jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC 2 edits |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-3 11:40 am
Cable companies' Review and Vary of 2011-703No, it isn't JF that is doing a review and vary of 2011-703, it is the benevolent Shaw. Haven't read it yet. quote: Dear Mr. Traversy: Re: Application to Review and Vary Certain Aspects of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-703; Billing practices for wholesale residential high-speed access services (TRP 2011-703) Pursuant to Section 62 of the Telecommunications Act and section 22 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Rules of Practice and Procedure, Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw) herein files a Part 1 application to review and vary certain aspects of TRP 2011-703.
|
|
jfmezei |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-3 11:53 am
Re: Review and vary of 2011-703quote: The foregoing adjustments will result in revised rates for Shaw's TPIA Services. Following the Commissions determination in this Application, Shaw will submit revised TPIA tariffs, with supporting costing studies, to reflect that determination.
Translation: Shaw promises to fudge numbers to support a favourable decision by the CRTC |
|
|
jfmezei |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-3 11:55 am
Shaw wants the 2011-703 rates to be made interim as of today so that ISPs can be retroactively billed after the CRTC's decision on the matter. |
|
eksterHi there Premium Member join:2010-07-16 Sainte-Anne-De-Bellevue, QC |
ekster
Premium Member
2012-Feb-3 11:57 am
Does Shaw even have any significant TPIA ISPs? I understand if Bell, Videotron or Rogers did it... they have a lot to win. But Shaw has no competition, so why are they doing it? |
|
jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-3 12:01 pm
Cable companies tend to work together. Shaw may have filed it, but I suspect that it was done with the support of Videotron, Cogeco and Rogers. |
|
|
Why not simply ask for capacity based billing? That would get them more cash. |
|
jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-3 12:08 pm
In the case if Videotron and Shaw, I believe that the new cost structure has made TPIA much more interesting. So the cable companies aren't happy with it. |
|
jfmezei |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-3 12:18 pm
So, we got a Part 1 on impementation by CNOC, CNOC promised to also challenge rates in a separate proceeding, and now we have Shaw doing an R&V of the decision (instead of a Part 1 of its own tariffs)
The word "clusterfuck" comes to mind. |
|
|
to jfmezei
Again, a company that can't see the forest for the trees. It's saddening. Videotron is gonna make so much money now that they are getting all of Bell's former DSL subscribers. Instead of being happy they are moaning. Bell in the meantime is happy that they are getting rid of them. It's unbelievable how unhealthy this market is. |
|
andyb Premium Member join:2003-05-29 SW Ontario |
to jfmezei
I patented that word in another thread.Calling homeland security now |
|
|
to alienzzz
So what does this mean for Electronicbox cable? Higher rates in a few months? |
|
jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC |
to andyb
I think Shaw would have been better off submitting new capacity based tariffs with supporting cost studies.
In this filing, they basically admitted that costing is fudged because cable companies expected a certain billing paradigm.
The one valid issue worthy of the R&V is the 10% bonus given to Mirko but not to cable. |
|
jfmezei |
to grunze510
said by grunze510:So what does this mean for Electronicbox cable? Higher rates in a few months? Based solely on this filing and not something which Videotron might file, There is the 10% bonus which might be applied to DOCSIS-3 speeds. (or removed from Bell's FTTN speeds). However, if Videotron decides to jump in and also wants its rates changed, then all bets are off. But as I read the R&V, it seems focused on Shaw FOR NOW. |
|
andyb Premium Member join:2003-05-29 SW Ontario |
to jfmezei
The 10% they should not of got.Was a stupid decision based on fear of "they wont invest anymore" |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:So,
(1) we got a Part 1 on impementation by CNOC (2) CNOC promised to also challenge rates in a separate proceeding, and now we have (3) Shaw doing an R&V of the decision (instead of a Part 1 of its own tariffs)
The word "clusterfuck" comes to mind. Besides rodents trying to displace weather forecasters, is this not also the time of year that Vaxination likes to file major documents ? Could some of the major players simply be smokescreening to distract you from doing so again, by trying filing to cover things you might have wanted to say ? (which CAN be OK, as long as SOMEBODY raises the issues) CNOC comes to mind here. Note that the CNOC has been quicker to the draw lately, and rumour was that they had planned to file something of their own around a year ago, something which might have either been deflected or made redundant by that famous/notorious petition which you submitted. |
|
Davesnothere |
to jfmezei
BTW, what character does Shaw use for abridgement, instead of Bell's beloved ##### strings ? |
|
andyb Premium Member join:2003-05-29 SW Ontario |
andyb
Premium Member
2012-Feb-3 1:12 pm
Same shit as all money grabbers use. the # |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
....which in itself is weird, as one would expect that they would have chosen the $ sign. That's why I rechristened B#ELL to B$ELL a while back. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to jfmezei
This is never going to end. The only way the incumbents are going to be happy,is when all IISP's are gone.
