dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
36

LilGreedy
@bell.ca

LilGreedy to B_Sandiford

Anon

to B_Sandiford

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

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

Ott_Cable

Anon

>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?

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to LilGreedy

Premium Member

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.

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

dillyhammer

Premium Member

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

Sandroid
BSD geek
Premium Member
join:2002-08-08
Anjou, QC

Sandroid to TSI Marc

Premium Member

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.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

said by Sandroid:

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.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by InvalidError:

so TSI doesn't have much actual control over anything.

These days that is becoming ever more apparent.

Why doesn't CNOC bring some proceeding to the CRTC which specifically address mandatory response times, escalation, penalties, mandatory provisioning access (or as close to that as possible), direct access to support systems, etc...?

Let's get this shit out in the open and discussed.

andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario

andyb

Premium Member

They are in proceedings now about some of that.

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

Davesnothere to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by InvalidError:

so TSI doesn't have much actual control over anything.

These days that is becoming ever more apparent.

Why doesn't CNOC bring some proceeding to the CRTC which specifically address mandatory response times, escalation, penalties, mandatory provisioning access (or as close to that as possible), direct access to support systems, etc...?

Let's get this shit out in the open and discussed.

 
Penalties to an incumbent for taking too long on orders from a TPIA partner, I hope you meant.
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

CNOC currently has at least 2 proceedings I know of at the CRTC. They may hve others that were quietly submitted.

You cannot accuse CNOC of not being active and if you'ld like them to tackle other things, you have to give them time to get through the current batch of R&V that came from everyone but me.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by jfmezei:

CNOC currently has at least 2 proceedings I know of at the CRTC. They may hve others that were quietly submitted.

You cannot accuse CNOC of not being active and if you'ld like them to tackle other things, you have to give them time to get through the current batch of R&V that came from everyone but me.

They're a 'professional' organization, right?
Surely (Shirley??) they can manage multiple filings all at the same time, and mounting a PR campaign with MP's to deal with the structure failings of the CRTC and how it is basically toothless vs. the incumbents.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm to andyb

Anon

to andyb
said by MaynardKrebs:

Why doesn't CNOC bring some proceeding to the CRTC which specifically address mandatory response times,

Let's get this shit out in the open and discussed.

said by andyb:

They are in proceedings now about some of that.

In one case Rogers replied saying the fault isn't with them. They state resellers give them info to hook people up, but they have no IP's.

So Rogers is blaming the resellers for this quakery. Which leads to Rogers demanding more money for having to put up with this.

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

1 edit

Davesnothere to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

They're a 'professional' organization, right? [CNOC]

Surely (Shirley??) they can manage multiple filings all at the same time, and mounting a PR campaign with MP's to deal with the structure failings of the CRTC and how it is basically toothless vs. the incumbents.

 
I dunno about Toothless, but mayhaps 'De-Clawed'.

WAIT !

Were we talking about the CRTC ?

Engage the 'Otto-Pilot' !

andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario

andyb to hm

Premium Member

to hm
No.Its rogers demanding 5K worth of IP's for hookups that can only 2k worth of subs max.There are no ip4 address's left so rogers needs to clean up their act or implement ipv6.TSI has probably given them enough ip's to do double the amount of customers they have and more.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

TY for clarifying that.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to Davesnothere

Premium Member

to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

said by MaynardKrebs:

They're a 'professional' organization, right? [CNOC]

Surely (Shirley??) they can manage multiple filings all at the same time, and mounting a PR campaign with MP's to deal with the structure failings of the CRTC and how it is basically toothless vs. the incumbents.

 
I dunno about Toothless, but mayhaps 'De-Clawed'.

WAIT !

Were we talking about the CRTC ?

Engage the 'Otto-Pilot' !

Achtung!!!
Jawohl, Herr Komissioner!!!
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

Achtung!!!
Jawohl, Herr Komissioner!!!

The current chairman was born in Montréal and has no german accent.

andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario

andyb

Premium Member

I dont think its German either.Maybe Hungarian or Polish?

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

1 edit

Davesnothere

Premium Member

 
It's pretty close to what modest amount of German that I know.

But I was making 2 jokes & I think that MK took it all as one.

Wasn't Otto the name of the inflatable Auto-Pilot in the movie Airplane ? (end credits)

Now y'all have me thinking about KvF's Heroes and whistling THAT tune !
grunze510
join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC

grunze510

Member

said by Davesnothere:

Wasn't Otto the name of the inflatable Auto-Pilot in the movie Airplane?

Would you like a little light reading to find the answer to that?

TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON

TwiztedZero

Premium Member

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· x4cyOxWA

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

Davesnothere to grunze510

Premium Member

to grunze510
 
I have the flick saved offline, and yes, that's Otto !

He is also credited at the end.
grunze510
join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC

grunze510

Member

I know, but you missed an (Airplane) joke. And you know what else we missed? The topic.

Katz got a brand new computer with a tetrabyte food processor with 8 gigahertz of RAM. He received Bibic and Depatie's bribe emails so fast that he asked for another bribe.

(there, now we're somewhat back on topic)

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

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by grunze510:

I know, but you missed an (Airplane) joke. And you know what else we missed? The topic.

Katz got a brand new computer with a tetrabyte food processor with 8 gigahertz of RAM. He received Bibic and Depatie's bribe emails so fast that he asked for another bribe.

(there, now we're somewhat back on topic)

 
Now you've got me thinking (smell anything ?).

But is it OK to bribe interim chairpersons ?

And would that even be effective ?

Offer Katz an RV insread of an R&V !
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

Katz is technically litterate.

And I tried to bribe him once with a loonie and he refused. Note that I was not subtle: "can I bribe you with a loonie ?" (with me offering the loonie) and he flatly refused.

So he passed the integrity test as far as I am concerned. Next time, I may up the ante and try with irrestible chocolate cookies.
jfmezei

jfmezei to Davesnothere

Premium Member

to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

 
I have the flick saved offline, and yes, that's Otto !

RIP Otto. He had been staying at the producer's home since the movie, but he was discovered partly decomposed in their garage, the plastic having succombed to time.

As well, Captain Oveur and Doctor Rumack passed away last year (or was it in 2010 ?) (peter graves and leslie nielsen). Doctor Rumack passed away in a hospital ( a large building with sick people in it).

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

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by jfmezei:

Doctor Rumack passed away in a hospital (a large building with sick people in it - BUT THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW....).

 
I still ROFL at how those guys could deadpan deliver the funny lines !

Davesnothere

Davesnothere to jfmezei

Premium Member

to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

....So he passed the integrity test as far as I am concerned....

 
Not really.

It sounds to me like you two are just haggling over the price.

Same punch line applies to the story about the guy offering the girl in the bar increasing amounts of money to go to bed with him.

Gigalo
@videotron.ca

Gigalo

Anon

said by Davesnothere:

applies to the story about the guy offering the girl in the bar increasing amounts of money to go to bed with him.

Sounds like a regular night out after a CRTC hearing... with Bell paying the tab.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to Davesnothere

MVM

to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

I still ROFL at how those guys could deadpan deliver the funny lines !

All the more incredible is that Airplane was his first comedic role. Before then, Nielson was known purely for dramatic roles. The sci-fi nerds among us will remember his starring role in Forbidden Planet, often seen as a precursor to Star Trek