dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4894
share rss forum feed


oh LOOK

@mc.videotron.ca

The Billion Dollar Deferral Account

Bell, Telus must rebate phone customers: CRTC
»www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010···one.html

Did anyone read that thing? You should.

The CRTC rejected Bell's suggestion that the rural rollout be done using HSPA wireless technology, with a monthly usage limit of two gigabytes. The regulator said the phone company must use DSL wired connections and provide rural customers with comparable usage to what urban subscribers are getting.

Michael Janigan, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre consumer watchdog, was generally happy with the regulator's ruling and particularly pleased the Bell's wireless plan was rejected.

[...]

Bell spokesperson Jacqueline Michelis said the company is considering its options.

"It's unfortunate that the CRTC has denied customers in these rural and remote communities access to the latest broadband network technology and advanced services," she said.

"The CRTC does not have the expertise to choose technologies. Providing we meet any service requirements set out by the CRTC, technology choices should be left to the service providers."

---

The CRTC made the *right* decision. Over the past 3 years the people of PEI got so screwed in wireless B/W over-charges so badly that the gov had to step in to tell Bell to stop gouging the people.

In Bruce country, people lost the chance for unlimited B/W and now have 2-gig laughable wireless that isn't even high-speed.

Additional ref's in this forum:
»Broadband for all Canadians - PIAC report
»Bruce County. No competiton for you

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
said by oh LOOK :

Bell spokesperson Jacqueline Michelis said the company is considering its options.

"It's unfortunate that the CRTC has denied customers in these rural and remote communities access to the latest broadband network technology and advanced services," she said.

"The CRTC does not have the expertise to choose technologies. Providing we meet any service requirements set out by the CRTC, technology choices should be left to the service providers."


What I wonder is how Bell employees manage to look at themselves in the mirror each morning without puking.


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

What I wonder is how Bell employees manage to look at themselves in the mirror each morning without puking.
Sorry man, but that's just silly.

I worked for Bell for 3 years, and I had no problems waking up in the morning because I helped folks, and called the bullshit when I saw it. Just like in any other customer service job.

A soldier for the enemy is still a soldier first, and the enemy second.

There was a lot of stuff going there that I didn't like; but helping folks out, and managing a team certainly weren't on that list.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation.


History

@mc.videotron.ca
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by oh LOOK :

Bell spokesperson Jacqueline Michelis said the company is considering its options.

"It's unfortunate that the CRTC has denied customers in these rural and remote communities access to the latest broadband network technology and advanced services," she said.

"The CRTC does not have the expertise to choose technologies. Providing we meet any service requirements set out by the CRTC, technology choices should be left to the service providers."


What I wonder is how Bell employees manage to look at themselves in the mirror each morning without puking.
It's already been through the CRTC and appeals court (which backed the CRTC decision) the past 4 years or so.

What Bell just said now is that they plan on taking another offensive and will likely go back to court:

"The CRTC does not have the expertise to choose technologies. Providing we meet any service requirements set out by the CRTC, technology choices should be left to the service providers."

The CRTC is protecting people from Bell's has-been technology that is slow as molasses and good for only checking Email, and from ripping people off with the B/W over-charges that Bell has already been nailed for doing to people in PEI.

Also, by mandating technology that is better than Bell's locked-in proposal, this should ensure competition to wholesale and prevent Bell from locking people in to them and only them via has-been slow wireless, like they did to the people of Bruce County.

Bell doesn't want any of the above.

Bell wants people to use has-been technology that is cheap and low quality. Bell wants people to pay through the nose for B/W like PEI. Bell wants people locked to them and only them in order to gouge them with high prices, inferior quality and no competition like in Bruce County.

Bell wants all the money to itself to do with as they please. Bell has now just made a threat to go back to court in order to try and get it's way. So people won't get any benefit from anything at all. The billion dollars will continue to sit there and the people will go with-out while Bell tries to get it's way.

Any of this surprise you?


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

1 edit
said by History :

Bell wants all the money to itself to do with as they please. Bell has now just made a threat to go back to court in order to try and get it's way. So people won't get any benefit from anything at all. The billion dollars will continue to sit there and the people will go with-out while Bell tries to get it's way.

Any of this surprise you?
Well hopefully the court will uphold the CRTC's decision and re-inforce the government's right to make policy, rather than Bell's.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation.


shikotee

join:2007-01-11
Canada
kudos:2
reply to oh LOOK
The Goldberg take on things...

