 DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada |
to 34764170
Re: New Rogers TPIA rates: UBB by July 1said by 34764170:Except that just gives them 100% justification for UBB [if an ISP is] moving to this POI....
- In the US, groups of legislation which are bundled like this have names, such as 'Pork-Barrelling', or 'Ear-Marks', AFAIK, and to get the one thing passed which you may individually want, you have to vote YES for the whole lot. And the Timmies could even be regarded as an incentive, in a roundabout peripheral way, as any POI workers would not have to go far - yeah, right....  Holy Smoke, the Timmies are EVERYWHERE ! - You can almost see the next one from the parking lot of the one where you are now.  |
|
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2010-Dec-12 1:31 pm
said by Davesnothere:In the US, groups of legislation which are bundled like this have names, such as 'Pork-Barrelling', or 'Ear-Marks', AFAIK, and to get the one thing passed which you may individually want, you have to vote YES for the whole lot.
Except we live in Canada so we'll get screwed chewed and tattooed and the government will say it is perfectly Ok. |
|
| |
to jfmezei
With the aggregationthere is also significant amount of planning and administrative work being saved. How much fun it was when Rogers moves the end users from one POI to another without letting the ISP know ahead of time. :P
If the UBB hinges on the TPIA with aggregation, but not on existing contracts. It is possible to have a shell corporation to handle that contract and outsource to it for the smaller cities that needs cable internet. This way it would not affect the other contract in place. |
|
| |
to jfmezei
Can someone summarize this in "English"? I don't really understand the documents.... |
|
 corster
Premium Member
join:2002-02-23
Oshawa, ON |
to sbrook
said by sbrook:All a single POI does is ensure that TPIAs pay the transit from the head ends to the POI to Rogers instead of some other carrier. You can be sure that the POI for Rogers will be 151 Front in Toronto. As it is now, a TPIA has to arrange his own transit to each head end himself, paying somebody else to provide that transit.
Exactly my point... except the Rogers POI for Ontario is going to be 855 York Mills, not 151 Front... (i'm sure Rogers will offer transit at an additional cost from 151 Front to 855 York Mills for the Indies, don't you worry), and use of this POI to serve all of Ontario will require UBB charges, that's not up for debate... but there's a chance that Rogers will not require UBB charges from an independent which provides or pays rogers for their own transit to each head end (like TekSavvy and Distributel do right now), similar to DSL ISPs like Fibertronics or Colba who place their own DSLAMs and provide their own transit to the CO - keeping the traffic on Rogers for as short a time as possible.... and if Rogers happens to be the company providing that transit (charging for it as opposed to included with the TPIA tariff), then it's even better for them. |
|
 AOD
Premium Member
join:2008-01-24
M9B |
AOD
Premium Member
2010-Dec-12 9:04 pm
said by corster:said by sbrook:All a single POI does is ensure that TPIAs pay the transit from the head ends to the POI to Rogers instead of some other carrier. You can be sure that the POI for Rogers will be 151 Front in Toronto. As it is now, a TPIA has to arrange his own transit to each head end himself, paying somebody else to provide that transit.
Exactly my point... except the Rogers POI for Ontario is going to be 855 York Mills, not 151 Front... (i'm sure Rogers will offer transit at an additional cost from 151 Front to 855 York Mills for the Indies, don't you worry), and use of this POI to serve all of Ontario will require UBB charges, that's not up for debate... but there's a chance that Rogers will not require UBB charges from an independent which provides or pays rogers for their own transit to each head end (like TekSavvy and Distributel do right now), similar to DSL ISPs like Fibertronics or Colba who place their own DSLAMs and provide their own transit to the CO - keeping the traffic on Rogers for as short a time as possible.... and if Rogers happens to be the company providing that transit (charging for it as opposed to included with the TPIA tariff), then it's even better for them. I hope this is the case, IF a wholesaler provides transit for their customers why should rogers say how much bandwidth should they use? |
|
| |
to jfmezei
This truly blows.
Thank god the vast majority of people in my neighborhood still use WEP security. |
|
koreybOpen the Canadian Market NOW
join:2005-01-08
Etobicoke, ON |
to AOD
said by AOD:said by corster:said by sbrook:All a single POI does is ensure that TPIAs pay the transit from the head ends to the POI to Rogers instead of some other carrier. You can be sure that the POI for Rogers will be 151 Front in Toronto. As it is now, a TPIA has to arrange his own transit to each head end himself, paying somebody else to provide that transit.
