jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to ruddypict
Re: CRTC Decision 2011-703 and 704 on UBB When Bell submitted its costs last year, the focus was on justifying UBB.
Now that Bell has been told that UBB/AVP is dead, burried and decomposed, perhap Bell's costing department would concuct the costing data differently knowing it would be going towards capacity based pricing.
Guys, we have to chill out. DSLR is not "normal" and the ISPs we choose tend to also not be "normal" as they cater to geeks.
I've done a bit of research, and lesser known ISPs who target normal people tend to require far less bandwitdh per customer and for them, the new rates are either cost neutral or even allow them to same money with today's usage patterns.
So, the 703 decision isn't really all that bad for majority of ISPs. Remember that Bell has just under 190 GAS customers (some of whom are not ISPs since they use GAS for other purposes).
It turns out that the numbers I calculated in a previous post in this thread appear to belong to a "Cadillac" ISP who happened to have the fewest customers per gigE on DSL than the other I have now surveyed.
If you re-run the numbers for an ISP that puts 3000 customers per gigE link, then the picture comes out quite different. And even more different for ISPs who put well above 3000 customers per gigE.
The one constant I have seen is that growth is serious so every year, the numer of user that fit within a gigE link goes down.
My gut tells me that we'll start to see yearly price increases with indy ISPs from now as a result of increased usage.
And this is fair, and exactly what the CRTC wanted (user pays).
In the case of ISPs for whom these rates will represent a significant price increase, it is likely because they had been abusing GAS and getting a free ride.
Look: $5.00 more per month is still cheaper than subscribing to cable and the Playboy channel to get your analogue Linux ISOs.
And what this means is that ISPs will be able to find innovative ways to shape their offering either through price, UBB, rate limiting during peak hours, just allowing congestion to happen during peak because they don't want to pay for extra capacity etc etc. And we'll therefore have greater choice of different options.
This is EXACTLY what we were asking for. This is EXACTLY what the CRTC was looking for. And the incumbents will get revenues that do increase as usage increases and that is exactly what they needed to play ball and open up the higher speeds and also invest more and probably take the independent ISPs more seriously because they will generate growth in revenues.
Is there some wiggle room to get the capacity rates down ? Sure. But overall, I don't think the CRTC made a massive error anymore.
The other thing to consider are the FTTN rates. We *finally* are getting final rates which will allow us to upgrade from the 1990s 5mbps to more modern speeds. And while we can compare 5mbps rates because we can compare old tariffs with new without knowing what the ISPs actually charge, for FTTN, we wll have to see what the indie ISPs charge for those speeds compared to what Bell charges.
What if the new tariffs make the FTTN rates very competitive/affordable compared to incumbent's retail pricing ?
Perhaps it is the Bell Kool Aid kicking in, perhaps not. But I am warming up to the rates.
We have to face the fact that going forwrd, we won't be getting a free lunch and will have to pay more if we increase our use of the internet. |
|
 EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada
 ·voip.ms
| said by jfmezei:We have to face the fact that going forwrd, we won't be getting a free lunch and will have to pay more if we increase our use of the internet.
Because artificial scarcity is no longer artificial? Or because incumbent direct costs to deliver nothing to IISPs are rising? Or perhaps there's a new tax burden on the last mile wire which the IISPs must bear?
I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Any of it. Especially when incumbent $$ are blacked out, and behind the door conversations become law.
The only reasons I can think of that my internet bill should go higher is due to:
The CRTC is still completely out to lunch, and should not be making any decisions.
The CRTC is corrupt.
My puny brain cannot comprehend the intricacies involved to deliver an internet connection to my home, and my cash outflow must rise, while the YoY delivery costs drop.
Whatever happened to the get rid of the CRTC movement/petition?
BTW, I was surprised to see you write anything about a free lunch.
--
~ Project Hope ~ |
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:1 | said by EUS:BTW, I was surprised to see you write anything about a free lunch. I think it's reasonable to assume that he was referring to people who think it's their god-given right to run a residential Internet connection full bore 24/7 instead of paying for dedicated IP transit that is actually designed to handle that kind of load. |
|
EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada | Has there been uncensored proof that this is even an existing problem? Or is it a theoretical problem that requires a monetary fix?
--
~ Project Hope ~ |
|
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:When Bell submitted its costs last year, the focus was on justifying UBB.
The one constant I have seen is that growth is serious so every year, the numer of user that fit within a gigE link goes down.
My gut tells me that we'll start to see yearly price increases with indy ISPs from now as a result of increased usage.
And this is fair, and exactly what the CRTC wanted (user pays).
In the case of ISPs for whom these rates will represent a significant price increase, it is likely because they had been abusing GAS and getting a free ride.
Look: $5.00 more per month is still cheaper than subscribing to cable and the Playboy channel to get your analogue Linux ISOs.
