dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
12
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei to TSI Marc

Premium Member

to TSI Marc

Re: Cable companies' Review and Vary of 2011-703

OK, I am putting then here even though Bell is not a cable company, It also R&Ved the 703 decision.
jfmezei

jfmezei

Premium Member

I'll post the Comments on the Rogers R&V later after I got some sleep. Didn't get to file on it.

I LOLd
@videotron.ca

I LOLd to jfmezei

Anon

to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

OK, I am putting then here even though Bell is not a cable company, It also R&Ved the 703 decision.

Sounds like you adequately summed up what we discussed here.

Seems like you gave up writing half way through your filing lol I especially like this part (paraphrased):

*reference: The commission can contact me for it, I'm to f'n tired to include it.
I LOLd

I LOLd to jfmezei

Anon

to jfmezei
Good. Seems everyone is more or less stating what we stated here in regards to the bullshit "line conditioning".

I liked how CNOC start off their filing to the CRTC:

It starts off like this:

Dear CRTC:
Bell is gaming the system with inflated new costs and embellished arguments to fill their coffers for absolutely nothing. This is nothing new.

Best regards,

Bill of CNOC

heh, I wonder if that Bill guy laughs out loud when he reads his own filings? I would

+1

More LOLs
@videotron.ca

More LOLs to jfmezei

Anon

to jfmezei
Click for full size
MTS to the CRTC
This is getting better and better the more I read.

MTS even drew the CRTC a picture! I can't stop laughing at Bell.

Again LOL
@videotron.ca

Again LOL to jfmezei

Anon

to jfmezei
LOL even Primus made me laugh:

Dear CRTC:

Yes. Bell made investments 1.5 years ago for the benift of us wholesalers and for the benefit of their beloved customers.

Yes.

Get a clue.

Best regards,

Primus.

Damn I bet everyone involved shared many chuckles with these filings!

All except Shaw, which says everything Bell stated is true. We need to charge wholesalers more.

I haven't had a good telecom chuckle in a long time!

TY!

BACONATOR26
Premium Member
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON

BACONATOR26 to More LOLs

Premium Member

to More LOLs
Telus looks dirt cheap in comparison (alongside MTS of course). That ought to ruffle a few feathers.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by BACONATOR26:

Telus looks dirt cheap in comparison (alongside MTS of course). That ought to ruffle a few feathers.

Yes. The CRTC will have to raise everyone's rates to match Bell's unless they want to get into a pissing match with the incumbents.

I wonder how much stomach for that Katz has given that his term expires this fall.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt to More LOLs

Member

to More LOLs
said by More LOLs :

This is getting better and better the more I read.

MTS even drew the CRTC a picture! I can't stop laughing at Bell.

I was somewhat disappointed that the commentary on the right margin wasn't actually in the filing.

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

1 edit

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by bt:

said by More LOLs :

This is getting better and better the more I read.

MTS even drew the CRTC a picture! I can't stop laughing at Bell.

I was somewhat disappointed that the commentary on the right margin wasn't actually in the filing.

 
We could submit the annotated graph as an errata correction, spoofing the contact email of the original sender.

It might still reach the CRTC exec's desks.

And/or could it be sent as an attachment to a tweet from an account, or with a hashtag, one which we expect that CRTC follows ?

Doable, anybody ?

= = = = = = = =

OK, sitting down now to read these DOCs - sitting is closer to the floor if I anticipate ROFL.

it is
@videotron.ca

it is to bt

Anon

to bt
said by bt:

said by More LOLs :

This is getting better and better the more I read.

MTS even drew the CRTC a picture! I can't stop laughing at Bell.

I was somewhat disappointed that the commentary on the right margin wasn't actually in the filing.

Oh, it is. It may not be labelled as such in those exact words, but that is basically what they said.