dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9943
share rss forum feed


JunjiHiroma
Live Free Or Die

join:2008-03-18
reply to mlerner

Re: ADSL-CO/2009-261 Case update....



JGROCKY
Premium
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:

More things? I really can't imagine how many more tricks you have up your sleave but I'm very eager to find out. Just get cable out ASAP.
LOL

What the other industry players don't get is Marc and I eat, breath and sleep this stuff! We sleep the same as we always have (very little) so, if we're not in here having fun, then we "might" just be doing other things................
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.

Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
In that case, keep sleeping 4 hours a night and don't stop working till you're done! Might need more coffee though.

freejazz_RdJ

join:2009-03-10
kudos:1
reply to JGROCKY
Oh no! Someone is using the Berkman study.

But I'm so pleased to read the stuff about investment in facilities. I've been pretty harsh in my critiques of the GAS-isp business model, because I haven't seen evidence of trying to move up the food chain and being so in bed with Bell isn't really good competition. Bell's limitations and high costs (and therefore high wholesale prices) for aggregated broadband are like cement blocks tied to competitors. So Kudos! I think access to TPIA and thinking about IPTV is great too. Perhaps even spur the incumbents to compete for wholesale ISP's to increase their utilization rates.

What remains to be seen is what the technical limitations of the carrier's services are, what it will cost to provide such a rich set of services on a per-subscriber basis in a multi-provider environment, and to what extent NGN type facilities will be resold. I'll be reading the reports on euro FTTN regulation and fiber broadband as well with great interest into their insight in the NGN issue. The other two issues are kind of cloudy, but based on what I know of carrier ops, it will at the very least be challenging to implement, if not impossible for some customers outside major urban areas.


JGROCKY
Premium
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
reply to mlerner


The only part that sucks is it takes baby steps.... Many little planted sub-strategies over the last 10 years to fix.


cpsycho

join:2008-06-03
HarperLand
Every step counts


nitzguy
Premium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
reply to JGROCKY
No cable in my area where I live...wouldn't be cost-effective for them to run cable a few km for 3 or 4 subs, and its Eastlink now for where I live .

Guess I'll be stuck at 5mb/s until the end of civilization.

Oh well, I guess you gotta go where the money is and I don't fault TSI for that.


oxymoron69

join:2004-11-10
Corbyville, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Kingston Online ..
reply to JGROCKY
Thanks for the update on freeHD, I'd been following them previously and was glad to see them not get squashed because Bell/Telus/Rogers/Shaw didn't see the 'value' in freesat...

Also, does IPTV have to do with that trip across oceans you took not too long ago?


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to JGROCKY
said by JGROCKY:

...guess the way to look at this is, why are the monopolies focused so heavily on the small guys? They have have over 90% control among them..... they see us threatening something to them obviously, so giving anyone an unnecessary tip of the hat until we're up and running just isn't good.
It's a good strategy... more than ever though the big guys in Canadian Telecom realize "the barbarians are at the gates" so to speak.

The spectrum auction with reserved spectrum for new entrants was probably the most telling indicator that the telecom landscape was changing, so I can see how they're probably trying to wipe out as much competition as to not have the share this new landscape with someone who could generate real change.

After all why throw out ~10 years of increasing ARPU without any real upgrades.
--
Now, as the more perceptive of you have probably realised by now, this is Hell, and I am the Devil. Good evening. You can call me Toby, if you like - we try and keep things informal here, as well as infernal.


robinjames
Premium
join:2008-04-20
Ottawa, ON
reply to JGROCKY
I sent Appendix 1 and the TSI submission to the wife at her office to print for me (works for the gov't ) and even she really likes the Berkman Study, it's a good read!

rollaster

join:2008-06-17

1 edit
reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:

said by Angelo:

like i told rocky i expect 30 megs , i guess you can have 16megs mlearner haha :P
I don't care if it's only 10/1 and 300 GB bandwidth, I'd switch over tommorow. Already have my own modem.
and get 1/11th of what your paying for. I can see you two are idiots. What's to stop the monopolies saying that's too much and dropping it down even further. What we need is unlimited otherwise I see no point because it's a complete waste of money to pay more for a service than what they actually provide.

Unless there is faster speeds with service that's advertised as in 10/1 with no caps. There's no point in switching when I can push over 1TB with my 5Mbit line in a single month at a cheaper price.