And what this means is that ISPs will be able to find innovative ways to shape their offering either through price, UBB, rate limiting during peak hours, just allowing congestion to happen during peak because they don't want to pay for extra capacity etc etc. And we'll therefore have greater choice of different options.
This is EXACTLY what we were asking for. This is EXACTLY what the CRTC was looking for. And the incumbents will get revenues that do increase as usage increases and that is exactly what they needed to play ball and open up the higher speeds and also invest more and probably take the independent ISPs more seriously because they will generate growth in revenues.
Maybe you are still tired from your trip, but the whole purpose was to bring pricing in line and not making things expensive. An increase in price will still mean we are lagging behind the rest of the world where they get more speed, more bandwidth for LESS.
Canada will fall behind if prices start to increase as we are already behind by OCED standards and worldwide standards.
You have other countries paying 24mbps unlimited for 29euro,
and you JF of all people can justify a 5.00$ increase on a 5mb connection? maybe you are being fed some kool ade,
But making things more expensive is not the answer. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to Gone
With use rising between 30 and 50% per year, you can't expect to pay $29.95 indefinitely when you keep increasing how much you use the internet.
A number of ISPs already have average use per customer that exceeds what the existing tariffs were designed for, so yes, they were getting a free lunch and yes, they will see an increase.
After chatting with Bell, I realised that there were some case of abuse of the system. They are isolated but Bell didn't want them to get out of hand. When they were stating last summer during the hearings that with a capacity based system, ISPs would be gaming the system and abuse the network, they were in fact pointing to a single ISP who had done so.
If Bell Canada s truly this inefficient, then ISPs will move customers to cable. It's called competition and is exactly what the CRTC was after. And if Bell feels the pain from losing tens of thousands of end users, it will do something about lowering its costs so that it can compete against cable.
Are the rates set b the CRTC fine ? They may be fine for some ISPs who cater to aunts and grand mothers today, but as adoption of netflix and others rise and become widespread, even those ISPs will have to start to lower the number of customers per gigE and this will drive their costs per customer up.
And because of the pricing, it will cuase a sharp increase in those costs.
However, the principles of the decision are sound and we cannot fault them, even if they mean the end to our free lunch.
If you look at "Angelo", do you reallly think that he was paying hsi way when downloading terabytes of data each month for $29.95 ?
|
|
 LiQuiDBSD geekPremium
join:2002-08-08
Anjou, QC | reply to EUS
said by EUS:said by jfmezei:We have to face the fact that going forwrd, we won't be getting a free lunch and will have to pay more if we increase our use of the internet.
Because artificial scarcity is no longer artificial? Or because incumbent direct costs to deliver nothing to IISPs are rising? Or perhaps there's a new tax burden on the last mile wire which the IISPs must bear? I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Any of it. Especially when incumbent $$ are blacked out, and behind the door conversations become law. The only reasons I can think of that my internet bill should go higher is due to: The CRTC is still completely out to lunch, and should not be making any decisions. The CRTC is corrupt. My puny brain cannot comprehend the intricacies involved to deliver an internet connection to my home, and my cash outflow must rise, while the YoY delivery costs drop. Whatever happened to the get rid of the CRTC movement/petition? BTW, I was surprised to see you write anything about a free lunch. YoY price drops don't apply to Bell's DSL aggregation/delivery network. It's not the same. I agree with JF on the free lunch part. Considering what the IISP's get for their $(20+(1700/~2000) per subscriber monthly on the old system, with the only money ever truly at risk was the 1700$, that was small potatoes for the revunue potential it generated.
said by Gone:I think it's reasonable to assume that he was referring to people who think it's their god-given right to run a residential Internet connection full bore 24/7 instead of paying for dedicated IP transit that is actually designed to handle that kind of load.
This.
--
Windows is the virus. Linux is the vaccine, FreeBSD is the CURE |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to jfmezei
Re: prices going down.
Yes, it is expected that bandwidth costs are going down each year, and many ISPs have been able to keep their prices steady over the years due to transit prices going down about as fast as demand rose.
But the CRTC has bet on competition to keep Bell honest, and this is perhaps a better solution. If Bell loses too many customers to cable, then it wll have pressure to improve its efficiency and report lower costs to CRTC to get lower tariffed prices.
This would be in line with the current government's philosophy on fostering cmpetition. Will it work ? I am not sure.
The big problem is this is the complexity of evaluating costs at Bell (and the fact that all we see are ## signs.
I was joking that the CRTC should have publichjed tariffs with ## for the pricing, which would then result in ISPs making cheques to Bell with "$####.##" in the amount box :=) |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Cogeco Cable
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:With use rising between 30 and 50% per year, you can't expect to pay $29.95 indefinitely when you keep increasing how much you use the internet.
Wow where do I sign up for that?
