dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
4889
Wes C Addle
Man Of The Hour
join:2003-07-28
Canada

Wes C Addle

Member

Tony Clement: UBB will be overturned

»twitter.com/#!/TonyCleme ··· 73147139


@TonyClement_MP True. CRTC must go back to drawing board RT @RosieBarton is it true you will overturn internet decision if crtc does not back down?
teapartyto
join:2011-02-01
Toronto, ON

teapartyto

Member

said by Wes C Addle:

»twitter.com/#!/TonyCleme ··· 73147139



@TonyClement_MP True. CRTC must go back to drawing board RT @RosieBarton is it true you will overturn internet decision if crtc does not back down?

I respectfully will have to disagree with MP Clement.

Forcing Bell/Rogers to undercut their own product and sell their broadband at a loss
(in lieu of the profits lost from their own
packages) is basically sending a clear message to businesses who
wish to invest in Canada: Do so at your own peril.

The key is in allowing/encouraging competing broadband companies
to open up shop in Canada...not using the CRTC to harass the
current duopoly we currently have.

Wind Mobile is a great example of a foreign wireless competitor
opening shop and circumventing the Bell/Rogers Hegemony.

We need more Wind's and less government/CRTC!

fatness
subtle

join:2000-11-17
fishing

2 recommendations

fatness

said by teapartyto:

Forcing Bell/Rogers to undercut their own product and sell their broadband at a loss

Would you mind posting the figures that show they'll be selling at a loss? Thank you.

CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium Member
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON

CanerisErik to Wes C Addle

Premium Member

to Wes C Addle
»Stop replying to shill threads!
balur
join:2010-04-28

balur to Wes C Addle

Member

to Wes C Addle
Wait... did we just win?
grunze510
join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC

grunze510 to teapartyto

Member

to teapartyto
said by teapartyto:

Forcing Bell/Rogers to undercut their own product and sell their broadband at a loss

A loss? Last time I checked, Bell made $600 million in profit last quarter, and Rogers made $370 million last quarter.
grunze510

grunze510 to balur

Member

to balur
said by balur:

Wait... did we just win?

It's not official yet, but it looks like it.
Wes C Addle
Man Of The Hour
join:2003-07-28
Canada

Wes C Addle to balur

Member

to balur
said by balur:

Wait... did we just win?

it would appear so high5
balur
join:2010-04-28

balur

Member

I'm disoriented and confused... i did not expect this outcome... and will not believe it untill I see proof.
An_Onymous
join:2009-10-24
Canada

An_Onymous to teapartyto

Member

to teapartyto
Click for full size
From CRTC's decision using Bell's number.

Bell can waive the fees easily.
teapartyto
join:2011-02-01
Toronto, ON

teapartyto to fatness

Member

to fatness
said by fatness:

said by teapartyto:

Forcing Bell/Rogers to undercut their own product and sell their broadband at a loss

Would you mind posting the figures that show they'll be selling at a loss? Thank you.

Rogers highspeed used to cost me $110 monthly. Teksavvy offered
the *exact* same service for $54.

It's basic math: Rogers is losing $56 monthly and only making "x"
amount off of what they've sold to Teksavvy in regards to bulk
bandwidth.

No company in their right mind wants to sell anything
for less than what they can possibly get out of the public.

YOULOSESHILL
@bell.ca

YOULOSESHILL

Anon

looks like they are gonna have to adapt.

HA
An_Onymous
join:2009-10-24
Canada

An_Onymous to teapartyto

Member

to teapartyto
TPIA prices are regulated to be cost + 15% (or whatever mark ups)... These numbers are submitted by Rogers and approved by CRTC.

May be you have been RIPPED OFF all that time, don't you think?
SniperSlap
join:2007-01-28
Winnipeg, MB

SniperSlap to Wes C Addle

Member

to Wes C Addle
Usage based billing is a non-technical solution to a technical problem that doesn't even exist.

It was a profit strategy built back to front with the goal of greed in mind and forced onto Canadians on the backs of the corrupt CRTC and their arrogant shills.

Of course it should be reversed, it is pure nonsense and has not a shred of merit. Not a single thing about UBB is based on network strain or the supposed impending doom of bandwidth.

Taylortbb
Premium Member
join:2007-02-18
Kitchener, ON

Taylortbb to teapartyto

Premium Member

to teapartyto
said by teapartyto:

Wind Mobile is a great example of a foreign wireless competitor
opening shop and circumventing the Bell/Rogers Hegemony.

There's two important points:

1) The government specifically set aside spectrum for new entrants. Without them having done that Rogers/Bell/Telus would have snapped it up at any price to ensure no competition entered the market. Wind can only pay so much before they lose the ability to undercut Rogers/Bell/Telus.

