DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its AdvantagesPremium
|reply to jfmezei |
JF's Comments about Bell's R&V
On this one, JF has taken a different approach than MTS, CNOC, and Primus, who each in their own way have offered the CRTC very clear and compelling reasons to refuse Bell's R&V of 2011-703.
JF has not suggested yea or nay on Bell's R&V, but instead has submitted some glossaries of terms, a series of questions which would need to be asked of Bell, and some suggestions as to alternatives, which, as finely honed as the other 3's negative comments about Bell's submission were, they did not do much of this, if any at all.
The answers to some of JF's questions will serve to reinforce in the CRTC's collective minds that Bell's R&V submission is bogus, but he is leaving it up to the CRTC to reach said conclusion on their own.
Before startig to write that submission I had plenty of ideas and was ready to forge ahead at full speed.
Once I got started, I came to realise that it wasn't as black and white as I had thought because I kept thinking of the high installation costs and wondering how the costs of the copper plant should be paid for and to be honest, I realised I didn't really know. So the est I could do was to ask questions and explain the whole bridge tap thing which the commisioners would't know about.