dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
32000
share rss forum feed

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

New Rogers TPIA rates: UBB by July 1

Click for full size
downloadRogers Cover···-632.pdf 48,449 bytes
cover letter
Click for full size
downloadRogers TN 18···ages.pdf 101,952 bytes
new tpia tariffs
Click for full size
downloadRogers(CRTC)···nt 1.pdf 248,141 bytes
Attachement
##
In addition in this filing, Rogers is explicitly listing its usage charges per additional GB per month for traffic above the monthly usage allowance. Currently, Rogers’ TPIA tariff states that these charges will be applied in the same manner as for Rogers’ retail customers when such charges are applied. The charges and allowances now being explicitly listed in the tariff are the same as apply to Rogers’ retail customers. Rogers intends to apply these charges to TPIA customers effective the approval date of this tariff notice.
##


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2

Like we didn't see this coming.



shikotee

join:2007-01-11
Canada
kudos:2
reply to jfmezei

So much for the hopes of optimism that Rogers (aka the anti-christ) would not strike. In Canada, competition is also known as collusion...



AOD
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to jfmezei

said by jfmezei:

##
In addition in this filing, Rogers is explicitly listing its usage charges per additional GB per month for traffic above the monthly usage allowance. Currently, Rogers’ TPIA tariff states that these charges will be applied in the same manner as for Rogers’ retail customers when such charges are applied. The charges and allowances now being explicitly listed in the tariff are the same as apply to Rogers’ retail customers. Rogers intends to apply these charges to TPIA customers effective the approval date of this tariff notice.
##

So much for unlimited internet. And it looks like now Teksavvy's Congestion issues will not be fixed due to no longer needing to upgrade after this

gruntlord6

join:2010-06-10
Barrie, ON

said by AOD:

said by jfmezei:

##
In addition in this filing, Rogers is explicitly listing its usage charges per additional GB per month for traffic above the monthly usage allowance. Currently, Rogers’ TPIA tariff states that these charges will be applied in the same manner as for Rogers’ retail customers when such charges are applied. The charges and allowances now being explicitly listed in the tariff are the same as apply to Rogers’ retail customers. Rogers intends to apply these charges to TPIA customers effective the approval date of this tariff notice.
##

So much for unlimited internet. And it looks like now Teksavvy's Congestion issues will not be fixed due to no longer needing to upgrade after this

Teksavvys agreement is outside TPIA.


shikotee

join:2007-01-11
Canada
kudos:2

said by gruntlord6:

Teksavvys agreement is outside TPIA.

The concern would then be - To what extent can Rogers alter the terms of this agreement? If the intention is to cash in, what would prevent them from doing this with TSI?

gruntlord6

join:2010-06-10
Barrie, ON

said by shikotee:

said by gruntlord6:

Teksavvys agreement is outside TPIA.

The concern would then be - To what extent can Rogers alter the terms of this agreement? If the intention is to cash in, what would prevent them from doing this with TSI?

Obviously Teksavvy would have thought of this at the time of the agreement.

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

said by gruntlord6:

Obviously Teksavvy would have thought of this at the time of the agreement.

Except if they didn't.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
reply to jfmezei

It's worth also noting that that the Service Control Engine (aka the DPI throtting box) is in the path between the headend and the TPIA provider, implying that throttling is in the TPIA user's future.



JunjiHiroma
Live Free Or Die

join:2008-03-18
reply to shikotee

said by shikotee:

So much for the hopes of optimism that Rogers (aka the anti-christ) would not strike. In Canada, competition is also known as collusion...

It's because of money and greed that Bellus Robbers are doing the things they are:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=twkh0YiInPM


"The more money we come across ,the more problems we see."


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to jfmezei

-
Repeat after Me : "JF is only the messenger. - We shall not shoot him."

Well, so much for the Red Rogers Satan, er, I mean Santa (sorry, same letters, must be a Scrabble DPI error) putting a wee something in our Xmas stockings this year !

UH-OH....



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to jfmezei

It'll be interesting to see just how much Rogers agrees with Bell on UBB.

To my knowledge Rogers doesn't charge their own users. That will have to change if we are to get charged too.

If all incumbents are set on having low caps, and willing to charge their own users accordingly... It may be the beginning of the end of the Internet as we know it.

