jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
1 edit | CNOC's Part 1 Filing on the 703/704 tariffs Figured I would start a new topic for this since this process is likely to attract many back and forth. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Re: Request for extension of time regarding service charge associated with capacity model approved in Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-703
In Billing practices for wholesale residential high-speed access services, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-703, 15 November 2011, the Commission noted that certain network providers may incur additional service order costs related to the provision of services to independent service providers. Accordingly, the Commission determined that under the approved capacity model the service charge rate associated with the network capacity in 100 Mbps increments will apply on a per-order basis, independent of the number of increments.
The Commission also directed Bell Aliant Regional Communications Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) and Bell Canada (together, the Bell companies) to file for approval, by 19 December 2011, tariffs and supporting cost studies for its proposed service charge rate. Following a request by the Bell companies to extend the filing date, the Commission granted an extension to 16 January 2012 for the filing of the tariffs and supporting cost studies.
In order to expedite the rate review and approval process, the Bell companies are to respond to the attached interrogatories by 16 January 2012. These responses are to be received, and not merely sent, by this date.
In its response, the Bell companies are to disclose, on the public record, the occurrence rates (column b) and the time estimates (column f) for each sub-activity to be identified in Table 1 of the attachment. Commission staff notes that it has previously required the disclosure of similar competitor-only costing information in a Commission staff letter dated 12 May 2910, in the proceeding associated with Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership Tariff Notice (TN) 269 and Bell Canada TN 72051.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by:
Yvan Davidson Senior Manager, Competitor Services and Costing
Our Reference: 8661-C12-201102350
The Bell Companies
1.
With respect to the Bell companies’ tariff notice applications for the proposed service order charge to be filed on 16 January 2012;
a) Complete Table 1 (see next page) which provides the assumptions and development of the unit costs by sub-activity.
b) Provide a detailed description of each sub-activity provided in column (a) of the template, including the purpose and function of the sub-activity.
c) Provide the methodology and assumptions used to arrive at the occurrence rate (percentage of time that an activity is expected to occur) and the time estimate for each sub-activity. If the occurrence rates or time estimates are based on inputs other than from a subject matter expert (SME) inputs, then describe the source and vintage of the data used. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Ok, the other letters are basically the same with some variations, requesting costing info from:
Bell
Vdeotron
Rogers
Cogeco
MTS Allstream |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
1 edit | Coming attractions at the CRTC regulatory circus...
Mon Jan 09: Bell is to respond to the small interrogatory on the penalties issue.
Thu Jan 12: (4) Comments due to the Bell Jan 09 response on penalties.
Thu Jan 12: (6) Comments on what tariffs should go in effect on Feb 1
Mon Jan 16: (4) Bell replies to the comments on the penalties.
Mon Jan 16: (x) Bell and other incumbents reply to CRTC interrogatory related to CNOC's Part 1
Fri Feb 03: (6) Comments on CNOC's Part 1 (30 day process)
Wed Feb 08: (4) Replies under normal process to Bell's TN 7339
Mon Feb 13: (6) CNOC's reply to comments on its Part 1 filing.
Mon Feb 20: (4) Bell Canada's response to comments on its TN7339 tariff.
(4) -> Based on the January 4th process letter on TN7339 penalties
(6) -> Based on the January 6th process letter for CNOC's Part 1
(x) -> Based on multiple interrogatories sent out on Jan 6th (related to the CNOC Part 1)
Won't let me edit the first post:
here is the CRTC file for the CNOC Part 1:
»www.crtc.gc.ca/Part1/eng/2012/86···0063.htm |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to jfmezei
So does this mean that we FINALLY get to see what's behind some of B#ELL's ###'s ? |
|
|
|
resa1983
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by Davesnothere:
So does this mean that we FINALLY get to see what's behind some of B#ELL's ###'s ?
Looks it.. Seems TPIA/GAS will be able to review costs for Incumbents, and see just how inefficient they really are. |
|
 mazhurgPremium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB | reply to jfmezei
If Bell and co did not answer the costs as previously requested by the CRTC in the May 10 letter, what makes you think this will change?
Expect that all the costs add up to $#####.## |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:said by Davesnothere:
So does this mean that we FINALLY get to see what's behind some of B#ELL's ###'s ?
Looks it.. Seems TPIA/GAS will be able to review costs for Incumbents, and see just how inefficient crooked they really are.
Sorry, but I just HAD to fix that. 
--
"It's COLD in here, Mister (Premier) McGuilty !   - PLEASE, could I have just a wee piece of COAL for the fire ?" |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:
So does this mean that we FINALLY get to see what's behind some of B#ELL's ###'s ?
Yes. You will see that tere are more ### hiding behind the ### 
But the CRTC will be seeing some of the costing for the various fees charged (some of which Bell should deposit next week). |
|
| reply to Davesnothere
All I know there are lots of !@#$%^&* in this and not just #### ####. I don't expect to see any real numbers from Bell to the public at all.
For all we know those #### might just be their golf scores. At least CNOC is chasing after the penalties. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:said by Davesnothere:
So does this mean that we FINALLY get to see what's behind some of B#ELL's ###'s ?