An account deferred too long
»mhgoldberg.com/blog/?p=3857&utm_···rends%29


shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB
reply to oh LOOK
So let me get this straight. The CRTC says that to connect rural communities, the telcos must lay copper and dslams and other dsl infrastructure instead of facilitating a better, faster, easily upgradeable service with HSPA+?

That's stupid. If Canadians want to know why broadband in the country has gone from best in the world to shit in 10 years, it is decisions like this.

Complain about the 2GB cap, fine. But the HSPA+ technology is sound and is the future over DSL, by far. Now the CRTC has effectively retarded the growth of broadband in rural areas and has protected rural dial up isp's from going out of business for the forseeable future.

Absolutely ridiculous ruling.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies.


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

Complain about the 2GB cap, fine. But the HSPA+ technology is sound and is the future over DSL, by far. Now the CRTC has effectively retarded the growth of broadband in rural areas and has protected rural dial up isp's from going out of business for the forseeable future.

Absolutely ridiculous ruling.
Although what you say makes logical sense, HSPA+ plus technology probably is fine, Bell was up to something a little more sinister with the HSPA+ deployment, and the CRTC was right to stop them from using this type of deployment...

IMHO here's why... the Deferral Account consists of regulated dollars, and HSPA+ services are un-regulated with no sharing requirements.

So by allowing them to build out HSPA+ you're essentially re-creating the old monopoly system with had with wireless broadband.

On the outside it looks like a bad decision but a bit of digging reveals that it was the right decision.

Should there be a mandate to share the HSPA+ network it might be a good idea but that mandate doesn't exist yet.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 edit
reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:

Well hopefully the court will uphold the CRTC's decision and re-inforce the government's right to make policy, rather than Bell's.
Katz was correct in at least part of his dissenting opinion in the decision handed down on the 30th. Copper DSL is so yesterday. CRTC should have mandated fiber.....it being consistent with what is being installed in urban areas.

HSPA+ still could not adequately serve a decent number of simultaneous users even in a community of 5,000 who, in the medium term, will begin to gorge themselves on torrents, streaming video, and dumping Bell POTS service once decent connectivity reches them.


shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB
reply to El Quintron
What you say also makes sense. But at the same time, HSPA is the way to go. By rolling out HSPA, there could also be long term competition as Rogers, Telus, and any of the new wireless startups could offer the same service. The future is wireless broadband (especially when LTE comes online), and they've now relegated rural communities to internet backwater status.

I get what you're saying about regulated money, but it's also about best bang for your buck. Forcing dsl on rural communities is not a long term deployment strategy.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies.

grunze510

join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
kudos:1
said by shaner:

The future is wireless broadband (especially when LTE comes online)
But the future is not 5GB caps with astronomical overage rates, which is what Bell/Rogers/Telus would use if they deployed HSPA in those rural communities.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to shaner
said by shaner:

Complain about the 2GB cap, fine. But the HSPA+ technology is sound and is the future over DSL, by far.
That is, by far, the silliest thing I have ever heard of. HSPA+ is nothing but a complete rip-off. Bell wants it because it allows them to charge more for overages. just ask my son who has to settle a $1,000 bill with bell after they sold him a DSL wireless modem. Bell just wants the CRTC to bless their ripping off of consumers. Again.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

CRTC should have mandated fiber.....it being consistent with what is being installed in urban areas.

Where? Other than Quebec city? fibre in rural areas is not economically viable.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


History

@mc.videotron.ca
reply to DKS
said by DKS:

That is, by far, the silliest thing I have ever heard of. HSPA+ is nothing but a complete rip-off. Bell wants it because it allows them to charge more for overages. just ask my son who has to settle a $1,000 bill with bell after they sold him a DSL wireless modem. Bell just wants the CRTC to bless their ripping off of consumers. Again.
Wow, DKS, and to think we didn't see eye-to-eye on the Bruce County rip-off.

I don't know where your son lives (none of my business), but Imagine if your son could cancel Bell after this 1,000$ rip-off he got and go to someone else? With what Bell wants, and has done in PEI and Bruce County prevents your son from having any choice at all. None. Bell wireless and that's all.

Bell has now threatened to make all rural area's a rip-off just like PEI and Bruce County and seems willing to go back to court in order to fight for just that.


History

@mc.videotron.ca
reply to shikotee
said by shikotee:

The Goldberg take on things...

An account deferred too long
»mhgoldberg.com/blog/?p=3857&utm_···rends%29
Seriously, that weasel shouldn't get the time of day. Don't waste electrons pointing to him.

Ask DKS if his son "got his money's worth" as that industry shill put it on his blog.


