Topic 'UBB round 2 at the CRTC' in forum 'Canadian Broadband' - dslreports.com

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Mon, 10 May 2010 22:41:40 EDT

andyb posted : Its a bit more difficult than that but yea thats the gist of it.You must have deep pockets too.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Mon, 10 May 2010 20:13:49 EDT

HeadSpinning posted : No catch 22. Fiber isn't a prerequisite to being a Canadian Carrier, but being a Canadian Carrier is a prerequisite to owning fiber.

You just have to meet the ownership regulations and declare yourself a carrier and register.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Mon, 10 May 2010 15:03:52 EDT

jfmezei posted : telecom act may state that carriers have access, but you need to be considered a "carrier" on an officioal basis. Not sure if ISPs are considered carriers.

If, to be a carrier, you need to have infrastructure in the ground/poles, then this is a catch 22: you need to have fibre laid to be a carrier, you need to be a carrier to lay that first km of fibre.

So to start, you do need to find a municipality that is willing to grant you "public utility" status.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Mon, 10 May 2010 14:04:22 EDT

andyb posted : You sure on that as I dont see any difference between anything at the crtc

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Mon, 10 May 2010 13:55:05 EDT

freejazz_RdJ posted :

said by andyb:

bell and bell-aliant both applied for it.So it should cover both

»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-255.htm

This doesn't apply to Bell Aliant Atlantic, only to the rural or remote areas whose ownership changed hands to Bell Aliant in Ontario and Quebec. The atlantic people get blessed with better prices, no caps, no throttle, FTTH projects and IPTV.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Mon, 10 May 2010 13:46:50 EDT

andyb posted : bell and bell-aliant both applied for it.So it should cover both

»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-255.htm

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Mon, 10 May 2010 11:59:01 EDT

habskilla posted :

said by markj6:

is this ruling going to apply to bell-aliant? i have no cap right now btw...if so im queing up a 30 gb 'linux iso' in protest...

Let's hope we stay under the radar and keep our unlimited bandwidth.
--
If Hamilton gets a NHL team then Toronto is going to want one too...

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Mon, 10 May 2010 07:42:19 EDT

HeadSpinning posted : The municipality is only allowed to cover their costs. They are not allowed to use access arrangements as a source of revenue.

Ledcor v. Vancouver is exactly where all this started. The other big one was Allstream v. Edmonton.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Mon, 10 May 2010 07:20:27 EDT

freejazz_RdJ posted : As HeadSpinning says, the rules are equal for all carriers. No special treatment for anyone and limits on what the municipality can recover. I expect that if Toronto/Miller push forward their increased fees, one of the carriers will challenge them. The key decision is Ledcor v. Vancouver I think.

EDIT: JF, I meant that a city can't say "well, we've already got Videotron and Bell, so we don't really feel like letting you install anything" or "Well, we'd like you to pay X to do this" where X is higher than what they would charge another provider.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sun, 09 May 2010 21:03:06 EDT

jfmezei posted : The text of the CRTC's decision wasn't too explicit about this. They had percentages adjustments for some of the unpublished Bell capital costs and help desk costs, but it does include revised basic GAS tariffs.


               <1000             >7500
                1yr     1yr     2yr     3yr
Before         22.50   20.50   20.00   19.50
After          21.20   19.20   18.70   18.20
$diff           1.30    1.30    1.30    1.30
%diff          -5.8%   -6.3%   -6.5%   -6.7%

So basically, the CRTC is giving 1 gig free after that 60 gig limit. And remember that when the CRTC approves the $2.00 increase for Ontario, Bell will end up with a 0.70 effective increase for ontario.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sun, 09 May 2010 17:26:48 EDT

HeadSpinning posted : A Canadian Carrier under the Telecommunications Act has the right to install facilities in utility right of ways and other public places. Its not up to the municipality to decide who is or isn't a Canadian Carrier. That is left up to the Act.

As a Canadian Carrier, MNSi has on several occasions dug up public right of ways to install fiber optic ducts, and has never had a problem with the various municipalities involved as a permit was requested prior to digging, and the surface restored properly afterwards.

You just have to have the dough to pay for all the work - and it isn't cheap.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sun, 09 May 2010 17:22:00 EDT

jfmezei posted : freejazz, it isn't "all telecoms have access to the right of ways".