BellSavvy will be the first to fall. |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
The waters are sure Mirko, er, I mean murky, today ! |
|
jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-4 1:36 am
The CRTC file/web site for the Shaw R&V of 2011-703 is at: » www.crtc.gc.ca/part1/eng ··· 1342.htm |
|
jfmezei |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-10 7:06 pm
Things are unraveling... Today, Rogers submitted a Review and Vary of 2011-703 (to the moderators, if you could update the thread title to replace "Shaw" with "Cable companies", it would be appreciated) |
|
jfmezei |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-10 7:08 pm
note to moderators: I would appreciate if you could update the threat title from "Shaw's Review and vary of 2011-703" to
"Cable companies' Review and Vary of 2011-703"
(since there are now multiple R&V from different cable companies) |
|
andyb Premium Member join:2003-05-29 SW Ontario |
andyb
Premium Member
2012-Feb-10 7:21 pm
I was just going to post the rogers shit.Thought I had a post going for it alrady but I couldnt find it.
Anyway these tariffs bring a whole new aspect to the ballgame.Rogers wants service charges for each 100mb for upload and download so say double the fee.How low are these companies going to go?Every day its another tariff to try and gran more money from some obscure point in the rulling.It's down right degrading to me to be a Canadian and have companies stoop to this level.I cannot wait to win a lottery and get the hell out of this country that seems to be coming more and more communist by the day between the government and stupid decisions |
|
andyb |
andyb
Premium Member
2012-Feb-10 7:30 pm
Well seems I was reading the other rogers papers filed today.The R&V just showed up in my mail box.
Clusterfuck is to mellow a word for this.I see more hearings coming and a possible intervention from the government soon |
|
|
Rogers VP
Anon
2012-Feb-10 7:36 pm
so basically what they are saying here is:
Hey CRTC; The money we charge 3rd party internet providers is less than what Bell and Videotron charges. We want our costs to be higher so we can make more money as well and equaly over-charge as all the others. Otherwise it isn't fair.
Best regards,
Rogers VP of Regulatory |
|
Sync join:2012-01-19 Terrebonne, QC |
to jfmezei
Re: Cable companies' Review and Vary of 2011-703It's not a "clusterfuck" it's a "perpetual clusterfuck"
the clusterfuck that never ends |
|
|
to andyb
Re: Review and vary of 2011-703said by andyb:Well seems I was reading the other rogers papers filed today.The R&V just showed up in my mail box.
Clusterfuck is to mellow a word for this.I see more hearings coming and a possible intervention from the government soon At some point the CRTC has to say F off, they can't keep changing tariffs and taking all of their time and resources to review them. |
|
jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Feb-10 8:09 pm
This is just such good submission...
Imagine this, Rogers proactively making upgrades to its network so that end users do not feel any congestion and to remove the need for downstream throttling !
Imagine this, Rogers claiming it replaces its CMTS every 4 years. Yeah. sure. probably the result of a one time upgrade to support DOCSIS3.
Oh, and I like the one about Rogers *often* having to deal with a shortage of IPs funished by TPIA ISPs.
Imagine this, at the hearings last summer, the incumbers all said they don't do 95th percentile, but when it comes to spilling the beans on network management here, they admit to using it extensively.
Oh, and an interesting one at the very end: Rogers wants to maintain interim aggregated POI rates (the ones in effect last summer when Rogers refused new ISPs) until its R&V is done.
So, will Videotron now file one too ? |
|
andyb Premium Member join:2003-05-29 SW Ontario |
andyb
Premium Member
2012-Feb-10 8:14 pm
Start your filing against it JF.Dont forget to mention the 5,000 or so ip's rogers requires for each connection point that only holds 2,000.Or the fact brantford as far as I know has never replaced any CMTS's.And for sure mention the we dont do 95th but.. |
|