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

The future is wireless broadband (especially when LTE comes online), and they've now relegated rural communities to internet backwater status.

I get what you're saying about regulated money, but it's also about best bang for your buck. Forcing dsl on rural communities is not a long term deployment strategy.
Again, I have absolutely no issues with this, as long as there are mandated 3rd party wholesale agreements in place; and the caps and prices are within range of wired infrastructure.

It isn't a secret that Bell wants to use HSPA+/LTE to fulfill its obligations to fund all the while creating a pricing scheme that would grant it much higher revenues.

So my point remains, they'd be using public dollars to build a much more expensive private service, it would be a losing proposition for folks who didn't have access to anythng else.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation.

Vomio

join:2008-04-01
Reviews:
·odynet
reply to DKS
With wire line deployment to the rural areas, I think they are pretty much going to have to pull fiber to various nodes, probably overhead on existing hydro and telephone poles, trenching is a no go in a lot of areas unless there it coincides with road/highway development.

That said I doubt that they will be putting DSLAM boxes out by every other mailbox.

What I have seen with Bell's 'DSL deployment to rural customers thus far (admittedly a very small Southern Ontario sample) has been 2 Meg supplied with the customers actually getting nearer to 1 Meg actual. Maybe in villages/towns they get more.

Wireless from the node does probably make more sense in a lot of areas, but I agree that the route Bell was taking, public money grabbing to effectively build out the coverage of their own cellular network had to stop.



DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to History
said by History :

I don't know where your son lives (none of my business), but Imagine if your son could cancel Bell after this 1,000$ rip-off he got and go to someone else? With what Bell wants, and has done in PEI and Bruce County prevents your son from having any choice at all. None. Bell wireless and that's all.
Not true. In Bruce County, Rogers, Telus and Bell all offer HSPA. That is not the same as the Rural Broadband Initiative, which is copper DSL overlaid with HSPA.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to Vomio
said by Vomio:

With wire line deployment to the rural areas, I think they are pretty much going to have to pull fiber to various nodes, probably overhead on existing hydro and telephone poles, trenching is a no go in a lot of areas unless there it coincides with road/highway development.

That said I doubt that they will be putting DSLAM boxes out by every other mailbox.
Already being done.

What I have seen with Bell's 'DSL deployment to rural customers thus far (admittedly a very small Southern Ontario sample) has been 2 Meg supplied with the customers actually getting nearer to 1 Meg actual. Maybe in villages/towns they get more.
Small towns in our area get 5 meg.

--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

InvalidError

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

Where? Other than Quebec city? fibre in rural areas is not economically viable.
Fiber is economically viable nearly everywhere. The only problem is how long it takes to recover the initial investment without charging astronomical fees and finding enough cheap capital to last through that capital recovery period which may stretch over 15 years. Give me a $10M interest-free loan and I could wire a 2k doors village with FTTH even if it takes 100km of cables to do so but you might have to wait 20 years for me to pay you back.

With most private corporations being primarily concerned about the next few quarters, investing into something that will not yield profits until a whole decade later is not particularly appealing... the investment is "not viable" compared to other areas where the companies could invest the same amount and generate far greater revenues much sooner.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
said by InvalidError:

said by DKS:

Where? Other than Quebec city? fibre in rural areas is not economically viable.
Fiber is economically viable nearly everywhere. The only problem is how long it takes to recover the initial investment without charging astronomical fees and finding enough cheap capital to last through that capital recovery period which may stretch over 15 years. Give me a $10M interest-free loan and I could wire a 2k doors village with FTTH even if it takes 100km of cables to do so but you might have to wait 20 years for me to pay you back.
Those payback periods make it not viable.

With most private corporations being primarily concerned about the next few quarters, investing into something that will not yield profits until a whole decade later is not particularly appealing... the investment is "not viable" compared to other areas where the companies could invest the same amount and generate far greater revenues much sooner.
The only people who could invest in that long term would be government.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


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

The only people who could invest in that long term would be government.
Which like any original infrastructure may be necessary to get the idea off the ground.

That being said, the social and economic dividends yeilded by ubiquitous high speeds all over the country would be priceless.

So we should just get on it already.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
said by El Quintron:

said by DKS:

The only people who could invest in that long term would be government.
Which like any original infrastructure may be necessary to get the idea off the ground.

That being said, the social and economic dividends yeilded by ubiquitous high speeds all over the country would be priceless.

So we should just get on it already.
Not going to happen with the Conservatives in power. They are genetically opposed to such intrusive activity that is, they believe, properly the responsibility of the private sector.