Yes. You will see that there are more ### hiding behind the ### But the CRTC will be seeing some of the costing for the various fees charged (some of which Bell should deposit next week).
They could at least use another character, such as a '$' or a '&'.
So will the other incumbents have to do this too ?
I would very much like to know their reaction to Cogeco'$ $ubmi$$ion.
--
"It's COLD in here, Mister (Premier) McGuilty ! - PLEASE, could I have just a wee piece of COAL for the fire ?" |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| said by Davesnothere:I would very much like to know their reaction to Cogeco'$ $ubmi$$ion.
Then get a job at the CRTC, sign the non disclosure agreement or whetever CRTC staffers have to sign and then you are allowed to see the real numbers from incumbents. |
|
| said by jfmezei:said by Davesnothere:I would very much like to know their reaction to Cogeco'$ $ubmi$$ion.
Then get a job at the CRTC, sign the non disclosure agreement or whetever CRTC staffers have to sign and then you are allowed to see the real numbers they pull out of their asses from incumbents. Fixed. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| During the hearings on Quebecor's many requests for ATI from the CBC, they invited Konrad v Finckenstein. This was televised.
Mr KvF explained very eloquently and clearly how the costing process works and how the requirement for confidentiality is upheld during ATI requests and why it is so.
While I think that there is definitely room for improvement to allow parties to provide coherent responses to an incumbent's costs, I respect that there is a need for confidentiality, otherwise incumbents would refuse to open their kimono in front of the CRTC.
So while we can poke fun at the "#" sign, we should still remain professional about it. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | said by jfmezei:....While I think that there is definitely room for improvement to allow parties to provide coherent responses to an incumbent's costs, I respect that there is a need for confidentiality, otherwise incumbents would refuse to open their kimono in front of the CRTC.
So while we can poke fun at the "#" sign, we should still remain professional about it.
Yeah, I suppose so.... [Dave grudgingly agrees with JF's suggestion to take the 'High Road'.]
OK, then can we choose another character at which to poke fun ? - Possibly the '&' sign then ? - IT looks kinda lonely.
--
"It's COLD in here, Mister (Premier) McGuilty ! - PLEASE, could I have just a wee piece of COAL for the fire ?" |
|
grunze510
join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
kudos:1 | How about the ` (backquote) character? Most people probably don't even realize that it exists. Or maybe the | (pipe). |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 |
Then I guess that I am one of 'most peeps'.
How about the invisible character with which I now try to remember to begin all of my posts here ?
[Dave feels the need to brag about a New Years resolution.]
Plus, there is symbolism in making fun of an invisible character, as B$ELL's data is ALSO invisible (at least to US), and thus could be considered exchangable/equivalent.
--
"It's COLD in here, Mister (Premier) McGuilty ! - PLEASE, could I have just a wee piece of COAL for the fire ?" |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to jfmezei
I've reread the CNOC Part 1 document.
They do state that they will challenge (separately) the actual fees in the tariff.
They request expedited proceedings (refused by CRTC) even though they should know very well that Bell Canada cannot implement in 2 weeks a major change such as aggregating all capacity at one point and then load balancing across a number of AHSSPIs.
They should also know that it will take Bell more than 2 weeks to develop a radius interface to allow a BAS to know if a port number (information that is tagged to the PPPoE packets) corresponds to a WTN that is classified as business or residential.
Such information is apparently not available in real time to Bell which has to run complex batch job to do correlation of port number with WTN.
Bell's response to this will be interesting. Remember that not all ISPs terminate at the Adelaide CO (nearest to 151). And there may be some ISPs with multiple locations for AHSSPIs. (consider iStop which had some terminate at 151 and some terminate at Ottawa). |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:said by jfmezei:said by Davesnothere:I would very much like to know their reaction to Cogeco'$ $ubmi$$ion.
Then get a job at the CRTC, sign the non disclosure agreement or whetever CRTC staffers have to sign and then you are allowed to see the real numbers they pull out of their asses from incumbents. Fixed.
Thanks, guys, but I only wanted to see their REACTION, and had given up on the data itself.
But now that you mentioned it, ARE they hiring ?
--
"It's COLD in here, Mister (Premier) McGuilty ! - PLEASE, could I have just a wee piece of COAL for the fire ?" |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6
4 edits | reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:I've reread the CNOC Part 1 document.
They do state that they will challenge (separately) the actual fees in the tariff....
....Bell's response to this will be interesting. Remember that not all ISPs terminate at the Adelaide CO (nearest to 151). And there may be some ISPs with multiple locations for AHSSPIs. (consider iStop which had some terminate at 151 and some terminate at Ottawa).
At least the CNOC is clearly stating what they plan to do, and looks like it might include 'Hardball' rather than 'Golf'.
Yet each of these tasks ought to be completed in order for Bell to be more fair with thir new price structure, as well as (of course) lowering the capacity prices themselves.
Where does eBox terminate with Bell ? - Montreal ?
I believe that with Videotron, eBox uses Montreal.
BTW, did you post a link to that CNOC 'Part 1' app doc somewhere already ? - I seem to have CRTC's response to that doc but not the doc itself.
EDIT : Never mind - I found it - in the thread on 2011-703 filings, page 11 or 12. |
|