I would like to have a reasonable cap, with a reasonable speed, and I'm willing to pay ~$100. I'd also like for my ISP to not constantly insinuate I'm a pirate, and I don't want to go on any bullshit business plan where they have a cap they don't enforce (because they can turn around and start enforcing it anytime they want). |
|
 bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica
kudos:2 | reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei :If Bell loses too many customers to cable, then it wll have pressure to improve its efficiency and report lower costs to CRTC to get lower tariffed prices. This statement makes it sound like Bell's submitted costs are legit. Beyond that, I thought you guys said that Bell was already making a side deal with the Voldemort ISP. Why do they (Bell) give a crap about showing the CRTC that they have a more efficient ship when they probably won't lose the majority of their indie end-users from the largest independent ISP because of a side deal. It just seems like the smaller ISPs are toast and R0CKY Potter will be fine.
--
Consumerist.com | Consumers Union |
|
Reviews:
·Nothing But Net
·odynet
| reply to jfmezei
So, it is okay that prices are going up and yet internet was supposed to be affordable, and we we will still behind the rest of the world in terms of pricing? making internet more expensive in canada with the price increases.
wasn't the purpose of the crtc to protect customers? yet they are okay with price increases. |
|
bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica
kudos:2 | said by LastDon :wasn't the purpose of the crtc to protect customers? yet they are okay with price increases. It seems the prevalent attitude is that indies got a free ride and now they have to pay the piper. I don't quite agree with it, since users on the duopolies were already getting raped for what was being delivered. I believe the indies were leveling the playing field with their added value.
--
Consumerist.com | Consumers Union |
|
LiQuiDBSD geekPremium
join:2002-08-08
Anjou, QC | reply to LastDon
said by LastDon:So, it is okay that prices are going up and yet internet was supposed to be affordable, and we we will still behind the rest of the world in terms of pricing? making internet more expensive in canada with the price increases.
wasn't the purpose of the crtc to protect customers? yet they are okay with price increases.
You may want to check the pricing for the higher tiers, they just got cheaper, and the speeds are not far off from what alot of countries have now.
If you aren't happy with pricing and with the level of innovation, you should point the finger to indie isps as much as the CRTC. Bell won't do it as a public service when it has shareholders holding them accountable for profits. There needs to be mandate to do so, or some form of competition scaring them into it (which sorta brings us back to CRTC I guess). Bleeding customers to GAS is not going to scare off Bell sufficiently.
--
Windows is the virus. Linux is the vaccine, FreeBSD is the CURE |
|
Reviews:
·Nothing But Net
·odynet
| But if you compare bells pricing and not Indies........... to the rest of the world Canada tops as one of the most expensive, because bells rates are ridiculous high with their low caps as well.
bell was charing 40 bucks for a 5mb connection, meanwhile 24MBPS in EU is like 29euro's
hm what would you rather have? 5 for 40 or 24 for 29euro |
|
| 12 Fake Fibe 43.95 in a bundle for the first 12 months. / 50GB
thats pretty lame if you just compare bell to the rest of the world
Seriously? |
|
 alienzzzKill Bell
join:2011-02-17
Verdun, QC
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:If Bell loses too many customers to cable, then it wll have pressure to improve its efficiency and report lower costs to CRTC to get lower tariffed prices.
You are using too much common sense. The whole thing started as a way for Bell to effectively kill off the independents so that they can continue gouging and nickel-diming everybody at will.
They may have a higher tolerance for indies than Videotron/Cogeco but their attitude is still mostly "get them off of my lawn".
I very much doubt they'd even blink if all the indies switched to cable, since they do not influence their ARPU. |
|
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to LastDon
said by LastDon:12 Fake Fibe 43.95 in a bundle for the first 12 months. / 50GB
thats pretty lame if you just compare bell to the rest of the world
Seriously?
A cap like that on a connection like that is a lot like capping Ferrari's to one teacup of gasoline per day. |
|
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to LiQuiD
said by LiQuiD:If you aren't happy with pricing and with the level of innovation, you should point the finger to indie isps as much as the CRTC. Bell won't do it as a public service when it has shareholders holding them accountable for profits. There needs to be mandate to do so, or some form of competition scaring them into it (which sorta brings us back to CRTC I guess). Bleeding customers to GAS is not going to scare off Bell sufficiently.
I'm curious, what do you see as a good way to move forward? Functional separation? Third wire? |
|
Jurjen
join:2010-08-18
Montreal, QC Reviews:
·Acanac
 ·Bell Fibe
| reply to LastDon
said by LastDon:bell was charging 40 bucks for a 5mb connection, meanwhile 24MBPS in EU is like 29euro's
hm what would you rather have? 5 for 40 or 24 for 29euro
Little addition to that: in Europe there aren't any data caps!! I don't know about the 24 for 29E, but I know my parents are paying the same as me, as where I get 5 Mbit and they get 16 Mbit. |
|
| in greece, u can get a phone, internet 24mpbs no caps, and even iptv for 44 euros
or 29 just for the internet |
|
