dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11421
share rss forum feed


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

3 edits
reply to jfmezei

Re: CNOC R&V of CRTC 2011-703 and CRTC 2011-704

said by jfmezei:

....Bell Canada would never ever submit exaggerated numbers, just like the pet shop owner would never ever sell a dead parrot. (it's just stunned !) ....

 
Actually, JF, the more appropriate Python sketch for this situation would be the one where the newlywed couple is shopping for the bed, in which every number that the salesman says is 4 times what he really means.

However, in THIS version of the sketch, the CRTC is playing the role of the young couple, and nobody else at the store has bothered to warn them about the salesman's weird idiosyncracy, so the CRTC and their accountants unwittingly accept his inflated statements of the prices as factual, BUY the BED, and go upon their merry ways.

And for anyone who needs a refresher on the procedure :

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpn1anVPZsc


or

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGEeLtqtNvU


PierrePoutin

@videotron.ca

said by Davesnothere:

However, in THIS version of the sketch, the CRTC is playing the role of the young couple, and nobody else at the store has bothered to warn them about the salesman's weird idiosyncracy, so the CRTC and their accountants accept his numbers as fact, BUY the BED, and go upon their merry ways.

More correctly the CRTC has already bought a bed a year before, and now they are buying one at 4.5x what they paid before and did nothing to question it.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

2 edits

said by PierrePoutin :

More correctly, the CRTC has already bought a bed a year before, and now they are buying one at 4.5x what they paid before and did nothing to question it.

 
Hey, cut the CRTC some slack here !

They are educated people.

The problem is that since they bought the earlier bed from the same store, they would not know this, as the same salesman has worked there for many years (owner's nephew, y'know), and has always had this problem in expressing himself.

Who KNOWS just how many pieces of furniture they have bought there over the the long haul, for each of which they have paid similarly inflated prices ?!


File Me

@videotron.ca

ok, so where is JF's filing?


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
reply to PierrePoutin

Because of the nature of the CRTC, they sort of have to accept any evidence that is not challenged. And since we can't challenge the costs, it becomes hard for the CRTC to disbelieve what Bell tells them.

It seems that the CRTC went easy on the incumbents and didn't want to stirr the pot too much. They know that the more agressive they are at producing lower rates, the higher the chances of incumbents doing an R&V or going to papa with a petition to governor in council.

I think that for 703/704, the CRTC gave us the rate structure we wanted, but went easy on the incumbents for pricing. But going easy on incumbents wasn't enough and now they are faced with a gazillion R&Vs.


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by jfmezei:

But going easy on incumbents wasn't enough and now they are faced with a gazillion R&Vs.

Going easy is not the problem, doing the wrong adjustments in the wrong places and denying costs that they shouldn't have is... that's where they set themselves up for R&Vs.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

Perhaps this set of R&V was inevitable and the CRTC knew they would be coming.

At the end of the day, many of the costs had been submitted based on UBB rates. So incumbents had fudged the numbers that way and converting them to capacity based resulted in inacurate numbers.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to jfmezei

said by jfmezei:

Because of the nature of the CRTC, they sort of have to accept any evidence that is not challenged. And since we can't challenge the costs, it becomes hard for the CRTC to disbelieve what Bell tells them.

It seems that the CRTC went easy on the incumbents and didn't want to stirr the pot too much. They know that the more agressive they are at producing lower rates, the higher the chances of incumbents doing an R&V or going to papa with a petition to governor in council....

 
I just KNEW that there was something missing in all of this hUBBub !

We need a Petition.

And CRTC needs to view the Python 'Buying a Bed' sketch and THEN they might understand what is happening.

Mirko is Bell's version of that SALESMAN !


PierrePoutin

@videotron.ca
reply to Telnet_Bill

I'm reading the CNOC filing now and I see they have not made reference to the deferral account. I don't know why they haven't. Though the picked up on the 4X higher numbers that Bell filed (actually it's 4.5x higher, not 4x).

The state the obvious; How the CRTC neglect its mandate in regards to the protection of the end-user (consumers) from these fabricated rates submitted by the vultures Bell, Rogers and Videotron (and cogeco is in there as well).

They state Bell has instituted a mandatory bell modem rental at inflated costs, thus making Bell modems an ensured monopoly for Bell and a set income given to Bell sanctioned by the CRTC.

Personally I think the consumers union should butt in on this part and heck, maybe start a class-action. Similar happened in the states and it went class-action and the people won.

With Bells buying power I highly doubt they are even paying 50$/modem, then charging people 8$/month + tax for eternity.



LilGreedy

@bell.ca
reply to Telnet_Bill

Looks to me like CNOC might be being a bit greedy. Their members already can make lots of $$$ under the new structure, they just want a lot more.

The new structure should create the incentive for these providers to roll out their own infrastructure but instead they want to whine for the government to mandate higher profit margins for them.

Time for these organizations to get leaner if they want more profit, or to build out their own infrastructure if they don't like the fees the incumbents set. (just like in the real world, if you don't like what your supplier is charging, pick a new supplier or do it yourself.)



