dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
21952
share rss forum feed


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

Re: 2011-703 Filings

said by Guspaz:

....Just have the IISPs report to Bell which users are business and which are generic.

God forbid *Bell* might have to rely on *IISP* data instead of the other way around.

 

--

"It's COLD in here, Mister (Premier) McGuilty ! - PLEASE, could I have just a wee piece of COAL for the fire ?"

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

Don't need to worry about port numbers or whatnots. Bell knows what the username and realm of each tunnel is. Just have the IISPs report to Bell which users are business and which are generic. God forbid *Bell* might have to rely on *IISP* data instead of the other way around.

If you have an ISP purposefully cheating to reduce costs, you can't rely on their data since they will "fix" it to make it look like their users are all legitimate.

However, demanding that the ISP provide the address of a particular user so that Bell can verify that a business service is associated with that user would be valid. (but not 100% reliable, but Bell could detect abuses when all residential users end up having the same business address


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

....Bell could detect abuses when all residential users end up having the same business address.

 
Never heard of a PARTNERSHIP ?


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

Whether DPI or a Juniper ERX , the problem lies in the back end database.

Bell currently does not have an easy way to send a query with the port number and get back the WTN and a "residential" or "business" flag.

Did they not use the same argument in reverse during the UBB fiasco over correlated charges and not being able to tell what isplogin was being used by a customer and only the TN. Seems to me they did this right after they tried to run through another charge of some sort.

Either way if they can seperate realms they can seperate a TN from from a login. (555-5555 this number was not is not in userbase as biz-deny)

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
The BAS doesn't get the phone number, just a port number.

So it has no way to know whether to treat a new PPPoE session as business or residential. Bell would have to enable some sort of lookup where the BAS would send a port number and it would return business or residential.

Crixox

join:2010-09-10
Repentigny, QC
Reviews:
·Colbanet
On the previous page, you're proposing to take a residential service from ISP A , and a login only from ISP-B who's offering business.

The only problem there, is that Bell asks for the ISP to specify the "reserved bandwidth" for business connections they want for the upcoming month.

The ISPs will definatly not want to do it this way as this would cause a burst in their peak time for business customers the same way it would for residential.

Not only they now have to deal with the capacity over Bell switching ... they still need to deal with the AHSSPI capacity which is totally different and isn't "CBB driven" ...

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

1 edit
Click for full size
downloadLetter to Jo···inal.pdf 60,901 bytes
CNOC
Click for full size
downloadJohn Travers···an12.pdf 27,881 bytes
Primus
OK, some filings today about the TN7339 and the penalties for comingling of traffic.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Bell Canada's reply to the penalties.

(converted to .pdf by me)

Interesting that they ignored my filing and that of Primus' despite both Primus and CNOC's filings mentioning mine.

edit: just checked and my submission was processed by CRTC.

»www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2011/b2_7339.htm

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
Instead of having to separate traffic between business and residential for separate billing or convert business to CBB, a third option would be to count ALL traffic and credit an amount proportional to the average peak from a representative subset of business lines scaled to the number of business subscribers the ISP has... if the business peak average (something like the average above 80th percentile) is 2Mbps and an ISP has 1000 business subscribers, the ISP gets a 2Gbps credit on CBB. Subscribers who use residential lines are excluded from business statistics both for capacity evaluation and credit scaling regardless of what login they use so their usage ends up being CBB'd.

If statistical equivalence works for Bell, it should work the other way around as well, lets be symmetrical!

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
To confuse matters, Bell Canada filed TN 7340 today to replace 7339. It has added the service charges.

i'll post the whole thing next. but here is a snippet which CNOC will just *love*

quote:
Consistent with that direction, the Companies are proposing in this application to implement a service charge rate of $285.00 associated with network capacity, to be applied on a per-order basis, independent of the number of 100 Mbps capacity increments ordered by the ISP. For GAS and GAS-FTTN customers that order 100 Mbps capacity increments on more than one aggregated high-speed service provider interface (AHSSPI), each AHSSPI for which additional capacity is requested will be treated as a separate order.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Click for full size
downloadPROPOSED - T···tter.pdf 145,163 bytes
Letter
Click for full size
downloadPROPOSED - T···ages.pdf 244,353 bytes
Tariff
Click for full size
downloadPROPOSED - T···_ABR.pdf 143,797 bytes
Economic evaluation
Click for full size
Other attachement
There was a spreadsheet with it. Only one sheet contained any numbers, the others contained a liberal supply of "#".