2) Wired internet services have a fundamental limitation. Only so many companies can run wired networks through a neighbourhood before it becomes unprofitable. You need a certain customer density to support that massive infrastructure build. Once there's 2 or 3 wired networks no one else will build another one. The cost of building a network over an area isn't significantly altered whether 10% or 50% of houses sign up for services on that network. At just 25% of houses (4 companies) that's too few to support the network. Anything less than 5-6 companies is likely to result in collusion, what we're seeing now between Bell/Rogers. There has to be some form of line sharing to get real competition in wired broadband (and wireless broadband won't do, for a lot of different technical reasons).

Also, speaking from a not purely commercial point of view. I don't want my street ripped up constantly to service a massive number of different networks. Just like cities manage zoning they manage right of ways and conduits for networks. It's in my interest as a citizen to not have an excessive number of networks. Yes, more profit could be made without zoning, but quality of life matters too.
teapartyto
join:2011-02-01
Toronto, ON

teapartyto

Member

said by Taylortbb:

said by teapartyto:

Wind Mobile is a great example of a foreign wireless competitor
opening shop and circumventing the Bell/Rogers Hegemony.

There's two important points:

1) The government specifically set aside spectrum for new entrants. Without them having done that Rogers/Bell/Telus would have snapped it up at any price to ensure no competition entered the market. Wind can only pay so much before they lose the ability to undercut Rogers/Bell/Telus.

It wasn't about spectrum, it was about licensing. Bell/Rogers/Telus got the CRTC to revoke the license for a myriad of a$$hole reasons.
The Harper government saw through this and reversed the CRTC.
said by Taylortbb:

2) Wired internet services have a fundamental limitation. Only so many companies can run wired networks through a neighbourhood before it becomes unprofitable. You need a certain customer density to support that massive infrastructure build. Once there's 2 or 3 wired networks no one else will build another one. The cost of building a network over an area isn't significantly altered whether 10% or 50% of houses sign up for services on that network. At just 25% of houses (4 companies) that's too few to support the network. Anything less than 5-6 companies is likely to result in collusion, what we're seeing now between Bell/Rogers. There has to be some form of line sharing to get real competition in wired broadband (and wireless broadband won't do, for a lot of different technical reasons).

This is the exact....EXACT argument the CEO of Rogers tried
using to prevent Wind Mobile from coming to Canada.
said by Taylortbb:

Also, speaking from a not purely commercial point of view. I don't want my street ripped up constantly to service a massive number of different networks. Just like cities manage zoning they manage right of ways and conduits for networks. It's in my interest as a citizen to not have an excessive number of networks. Yes, more profit could be made without zoning, but quality of life matters too.

If people really want better/affordable internet installed in their streets will, tearing up roads/streets will improve their quality of life.
Soundude
join:2002-03-14
London, ON

Soundude to CanerisErik

Member

to CanerisErik
Agreed. Look at the join date too.
LastDon
join:2002-08-13

LastDon to teapartyto

Member

to teapartyto
dude, your pretty slow..

read the CRTC decision that BELL funds,
it actually says they recover all cost if not all

You have nothing more to say. it's written , its documented, and stated over and over.

BELL does not SELL TEKSAVVY nor does Rogers Sell Teksavvy bandwidth, they dont sell them anything but merely rent the transit hub to the customer.

Bandwidth is bought elsewhere . therefore bell/rogers sells nothing at a loss.

what bell and rogers offers are packages which could be lowered and higher caps, but they dont ............ why cause they have a lot of shareholders to pay to.

now move along.

Taylortbb
Premium Member
join:2007-02-18
Kitchener, ON

Taylortbb to teapartyto

Premium Member

to teapartyto
said by teapartyto:

said by Taylortbb:

said by teapartyto:

Wind Mobile is a great example of a foreign wireless competitor
opening shop and circumventing the Bell/Rogers Hegemony.

There's two important points:

1) The government specifically set aside spectrum for new entrants. Without them having done that Rogers/Bell/Telus would have snapped it up at any price to ensure no competition entered the market. Wind can only pay so much before they lose the ability to undercut Rogers/Bell/Telus.

It wasn't about spectrum, it was about licensing. Bell/Rogers/Telus got the CRTC to revoke the license for a myriad of a$$hole reasons.
The Harper government saw through this and reversed the CRTC.

