| reply to jfmezei
Re: CNOC R&V of CRTC 2011-703 and CRTC 2011-704 said by jfmezei:I'd say that CNOC is definitly putting its money where its mouth is.
Maybe they should be putting fiber where their mouth is instead so they don't have to continue to subsidize the legal industry.
As long as the CRTC is constituted as it is, with its mandate and governance model as it is, CNOC will be spending tons of money on 'experts' from the meagre margins its members earn, and the state of competition in the retail internet access market will be abyssmal. |
|
|
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | The CNOC R&V is a solid document that raises many very valid issues and there is a lot of meat to bite into.
The CRTC may not be perfect, but you know how it works, even some unimportant person like me can make a difference.
This isn't a "daddy, it hurts, please fix it" organisation. You need to provide evidence of the problem and evidence of the best solution. Many say the CRTC's structure should be changed from an administrative tribunal to something that can take initiatives on its own. I doubt very much that the current government would be opened to such a discussion.
The incumbents have traditionally been experts at this. They even convinced the CRTC that there should be a touch tone fee when in fact, it is the old pulse dial which costs more than touch tone.
Since 2008, I think that the ISPs learned and learned and are now in a situation where they have significant power with the CRTC to balance out the incumbent's propaganda. |
|
| said by jfmezei:They even convinced the CRTC that there should be a touch tone fee when in fact, it is the old pulse dial which costs more than touch tone. Touch tone is still a lot more "expensive" than pulse when implemented on DSPs for digital phone switches: you can decode pulse dialing with only a few dozen bytes of assembly code and a few bytes of RAM consisting only of counters while you need to perform an FFT or FIR filtering to decode touch-tone which requires more code, more memory and fancier math.
The only time where pulse was genuinely more expensive than touch-tone is back when they still used electromechanical decoders for it. When telephony went digital (PSTN), lines started getting processed through DSPs and dedicated dialing processing for both formats quickly became history. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to m3chen
said by m3chen:Love the "2 words" part of your post! You know things are messed up when JF says that.
Sigh, I long for the days when Bell actually wanted customers and worked hard to get them.
JF didn't say that - the RedBull did. 
As for your LONGing, the LONG and short of it is that it'll be a LONG time before THAT happens, and I doubt that it ever DID in the past.
Bell used to have ad ad hook 'We'll EARN your business !", back in the 90's, LONG before Frank & Gordon were hired.
It was a LONG shot to call it truthful back then, and still is now, IMNSHO.
I liked Shellie LONG's role on Cheers. 
--
"It's COLD in here, Mister (Premier) McGuilty !   - PLEASE, could I have just a wee piece of COAL for the fire ?"
-
NEW eBOX Forum ! (on DSLR) »ELECTRONICBOX
|
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:I've heard some ineresting information today. CNOC is to raise money by selling CNOC branded underwear and socks. Seems that participating in the CRTC at the level they are doesn't come cheap.
Someone asked about how much those studies such as the 2 that CNOC included in its R&V cost. From what I heard: between $30,000 and $50,000 for studies of that type. (not sure about those specific ones)....
At least it's not 49.77 Gazillion.
Must be like those pricey thousand$$ per plate fundraiser dinners where an interesting outside keynote speaker gets hired.
JF, soon, that speaker could even be YOU !  |
|
| reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by jfmezei:They even convinced the CRTC that there should be a touch tone fee when in fact, it is the old pulse dial which costs more than touch tone. Touch tone is still a lot more "expensive" than pulse when implemented on DSPs for digital phone switches: you can decode pulse dialing with only a few dozen bytes of assembly code and a few bytes of RAM consisting only of counters while you need to perform an FFT or FIR filtering to decode touch-tone which requires more code, more memory and fancier math. I think that 'code' became fully amortized back around 1978. |
|
| said by MaynardKrebs:I think that 'code' became fully amortized back around 1978. It has probably been rewritten hundreds if not thousands of times since the first digital switches due to having dozens of manufacturers and many generations of platforms. Even if someone wrote a FOSS dialing decoder library, there would still be costs associated with integrating and testing it in your own application, so still not quite completely free nor fully amortized. |
|
| I *think* you understand that there is no valid reason on this earth that anyone today should be forced to pay $2.80/month for touch tone service.