Municipalities let PUBLIC UTILITIES use the underground space under municipality's land.

A small ISP would have to convince the municipality that it is a PUBLIC UTILITY to get those rights. Basically, to get that status, you have to deploy your infrastructure over a large portion of the city to make your service available to anyone within the coverage area.

Smaller cities are more flexible of course. And they may be open to "trials" or "pilot projects".

And if you consider Google's project, many cities will bend over backwards to bring Google's fibre to their town.

But this is done on an individual basis. You can't just go to the CRTC and get an instant "install everywhere in Québec-Ontario" card that you just flash at every municipality you dig up. You need to get your status approved and then get building permits for every project.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sun, 09 May 2010 16:25:19 EDT

justsomeguy posted :

said by freejazz_RdJ:

Absolutely, I've said before that if the margins being made by Bell and Rogers are so rich (80% suggested on GAS, 200,000% suggest by Rocky in the CBC quote for the UB fee)

is it 80% or 200,000% or something much lower than both figures?

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sun, 09 May 2010 15:23:56 EDT

freejazz_RdJ posted : Absolutely, I've said before that if the margins being made by Bell and Rogers are so rich (80% suggested on GAS, 200,000% suggest by Rocky in the CBC quote for the UB fee) then there will be greater incentives over time to move in with distinct infrastructure. It would require deep pockets to do overlay, but the costs are more modest in greenfield if they work with the property developper.

And if someone built a cost effective fiber last mile that even the incumbents could use and it was built before theirs is, they might adopt it. They could still use their scale at the core and their other lines of business to remain competitive despite their higher corporate cost structure.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sun, 09 May 2010 10:53:33 EDT

InvalidError posted :

said by freejazz_RdJ:

A 3rd wire sounds good, but I'm concerned about viability. Even if the 3rd wire captured 1/3 of the market, it would be a challenge to make it pay off. Only in you got one or both of the incumbents to join in would it make a lot of sense unless you had a big customer base with a high ARPU.

Once the revenues are sufficient to cover operating costs and interests, the rest is only a matter of time.

With incumbents charging in excess of $50/month for 10Mbps with caps and sometimes throttling, an FTTH provider has plenty of headroom to offer significantly higher speeds and caps at the same price points to grab a significant chunk of that subscriber base. At the lower end of the spectrum, a $40/month 10Mbps+ONT-VOIP package would likely catch the attention of many wet-DSL, dry-DSL+VOIP and MLPPP wholesale subscribers as a vastly superior and nearly-Bell-free alternative.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sun, 09 May 2010 00:51:24 EDT

freejazz_RdJ posted : All telecoms have access to property under the same terms as the incumbents would receive. You cannot deny say Cogeco the right to do something you have let Bell do nor can you charge them more than you would Bell. All companies pay the same price for poles, although it is possible that there are settlement type agreements between pole owners where no cash is paid but equivalent amounts of pole services are rendered.

A 3rd wire sounds good, but I'm concerned about viability. Even if the 3rd wire captured 1/3 of the market, it would be a challenge to make it pay off. Only in you got one or both of the incumbents to join in would it make a lot of sense unless you had a big customer base with a high ARPU.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 21:51:08 EDT

andyb posted : Actually the street behind me had the main loop from bell running under the blacktop,right down the middle of the road.Naturally it was fubared when they dug it up.Took bell a few weeks to even come look at it.The same construction took out rogers too, although they came by and ran a wire from tree branch to tree branch as a temp fix.It was there for months.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 21:40:41 EDT

jfmezei posted : In most municipalities, the utilities do not run under the street, they run either between backyards, or on the side of the street, on the land that belongs to the municipality. (your property rarely extends to the street itself).

digging up lawns is done frequently, and is allowed as longas the company fixes it back to original state after the work.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 17:45:57 EDT

andyb posted : Pole rates in Canada run approximatly for ~4$ to $18 per year.Doesn't seem like much multiply that by the hundreds of thousands and it adds up quick.Alot of municapalities will not let roads be dug up anymore unless there are other repairs needed that can be done at the same time.

