbaNet is just a tax write-off for Colba laboratories.
dsanfte
join:2005-03-15
UK

dsanfte to Jay_P

Member

to Jay_P
I stayed month-to-month in fear of something retarded like this.
warthunder2k
join:2002-04-20
canada

warthunder2k

Member

I have a contract with them until july 2010. I phoned them and asked them a few questions, I didn't ask what will happen to current customers on contract because I will stay with them regardless, 120 gigs is the highest I will get at this point with any isp anyway.

over 120 gigs/month, overages will be 0.75$ par gig, pretty reasonnable. It will work by ''blocks'' , if you go over you move to the next ''block'' of 40 gigs for 30$. It didn't seem to be final, They say they will update their website in 7 days with the details.