Angelo
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18
reality is as speeds increase you'll either have to pay higher rates or deal with caps

rollaster

join:2008-06-17

2 edits
said by Angelo:

reality is as speeds increase you'll either have to pay higher rates or deal with caps
that's completely unacceptable. I'd rather stick with 5Mbit DSL than be capped and get a service I'm paying much more for and getting way less the service than what I'm suppose to be receiving.

Why is it elsewhere around the world you get advertised speeds except in north America its capped. This monopolistic control is outrageous


Angelo
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18
said by rollaster:

said by Angelo:

reality is as speeds increase you'll either have to pay higher rates or deal with caps
that's completely unacceptable. I'd rather stick with 5Mbit DSL than be capped and get a service I'm paying much more for and getting way less the service than what I'm suppose to be receiving
so you think 5mbit doing 1tb a month is profitable for an isp?

now imagine if every customer who can get 5mbit is doing the same thing at lets say 39 /mo is this profitable?

now imagine users who are lucky on 6,7, and even 8 meg profiles their monthly download potential is much better and what would you suggest to an ISP as Teksavvy to just suck it up?

i'll answer it for you no, if this becomes common practice the isp will go out of business. Which is what Bhell is hoping for. They know that having all heavy users move to wholesalers maxing their lines and racking up a bill the isp isn't getting any profits from these users.

how do you justify it being unacceptable for an isp to thrive in a competitive market where bhell sets the prices and their markup is razor thin?


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to rollaster
said by rollaster:

that's completely unacceptable. I'd rather stick with 5Mbit DSL than be capped and get a service I'm paying much more for and getting way less the service than what I'm suppose to be receiving.

Why is it elsewhere around the world you get advertised speeds except in north America its capped. This monopolistic control is outrageous
You're tripping over your mighty intellect. I'm surprised that you assume that two of the our more educated contributors are morons.

But I supposed they're dealing with facts and you're dealing with idealistic fiction.

Fact: There is no uncapped internet in Canada.
Fiction: Transit costs nothing.

No matter what way you slice it, someone pays for transit... obviously your ISP is at liberty not to charge you, the consumer, for transit but that doesn't make their transit costs go away.

Assuming you can win an election and become the Industry Minister you're totally free to attempt to regulate the internet.
--
Now, as the more perceptive of you have probably realised by now, this is Hell, and I am the Devil. Good evening. You can call me Toby, if you like - we try and keep things informal here, as well as infernal.


Gimli
Premium
join:2006-01-03
l5a2o4
reply to JGROCKY
I love this line in TSI Submission...

"The TSI business model is built on a strong foundation that includes superior customer
service, building a reliable high-capacity network (at least with respect to those portions of its
network that are under TSI’s own control),....."

Rocky, awesome little stab there - couldn't have said it better myself!!


grayfox

join:2007-12-10
Whitby, ON

2 edits
reply to JGROCKY
said by rollaster:

said by Angelo:

reality is as speeds increase you'll either have to pay higher rates or deal with caps
that's completely unacceptable. I'd rather stick with 5Mbit DSL than be capped and get a service I'm paying much more for and getting way less the service than what I'm suppose to be receiving.

Why is it elsewhere around the world you get advertised speeds except in north America its capped. This monopolistic control is outrageous
UBB should be a fact of life, bell can teksavvy can't be expected to upgrade links in there network every 3-6 months from heavy users.

Customers that use 1TB in a month could never be profitable for any isp.

I myself work at a small Wireless ISP, Well we do not do Usage based billing, But we do have caps. Once a user hits over 200GB in a month for multiple month's in a row we disable there internet for 24 hours and ask them to please use less bandwidth. (Most of them comply some of them play stupid or get pissed).

If they fail to use less bandwidth the following month we throttle there connection down for the next 30 days to 1meg down (From 4megs) and 128K up (from 384K), If they go over 200GB again even with the throttle or close to it we keep the throttle on until they keep there usage in check.

Personally I think this is how every ISP should deal with the situation. Users that were consuming a significant amount of our resources stopped being a problem.

Teksavvy will have a cap one day and it will probably be set by bell, this is coming lets just hope its reasonable.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
TekSavvy already pays Bell for usage. The problem with UBB is that it's double-dipping.