I like a thing the US is trying to pass to all states and cities.When you put out bids for roadwork on new or old roads include fibre conduits in the bid requirements.Makes sense to me

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 16:04:37 EDT

jfmezei posted : re: right of ways

In Québec, There are deal between Bell, Hydro Québec and cable for reciprocal access to each other's poles.

Say Bell has 100 poles ad Hydro has 100, they strike a deal where both have access to each other's poles at no cost. Someone who has no poles to offr will have to pay to get access.

Poles have weight bearing limits. And the addition of any cable requires an engineering study.

So in Québec Ciyy for instance, Bell can add its fibre cable onto poles for free, even on poles that belongto Hydro Québec, provided they pay for the engineering study (one time cost).

A competitor will have to buy access to the poles and pay monthly rental depending on what deal he has struck with the pole's owner.

In terms of underground conduits, they are generally on municipal property, and a company that can convince a municipality that they are a public utility gets access to the underground, but has to pay for digging and re-landscaping costs.

For large cities like montreal, toronto, vancouver, there are areas of the city that don't work like that where the city onwn underground conduits and charges for access (eg: downtown cores). They also charge if the company wants to build an underground bunker under a street.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 12:21:35 EDT

Robrr posted : Deploying DSLAM's that can only access a portion of your subscriber base is also not advantageous considering the costs involved for the penetration levels that will be obtained. As mlerner mentiond, without remote access DSLAM deployment wont put them that much further ahead.

With regards to the third wire. Some independents are already offering VoIP services and have talked about IPTV services. With this in mind, if they were to combine this all into one big push they could offer a triple play service. This would give them a much more level playing field to compete on and being they would push their service across a pure fiber network, they would have the advantage of working with next generation technologies that are easily upgradeable.

The theory here is simple: Do it once and do it right.

Obviously it sounds simplier than it is but I really think that a concentrated push needs to be made to make this happen. I think the independents need to sit down together, work out their differences and come up with a plan.

My personal thoughts is that they need to come together and start a new company called something like "Independent Fiber Company" who's purpose is to string the 3rd wire and connect to each house and place of business then have the indie isp's lease lines from the "Independent Fiber Company" to complete connections.

Just my two cents.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 11:26:53 EDT

Vomio posted : At the risk of heading off topic, I have what is probably a legal question.

One of the major problems that keeps resurfacing is that of right of ways, and the legal and rental costs associated with such.

Could the Federal Government mandate the provision of right of ways throughout the country? In my opinion it is in the national interest and a key to future development.

After all the Queen retains ownership of pretty much all the land, with very few exceptions.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:46:47 EDT

InvalidError posted :

said by Robrr:

I know many here have said again and again that it isn't economically feasible but really they only have to look as far as Verizon in the US to see that isn't the case.

Verizon has the advantage of already having rights-of-way and an existing direct retail subscriber base to shift on that new infrastructure as it rolls out. With triple-play packages worth in excess of $100/month and a nearly guaranteed medium-term sign-up rate of about 40%, Verizon's risk is practically zero and profits are only a matter of time.

A co-op fiber infrastructure has ZERO initial subscriber base, has higher build cost due to partners demanding P2P fiber and extra colocation space, might not be able to offer triple-play at launch due to insufficient medium-term subscribership to justify the construction of IPTV facilities and since it will be competing against the telco and cableco, reaching even 20% market share will require lots of work.

People keep bashing how Bell rakes in $20/month from GAS for "doing nothing"... but if someone built a "third wire" FTTH plant, they would have to charge around $25-30/month per optical drop on a 20% market penetration to recover build costs within 10-15 years.

It is doable, just not advantageous at the lower end of the single-play market.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:39:01 EDT

Robrr posted : The same place that they would get the captial from to deploy DSLAM's.

To deploy DSLAM's in every CO in a major city would be a huge capital expense that would require financing as well.

The difference in costs I can't say for sure because I'm not sure what the cost of purchasing DSLAM's for every CO is in comparison to a fiber build out but it would be something I would be interested in seeing.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:25:30 EDT

mlerner posted :

said by Robrr:

I don't think they need to necessarily go national right away but they could do something similar to Wind and deploy in key cities and build from there.

If they were to build in major cities first like Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary they could provide great service in those cities and then work out from there.

