In other words - lying to an Administrative tribunal is ok when you have the last word.

At the moment, the Bell R&V's record is closed. Should the Commission start an interrogatory, then there would be a way to place comments. Otherwise, there is no official way to pass comments back to the CRTC.

(I have to wonder how many "lateral taps" really exist in areas that were upgraded to FTTN since copper lengths were reduced and many such taps would no longer exist because they would have been further from homes than the new JWI.

But this is part of the last mile and would be "charged" to the last mile access rate. Not the capacity rate.

Surely, with DOCSIS3 line bonding, Cisco would be offering upstream line cards that can handle more capacity instead of getting cable companies to fill their CMTS cabinet with upstream line cards capable of only 10mbps total throughput ?

It doesn't cost the cable companies more to carry upload on the coax. It is just more rationed via the low upload speeds.

It doesn't cost the cable companies more to carry upload on the coax. It is just more rationed via the low upload speeds.

And from the CMTS to the ISP, the networks would be symmetrical, and provisioned to handle the far greater download traffic , so the upload fits very comfortably in existing capacity.

The one thing which I could safely say that I would 'trust' Bell to do would be THAT. :p

....there certainly is a potential to prove the need for differentiated billing between upstream and downstream, due to the fundamental technical difference between cable and DSL in that regard.

But regardless of that, we are looking at the proverbial 'thin edge of the wedge' of a dangerous precedent, if ANY provider convinces CRTC to allow THAT to happen, no matter what the alleged justification for doing so.

Call it what it is, rather than couching it in euphemism - THEY'RE F!CKING LYING!!

Some other highlights are paragraph 14, and then 17 thru 20 or further, beginning "Bell also makes disingenuous assertions...."

Humm, Rogers' Quebecor's response implies that Rogers intends to charge SEPARATELY for upstream and downstream 100Mbps increments....

One of the draw back of being anon is no editing....

May be if the detailed costing were....

quote:

---

46. Bell's real complaint appears to be that their 'detailed cost information' was not compelling enough to be accepted by the Commission. (MY emphasis)

---

quote:

---

6. For example, while Bell may not agree with the Commission's determinations to exclude network developing and conditioning costs incurred prior to July 2011, Bell's disagreement does not cast doubt on the application of an established basic costing principle by the Commission.

Similarly, while Bell may not agree with the results of the adjustment, the Commission fully and appropriately acted within its discretion in making the adjustments to the capital unit costs.

Nor does Bell's disagreement bring into question the appropriateness of adjustments made by the Commission that are consistent with those made in other proceedings, such as the utilization of a 10 year study period and the consideration of other ILEC costs in setting DSLAM labour costs.

7. It is also clear that Bell’s R&V application also relies on arguments that are largely facsimiles of the arguments put forward in the process that led to TRP 2011-703.

Accordingly, the adjustments disputed by Bell received full and explicit consideration in that proceeding.

8. Accordingly, for all of the reasons set out herein, Primus requests that the Commission deny Bell’s R&V application in its entirety.

---

quote:

---

35. The Commission did not ignore the cost information placed on the record of the proceeding by the Bell Companies; the Commission simply disagreed with it in the end, based on a number of relevant considerations, which is something the Commission was entitled to do. (MY emphasis)

---

....So the NID thing is very true and again total bullshit. I didn't think of this. Good point.

quote:

---

15. Third, Bell’s application of eligible conditioning costs includes the replacement of terminals at the demarcation point of customer premises or demarcation devices, sometimes known as Network Interface Devices (NIDs).

Bell has been installing NIDs on installations and repair visits for more than twenty years, and the original justification for doing so was the transferal of ownership of inside wiring to customers.

---

I also *love* how MTS keeps spitting and spitting on Bell.

Plus they own a network based on an identical technology, so these guys know what they are talking about....

quote:

---

14. Further, to the extent that Bell encounters bridge tap when installing HSI, the cable was likely placed in the 70s or earlier and has been fully depreciated...

---

quote:

---

15. Third, Bell’s application of eligible conditioning costs includes the replacement of terminals at the demarcation point of customer premises or demarcation devices, sometimes known as Network Interface Devices (NIDs).

Bell has been installing NIDs on installations and repair visits for more than twenty years, and the original justification for doing so was the transferal of ownership of inside wiring to customers.

The cost of placing these devices, even if placed during a visit to install HSI, is causal to the provision of primary exchange services (PES), not HSI.

In the event that the Commission determines it is appropriate to include NID placement as a cost causal to HSI, it cannot be double counted in Bell’s cost recovery for PES, and the occurrence rate for NID placement should be reduced going forward compared to the rates claimed in the past.

---

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 love MTS allstream.

quote:

---

Further, to the extent that Bell encounters bridge tap when installing HSI, the cable was likely placed in the 70s or earlier and has been fully depreciated and retired from service according to Bell’s depreciation studies and costing methodology. Again, as the Phase II cost is a forward-looking estimate, it is inappropriate and illogical to include any costs attributable to plant that, according to Bell’s methodology, has already been replaced.

---