What you mention came later. That was after Wind had already purchased spectrum and was looking for operating licenses. Look at Mobilicity, they had no foreign ownership issues, and were only able to exist because of spectrum set aside for new entrants. Wind most definitely required this too, and I suggest a little googling if you haven't heard about it.
said by teapartyto:

said by Taylortbb:

2) Wired internet services have a fundamental limitation. Only so many companies can run wired networks through a neighbourhood before it becomes unprofitable. You need a certain customer density to support that massive infrastructure build. Once there's 2 or 3 wired networks no one else will build another one. The cost of building a network over an area isn't significantly altered whether 10% or 50% of houses sign up for services on that network. At just 25% of houses (4 companies) that's too few to support the network. Anything less than 5-6 companies is likely to result in collusion, what we're seeing now between Bell/Rogers. There has to be some form of line sharing to get real competition in wired broadband (and wireless broadband won't do, for a lot of different technical reasons).

This is the exact....EXACT argument the CEO of Rogers tried
using to prevent Wind Mobile from coming to Canada.

That was obvious BS for Wind. Wireless doesn't have nearly the infrastructure costs that wired does. I'm also not sure how this relates to my point. Companies already can build their own wired networks, beyond phone and cable. Outside of Novus in a very limited area of Vancouver there are no competitive FTTH providers in Canada. There aren't even overbuilds of comparatively cheap phone and cable networks. Permitting foreign competition might see one new wired entrant, it definitely won't see the 3-4 we need. This isn't a licensing issue, overbuilding is permitted. There's a reason we don't see it.
said by teapartyto:

said by Taylortbb:

Also, speaking from a not purely commercial point of view. I don't want my street ripped up constantly to service a massive number of different networks. Just like cities manage zoning they manage right of ways and conduits for networks. It's in my interest as a citizen to not have an excessive number of networks. Yes, more profit could be made without zoning, but quality of life matters too.

If people really want better/affordable internet installed in their streets will, tearing up roads/streets will improve their quality of life.

But line sharing also improves my quality of life. What makes tearing up my road better than line sharing? Line sharing I get improved quality of life through competitive telecommunications, and improved quality of life through reduced disruptions to my neighbourhood. Competitive physical infrastructure may give me the former, but it doesn't give me the latter. Seems pretty inferior to me.

Europe has near universal line sharing rules. According to your earlier posts no one would want to invest there because of that. Yet somehow Europe has a hyper-competitive telecommunications industry with several truly competitive players in every country. Rankings consistently place countries with strong line sharing rules ahead of countries without them in broadband affordability, speed and penetration. That's data, not opinion.

DavidT8
She turned me into a newt
join:2006-09-01
Oakville, ON

1 recommendation

DavidT8 to Wes C Addle

Member

to Wes C Addle
Guys... STOP. FEEDING. THE. TROLLS.

Taylortbb
Premium Member
join:2007-02-18
Kitchener, ON

Taylortbb

Premium Member

said by DavidT8:

Guys... STOP. FEEDING. THE. TROLLS.

So far, in this thread, he's been polite and actually making arguments. I don't mind a reasonable discussion. When it turns into a flame war then we have a problem, or when it's drive-by trolling like "TekSavvy is a parasite and I have no real argument". Agree it's important to not link to anti-UBB discussions at media outlets, but there's no real danger of "raising the profile" of someone on BBR.

xsbell
join:2008-12-22
Canada

xsbell to CanerisErik

Member

to CanerisErik
+1.. and,


Last Parade
join:2002-10-07
Port Colborne, ON

Last Parade to Wes C Addle

Member

to Wes C Addle
OP is secretly Eddie Vedder

I LOLd
@videotron.ca

I LOLd to fatness

Anon

to fatness
said by fatness:

said by teapartyto:

Forcing Bell/Rogers to undercut their own product and sell their broadband at a loss

Would you mind posting the figures that show they'll be selling at a loss? Thank you.

I think that shut him up. Or am I speaking too soon?

BACONATOR26
Premium Member
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON

BACONATOR26 to teapartyto

Premium Member

to teapartyto
said by teapartyto:

said by fatness:

said by teapartyto:

Forcing Bell/Rogers to undercut their own product and sell their broadband at a loss

Would you mind posting the figures that show they'll be selling at a loss? Thank you.

Rogers highspeed used to cost me $110 monthly. Teksavvy offered
the *exact* same service for $54.

It's basic math: Rogers is losing $56 monthly and only making "x"
amount off of what they've sold to Teksavvy in regards to bulk
bandwidth.

No company in their right mind wants to sell anything
for less than what they can possibly get out of the public.

Wow you really have no idea of the base costs. Do you really think Rogers direct costs for providing access to a subscriber is $110? Really? Have you not heard of this term called retail where the provider adds a mark up?

In case you need further proof, wait until the next outage from Bell or Rogers and call in asking for a credit. I guarantee you it will be at least $10. You really think they're going to lose money over a credit when they don't even have to credit you?