InvalidError

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

To confuse matters, Bell Canada filed TN 7340 today to replace 7339. It has added the service charges.

i'll post the whole thing next. but here is a snippet which CNOC will just *love*

I would be disappointed if the CRTC didn't side with CNOC&al about CBB applying to total aggregate capacity at a given hand-off POI, not on a per-link basis. If that major problem gets fixed, the per-link upgrade charge problem is solved.


More Money

@videotron.ca
reply to jfmezei
I get the feeling that the resellers are going to raise prices again....

freejazz_RdJ

join:2009-03-10
kudos:1
reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:

I would be disappointed if the CRTC didn't side with CNOC&al about CBB applying to total aggregate capacity at a given hand-off POI, not on a per-link basis. If that major problem gets fixed, the per-link upgrade charge problem is solved.

I still think that will be the toughest problem to solve from a technical POV. It will make associating a WTN and service type to a PPPoE session seem like a cake walk.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
said by freejazz_RdJ:

I still think that will be the toughest problem to solve from a technical POV.

One solution for Bell would be to have a second CBB rate for CBB beyond the prepaid commitment. This way, Bell dumps the responsibility of managing the aggregate rate limit on ISPs, which IMO is how it should have been in the first place... that's how I thought it would be until the CRTC decided that CBB on a prepaid basis.

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

There was a spreadsheet with it. Only one sheet contained any numbers, the others contained a liberal supply of "#".

11% return on common equity???
What do they think they are.... a bank??


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to jfmezei
Cogeco responses to CRTC

downloadCogeco.rar 115980 bytes


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by jfmezei:

There was a spreadsheet with it. Only one sheet contained any numbers, the others contained a liberal supply of "#".

11% return on common equity???
What do they think they are.... a bank??

Yes and a poorly run bank since they couldn't even be considered good enough to be bought out.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
said by mlerner:

Yes and a poorly run bank since they couldn't even be considered good enough to be bought out.

At 15-20% net profit per quarter, Bell actually has exceptional financial performance. Most incumbents elsewhere around the world only do 8-12%.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Mr Error, do you have a link/quote that supports your "bell does 15-20% while other incumbents only do 8-12 %" ?

(This is not because I don't believe you, it is because some quote would be VERY useful).

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
said by jfmezei:

(This is not because I don't believe you, it is because some quote would be VERY useful).

Make a list of random incumbents and get their quarterly statements... it is all public information.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1

2 edits
reply to andyb
CRTC to Videotron.Not sure what as its only french. (English to follow whenever CRTC sends it out.)

EDIT: should be fixed.had to change the french name

downloadVideotron- C···-703.pdf 231388 bytes


dont work

@videotron.ca
said by andyb:

CRTC to Videotron.Not sure what as its only french. (English to follow whenever CRTC sends it out.

[att=1]

Seems you foo-barred the upload. Doesn't load.

Dj_flight

join:2011-02-03
j6r0b3
reply to andyb
can you reup it ? We'll try to translate

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Basically, In filing the tarifs that respond to 2011-703, Videotron changed the service charges. CRTC wants justification/costs for this change.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to andyb
Rogers is removing Ultra-Lite High-Speed from being offered on TPIA and Retail

downloadRogers Cover···012 .pdf 57176 bytes


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
Cogeco revising their response to something.Probably belongs in JF's thread but I'm getting confused with all this shit.

download120118 Cogec···an12-1.p 74776 bytes
(120118 Cogeco TN 36 - Revised Response to Cogeco_CRTC_6Jan12-1.pdf)

downloadCogeco_CRTC_···DGED.pdf 26429 bytes

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
reply to andyb
Just an update for better understanding:

7339 was filed to deal exclusively with the penalties issue. Comment period closed January 16.

7340 was filed to deal exclusively with the service changes (changing capacity). Comments close Feb 16th.

CNOC's Part 1 deals with the technical aspects (mostly domain separation and load balancing).