Say Bell has 10MM touch tone lines in service - not an unreasonable number, and probably low. That's $28MM/MONTH or well over $300MM per year in fees for something that might - on a bad day - cost them $100k/year to support (seeing as they don't write the software anyway). |
|
| They charge the touch tone fees because they can and still can.
There is really no actual cost associated with it as the DSP hardware/resource is always there on the line card whether or not the subscribers uses it. Touch tone decoding is only being used for that brief 10 seconds or so for a call anyways.
It is actually cheaper for them to use the same linecard to handle pulse dial because they don't have to have a different inventory or wired the CO differently. There is a lot of cost savings on the manufacturing side from not carry a different configuration and volume discounts on parts. |
|
| said by Ott_Cable :There is really no actual cost associated with it as the DSP hardware/resource is always there on the line card whether or not the subscribers uses it. Someone still has to code, integrate, test and maintain that stuff regardless of the underlying DSP and regardless of the feature being used only seconds per year... the cost is incurred by the mere existence of the feature which should have been amortized to pennies/line/year by now. A tiny cost but still not free.
said by Ott_Cable :It is actually cheaper for them to use the same linecard to handle pulse dial because they don't have to have a different inventory or wired the CO differently. Try to find line cards that support only one method... there probably hasn't been any in production for over 20 years.
But what do hardware manufacturers do when the functionality becomes mainly a function of their software rather than anything unique about the hardware? They start making everything a feature license where you often have options to either buy an entire option pack or pay a hefty premium for options a-la-carte. Same hardware yet potentially completely different functions. |
|
| DMS linecards have been on sustaining (aka maintenance only) for ages. It was sold off to some other outfits long before Nortel went tits up.
Bell would pay an annual maintenance fee to whoever now responsible the service contract and really not directly involved in the actual testing, integration etc work. At the end of the day, they are probably charged a lump sum for the basic features including touch tone and whatever additional software features that they are licensed for. |
|
| said by Ott_Cable :Bell would pay an annual maintenance fee to whoever now responsible the service contract and really not directly involved in the actual testing, integration etc work. Who does the work is irrelevant, the costs still get passed on to end-users one way or the other. The real question would be about how much of a license fee Bell still pays whoever bought the DMS rights for touch-tone license if they still pay something for it. |
|
| You won't get an answer here. Even you dig enough in Bell's financial report, it would be bury in the maintenance cost along with some other items.
DMS is sold world wide and not just to BCE, so it would be worth while to take a look at how other Telco charge their customers on Touch Tone access. That should tell you whether or not it is charged separately.
Just like cable service, I would be surprise BCE get to pick and choose the stuff in basic feature set. |
|
| reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by Ott_Cable :Bell would pay an annual maintenance fee to whoever now responsible the service contract and really not directly involved in the actual testing, integration etc work. Who does the work is irrelevant, the costs still get passed on to end-users one way or the other. The real question would be about how much of a license fee Bell still pays whoever bought the DMS rights for touch-tone license if they still pay something for it. $50-100MM/year in licence fees for touch tone, even after allowing for a 300-600% markup by Bell?
Yeah right. |
|
| reply to Ott_Cable
said by Ott_Cable :DMS is sold world wide and not just to BCE, so it would be worth while to take a look at how other Telco charge their customers on Touch Tone access. That should tell you whether or not it is charged separately. Not necessarily since any company always has the option of including costs in their standard fee instead of itemizing stuff that makes little to no sense like the "digital" and "HD" fees some cablecos charge. For most intents and purposes, those are "because we can" fees more than having any relation with costs much like touch-tone. |
|
| So, can PIAC make an application on behalf of consumers to have the touch tone fee removed? |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | There have been a flury of letters about how to process the number of R&Vs (there is even one I was not aware of from a comapny called Telesave).
Parties that have filed applications include: Rogers Communications Partnership (Rogers), Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of itself and its affiliate Videotron G.P. (Videotron), Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw), Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (collectively, “Bell”), MTS Allstream, Telesave Communications Ltd. (Telesave) and Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC).