Exactly my point... except the Rogers POI for Ontario is going to be 855 York Mills, not 151 Front... (i'm sure Rogers will offer transit at an additional cost from 151 Front to 855 York Mills for the Indies, don't you worry), and use of this POI to serve all of Ontario will require UBB charges, that's not up for debate... but there's a chance that Rogers will not require UBB charges from an independent which provides or pays rogers for their own transit to each head end (like TekSavvy and Distributel do right now), similar to DSL ISPs like Fibertronics or Colba who place their own DSLAMs and provide their own transit to the CO - keeping the traffic on Rogers for as short a time as possible.... and if Rogers happens to be the company providing that transit (charging for it as opposed to included with the TPIA tariff), then it's even better for them. I hope this is the case, IF a wholesaler provides transit for their customers why should rogers say how much bandwidth should they use? I agree one 100%, and also think DSL could be done in this same fashion.. If someone like TSI was to pay to run a fiber or CO, they should be able to provide service without caps and without throttling. Same goes for Rogers here.. IF you want to use the Single ONTARIO POI, then you get UBB for sure, but if you are going through the trouble of running your own transit to the current poi systems, it should come with more flexibility like lack of throttle and UBB. I think personally if you have two options here, it would fix some issues Bell and likely soon Rogers will have by having one point of interconnection. |
|
|
| |
intlcelern11
Anon
2010-Dec-12 11:42 pm
There needs to be 2 options - one for ontario-wide single-interconnect-startup, and connecting all the head-ends. Really, the point is that the infrastructure should be available and with as little interference from the incumbents as possible.
If the incumbents want to say that to use a larger portion of their network includes extra costs, that is their perogative but it should not be foisted upon all companies and users when previous agreements were in place and were (albeit the rollout was slow) in the process of being deployed.
Doing so would constitute dirty business practices and a clear violation of trust. But I can't expect Canada to be any different, sadly, seeing as Rogers tried to buy out Wind Mobile during the ownership legality meetings (right in the middle of the discussion, they were solicited) that Canada is so famous for. Rogers, if you're trying to play hardball, you are again playing hardball with your customers, and not with your competitors. Tread lightly. We understand you're scared - that's why you have to try harder to be good at what you do, rather than trying hard at being the only option. If you don't follow this policy of thought, you will fail and be condemned by the masses.
I am seeing a change in the world, not just in Canada. A fundamental disconnect between governments/corporations, and the common man. As global economic uncertainty mounts, I think we'll see the fall of commerce shortly. With that in mind, Rogers, Enjoy being on top while you can, because you're not an essential service (not for life) and you will be cut when times get tough. Be reasonable, and people will be reasonable with you, but if you don't...... |
|
koreybOpen the Canadian Market NOW
join:2005-01-08
Etobicoke, ON |
to jfmezei
The issue is with a single point of interconnect as GAS has been for a long time... it shares a single connection for Bell to manage to service all of their network including their own. I can see how without non-stop increase, it costing Bell some money to manage and operate...
If each provider was to run their own fiber to each CO or Remote and only share the dslam and copper to your home, this would put the responsibility of each provider to manage their own data without effecting Bell.. It comes at a cost, but realistically to say, would correct any idea that Bell needs to play with the data because it effects other users of their own services.
The same could be said for Rogers here.. If you are asking Rogers to manage every single TPIA to one single point of interconnect, overtime it will become costly to manage and require major investment to keep ahead of congestion. This is why i'm not against the idea of a capped single point to allow new companies to start out.. but if your going to get serious about things, there should be a head end poi to allow each provider to connect to without affecting Rogers users too much. This should be provided uncapped and un throttled.. and leave the traffic management up to each provider to do.
I think this is a FAIR compromise middle ground point that would provide what providers like TSI want, and Rogers/Bell want (with the acceptation of having the market to themselves)
The 3rd parties could cut costs, by setting up a shared fiber to each CO/Cable head end, and route traffic to each provider at 151 Front, but that would require them to manage it under the same principals and now allowing this shared connection to get over subscribed/congested. |
|
| |
UncleVanya9 to TouchMyBox
Anon
2010-Dec-13 1:57 am
to TouchMyBox
said by TouchMyBox :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? said by TouchMyBox :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? and blow-jobs! |
|
| UncleVanya9 |
UncleVanya9 to koreyb
Anon
2010-Dec-13 2:04 am
to koreyb
Koryby said: I have no issue if the caps are used to control abuse which means the caps would have to be around the 200-250 gig mark.
