Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
17543
share rss forum feed


Friday 1st

@videotron.ca
reply to diskace

Re: CNOC's Part 1 Filing on the 703/704 tariffs

said by diskace:

Cmon... im not going to sleep well tonight with all your Nostradamus predictions.

Well, well. This is a first. Guess there is a first for everything.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
reply to Guspaz
I am pretty mad that CRTC didn't bother sending an email to participants to announce the decision. But now, I have to worry about not forgetting to go to the nearest store to buy some loto max before the deadline. With 50 million bucks of pocket change, think of all the golfing I could do with Bell

And I could afford to buy cookies for everyone at CRTC hearings

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Mr Guspaz, the reality is that with the implementation coming in on Feb 1, Bell really has to assign fixed rate limits on individual links, so it makes sense that it would have to charge separatly.

I don't think anyone epected the CRTC to rule otherwise since this very issue is what is being debated in the CNOC Part 1.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to jfmezei
With 50 million, I wouldn't go golfing with Bell, I'd just retire to a larger apartment with a dishwasher, a dedicated fibre connection, and maybe a nice home theatre :P

As it stands, I'm getting started on my budget-minded home theatre, even if the entire home theatre fits within a 60 square foot space, and cost under $2000 :P

I mean, I'd love to have a 4000 lumen 4K 3D home theatre on a 150 inch screen with comfy cinema chairs and a sweet 7.1 sound system, but I'm pretty happy at the moment with my 1800 lumen (500-600 in cinema mode) 1080p 2D home theatre on a 80 inch screen with a comfy two-person couch and a decent 2.1 sound system
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


poor u

@videotron.ca
reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

With 50 million bucks of pocket change, think of all the golfing I could do with Bell

If I win the 50-million I'll buy you one of these »Re: A motion for fairness so you don't have to bike to the CRTC anymore.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Ah Ah ! CRTC was productive today, it also ruled on the penalty charges.

I have not read it yet. Just hovered over to the CRTC site and notcied the number of decisions rendered as a result of the 703-704.

The penalties decision is at: »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archi ··· 2-56.htm

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

11. The Commission considers that, during the period that the interim implementation regime is in force, it would be appropriate to give the Bell companies and the ISPs the opportunity to collect data to evaluate the significance of any direction of wholesale residential traffic onto the business realm and to refine their positions on the nature and level of the penalty charge. Accordingly, the Commission will not approve the Bell companies’ TNs at this time.

12. The Commission therefore suspends the proceeding associated with Bell Aliant TN 392 and Bell Canada TN 7339 until such time as it provides final direction on the implementation regime for the approved capacity-based billing model or until there is clear evidence of traffic irregularities.

This is a decision where my submission definitly had an impact, so there is a feeling of accomplishement. I may end up buying more tha lottery tickets when I wander over to the grocery store.


Ott_Cable

@teksavvy.com
reply to Guspaz
With 50 Mil, even if you are battling down inflation at 3%/yr and only getting 5% yield/yr on your investments give you $1 mil (pretax) per year to live on with the growth alone...

I would expect you would have to work extra hard to spend that dough.


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

I may end up buying more tha lottery tickets when I wander over to the grocery store.

Not sure how/if the 6/49 is offered in Quebec, but in Ontario I just got a subscription plan for the year and they will automatically notify me if I win any draws. Saves you from always having to go to the store.


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

I would expect you would have to work extra hard to spend that dough.

He can get a fibre connection and burn/mail ISOs to us should the CRTC lose its mind again.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Unexpected twist from my buddies at Bell today

In the email:
quote:
1 February 2012 - The Companies

Description:
In light of the fact that all parties must be able to comment and reply with regard to these new issues, and in order to avoid the creation of yet another parallel proceeding on issues related to the implementation of CBB, the Companies request that: in addition to the issues raised in CNOC's Application, all parties, including CNOC, be requested to comment by 13 February 2012 (instead of 6 February 2012) on the appropriateness of a) parallel regimes which ISPs can choose to be billed in accordance with, and b) the 10 percent reduction of the business rate access charges. The Companies further request that all parties have a right of reply 10 days following comments on these issues.