Cogeco has a very interesting snippet in their letter today:
quote:
The reality is that the wholesale access and capacity rates approved by the Commission in Decision 2011- 703 have already created an incentive for ISPs to invest and offer competitive high speed Internet services. Actually, since the issuance of this decision, five ISPs have requested to be interconnected at the Cogeco aggregated POIs in Ontario and Québec
|
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
Mirko: We are going to eliminate the Touch Tone fee.
Consumers: Yay!
Mirko: We are going raise the monthly fees by $5
CRTC: Approve!
Consumers: #####
Moral of the story: Let sleeping dogs lie.
Every time Mirko files a new tariff, he raises the overall price. |
|
 LiQuiDBSD geekPremium
join:2002-08-08
Anjou, QC | reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:Have you tried building your own infrastructure? I have and so have many other CNOC members. The barriers to entry are astronomical and even if you manage to pull it off the incumbent will cut their retail rates to below your costs and run you out of business. There have already been a number of such examples. There is absolutely nothing protecting us and even if there was, we would *need* those higher margins just to build out. Past that, assuming you'd have it your way, you would then have 3 players in that area competing for 1/3 of that market which is cost prohibitive when you have to build out 100% of that market. Then you have to deal with rights of ways, digging up streets... Renting hydro poles from competitors at unreasonable rates. Stall tactics...
I'm sorry but to me, reading comments like yours infuriate me. For the past few years, at great cost, we've tried to find ways to 'own up' if you will and it's simply not possible at the present time. We've built a fiber plant, we've installed wireless infrastructure, we've invested in CO access only to have rates jacked up and on and on.. You don't seem to appreciate the degree to which we are all enslaved. We need to win these battles at the CRTC in order to make things better for everybody. In order to level the playing field.. Even billionaires are bailing on Canada. Even some incumbents are not building out wireless infrastructure. This is a serious problem. I urge you to dig a bit deeper in your analysis. In the real world as you put it, those of us who are counting the penny's, know what the problems are. We need your support if we're going to make a difference.
Oh please. Poor you, you have to make capital investment in your business and there's a risk that it doesn't succeed. That is so much riskier than general entrepreneurship. Give me a break. Actually Marc, you should have done your homework a little before making such statements. Sure, building out your entire network to each home is expensive, and is a reproduction of existing infrastructure which is highly inefficient (and *ugly*). But many before, and since, you guys started up have gone the route of building up locally using only the actual last mile of the incumbent and have done so with success - even without access to the remotes (I worked at two such ISP's FYI). Sure - you can't build out all over Quebec and Ontario this way, but then... it's not like Bell did that for free either (unlike what many will have people believe).
Instead of fighting for mandating/centralizing/opening/whatever access to subloops from within the CO, you and other ISP's like you are fighting to get a big piece of the pie, but not paying for the convenience. It's like walking into a fine restaurant and complaining that dinner for two plus wine is 150$ when you can do the same at home for 30$. The restaurant keeps you from having to DO it all, and even saves you the trouble of doing dishes. How can you say "oh this is too expensive" or "this isn't fair" when Bell is giving you the keys to THE ENTIRE NETWORK for DSL right now? If you don't like it, that other poster is correct, you do have options. While the initial investment costs more - why don't you share with everyone just how little the LDDS rate is in urban areas (which is where it makes sense to do it on your own)? If this access network of Bell's is really as cheap as you and your likes say, and given that LDDS is less than 10$ a month (in urban areas - don't know elsewhere), you should be able to recoup your capital investment pretty quickly - it's just not as easy as making a little money with minimal investment - and that's what this is all about, easy money is always going to be too easy, and prevent others from taking risks to differentiate.
And yeah, when Teksavvy finally had to build out more of their own network and worry about the logistics of it, and the added expenses, how did that turn out? Seems like the Teksavvy Cable experiment in Rogers-land isn't working out so great is it based on reviews. The price you pay to bell in part covers the convenience of not having to deal with all that crap.
--
Windows is the virus. Linux is the vaccine, FreeBSD is the CURE |
|
| said by LiQuiD:Seems like the Teksavvy Cable experiment in Rogers-land isn't working out so great is it based on reviews. Mostly because Rogers keeps fudging it up with delays and screw-ups nearly every step of the way. Although TSI may have to order upgrades on a per-POI basis, Rogers is still the one managing everything between the subscribers and TSI's 10G links to Rogers' network so TSI doesn't have much actual control over anything. |
|
