DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6
2 edits | reply to andyb
Re: CNOC's Part 1 Filing on the 703/704 tariffs 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. |
|
|
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | 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.) |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | 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. |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | 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. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply 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. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to Davesnothere
I have now completed my 1st read of today's CNOC letter to CRTC, and I'm impressed in a positive manner.
»/r0/download/1···inal.pdf
Let me just add that CNOC seems to have some very sharp legal minds on their team, IMNSHO. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | 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. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Cable Carrier's response to CNOC: |
|
| 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. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | 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. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Bell Canada's commens on the matter
Converted to PDF for yoru viewing pleasure |
|
mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | 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 BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| said by mlerner: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.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake....... |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Primus has weighted in too ... |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | And now, ladies and germs.... It's the MTS Allstream submission...
Converted from some weird format to .pdf for your viewing convenience. |
|
 roccaStart.caPremium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:12 | reply 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | reply 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. |
|