TekSavvy pays Bell for each customer twice (excluding dry loop fees):

1) GAS service itself (typically ~$20 per sub)
2) AHSSPI interface (typically ~$1.80 per megabit)

If a user uses twice as much bandwidth, the costs for the AHSSPI (ADSL High Speed Service Provider Interface, if memory serves) will be twice as high.

Bell upgrades their network links for their own customers, taking them up to 25 Mbps. Why should TekSavvy not expect Bell to upgrade the links for them too? Where is the $20+ that Bell gets for each TSI sub going, if not to cover costs and improve the network?


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by Guspaz:

Bell upgrades their network links for their own customers, taking them up to 25 Mbps. Why should TekSavvy not expect Bell to upgrade the links for them too? Where is the $20+ that Bell gets for each TSI sub going, if not to cover costs and improve the network?
I think that's a case of the fox guarding the henhouse my friend.
--
Now, as the more perceptive of you have probably realised by now, this is Hell, and I am the Devil. Good evening. You can call me Toby, if you like - we try and keep things informal here, as well as infernal.


DJMASACRE

join:2008-05-27
Nepean, ON
reply to JGROCKY
*puked*


Gimli
Premium
join:2006-01-03
l5a2o4
reply to grayfox
said by grayfox:

said by rollaster:

said by Angelo:

reality is as speeds increase you'll either have to pay higher rates or deal with caps
that's completely unacceptable. I'd rather stick with 5Mbit DSL than be capped and get a service I'm paying much more for and getting way less the service than what I'm suppose to be receiving.

Why is it elsewhere around the world you get advertised speeds except in north America its capped. This monopolistic control is outrageous
UBB should be a fact of life, bell can teksavvy can't be expected to upgrade links in there network every 3-6 months from heavy users.

Customers that use 1TB in a month could never be profitable for any isp.

I myself work at a small Wireless ISP, Well we do not do Usage based billing, But we do have caps. Once a user hits over 200GB in a month for multiple month's in a row we disable there internet for 24 hours and ask them to please use less bandwidth. (Most of them comply some of them play stupid or get pissed).

If they fail to use less bandwidth the following month we throttle there connection down for the next 30 days to 1meg down (From 4megs) and 128K up (from 384K), If they go over 200GB again even with the throttle or close to it we keep the throttle on until they keep there usage in check.

Personally I think this is how every ISP should deal with the situation. Users that were consuming a significant amount of our resources stopped being a problem.

Teksavvy will have a cap one day and it will probably be set by bell, this is coming lets just hope its reasonable.
I somewhat agree with you, however, i would put forth that the evolution of the internet in general and the function and wide spread use of it are constantly changing. Broadcasting networks are now placing shows traditionally only available through broadcasting via cable / satellite are now being offered online. Software distribution is now a 70 % download methodology. Who the heck sends out cd's/dvd's anymore for software. Adobe, Microsoft , Bentley micro station, CAD - all prefer you to download the software and buy the license.

Feature rich websites are far more prevalent now than ever before. Html load of 50k as opposed to a 1 meg flash page is 20x the data to open a simple page.

News feeds, online radio, weather feed use has skyrocketed.

Even the shift to working from home rather than going into an office is a substantial increase of bandwidth usage.

I would put forward that the growth and diversity of internet usage is many times over what we have seen even 3 short years ago.

How can the industry not be expected to keep up with the growth.

in the past 3 years, what "available" and "significant upgrades" to the network has bell done to combat or at least match these needs? the dsl now in 90% or neighborhoods is still exactly the same as it was 10 years ago. the only exceptions are new condo's that was fiber wired.

Lets see..... lower caps, increase pricing, throttle to offset increased usage.

its a horrible situation. Hence why I'm not surprised (although pleased)Rocky and crew are looking at injecting into the cable networks.

I hate Rogers, but at least their network is being sustained and growing.


grayfox

join:2007-12-10
Whitby, ON

4 edits
reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

TekSavvy already pays Bell for usage. The problem with UBB is that it's double-dipping.

TekSavvy pays Bell for each customer twice (excluding dry loop fees):

1) GAS service itself (typically ~$20 per sub)
2) AHSSPI interface (typically ~$1.80 per megabit)

If a user uses twice as much bandwidth, the costs for the AHSSPI (ADSL High Speed Service Provider Interface, if memory serves) will be twice as high.