Ott_Cable

@teksavvy.com

>Looks to me like CNOC might be being a bit greedy. Their members already can make lots of $$$ under the new structure, they just want a lot more.

Given that CNOC members are slightly cheaper than Bell retail but offer much higher usage allowance, it follows that Bell is making a shit ton more money. May be you should redirect your effort and complain about Bell's retail pricing instead?


HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to Telnet_Bill

If using a low density rural network as the basis for calculating costs for CBB transport yielded significantly lower prices than what the CRTC mandated for CBB, imagine what the costs would be in higher density urban areas...

Just sayin'......
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


freejazz_RdJ

join:2009-03-10
kudos:1

But that is a fictitious efficient operator in the theoretical study. A legacy carrier certainly isn't going to be a paragon of efficiency or do anything in the "least cost" manner. Prediction: The cost difference per 100mbps is going to be mostly higher capital and expense and perhaps somewhat higher margins.

At least CNOC isn't timid with a list of demands itemized A through L. Will be fascinating to see how this circus of concurrent R&Vs proceeds.



PierrePoutin

@videotron.ca
reply to HeadSpinning

Start-up costs should remain the same. There should not be a 210-million dollar difference.

Also, if what you say is true (let's assume), then that means every rural resident is over paying by extremely gross amounts.


HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to freejazz_RdJ

said by freejazz_RdJ:

But that is a fictitious efficient operator in the theoretical study. A legacy carrier certainly isn't going to be a paragon of efficiency or do anything in the "least cost" manner.

So we need to get rid of these inefficient behemoths... for the sake of the Canadian consumer.

Edit: What's the difference between Jurassic Park and Bell Canada? One of them is a high tech theme park inhabited by dinosaurs. The other is a move.

--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


PierrePoutin

@videotron.ca
reply to PierrePoutin

said by PierrePoutin :

They state Bell has instituted a mandatory bell modem rental at inflated costs, thus making Bell modems an ensured monopoly for Bell and a set income given to Bell sanctioned by the CRTC.

Personally I think the consumers union should butt in on this part and heck, maybe start a class-action. Similar happened in the states and it went class-action and the people won.

Digging more into the Modem issue, I am somewhat surprised that Telnet_Bill (ie CNOC) did not quote Canadian Competition laws found on the Canadian Competition Bureaus website.

Tied selling. Competition Act, section 77: “’tied selling’ means (a) any practice whereby a supplier of a product, as a condition of supplying the product (the ‘tying’ product) to a customer, requires that customer to (i) acquire any other product from the supplier or the supplier’s nominee, or (ii) refrain from using or distributing, in conjunction with the tying product, another product that is not of a brand or manufacture designated by the supplier or the nominee, and (b) any practice whereby a supplier of a product induces a customer to meet a condition set out in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii) by offering to supply the tying product to the customer on more favourable terms or conditions if the customer agrees to meet the condition set out in either of those subparagraphs.” Northern Pacific Railway v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958): Tying is “an agreement by a party to sell one product [the tying product] but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier.” “[Tying arrangements] deny competitors free access to the market for the tied product, not because the party imposing the tying requirements has a better product or lower price but because of his power or leverage in another market. At the same time buyers are forced to forego their free choice between competing products.”

I am 100% certain that this modem issue can (and should be) a class action.

Someone with a Bell reseller should contact the consumers union.

freejazz_RdJ

join:2009-03-10
kudos:1
reply to HeadSpinning

said by HeadSpinning:

So we need to get rid of these inefficient behemoths... for the sake of the Canadian consumer.

Edit: What's the difference between Jurassic Park and Bell Canada? One of them is a high tech theme park inhabited by dinosaurs. The other is a move.

But the CRTC doesn't have that direct power: it isn't a management dictatorship. It is a regulator. It doesn't have the power to micromanage the operators. It can only encourage more efficient operators to enter the market and substitute the costlier incumbent inputs with alternate facilities.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5

said by freejazz_RdJ:

But the CRTC doesn't have that direct power: it isn't a management dictatorship. It is a regulator. It doesn't have the power to micromanage the operators. It can only encourage more efficient operators to enter the market and substitute the costlier incumbent inputs with alternate facilities.

The CRTC doesn't even use their power to regulate. They basically took the incumbent's word for their costs, tweaked them a bit then regurgitated out the CBB rates.

They didn't seem to even take in to account the wild disparity between the various costs, such as Bell and MTSA.

Yes, I agree the CRTC needs to encourage more efficient operators - but the incumbents, no matter what you think, have a huge advantage in that they own the access network.

Sure I can go co-locate in a CO and access copper loops - but I can't access subloops. I don't have the advantage of 125+ years of layering up and growing my network in steps.

The CRTC may not have the direct power to effect change, but they can at least be more effective with the tools they DO have.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to LilGreedy

said by LilGreedy :

Looks to me like CNOC might be being a bit greedy. Their members already can make lots of $$$ under the new structure, they just want a lot more.

The new structure should create the incentive for these providers to roll out their own infrastructure but instead they want to whine for the government to mandate higher profit margins for them.