...the fight rages on all incumbents at a time.
--
TSI Marc - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.



CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
kudos:2

said by TSI Marc:

To my knowledge Rogers doesn't charge their own users.

Your knowledge is wrong.
--
Erik - Caneris Inc.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by gruntlord6:

Obviously Teksavvy would have thought of this at the time of the agreement.

Except if they didn't.

I'd be shocked if they didn't. But the real question isn't if they thought of it or not, it is what kind of deal they were able to actually negotiate.


grayfox

join:2007-12-10
Whitby, ON
reply to CanerisErik

said by CanerisErik:

said by TSI Marc:

To my knowledge Rogers doesn't charge their own users.

Your knowledge is wrong.

Rogers does have a max $30 overcharge no mater how much you use for there residential service, I saw no mention of a max overcharge when I briefly skimmed this document.

edit: I think I remember one of my friends saying the max overcharge was bumped up to $50 a few months ago,however it may still be $30.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to CanerisErik

I guess I'll make a bit of space in my own knowledge to add that Rogers isn't doing UBB anything like Bell is, they are generally only looking for abusive users whereas Bell is trying to monetize it as a new line of revenue. In other words, I don't believe Rogers is sending invoices out to each user who is 1gig over.
--
TSI Marc - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.



CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
kudos:2
reply to grayfox

said by grayfox:

the max overcharge was bumped up to $50 a few months ago

Correct
--
Erik - Caneris Inc.


CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
kudos:2
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

In other words, I don't believe Rogers is sending invoices out to each user who is 1gig over.

That doesn't appear to be the case. I even have copies of several invoices from over six months ago showing otherwise.
--
Erik - Caneris Inc.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

Are you what they would consider an abuser? No offense just trying to gauge if what you're saying is true across the board or if you're an exception. Any others have any feedback?
--
TSI Marc - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.


bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to jfmezei

Everything I've heard is that the cap is definitely a hard cap, and they will bill anyone who goes over at the listed rate.



CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
kudos:2
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

Are you what they would consider an abuser? No offense just trying to gauge if what you're saying is true across the board or if you're an exception.

Line items look like these:
Usage Charge(0GB@$0.00/GB) 0.00 - present on every invoice with no extra usage
Usage Charge(5GB@$2.00/GB) 10.00
Usage Charge(20GB@$2.00/GB) 40.00

You're also forgetting where I used to work and what I used to do.
--
Erik - Caneris Inc.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

K, I didn't know you had worked for them.

It's good to know this obviously. It didn't change anything though, In order for Rogers to start billing us differently, they needed to give us notice. So this may be that notice, we haven't finished going through it all yet... Considering we are going to be in most incumbent territories we have most of them to review... We are obviously going to do everything we can to challenge all this UBB stuff. It's a bit frustrating having to go through all the legal stuff but that's how you have to fight it. Here's to hoping the CRTC suddenly figures it out. We've all done what we could to point out the obvious.
--
TSI Marc - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.



TouchMyBox

@teksavvy.com
reply to CanerisErik

said by CanerisErik:

said by TSI Marc:

Are you what they would consider an abuser? No offense just trying to gauge if what you're saying is true across the board or if you're an exception.

Line items look like these:
Usage Charge(0GB@$0.00/GB) 0.00 - present on every invoice with no extra usage
Usage Charge(5GB@$2.00/GB) 10.00
Usage Charge(20GB@$2.00/GB) 40.00

You're also forgetting where I used to work and what I used to do.

$2 per GB? I presume these gigabytes are delivered to your house by hookers who afterwards offered you an adequate number of sandwiches?


CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
kudos:2

said by TouchMyBox :

$2 per GB? I presume these gigabytes are delivered to your house by hookers who afterwards offered you an adequate number of sandwiches?

Sadly not.
--
Erik - Caneris Inc.


Oinktastic
Let them use fibre

join:2005-08-24
Scarborough
kudos:2
Reviews:
·localphone.com
reply to jfmezei

This strikes me as very odd. Why would TPIA mention anything about VoIP? Are they trying to imply that any other added services are not allowed? Does the fact that they specifically mention VoIP mean that TPIA is setup to prioritize VoIP service over other traffic? Why specifically mention VoIP?