Problem still is, where do you get the capital. I don't think a co-op will ever happen and banks will not be very open to lending in this market especially one so fragmented.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:22:02 EDT

Robrr posted : I don't think they need to necessarily go national right away but they could do something similar to Wind and deploy in key cities and build from there.

If they were to build in major cities first like Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary they could provide great service in those cities and then work out from there.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:19:37 EDT

mlerner posted :

said by Robrr:

said by mlerner:

The ADSL-CO proceeding will hopefully set things where TSI can have a middle ground to deploy their own hardware. I am right now considering TSI cable when it launches in Ottawa or Primus. Either way I'll lose some advantages but I dislike giving Bell any more money than I have to.

I hope that it will as well but I do worry that there will be a lot of strings attached.

There will be, mainly no access to remotes. Without sub-loop unbundling and some wiggling room from Bell for cabinet access in larger remotes it will be impossible to serve the majority of customers.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:18:33 EDT

mlerner posted : That is probably what is going to need to happen but will take several years. The U.S. market is also vastly different, Verizon got a ton of funding and right of ways. I don't see anyone rolling out a national fiber service without somehow getting a ton of funding which in this market is impossible.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:18:06 EDT

Robrr posted :

I hope that it will as well but I do worry that there will be a lot of strings attached.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:15:37 EDT

Robrr posted : I should add that I do think it is time that the independents come together and start laying a third wire. I know many here have said again and again that it isn't economically feasible but really they only have to look as far as Verizon in the US to see that isn't the case.

A lot of people though Verizon was making a big mistake when they started with the FiOS deployments but now that Verizon has completed as much as they have, they have proven that it wasn't a mistake and that infact it was truly a smart decision.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:14:09 EDT

mlerner posted : The ADSL-CO proceeding will hopefully set things where TSI can have a middle ground to deploy their own hardware. I am right now considering TSI cable when it launches in Ottawa or Primus. Either way I'll lose some advantages but I dislike giving Bell any more money than I have to.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:11:58 EDT

Robrr posted :

said by mlerner:

Yeah and then we can all have 50 GB caps and no static IPs.

Well considering that is almost where we will be under the new rules, it seems silly for independents to pay additional costs for what will essentially be white label service.

As has been mentioned previously, the only real differential between ISP's under the new rules will be customer service.

I'll be honest that I don't like what is going on more than anyone else here but things have been truly messed up by the CRTC due to this decision and unfortunately as per usual it is us as customers that have to suffer.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:04:57 EDT

mlerner posted :

said by Robrr:

Maybe Independents should take on the roll of true reseller since that is what the CRTC thinks they are and start using bell's onramps, interconnects etc rather than paying for their own like a wholesaler would

Yeah and then we can all have 50 GB caps and no static IPs.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 09:59:17 EDT

Robrr posted : Maybe Independents should take on the roll of true reseller since that is what the CRTC thinks they are and start using bell's onramps, interconnects etc rather than paying for their own like a wholesaler would

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 01:14:06 EDT

jfmezei posted : canoe = Québecor = Videotron

So of course the journalists will have an easier time blasting Bell Canada.

I note the focus of the article is how the CRTC will cost *BELL* customers more, and not really put much emphasis on the fact that it will force competitors to cease offerig packages that Bell doesn't want them to offer.

Bell no longer offers unlimited, so it is no great loss.

In terns of Bell not having decided what to do, this is horseradish. Bell wrote the decision and would have negotiated the terms of the decision with the CRTC prior to writing it, so Bell is perfectly OK with removing its unlimited customers.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 00:56:23 EDT

Vomio posted : Those terms of use limit my ability to receive a lot of stuff, technically you can probably not even read about security exploits. As for home office use I think that is still considered "residential", but of course that is not defined fully, but in the past Bell has promoted "High Speed" for such use so there is a precedent FWIW.

I just was looking at this article.
»cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/20···601.html
I think it gives a pretty negative take on the ruling that makes Bell look bad even to it's own customers.

I found this comment interesting.
"Bell spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis said the company has not yet decided what it will do.
“We are studying the decision,” she said."

It make it seem like they are not exactly elated over the outcome.
Even if they decide not to go with UBB due to public resistance or the internal strife it would cause. I can see them hanging this over the heads of the wholesalers/resellers like the sword of Damocles.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Sat, 08 May 2010 00:49:26 EDT

anon posted : This was all discussed in page 2 & 3 of this topic.