Damn I hope you're right |
|
| UncleVanya9 |
to MaynardKrebs
What a disgustingly new outcome from this company who is conviently out of the loop on everything, including wether or not they can provide service in the majority of Ontario. We are all doomed, because the incompetence, flagrant inability to sense sea-changes in this quagmire (if not something more sinister) has left me with a sense that the fix was in from the beginning. Perhaps, I am just angry at this lamentable moment, but I am feeling very pessimisstic about Teksavvy future. Which makes me feel very disappointed! |
|
| UncleVanya9 |
UncleVanya9 to TSI Marc
Anon
2010-Dec-13 7:12 am
to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc: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.
What a disgustingly, probably-known Teksavvy scenario. I'm really starting to regret moving to the little company that could, but in reality just rolls over at every turn, without any dialogue with its customers. What a distressing betrayal and a fucking predictable outcome!!!! I think I may be sick! I know this sounds harsh, but I expect my ISP to honour it's commitments. Clearly, you cannot. I thought yo were stronger when I joined over a year ago, but it seems like musical ISPs is the trend of the Canadian future. What a fucked country I live in. |
|
| |
to Davesnothere
The MATH sense in me... connection speed x # days in a month x 24 hrs a day = the MAX amount of traffic that a consumer would/should be allowed... and that the ISP can MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS... or we'll sue you... OR JUST DUMP ISP's that are STEALING WHAT IS AN ISP customers right to download... as much as they want... and their connection speeds allow... and that ROGER's little bean counters...have to work with that framework of math... I was with rogers... light user... and 3/4 of the way through the month... got a message warning me I had used 3/4 of my allowed bandwidth... did you notice... ROGERS is my EX ISP... CONSUMER HAVE CLOUT.. they can replace corporations, governments, and regulatory commision members... |
|
| |
to UncleVanya9
said by UncleVanya9 :I'm really starting to regret moving to the little company that could, but in reality just rolls over at every turn, without any dialogue with its customers. Relax a bit. I believe Roger's filing was on Friday. It's barely Monday. Give them a few more days to confirm that they've rolled over (or happily surprise us, you never know). That said, to all those that think TSI will get an exception by connecting at each POI, look at the purported reason for UBB. Bell & Co. claim it's a per user ITMP to reduce disproportionate usage in their end user to CO segment (or POI, in the case of cable). Back-haul from a POI is comparatively cheap and easy to upgrade. TSI's only hope to not be subject to UBB is if their contracts are not TPIA. |
|
corster
Premium Member
join:2002-02-23
Oshawa, ON
1 edit |
corster
Premium Member
2010-Dec-13 8:09 am
said by DSL_Ricer:TSI's only hope to not be subject to UBB is if their contracts are not TPIA.
which they won't be if they keep the setup they have right now once these new Tariffs come info effect. Unless they decide to use the new 855 York Millls POI, they're not covered under these particular Tariffs, which means any agreement between the two companies is now automatically "outside TPIA" as you would put it. The real questions is 1) whether or not Rogers will be willing to keep hooking up individual areas for TekSavvy and Distributel once the new TPIA tariff goes into effect, and 2) if Rogers will demand caps on it or not. We just don't know yet. It's far too early to get your panties in a knot. |
|
 J E F F4Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON |
to jfmezei
If I am not correct, new users are facing lower usage limits. (15 GB for lite vs 25 GB for lite if sign pre July 2010) |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2010-Dec-13 4:53 pm
When dealing with large companies, actions speak louder than words, especially when words are so few.
Eventually the 2 large Rogers TPIA customers will have to unveil their new rate structure to cope with the new tariffs. Only then will people get a glimpse of what is going on.
Another glimpse will be whether ISPs continue to light up individual POIs between now and July. Some of them may have startup costs paid back within that 6 month period so could be worth lighting up now, while others may not pay back quickly enough and the ISP will wait until 855 is available as a POI to serve all of Ontaoreo.