File name:
120201-The Comp-CNOC Part 1-Process Letter.doc (73 KB)



The enclosed letter:

quote:
2012 02 01

To: Mr. John Traversy
Secretary General
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2

Subject: Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC) Part 1 Application requesting expedited relief to address implementation of the capacity model approved in Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-703 – The Companies’ request for a change in process in light of new implementation models proposed by the Commission in Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-60, Implementation date for the wholesale high-speed access services capacity model approved in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-703 (Decision 2012-60)

Dear Mr. Traversy,

On 15 November 2011 the Commission issued Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011703, Billing practices for wholesale residential high-speed access services (TRP 2011-703) in which the Commission mandated the implementation of a capacity-based billing (CBB) model by 1 February 2012, less than three months following the Commission’s decision. Bell Canada and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (collectively, the Companies) proposed to implement the Commission’s decision in such a way that would allow independent Internet service providers (ISPs) to segregate their residential traffic from their business traffic through realm splitting. CNOC filed a Part 1 Application on 4 January 2012 claiming that the Companies’ proposed implementation of TRP 2011-703 was unreasonable and proposing an alternative means of implementation through the use of dynamic RADIUS and requesting an expedited process for its Application in light of the 1 February 2012 implementation deadline. On 6 January 2012 the Commission rejected CNOC’s request for an expedited process, ruling that the standard process with 30 days for answers and interventions and 10 days for reply is maintained. The Commission also requested comments with regard to the appropriateness of the 1 February 2012 deadline and requested parties to comment on the following options:

i. maintain the terms and conditions of the respondents’ tariffs as final with implementation on 1 February 2012;
ii. make these terms and conditions interim as of 1 February 2012; or
iii. delay the implementation date for the capacity model until the Commission has resolved CNOC’s Application.

On 27 January 2012 the Commission issued Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-60, Implementation date for the wholesale high-speed access services capacity model approved in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-703 (Decision 2012-60) in which it requires the Companies to maintain their proposed implementation of TRP 2011-703 by 1 February 2011 and also to:

a. Allow independent ISPs to use a single realm to support both residential and business traffic. Independent ISPs would be required to purchase the appropriate capacity in 100 megabits per second increments to carry their combined residential and business traffic using the rates for the approved capacity model.
b. Allow independent ISPs an initial order for the capacity to carry the combined residential and business traffic required on the implementation date at no charge.
c. Provide compensation to independent ISPs to recognize the potential double-counting for business usage through a reduction set at 10 percent of the monthly business rate access charges for independent ISPs.

In effect, the Commission has introduced a new model to be managed in parallel with the Companies own proposed means of implementing TRP 2011-703 and requires the Companies to allow ISPs to choose to be billed in accordance with one or the other. The Companies suspect that other parties, including CNOC, will likely wish to comment on the appropriateness of: a) parallel regimes which ISPs can choose to be billed in accordance with, and b) the 10 percent reduction of the business rate access charges as a longer term solution. However, under the current process, parties can comment on the issues raised in CNOC’s Application and only CNOC has a final right of reply 10 days later. This process would unfairly advantage CNOC should CNOC and parties to CNOC’s Part 1 Application choose to address the issues raised above as only CNOC would have a right of reply and other parties would be denied the right to address new arguments raised during the comment or final reply stage of CNOC’s Part 1 Application.

In light of the fact that all parties must be able to comment and reply with regard to these new issues, and in order to avoid the creation of yet another parallel proceeding on issues related to the implementation of CBB, the Companies request that: in addition to the issues raised in CNOC’s Application, all parties, including CNOC, be requested to comment by 13 February 2012 (instead of 6 February 2012) on the appropriateness of a) parallel regimes which ISPs can choose to be billed in accordance with, and b) the 10 percent reduction of the business rate access charges. The Companies further request that all parties have a right of reply 10 days following comments on these issues.

Yours truly,

[ Original signed by P. Gauvin ]

Philippe Gauvin
Counsel - Regulatory Law and Policy
Bell Canada

c.c: Parties to TNC 2011-77
Martin Brazeau, CRTC
Lynne Fancy, CRTC
Yvan Davidson, CRTC

PG/sm
*** End of Document ***



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

Unexpected twist from my buddies at Bell today

 
Was this a 'Curve B$ELL' ?

Or a Schlider ?

An Underhand pitch ?

or Underhanded ?

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
To save AndyB some work....

Here is Vaxination Informatique's comments on Bell Canada's comments for the process of CNOC's Part 1 application.

59677028

join:2012-01-19
Pontypool, ON
reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

said by jfmezei:

With Bell seemingly ready to negotiate, it is quite possible that it would give a better DSL deal if the ISP promises to not make a compelling Cable offer to stop the bleeding of customers from DSL to Cable.

Remember that if Bell is to embrace indie ISPs, it is because they will help Bell regain some market share against Cable.

