jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
to Davesnothere
Re: CNOC's Part 1 Filing on the 703/704 tariffsSo, you place an order for 6 additional GigE. This is below the 11 gigE limit at whih point the 3 montsh delay kicks in. The next month, you order 5 additional gigEs. Again, this is below the 11 limit.
So in the end, you've gotten you 11 extra GigEs faster by splitting your order in two and spreading them over 2 months. |
|
| |
said by jfmezei:So, you place an order for 6 additional GigE. This is below the 11 gigE limit at whih point the 3 montsh delay kicks in. The next month, you order 5 additional gigEs. Again, this is below the 11 limit.
So in the end, you've gotten you 11 extra GigEs faster by splitting your order in two and spreading them over 2 months.
This is assuming that Rogers books all the upgrade orders on time, hardware additions/replacements come in on schedule and the technicians perform the work as soon as both of those are done. |
|
 DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada |
to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:So, you place an order.... If an IISP is growing THAT fast, they can AFFORD an in-house logistician to make sure that they know things such as that.  |
|
|
| Davesnothere |
I have now completed my 1st read of today's CNOC letter to CRTC, and I'm impressed in a positive manner. » /r0/do ··· inal.pdfLet me just add that CNOC seems to have some very sharp legal minds on their team, IMNSHO. |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-13 4:12 pm
Just a heads up that today, the 13th is the deadline for filing initial comments on the CNOC part 1. Expect a number of filings today. |
|
| jfmezei |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-13 5:10 pm
Cable Carrier's response to CNOC: |
|
 elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
to andyb
Paragraph 9 discusses the cost of Line cards, I don't understand the argument. Yes prices come down, but as you buy it, a line card bought to day, will be more expensive then one next year, but I'd have to base my costs on the one I bought today.
If there is a mechanism to average out the costs, that would be reasonable.
They also seem to be objecting to the 3yr term. Well hell, while I have no idea what cost are involved, there would be no way I'd make an investment like that for a month to month client.
Another section makes me laugh, Rogers is in court for the right to lie, but doesn't want anyone to use their name without their permission.
Oh boy. |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-13 6:20 pm
|
|
| |
to elwoodblues
May be Rogers CS rep can now STFU while bad mouthing their TPIA wholesalers or that the TPIA wholesalers can't put the blame on Rogers every time their customer complain!?
This has some interesting side effects on the professionalism side of things.... |
|
| Ott_Cable |
Ott_Cable
Anon
2012-Feb-13 6:33 pm
JF has to trademark his line of products about a certain ISP he can't name to cover a certain vendor we can't name or a certain wholesaler we can't name! |
|
| |
to jfmezei
Looks like CNOC screwed themselves hard by calling it "dynamic capacity allocation" instead of requesting aggregated capacity in the form of LAGs... if CBB was applied on a per-LAG basis, you get automatic load-balancing and fail-over without any of the manual interventions the cablecos are complaining about and it still remains impossible for ISPs to use more capacity than whatever the cablecos set the LAG's limit to. |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-13 7:19 pm
CNOC filed supplentary comments today. Wish I had time to read it. |
|
| |
said by jfmezei:CNOC filed supplentary comments today. Wish I had time to read it. CNOC is simply asking the CRTC to consider telling incumbents to offer CBB on business GAS with the associated reduction on access charges to account for the removal of capacity components as an alternative to having to split res/biz realms and traffic... basically, go back to when res and biz were the same exept for monthly access fees and install charges. |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-13 7:52 pm
Bell Canada's commens on the matter Converted to PDF for yoru viewing pleasure |
|
| |
said by jfmezei:Bell Canada's commens on the matter
Converted to PDF for yoru viewing pleasure
Too long, didn't read. I suspect they're just re-enforcing that the costs should be higher, can't do that etc. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
said by BACONATOR26:said by jfmezei:Bell Canada's commens on the matter
Converted to PDF for yoru viewing pleasure
Too long, didn't read. I suspect they're just re-enforcing that the costs should be higher, can't do that etc. They are basically saying that realm splitting is easy peasy, been done before and no reason why it can't be done now. They claim that not splitting the realms allows ISP's to "game the system" around CBB. In otherwords Bell wants it cake and eat it too. |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-13 8:31 pm
Primus has weighted in too ... |
|
| jfmezei |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-13 8:35 pm
And now, ladies and germs.... It's the MTS Allstream submission... Converted from some weird format to .pdf for your viewing convenience. |
|
 roccaStart.ca
Premium Member
join:2008-11-16
London, ON |
to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:Bell Canada's commens on the matter
Converted to PDF for yoru viewing pleasure
That's quite some selective snippet of my testimony in para 45, conveniently omitting my response to the question - which was something along the lines of that when that fibre is built there are many redundant strands available at little to no additional cost. Bell loves to make this claim of not paying for redundancy but the fact is that the capacity cost is a reflection of the whole network, including all the capacity and links that exist. Adding another interface without more capacity only marginally effects the overall cost (ie a port cost) yet they want to collect the capacity charge again without reflecting that the additional revenue of that capacity order without the need to deliver it should drive the per unit cost down. |
|
| |
Ott_Cable
Anon
2012-Feb-13 11:28 pm
Especially the redundancy the IISP want is the very last link to Front street and not need the path within Bell's entire cloud duplicated. So really the ASSPI alone cost should cover that. |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
to rocca
Rocca, haven't you learned that Bell just wants to get all your money ? It would be far ore efficient if you gave Mirko access to your bank account and let him manage it for you. |
|
roccaStart.ca
Premium Member
join:2008-11-16
London, ON |
to Ott_Cable
said by Ott_Cable :Especially the redundancy the IISP want is the very last link to Front street and not need the path within Bell's entire cloud duplicated. So really the ASSPI alone cost should cover that.
Exactly. |
|
| rocca |
to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:It would be far ore efficient if you gave Mirko access to your bank account and let him manage it for you.
I sense another Part I coming.... |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-14 12:17 am
said by rocca:I sense another Part I coming....
Since CNOC promised a second process to focus on rates, everyone senses another part 1 coming |
|
| jfmezei |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-14 8:20 am
Vaxination Informatique's submission to the CRTC on that CNOC thing. I am cross eyed, unable to read and in bad need of sleep. |
|
| jfmezei |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-14 2:41 pm
Just a quick note: the next deadline ia February 28th when we get to file our comments on everyone's comments. This is a first at CRTC since normally, only the party who filed the part 1 gets to file comments at the end. |
|
| |
I laffed to jfmezei
Anon
2012-Feb-14 3:27 pm
to jfmezei
I liked how you literally drew the CRTC a picture and titled it, "How Things Work".
I chuckled.
+1 |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
to jfmezei
$49.7 gazillion dollars
Really? |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
1 recommendation |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-14 3:30 pm
It was either that or $########.## |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
said by jfmezei:It was either that or $########.## (Filed in Confidence with the CRTC) Fixed it. |
|