Therefore, there is no process at the moment to discuss the actual rates as defined by the 703 and 704 decisions. So when CNOC mentioned in its current Part 1 that it would deal with the rates separatly, it implies that another Part 1 would be filed.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

3 edits
reply to andyb
A bad and possibly inaccurate translation by me:

said by CRTC :

17 January 2012 Our reference: 8740-V28-20111626

BY MAIL

Mr. Dennis Béland
Principal Director, Regulatory Telecommunication Affairs
Quebecor Media
612, St-Jacques Road, 15th Floor, South Tower
Montreal (Quebec) H3C 4M8
Dennis.Beland@Quebecor.com

Re: Following the telecom regulatory policy CRTC 2011-703 - Outstanding tariff questions (notice of tariff modification 41 - Videotron) and the understanding of revised TPIA service

Sir,

Following Videotron's tariff modification notification 41, dating 19 December 2011, in which the company proposed, among other things, to put into effect an updated diagnostic service fee approved in telecom decision 2004-69, Tariffs, terms and conditions regarding points of interconnection and service charges applicable to tiered internet access which uses the cable distribution network.

Referring you to the annexes of your notice of tariff modification (proposed tariff page), please provide us with the following information:

a) A breakdown of the major components of the current hourly cost of your IP engineers, including the basic hourly rate including required support.

b) A description of the activities required to perform this diagnostic service, distinguishing between the tasks performed by IP engineers and technicians.

c) The CRTC's staff notes that other companies have indicated that the hourly service for diagnostics is constituted of a mixture of hourly IP engineers and hourly technicians; explain how and when the company would have technicians perform this diagnostic, and include the hourly rate and estimated time to complete the diagnostics; and if yes, provide an hourly mixed cost which reflects the hourly rates of IP engineers and technicians.

In order to accelerate the examination of this cost, Videotron must respond to these interrogatories by 27 January 2012 at the latest. The response to these interrogatories must be received by, not simply mailed by this date.

Please accept, sir, the expression of my distinguished salutations.

Original signed by

Yves Davidson
Principal Manager, Competition and Costing Services

cc: Mohammed Omar, mohammed.omar@crtc.gc.ca
Interested parties to telecom consultation notice CRTC 2011-77
Videotron TPIA Customers

If somebody can suggest where I made a mistake, or where I awkwardly worded something (as I tend to translate more directly than I should), feel free to suggest it :P
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


Farchord
Lost somewhere.

join:2004-08-28
Shawinigan, QC
kudos:1
said by Guspaz:

A bad and possibly inaccurate translation by me:

said by CRTC :

Re: Following the telecom regulatory policy CRTC 2011-703 - Outstanding tariff questions (notice of tariff modification 41 - Videotron) and the understanding of revised TPIA service

Sir,

Following Videotron's tariff modification notification 41, dating 19 December 2011, in which the company proposed, among other things, to update the diagnostic service fee approved in telecom decision 2004-69, Tariffs, terms and conditions regarding points of interconnection and service charges applicable to tiered internet access which uses the cable distribution network.

Referring you to the annexes of your notice of tariff modification (proposed tariff page), please provide us with the following information:

a) A breakdown of the major components of the current hourly cost of your IP engineers, including the basic hourly rate including required support.

b) A description of the activities required to perform this diagnostic service, distinguishing between the tasks performed by IP engineers and technicians.

c) The CRTC's staff notes that other companies have indicated that the hourly service for diagnostics is constituted of a mixture of hourly IP engineers and hourly technicians; explain how and when the company would have technicians perform this diagnostic, and include the hourly rate and estimated time to complete the diagnostics; and if yes, provide an hourly mixed cost which reflects the hourly rates of IP engineers and technicians.

In order to accelerate the examination of this cost, Videotron must respond to these interrogatories by 27 January 2012 at the latest. The response to these interrogatories must be received by, not simply mailed by this date.

I thank you, sir, and express my distinguished salutations.

Original signed by

Yves Davidson
Principal Manager, Competition and Costing Services

If somebody can suggest where I made a mistake, or where I awkwardly worded something (as I tend to translate more directly than I should), feel free to suggest it :P

I updated the only mistake, guspaz. They are updating the fee, not adding it