That TOS brings a whole slew of things with it.

I wouldn't stand for it. I personally believe the wholesale resellers should even file with privcom since Bell's TOS gives Bell the right to look at their "competitors" customers packets, info etc etc. Doesn't even sound like it should pass under competition rules.

But, this is all about limiting competition and fairness in order to satisfy the stakeholders and shareholders and to ensure a return on investment. Nothing to do with "competition".

All wholesalers will have to make it clear when this comes into effect that Bell's TOS, privacy policies and other (by virtue of the TOS) affect them.

However, I don't expect it. Not like these same wholesale resellers even show on their commercial websites that the service they are selling is crippled in some way that is easy for a consumer to see.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 23:59:51 EDT

jfmezei posted : Took a while, but I did find the Bell TOS that were filed as part of the UBB process. Bell is imposing those restrictions to customers of its competitors who purchase what used to be a wholesale service.

If you wish to find it:

»www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2009/b2_7181.htm
Look for 1281766.zip filed by Bell 20-Aug-2009

It in in the file:
docs-1281766-TN 7181 - Responses to interrogatories - Bell Canada - The Companies(CRTC)20Aug09-3-ATT.DOC

(I created a .pdf to make it possible to read)

Bell TOS.pdf
Bell's Terms of Service

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 22:54:02 EDT

koreyb posted : I have one reaction to that... hahaha

MAKE ME!

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 22:18:05 EDT

JunjiHiroma posted :

said by jfmezei:

It isn't "they *may* go with it. THEY HAVE GONE WITH IT.

In 6 months, Sympatico's TOS will apply to competitors's customers. Approved. It is in the tariff.

We can't badmouth bell anymore either.We've to be good sheeple like bell WANTS you and me to be.You'll conform to big BrothER and like it.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 22:00:52 EDT

cheapbastard posted : It's really sad to see Canada taking steps back into the StoneAge just because the Americans say so.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 20:11:13 EDT

mlerner posted : Hmm. I think someone needs to bring the Federal Court back for this.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 20:07:09 EDT

jfmezei posted : It isn't "they *may* go with it. THEY HAVE GONE WITH IT.

In 6 months, Sympatico's TOS will apply to competitors's customers. Approved. It is in the tariff.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 19:51:40 EDT

mlerner posted :

said by jfmezei:

7181 implements Sympatico residential TOS (terms of service).

Hmm, depending on how this is implemented it could be considered illegal then again with the CRTC thinking everything should be symmetrical between retail and wholesale they may go along with it. Oh sorry, resale. My apologies.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 17:59:05 EDT

Farchord posted : Oh well.... time to bend over, I have become increasingly skilled at doing so.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 17:55:05 EDT

Angelo posted : im in JFs position also and this can easily cost thousands more now.

It would seem cheaper for me to host my own server at 151 then run my own servers from home.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 17:20:25 EDT

jibby posted :

said by freejazz_RdJ:

I fully expect that the Bell spin team is coming up with the letters to be sent to users right now, writing their answer to the eventual Ellen Roseman column and preparing a press tour of their executives in case those pushed out managed to get some media interest. Overall, the bad press from the few users affected could well be worth the extra cash. Maybe they'll hire Ari Flesiher or Condi Rice given their years of spinning away 8 awful years of Bush fumbles. Rogers might even pitch in a few bucks as a thank you for taking the bad press.

I can see the spin already - Bell will claim 'the CRTC FORCED us to discontinue unlimited plans, if you're mad, tell the CRTC, they're the bad guys! We don't even have a choice!' much like with the LPIF & Rogers.

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 15:50:06 EDT

MaynardKrebs posted :

said by jfmezei:

In my case, it matters because implementation of 7181 means I can no longer run servers at home and essentially have to stop working from home.

CRA permits work from home and permits reasonable deductions for same. Bell will force you to get a business DSL link but may still deny you running servers.

Could the CRTC decision be construed as infringing on CRA in any way?

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 15:31:05 EDT

andyb posted : Who obeys terms of service? fuk bell

Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC

Fri, 07 May 2010 15:28:05 EDT

jfmezei posted : 7181 implements Sympatico residential TOS (terms of service).