Bell upgrades their network links for their own customers, taking them up to 25 Mbps. Why should TekSavvy not expect Bell to upgrade the links for them too? Where is the $20+ that Bell gets for each TSI sub going, if not to cover costs and improve the network?
Well considering the fact that bell has us on old ATM fead dslam's (For me im pretty sure its been the same dslam since 2001), many of them im sure are subscribed with as many subscribers as they can support on them.

Bell's numbers submitted to the CRTC show big congestion at the DSLAM level probably from oversubscribing not the dslam its self but the ATM links.

I would imagine due to the age of these things they are limited to ATM not ethernet and probably already connected with the quickest link they support. (However I am making alot of assumptions)

said by Gimli:

I somewhat agree with you, however, i would put forth that the evolution of the internet in general and the function and wide spread use of it are constantly changing. Broadcasting networks are now placing shows traditionally only available through broadcasting via cable / satellite are now being offered online. Software distribution is now a 70 % download methodology. Who the heck sends out cd's/dvd's anymore for software. Adobe, Microsoft , Bentley micro station, CAD - all prefer you to download the software and buy the license.

Feature rich websites are far more prevalent now than ever before. Html load of 50k as opposed to a 1 meg flash page is 20x the data to open a simple page.

News feeds, online radio, weather feed use has skyrocketed.

Even the shift to working from home rather than going into an office is a substantial increase of bandwidth usage.

I would put forward that the growth and diversity of internet usage is many times over what we have seen even 3 short years ago.

How can the industry not be expected to keep up with the growth.

in the past 3 years, what "available" and "significant upgrades" to the network has bell done to combat or at least match these needs? the dsl now in 90% or neighborhoods is still exactly the same as it was 10 years ago. the only exceptions are new condo's that was fiber wired.

Lets see..... lower caps, increase pricing, throttle to offset increased usage.

its a horrible situation. Hence why I'm not surprised (although pleased)Rocky and crew are looking at injecting into the cable networks.

I hate Rogers, but at least their network is being sustained and growing.
I am very happy that rocky is looking into cable as well. Even if it's through rogers as long as I am given a 90GB cap on say a 10meg connection im confident I wouldn't go over it. (I would likely buy 2 and load balance with pfsense).

edit: Your right the web is evolving http traffic counts for approximately 70% of the traffic our customers use almost all of that is streaming music or youtube (Other video stream sites don't even show up in the top 10), Caps as well as ISP's capacity (Transit, AHSSPI, bell's side) should be increasing with this as well in my opinion cap's really are a necessity just not the redicliously low ones set by bell and roger's, particularly with the amount of money teksavvy pays to bell.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to rollaster
said by rollaster:

What we need is unlimited otherwise I see no point because it's a complete waste of money to pay more for a service than what they actually provide.
xDSL/DOCSIS3 internet is "economy-class" internet where bandwidth resources are pooled across a large subscriber base to reduce total costs using statistical multiplexing: the fact that only a relatively small fraction of all subscribers are ever active at any given time.

If you want TRUE unlimited, get a dedicated fractional link. Those typically cost over $10/Mbps + over $200/month for access + potentially over $5000 for install... the transit provider at the other end will also be using statistical multiplexing but at least now you are completely bypassing the ISP's.


Gimli
Premium
join:2006-01-03
l5a2o4
reply to grayfox
"I am very happy that rocky is looking into cable as well. Even if it's through rogers as long as I am given a 90GB cap on say a 10meg connection im confident I wouldn't go over it. (I would likely buy 2 and load balance with pfsense)."

90 is too little. 200 is good with option to buy more in blocks.
Basically Teksavvy's structure is perfect for the consumer.

and sustainable as far as i can see - otherwise they would have changed it. over 200gb's is quite heavy and one can pay for that type of overage.

the way bell has setup now - people are for SURE going over and will be paying overages... money in their pockets. Its a nasty "sneaky pete" way of doing business


grayfox

join:2007-12-10
Whitby, ON
said by Gimli:

"I am very happy that rocky is looking into cable as well. Even if it's through rogers as long as I am given a 90GB cap on say a 10meg connection im confident I wouldn't go over it. (I would likely buy 2 and load balance with pfsense)."

