dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
9999
« speedWhy not here? »
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · next

it is
@videotron.ca

it is to bt

Anon

to bt

Re: Cable companies' Review and Vary of 2011-703

said by bt:

said by More LOLs :

This is getting better and better the more I read.

MTS even drew the CRTC a picture! I can't stop laughing at Bell.

I was somewhat disappointed that the commentary on the right margin wasn't actually in the filing.

Oh, it is. It may not be labelled as such in those exact words, but that is basically what they said.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to Davesnothere

Premium Member

to Davesnothere

Re: Primus' Comments about Bell's R&V

But does MTS golf as well as Mirko? That's far more important.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

1 edit

Davesnothere

Premium Member

Primus - More Highlights about Bell's R&V

 
The Primus legal department definitely took this one seriously, picking apart Bell's R&V app line-by-line, quoting dozens of past CRTC proceedings and submissions where Bell has corporately contradicted themself (compared to what they currently seem to want), and taking this process even further than CNOC did, which was quite far in itself.

If I was taking on Bell in a courtroom environment, I absolutely would want that/those lawyer(s) on my team.

Some other highlights are paragraph 14, and then 17 thru 20 or further, beginning "Bell also makes disingenuous assertions...."

And paragraph 46 is a superb zinger :
quote:
46. Bell's real complaint appears to be that their 'detailed cost information' was not compelling enough to be accepted by the Commission. (MY emphasis)

 
Bell sounds rather like an whining child to me.

Ott_Cable
@teksavvy.com

Ott_Cable

Anon

May be if the detailed costing were all in ####, then someone else e.g. the other telco/cableco or even CNOC could have help them out. Bell is so insecure.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by Ott_Cable :

May be if the detailed costing were....

 
Huh ?

Did you not mean "were not" ?

Ott_Cable
@teksavvy.com

Ott_Cable

Anon

Yeah. It was meant to be "weren't".

One of the draw back of being anon is no editing... That's also something I am trying to force myself not to do as otherwise I would edit a lot.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere to jfmezei

Premium Member

to jfmezei

JF's Comments about Bell's R&V

 
On this one, JF has taken a different approach than MTS, CNOC, and Primus, who each in their own way have offered the CRTC very clear and compelling reasons to refuse Bell's R&V of 2011-703.

JF has not suggested yea or nay on Bell's R&V, but instead has submitted some glossaries of terms, a series of questions which would need to be asked of Bell, and some suggestions as to alternatives, which, as finely honed as the other 3's negative comments about Bell's submission were, they did not do much of this, if any at all.

The answers to some of JF's questions will serve to reinforce in the CRTC's collective minds that Bell's R&V submission is bogus, but he is leaving it up to the CRTC to reach said conclusion on their own.
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

Before startig to write that submission I had plenty of ideas and was ready to forge ahead at full speed.

Once I got started, I came to realise that it wasn't as black and white as I had thought because I kept thinking of the high installation costs and wondering how the costs of the copper plant should be paid for and to be honest, I realised I didn't really know. So the est I could do was to ask questions and explain the whole bridge tap thing which the commisioners would't know about.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

1 edit

Davesnothere to Ott_Cable

Premium Member

to Ott_Cable

Re: Primus - More Highlights about Bell's R&V

said by Ott_Cable :

One of the draw back of being anon is no editing....

 
Another is that I could not IM/PM you about it.

But, registering is still an option.
Davesnothere

Davesnothere to jfmezei

Premium Member

to jfmezei

Re: JF's Comments about Bell's R&V

 
But you covered something that the others seemed to miss, at least this time they did.

You suggested alternative actions and behaviours, and explained some of the likely benefits if adopted.

Somebody needs to do that in EVERY situation.

This time it was you.

Let the others cast the stones sometimes.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

1 edit

InvalidError to jfmezei

Member

to jfmezei

Re: Comments about the Rogers R&V

Humm, Rogers' Quebecor's response implies that Rogers intends to charge SEPARATELY for upstream and downstream 100Mbps increments...

3. In addition, in its application, Rogers addresses the matter of the appropriate measure of 100 Mbps increments to which the new TPIA capacity charge is applied. Rogers asserts that the charge must be applied to upstream and downstream increments in order for Rogers to fully recover its costs given the arithmetic manner in which the Commission derived the capacity charge. Alternatively, should it be the case that TRP 2011-703 was not intended to create separate upstream and downstream 100 Mbps increments, then Rogers asserts the capacity charge must be varied so that it recovers total costs only on downstream increments.

Wonder how many other incumbents are swinging that way, I don't remember seeing any mention of that anywhere before.

And of course, as part of Quebecor's support for Rogers, they are asking to charge separately for upstream 100Mbps as well since they suffer from the same rate-setting error.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by InvalidError:

Humm, Rogers' Quebecor's response implies that Rogers intends to charge SEPARATELY for upstream and downstream 100Mbps increments....

 
I see you made an edit to who said it.

But regardless of that, we are looking at the proverbial 'thin edge of the wedge' of a dangerous precedent, if ANY provider convinces CRTC to allow THAT to happen, no matter what the alleged justification for doing so.

Ultimately, it would be just one more way to :
(1) make the IISPs' margins even thinner, and
(2) to gouge the consumer.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to Davesnothere

Premium Member

to Davesnothere

Re: Primus - More Highlights about Bell's R&V

said by Davesnothere:

Some other highlights are paragraph 14, and then 17 thru 20 or further, beginning "Bell also makes disingenuous assertions...."

Call it what it is, rather than couching it in euphemism - THEY'RE F!CKING LYING!!

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

Call it what it is, rather than couching it in euphemism - THEY'RE F!CKING LYING!!