Time for these organizations to get leaner if they want more profit, or to build out their own infrastructure if they don't like the fees the incumbents set. (just like in the real world, if you don't like what your supplier is charging, pick a new supplier or do it yourself.)

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.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to PierrePoutin

said by PierrePoutin :

I am 100% certain that this modem issue can (and should be) a class action.

For it to be tied selling, the modem would have to be an otherwise unrelated and unnecessary product. Here, the modem is a very closely related if not integral component of the service much like STBs on digital cable, satellite or IPTV.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

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.

+1

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Make The Switch - »openmedia.ca/switch


want2know

@videotron.ca
reply to Telnet_Bill

I know this may be obviously private info, but, Telnet_Bill, can you give us a ballpark figure of what those two reports cost? It's been bugging me...


LastDon

join:2002-08-13
London, ON
reply to HeadSpinning

said by HeadSpinning:

The CRTC doesn't even use their power to regulate. They basically took the incumbent's word for their costs, tweaked them a bit then regurgitated out the CBB rates.

They didn't seem to even take in to account the wild disparity between the various costs, such as Bell and MTSA.

Yes, I agree the CRTC needs to encourage more efficient operators - but the incumbents, no matter what you think, have a huge advantage in that they own the access network.

Sure I can go co-locate in a CO and access copper loops - but I can't access subloops. I don't have the advantage of 125+ years of layering up and growing my network in steps.

The CRTC may not have the direct power to effect change, but they can at least be more effective with the tools they DO have.

Don't forget the tax breaks and the tax payers money that helped build bells network.

Imagine the government giving tax break or public funding to another company to build a new network..

Not sure how well that would pass


Ott_Cable

@teksavvy.com

and not to mention their equipment on people's property (e.g. lawn, backyard etc) without paying rents...



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to HeadSpinning

said by HeadSpinning:

....Edit :

What's the difference between Jurassic Park and Bell Canada ?

One of them is a high tech theme park inhabited by dinosaurs.

The other is a movie.

 
Craig Ferguson would be proud ! - (he likes that kind of curve-ball)


PierrePoutin

@videotron.ca
reply to InvalidError

said by InvalidError:

For it to be tied selling, the modem would have to be an otherwise unrelated and unnecessary product.

From my understanding there are some people using CISCO modems, and it works.

I do believe these people can be found n the TSI forum.

bbiab

join:2004-05-26
reply to Telnet_Bill

I wonder if it were put to CRTC and they weren't playing politics, would the ideal be 2/3 for the duopoly and 1/3 for the independents. And if they could recognize this would they then do a better job trying to get us there?


freejazz_RdJ

join:2009-03-10
kudos:1
reply to HeadSpinning

said by HeadSpinning:

The CRTC doesn't even use their power to regulate. They basically took the incumbent's word for their costs, tweaked them a bit then regurgitated out the CBB rates.

They didn't seem to even take in to account the wild disparity between the various costs, such as Bell and MTSA.

Yes, I agree the CRTC needs to encourage more efficient operators - but the incumbents, no matter what you think, have a huge advantage in that they own the access network.

Sure I can go co-locate in a CO and access copper loops - but I can't access subloops. I don't have the advantage of 125+ years of layering up and growing my network in steps.

The CRTC may not have the direct power to effect change, but they can at least be more effective with the tools they DO have.

I understand the issue with establishing competing facilities. I too would like a more efficient operator. And I've witnessed the rise and fall of CLECs, so I know it isn't easy. But at the end of the day, if Bell has paid $5000 for a concrete pad, they've paid $5K for a concrete pad and it should be recoverable. If the disparity in costs in due to wild disparities in design complexity, supplier rates, etc but those are the true costs incurred, then the rates are fair in that they have a foundation in costs. If they have inflated the number, that isn't OK. Let them (CRTC) send the data (invoices) to an independent (ie. not a competitor) auditor and have it verified. I don't expect they will hand competitors their costs however.

I'm still re-reading all of the paperwork filed in all the R&V's, but what does stand out so far is the CNOC AGI report in which we are told that high peak use ISPs will have higher costs. Shocking! That should come as nor surprise. Didn't the ISPs want a capacity model in the first place?

freejazz_RdJ

join:2009-03-10
kudos:1
reply to LastDon

said by LastDon:

Don't forget the tax breaks and the tax payers money that helped build bells network.

Imagine the government giving tax break or public funding to another company to build a new network..

Not sure how well that would pass

Uh, they did get taxpayer money to help build their network? Nobody has ever show this to be the case. The only tax money they received was for rural broadband or connected community contracts which was always put out for bids. If Bell won, it is because nobody else beat their bid.

For the anon, lots of utilities get easements. If competitors were to build facilities, they too would get easements. It isn't a unique advantage available only to incumbents.


Ott_Cable

@teksavvy.com

My point isn't Incumbents vs competitors getting their encasement.

Even the Canadian government have to compensate for expropriated property. Why does Bell get away with these encasement without compensating the land owners? To say that they get to build their facilities without the public is not quite true there.