Now if we had an NDP government, it might be different.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


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

Not going to happen with the Conservatives in power. They are genetically opposed to such intrusive activity that is, they believe, properly the responsibility of the private sector.

Now if we had an NDP government, it might be different.
The conservatives (or Tony Clement more specifically) have been more competition friendly than previous governments.

Although I doubt they'd be in any rush to build this type of thing... I've found myself somewhat approving of Tony so far.

Even though I'm ideologically at odds with most things the conservatives do, telecom currently isn't one of them.

I'm not giving them a good rating either but this really could be much worse all things considered.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation.

freejazz_RdJ

join:2009-03-10
kudos:1
reply to oh LOOK
This decision like all CRTC decisions is a mixed bag. On the one hand, the wireless plans were not similar to the wireline plans. On the other hand, wireless for rural areas could potentially reach far more people at a more modest capital cost. Either service would have wholesale requirements, so that "wireless" isn't regulated is moot... this wireless deployment would be in that wholesale would be mandated.

Given that the CRTC has made an architectural decision forcing DSL, it could be appealed. Perhaps at $5K/household, Bell would prefer to build FTTH?


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
The ridiculous caps on the HSPA based access is what makes it stupid, and not true broadband in any sense...

With today's streaming media, it's just not what broadband is about.
--
BUCK FELL ,,!,,('-'),,!,,


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
said by HiVolt:

With today's streaming media, it's just not what broadband is about.
That's why my son has a bill of $1,000 with Bell.

I noted that at my local Bell store they questioned a customer very closely on their use pattern and said in a crystal clear way "Don't download movies, videos, TV programs or do anything like Limewire or file sharing. Web browsing and local e-mail is fine."
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Web browsing my ass... with all the stupid flash ads that auto play and shit, I bet if you browsed the net for several hours a day, and didnt stream shit, you'd go over that damn 2GB cap.
--
BUCK FELL ,,!,,('-'),,!,,


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

I noted that at my local Bell store they questioned a customer very closely on their use pattern and said in a crystal clear way "Don't download movies, videos, TV programs or do anything like Limewire or file sharing. Web browsing and local e-mail is fine."
So in a way... pay us the monthly fees, but don't you dare USE it. slime.
--
BUCK FELL ,,!,,('-'),,!,,


grayfox

join:2007-12-10
Whitby, ON

1 edit
reply to oh LOOK
3G+ is not a practical broadband solution, high latency slow throughput low usage limits (And if they were higher the mobile networks would be even slower then they are now) well just surfing a few web pages is acceptable it is useless for much more then that.

The crtc happens in this case to be smart enough to see this, but rather then just putting more money towards the smaller wireless isp's. The CRTC told bell to run adsl.

Smaller wireless isp's could have spent the money far more efficiently.

The funds they set aside for smaller isp's have pretty much been all used up by Xplornet.

Or setting aside part of the 3.5ghz spectrum for wireless internet service provider use without requiring a license. 2.4ghz has become a huge mess from the increase of wireless internet service providers and lack of proper regulation on industry Canada's behalf.

That said ADSL is a big waste of and tax payer money in rural area's, With the state of most rural lines they struggle to have constant phone service

Newer wireless broadband technologies can deliver over 150megabits a second of aggregated throughput between there subscribers on a single ap (Using 40mhz channel width's).

Ive witnessed bell's rural adsl deployments, They just run fiber to the central office that services the users around and throw in a dslam.

Thanks to load coils, these rural broadband deployments normally only cover a few residences bell makes no upgrades to the 1950's-1980s' era wire, terminal's and no removal of the load coil's make servicing enough customers to ever pay off the equipment let alone the labor impossible.

They just take pride knowing they spent half a million dollars to give 8 people adsl on the fibe 6 plan near the small towers co.

I think the last thing the government should be doing is giving ANY money to bell/telus/rogers/Xplornet for rural broadband.

edit: That said MANY small wireless internet service providers are 100% clueless and should not be in this field, The government should not fund those ones, I know of one that received funding from the government and they do not even have ip's for all of there users. There network also runs opened and unencrypted.

A basic skill test should be required by smaller internet service providers to make them eligible for funding.

A simple yet effective test would be to show basic network diagrams and make there technicians/network engineer answer questions based upon them. At the very least have them identify how many collision domains and broadcast domains exist within topology diagrams. This would show they have at least the most basic understanding of the networking technologies there working with.

I know for a fact this one test all 3 competitors in the territory for the wireless isp I work at would fail. The one I am at presently would fail without me. Ive talked to the people who run the network for two of them, one of them doesn't even know the difference between a hub and a switch)