It also remains to be seen how capacity management will work for the single aggregation point. Will Rogers be stingy and rate-limit to 100mbps a 10GE link and only increase it by 100mbps when the ISP proves there is congestion ? Or will the central aggregation point solve a lot of congestion issues and Rogers will be much faster to up the rate-limit commands in their router's configs ? |
|
 sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2010-Dec-13 5:00 pm
I really fail to see the point of a single POI ... If I were a last mile provider like a telco or cableco, the LAST thing I'd want is 3rd party traffic on my network ... I'd want to segregate them off onto a network of their own responsibility as soon as physically possible. |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2010-Dec-13 5:15 pm
Look at the costs to setup 31 individual POIs. Look at the monthly profit you make from subscribers, especialy in less dense areas where the number of potential subscribers is less. This makes for a business case to deploy or not deploy certain POIs.
There are very good reasons why 3web/cybersurf had kept to 10 POIs all these years and that no other ISP had deployed outside those 10 POIs. (not sure if the new kid on the block has deployed outside of those 10 that 3web has had yet).
Rogers and Cogeco did not initiate those changes. The CRTC did as a result of 2010-632.
|
|
sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2010-Dec-13 5:46 pm
Still doesn't make a lot of sense ... on each side it has pro's and con's. |
|
corster
Premium Member
join:2002-02-23
Oshawa, ON |
corster
Premium Member
2010-Dec-13 6:23 pm
said by sbrook:Still doesn't make a lot of sense ... on each side it has pro's and con's.
that's the CRTC for you... they went crazy on "Regulatory Symmetry" and told the cableco's to make TPIA more like GAS.... |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2010-Dec-13 6:35 pm
Look at that other forum where there has been a constant flow of "when is <name of city> get cable ?"
It is not financially feasable to deploy to all 31 separate POIs. You get 31 separate networks with 31 separate congestion issues. The workload would be stupendous just to argue with Rogers to increase the rate-limit on 31 separate ports to reduce congestion.
And from the CRTC's point of view, the real congestion happens on the shared coax portion where one use can impact the other. So whether you have unaggregated 31 POIs, or an aggregated one makes no difference. |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada |
to sbrook
said by sbrook:I really fail to see the point of a single POI ... If I were a last mile provider like a telco or cableco, the LAST thing I'd want is 3rd party traffic on my network ... I'd want to segregate them off onto a network of their own responsibility as soon as physically possible.
- Yes, but while YOU generally make SENSE, THEY try to make CENTS. |
|
| Davesnothere |
to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:Look at that other forum where there has been a constant flow of "when is <name of city> get cable ?"
It is not financially feasable to deploy to all 31 separate POIs. You get 31 separate networks with 31 separate congestion issues. The workload would be stupendous just to argue with Rogers to increase the rate-limit on 31 separate ports to reduce congestion.
And from the CRTC's point of view, the real congestion happens on the shared coax portion where one user can impact the other. So whether you have unaggregated 31 POIs, or an aggregated one makes no difference.
- Interesting perspective, and (supporting that) I had noticed that some of the Speed Test results posted by TSI Cable early adopters were SO severely skewed (especially their Downstream channels), compared to how many subscribers TSI had at the time (and they did say so somewhere in a post or two), that there simply HAD to be more at play than just an overcrowded link from a certain POI to 151 Front. IOW, neighbourhood local or node congestion was brought to a head by adding the TSI peeps, and some Rogers subscribers were also posting in their forum about poor speeds during peak periods, though were not yet aware why. |
|
| |
to Net Citizen
I live above starbucks  Screw you robbers/bhell |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
said by realitybytes5:I live above starbucks Screw you robbers/bhell
That could save you a few hundred dollars of after-tax money each month. And you get to wake up and smell the coffee too.  Good move. |
|
| |
to bt
Where are the "Rogers is not as evil as Bell" people?
GREED IS GOOD, ROBBERS AND BHELL!! |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
4 edits |
to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:said by realitybytes5:I live above starbucks Screw you robbers/bhell
That could save you a few hundred dollars of after-tax money each month. And you get to wake up and smell the coffee too. Good move. - I'm jealous, of course. What do they have to go with the Coffee ? - any Doughnuts ? ''THROTTLE the GREED, Not the SPEED !'' |
|
Screw you robbers/bhell
Good move.