Section 1.2

quote:
The Customer may use the TPIA Service only to provide Retail IS and VoIP services to its End-User subject to the following conditions: ...


CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
kudos:2

said by Oinktastic:

This strikes me as very odd. Why would TPIA mention anything about VoIP? Are they trying to imply that any other added services are not allowed?

Yes, IPTV.
--
Erik - Caneris Inc.

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

1 edit
reply to jfmezei

Rogers' proposed UBB rates clearly illustrate the point made by JF in his rebuttal - as a clear disincentive to consumers to use the internet - especially for the people signed-up to the lowest tier packages, who pay the highest per bit costs on overages when the incremental cost of the incumbent to transmitting the bit is next to zero.

I would bet that the people signed-up on the lowest tier are usually the least well informed about the whole UBB thing, and probably have the least capacity to pay overages.

I forecast that some people will begin to forego using AV software or even Windows Update because the daily AV and Patch Tuesday update packages could conceivably cost them, in aggregate, much more than the base monthly cost of their low-tier internet package. Then Rogers will cut them off because their computers have become zombies.



CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
kudos:2

said by MaynardKrebs:

I forecast that some people will begin to forego using AV software or even Windows Update because the daily AV and Patch Tuesday update packages could conceivably cost them, in aggregate, much more than the base monthly cost of their low-tier internet package.

Good, maybe it will get them off Windows entirely.
--
Erik - Caneris Inc.

padenom

join:2008-03-28
Montreal, QC
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

I forecast that some people will begin to forego using AV software or even Windows Update because the daily AV and Patch Tuesday update packages could conceivably cost them, in aggregate, much more than the base monthly cost of their low-tier internet package. Then Rogers will cut them off because their computers have become zombies.

Although I'm not a Roger's user, this thought has come to mind as I use Debian/Unstable. It is not just the patch Tuesday which is my concern, my daily updates can easily add up to about 3GB download by the end of a month. Even though I'm not on the low 2GB or 5GB limit account, but it would still be a significant amount (5%) of the 60GB limit due to UBB!

PS: BTW, when is UBB coming in effect? I would still like to use my 200GB till I can.

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

4 edits
reply to CanerisErik

said by CanerisErik:

said by Oinktastic:

This strikes me as very odd. Why would TPIA mention anything about VoIP? Are they trying to imply that any other added services are not allowed?

Yes, IPTV.

Exactly.
The vertical integration problem raises its ugly head once again. The incumbents presume (with CRTC and Competition Bureau acquiescence thus far) that it is their 'God-given right' to arbitrarily block anything which could erode "their" revenues.

I refer everyone back to my post of April 14, 2010 Konrad von Finckenstein - detached from reality? »Konrad von Finckenstein - detached from reality?*

To further elaborate on this, KvF - as the former head of the Competetion Bureau - ought to know the 60+ year-old Paramount Decision like the back of his hand (United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., et. al) »supreme.justia.com/us/334/131/

Briefly, this was an anti-trust decision against all the major motion picture studios (content creators) enjoining them from owning the channels of distribution/exhibition (the "pipes"), and forbidding them from influencing what could/could not be shown in movie theatres (net neutrality / non-interference of 'over the top' content/services provided by others to the theatres and their patrons).

"....defendants conspired to and did restrain and monopolize interstate trade in the exhibition of motion pictures in most of the larger cities of the country and that their combination of producing, distributing and exhibiting motion pictures violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Act. It also charged that all of the defendants, as distributors, conspired to and did restrain and monopolize interstate trade in the distribution and exhibition of films." Change the word 'films' to 'content and/or services' and you get the modern-day idea.

This decision is still the law of the land in the USA - for good reason - and provides all the ammunition anyone needs as a precedent for voiding the 'condition' in Rogers TPIA filing, and for breaking up the incumbents here in Canada.

This needs to come up at the hearings in the new year (CNOC / CAIP, et. al. will all need better lawyers than they've been using thus far for this). If KvF tries to shut discussion about this anti-trust precedent down, he's going to have a lot of 'splainin' to do in the press (that's assuming that the incumbent-owned press will even give it airtime, printers ink, or not program the DPI boxes to censor mentions of it).