90 is too little. 200 is good with option to buy more in blocks.
Basically Teksavvy's structure is perfect for the consumer.

and sustainable as far as i can see - otherwise they would have changed it. over 200gb's is quite heavy and one can pay for that type of overage.

the way bell has setup now - people are for SURE going over and will be paying overages... money in their pockets. Its a nasty "sneaky pete" way of doing business
The issue here would be docsis's shared nature (a signle channel is 42megabits down and 10megabits up, docsis 2 has the same downstream but 30megabits of upstream, This is shared between every subscriber who is on this equipment).

I highly doubt rogers would approve cap's higher then 90GB on docsis 1/2.

Docsis 3 addresses this issue by allowing multiple QAM channel's up to 8 downstream and 4 upstream if im not mistaken. This works out to roughly 170megabits down and 120megabits up shared between all of the subscribers. (Before overhead of course).

With docsis 3 I can see higher cap's but not docsis 1 or 2. Rogers will not want a sudden rush of users all using large amounts of traffic.

That said I am by no means an expert in this feild, nor have I had rogers since the lan city cable modem's were around.


Angelo
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18
i can see rogers making docisis 3 a requirement...


Gimli
Premium
join:2006-01-03
l5a2o4
reply to grayfox
said by grayfox:

said by Gimli:

"I am very happy that rocky is looking into cable as well. Even if it's through rogers as long as I am given a 90GB cap on say a 10meg connection im confident I wouldn't go over it. (I would likely buy 2 and load balance with pfsense)."

90 is too little. 200 is good with option to buy more in blocks.
Basically Teksavvy's structure is perfect for the consumer.

and sustainable as far as i can see - otherwise they would have changed it. over 200gb's is quite heavy and one can pay for that type of overage.

the way bell has setup now - people are for SURE going over and will be paying overages... money in their pockets. Its a nasty "sneaky pete" way of doing business
The issue here would be docsis's shared nature (a signle channel is 42megabits down and 10megabits up, docsis 2 has the same downstream but 30megabits of upstream, This is shared between every subscriber who is on this equipment).

I highly doubt rogers would approve cap's higher then 90GB on docsis 1/2.

Docsis 3 addresses this issue by allowing multiple QAM channel's up to 8 downstream and 4 upstream if im not mistaken. This works out to roughly 170megabits down and 120megabits up shared between all of the subscribers. (Before overhead of course).

With docsis 3 I can see higher cap's but not docsis 1 or 2. Rogers will not want a sudden rush of users all using large amounts of traffic.

That said I am by no means an expert in this feild, nor have I had rogers since the lan city cable modem's were around.
Yah, me and rogers go way back as well. Me and bell go back just as far. I was on bell back to the nortel 1 meg modem days. What a disaster that was.

Dropped rogers for 2 reasons - crap price and crap cap

If it were not for Savvy - i would have never come back to DSL. Cable is just physically better shielded and less susceptible to damage/interference that Copper pair is susceptible to... (aka squirrels)

I support and will continue to support Teksavvy no matter what because 90% of the probs I have and everyone else has with tek. service is completely bell infrastructure related.

OutInDoon

join:2008-08-28
reply to JGROCKY
I know if TS does start to offer cable services in the Stanley Park area of Kitchener around the middle of May, they will have at least one subscriber (No DSL on the block I'm moving to, but apparently there is cable a-plenty).


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Angelo
said by Angelo:

i can see rogers making docisis 3 a requirement...
I certainly hope so, last thing we need is another service where wholesalers are selling antiquated technology again.
--
Now, as the more perceptive of you have probably realised by now, this is Hell, and I am the Devil. Good evening. You can call me Toby, if you like - we try and keep things informal here, as well as infernal.


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
said by El Quintron:

said by Angelo:

i can see rogers making docisis 3 a requirement...
I certainly hope so, last thing we need is another service where wholesalers are selling antiquated technology again.
I would seriously be interested if there was a reasonably priced DOCSIS 3.0 based wholesale product from TSI, that would be unthrottled and either have unlimited, or a high cap to start with (like the current 200GB cap for DSL) and the ability to prepurchase blocks of 100GB.

Right now for me Rogers is the lesser of two evils, I despise Bell so much, so I hate that $20 of the money I pay to TSI goes to Bell.
--
GO LEAFS GO!