 
Yeah, but what if one day the lawyer who wrote the paragraph ends up working for Mirko's team, or if B$ELL buys Primus, or some other permutational variation of subordinate/superior relationship happens between the 2 companies or some of their depts ?

It's like when a lawyer/politician says "My learned colleague...."
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to Davesnothere

Member

to Davesnothere

Re: Comments about the Rogers R&V

said by Davesnothere:

But regardless of that, we are looking at the proverbial 'thin edge of the wedge' of a dangerous precedent, if ANY provider convinces CRTC to allow THAT to happen, no matter what the alleged justification for doing so.

Well, unlike xDSL where first-mile downstream and upstream functions of each port are dedicated to a single line regardless of what the speeds are, provisioning of upstream and downstream capacity on cable nodes are almost completely independent activities so on cable, there certainly is a potential to prove the need for differentiated billing between upstream and downstream due to the fundamental technical difference between cable and DSL in that regard.

Ott_Cable
@teksavvy.com

Ott_Cable to Davesnothere

Anon

to Davesnothere

Re: Primus - More Highlights about Bell's R&V

>It's like when a lawyer/politician says "My learned colleague...."

Both of these "professions" are hated by the common folks, so may be that's the only time they get to be addressed in a polite manner?

Lawyers are hired guns. Off the clock, those guys might even went to the same law schools or worked together previously or best buddies for all we know.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere to InvalidError

Premium Member

to InvalidError

Re: Comments about the Rogers R&V

said by InvalidError:

....there certainly is a potential to prove the need for differentiated billing between upstream and downstream, due to the fundamental technical difference between cable and DSL in that regard.

 
I see.

So it's unique to Cable Topology.

Still, Bell has never been bashful, nor lacking in resourcefulness at conjuring up new ways to soak us for SOMETHING, any chance that they get.

The one thing which I could safely say that I would 'trust' Bell to do would be THAT.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

said by Davesnothere:

The one thing which I could safely say that I would 'trust' Bell to do would be THAT.

At the very least, I would "trust" Bell to argue that they should get to bill both ways separately just because cablecos might get to do so... all in the name of regulatory symmetry!

If things get there, it will be important to remind the CRTC that some exceptions to symmetry are required due to some fundamental technical difference that may justify them... perfect symmetry between fundamentally dissimilar technologies is impossible.
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

It doesn't cost the cable companies more to carry upload on the coax. It is just more rationed via the low upload speeds.

And from the CMTS to the ISP, the networks would be symmetrical, and provisioned to handle the far greater download traffic , so the upload fits very comfortably in existing capacity.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

said by jfmezei:

It doesn't cost the cable companies more to carry upload on the coax. It is just more rationed via the low upload speeds.

And from the CMTS to the ISP, the networks would be symmetrical, and provisioned to handle the far greater download traffic , so the upload fits very comfortably in existing capacity.

Of course it does, Rogers said so, they wouldn't lie would they?
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to jfmezei

Member

to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

It doesn't cost the cable companies more to carry upload on the coax. It is just more rationed via the low upload speeds.

More upload capacity requires more upstream line cards in the CMTS and more upstream line cards per CMTS means fewer downstream line cards per CMTS and fewer subscribers served per CMTS... it is a double-whammy cost.

There is no such upstream vs downstream balancing act on xDSL where each port has dedicated upstream + downstream facilities for each line.
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

Surely, with DOCSIS3 line bonding, Cisco would be offering upstream line cards that can handle more capacity instead of getting cable companies to fill their CMTS cabinet with upstream line cards capable of only 10mbps total throughput ?
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

said by jfmezei:

Surely, with DOCSIS3 line bonding, Cisco would be offering upstream line cards that can handle more capacity instead of getting cable companies to fill their CMTS cabinet with upstream line cards capable of only 10mbps total throughput ?

Motorola CMTS have line cards with either 32 downstream channels or 32 upstream channels... at 10Mbps per upstream QAM, that would be 320Mbps/card. How many of each type of line card (32D and 32U) cablecos cram in each CMTS depends on their ratio of downstream vs upstream peak traffic on each CMTS.
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

But this is part of the last mile and would be "charged" to the last mile access rate. Not the capacity rate.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

said by jfmezei:

But this is part of the last mile and would be "charged" to the last mile access rate. Not the capacity rate.

The number of CMTS and CMTS line cards you need to terminate a given amount of subscribers scales predominantly with capacity, not with access. The cablecos' node-splitting is driven by capacity, not access: the nodes used to support thousands of subscribers each access-wise in DOC1 days but are now typically smaller than 300 subscribers on DOC3 to enable much higher peak capacity.

I haven't seen the cablecos' sheets about what is billed as access and what is billed as capacity but everything related to node splits and CMTS is definitely capacity-driven.
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

The final replies from incumbents on their respective R&Vs are starting to come in.

This is Bell Canada's response.

(converted to PDF for your convenience)

Bell RV TRP ···ents.pdf
860617 bytes

n3k0
@teksavvy.com

n3k0

Anon

Corrupted?

I can't view it
n3k0

n3k0

Anon

Scratch that. It works now. Sorry, JF.
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

Am reading Bell's submission.

This is one of the better Bell submissions in a long time. They really had to dig up stuff to counter the arguments that MTS and I made.

(I have to wonder how many "lateral taps" really exist in areas that were upgraded to FTTN since copper lengths were reduced and many such taps would no longer exist because they would have been further from homes than the new JWI.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

said by jfmezei:

(I have to wonder how many "lateral taps" really exist in areas that were upgraded to FTTN since copper lengths were reduced and many such taps would no longer exist because they would have been further from homes than the new JWI.

In (sub)urban areas with boulevards and perpendicular streets, a trunk cable along a boulevard can cross quite a few city blocks/streets within the ~800m budget for Fibe25 and each street crossed is one more potential lateral bridge tap.