I thought maybe you had some good arguments and some knowledge of how business works but it's clear you don't. Please go back to your fantasy land. You're just making yourself look like a dumb ass.
geokilla
join:2010-10-04
North York, ON

geokilla

Member

said by BACONATOR26:

Wow you really have no idea of the base costs. Do you really think Rogers direct costs for providing access to a subscriber is $110? Really? Have you not heard of this term called retail where the provider adds a mark up?

In case you need further proof, wait until the next outage from Bell or Rogers and call in asking for a credit. I guarantee you it will be at least $10. You really think they're going to lose money over a credit when they don't even have to credit you?

I thought maybe you had some good arguments and some knowledge of how business works but it's clear you don't. Please go back to your fantasy land. You're just making yourself look like a dumb ass.

Don't forget that Rogers retention can offer you 20% or 30% off Internet for one year, meaning their profit margin must be at least around $30!

Some people in this world are so stupid.
zorxd
join:2010-02-05
Quebec, QC

zorxd to teapartyto

Member

to teapartyto
said by teapartyto:

said by fatness:

said by teapartyto:

Forcing Bell/Rogers to undercut their own product and sell their broadband at a loss

Would you mind posting the figures that show they'll be selling at a loss? Thank you.

Rogers highspeed used to cost me $110 monthly. Teksavvy offered
the *exact* same service for $54.

It's basic math: Rogers is losing $56 monthly and only making "x"
amount off of what they've sold to Teksavvy in regards to bulk
bandwidth.

No company in their right mind wants to sell anything
for less than what they can possibly get out of the public.

Rogers is selling broadband to teksavvy for a profit (not a loss). Only, they make less profit than if you were with them.
So what? It's like telling the gas stations that they can't unite to keep prices high in Canada. Of course they would make more profit if they had a cartel. But you don't say that they are being forced to sell gas at loss aren't you?
Wes C Addle
Man Of The Hour
join:2003-07-28
Canada

Wes C Addle to Last Parade

Member

to Last Parade
said by Last Parade:

OP is secretly Eddie Vedder

shh keep it on the down low
webfeet9
join:2011-02-03

webfeet9 to BACONATOR26

Member

to BACONATOR26
I, and I would guess that most on this site would also agree with me, that I am lost regarding the argument made by Bell / Rogers and the likes.

Since I have been using networks speeds have continually increased. The norm use to be 10 mbs (okay for TokenRing users this was even slower - lets just talk about the more common home networks) for networks and then 100 mbs and now 1 gbs, however, our Internet has never reached the same limit as the technology allows - and further, my Bell line sucks so I never get the top rate that they say I pay for.

Most everything is now Ethernet (ATM, which was more expensive, Bell has told the CRTC that it will replace with Ethernet switches). Newer technology typically means better performance.

Telephone lines from homes to the CO are already paid for (or cable lines for the case with Rogers). These are one time costs. Maintenance on these lines does happen, however, Bell / Rogers would budget money to cover these expenses. And lets face it, these are not new costs so they have a good idea what it will costs year over year to support this part of the infrastructure.

I would guess there is a yearly licence cost for the card installed at the CO for the DSL (Nortel Switch I would guess). Again this is not new and I would guess the cards don't get replaced often - only when they fail.

So why is Bell and Rogers saying that they need caps in place for Wholesale customers? When I read through the documents regarding UUB no one ever asked this. I expected to see some pretty graphs showing how usage over the past two years has grown at a rate that far surpassed Bell's / Roger's ability to keep up with the demand, however, I never did find this.

I can guess, as most others on this site already have, that the real issue is the move of network shows from Cable and Satellite to Internet at a far cheaper rate ($40.00 per month from Rogers for base cable vs $7.99 from Netflix).

Even Candice Molnar from the CRTC didn't agree that UBB was the best way to control customers usage of the Internet. However, as I read through Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-255 the only thing the CRTC was concern with was making it an even playing ground for everyone involved. However, Bell already has an advantage - the own the backbone and players like Teksavvy and Primus are just small fish in a big pond with Rogers and Bell being sharks.

So to recap my ramblings - technology is getting faster and cheaper. Infrastructure costs are going down. End user costs remain at about the same as they always have. Users are using the Internet more - but where is the proof of this and is it our pacing the technology?


CanadianRip
join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON

CanadianRip to teapartyto

Member

to teapartyto
said by teapartyto:

Rogers highspeed used to cost me $110 monthly. Teksavvy offered
the *exact* same service for $54.

It's basic math: Rogers is losing $56 monthly and only making "x"
amount off of what they've sold to Teksavvy in regards to bulk
bandwidth.

No company in their right mind wants to sell anything
for less than what they can possibly get out of the public.

ROFL - Yeah having competition does cost money.

So if you mean, by having competition Bell & Rogers will lose money... you sir are absolutely correct!