An ISP who continues to move customers from DSL to Cable is less likely to get a sweet deal from Bell.

 
So it seems only a question of who will blink first at the table, Mirko - or folks such as Rocky/Marc.

However, if Bell does not become more competitive in their rates to the Indies (such as by stopping or reducing substantially their $99 FIB hookup extortion, their Dry Loop 'monthly rental', and their BullShit Demarcation repair politics fee - and JUST FIX THINGS for us - like Cablecos ALL do - as well as) by reducing the new CBB rate to something reasonable and not playing business account logins against residential ones with the Indies, then the bleed will continue, AND occur from MORE openings.

It could be death by a million paper cuts for Bell, if they do not smarten up about the big picture, instead of continuing to be so shortsighted for the numbers for every next shareholders' meeting.

But so much for my/our rhetoric....

Has Bell or any other incumbent published 2011 year-end financials yet, including customer count/churn figures ?

Might shed some light on where things really are going, and at what velocity.

ROFL
bell went into its IPTV instead of upgrading capacity for internet users, and they makea ton that way


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
When TV subs starts declining even further, Bell's IPTV investment will look foolish.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
FibTV has nowhere to go but grow in the next few years because they started from scratch. But their expressvue may decline.

Their FTTN investment won't be wasted since it will be used for internet. So that leaves the central microsoft server farms and the software for it.

My guess is that Bell will have managed to pay back the investment before legacy TV distribution is no longer "big".


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to jfmezei
CNOC reply to JF and Bell's submissions

downloadLetter to Jo···inal.pdf 24220 bytes
CNOC

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Interesting that CNOC doesn't seem so hot on the concept of business customers using residential realms/costs (as per the 2012-60 decision). They underlined that this is meant to only be temporary.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to jfmezei
MTS chimes in

download12 02 02 MTS···nts .pdf 175099 bytes
MTS

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
These replies are all over the place.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
CRTC has issued a process letter. Have not read it yet, but it will determine if I will need large quantities of Red Bull this weekend or later

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
OK, here is the meat:

Deadline moved from 6th to 13th of february. Final replies allowed by everyone, not just CNOC, and due Feb 28th and not the 16th.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
To much reading to day.I need a beer


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

Deadline moved from 6th to 13th of february. Final replies allowed by everyone, not just CNOC, and due Feb 28th and not the 16th.

 
THIS JUST IN :

CRTC Imitates Groundhog

OK, everyone exhale now.


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

1 edit
reply to jfmezei
CNOC files something.Havent looked at it yet

Edit:Its to do with capacity charges,labour rates etc of various ISP's

downloadLetter to Jo···inal.pdf 47451 bytes
CNOC


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

2 edits
said by andyb:

CNOC files something. - Havent looked at it yet.
It's to do with capacity charges,labour rates etc of various ISP's

 
Basically, the CNOC questioned the Cablecos' Rates' Spread for CBB, and asked the CRTC to review all of the respective #####s to see why there is such a wide disparity in these rates, given the similar technology among providers of this type of service delivery.

This question very much DID need to be formally asked.

CNOC deserves a round of TimBits !

EDIT : In more detailed review of the doc, I noticed 2 things :

(1) Their 1st question was not so much about the spread of the various providers' CBB rates themselves (though that question hopefully has been asked too, and DOES deserve much more clarity in an answer), but instead about the service charges for an IISP changing what they want in HS links and CBB capacity.

(2) There were quite a few more questions following the first one.

OK, TWO rounds of TimBits....

grunze510

join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
kudos:1
said by Davesnothere:

Basically, the CNOC questioned the Cablecos' Rates' Spread for CBB, and asked the CRTC to review all of the respective #####s to see why there is such a wide disparity in these rates, given the similar technology among providers of this type of service delivery.

*cough*Co*Cough*geco*Cough*. Sorry about that.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to andyb
Page 8 of that Letter to John Traversy number 30 re: POI Upgrades, is interesting to note.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
I doubt the CRTC can force cablecos to do stuff any faster than three months since that is the typical lead time from equipment manufacturers. Forcing incumbents to provide shorter upgrade implementation times would mean additional costs and associated risks for stocking extra spares specifically for wholesale.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to grunze510
said by grunze510:

*cough*Co*Cough*geco*Cough*. Sorry about that.

 
Spit it out !

What're ya trying to say ?

Cough-geco ?

A new nickname ?

Or just a need for some Buckley's and/or Benylin ?

(Some of the best discoveries were made by accident.)