O Canada! > Canadian > Canadian Broadband > CNOC R&V of CRTC 2011-703 and CRTC 2011-704

reply to jp_zer01

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

Part I R&V ···inal.pdf 149851 bytes
CNOC R&V

CNOC AGI Rep···inal.pdf 84077 bytes
AGI Report

CNOC Nordici···inal.pdf 1137080 bytes
Nordicity Report

In the AGI report, they state:

34. As is, the capacity-based rates struck for Bell Aliant/Bell Canada, Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron clearly deter independent ISPs from investing in increased capacity and growing their consumer base, particularly because annual increases in per-user peak demand are expected to exceed 20%. It is therefore unlikely that the independent ISPs will increase their market share in Internet services provision beyond the current level of 6%.56 It is more likely that independent ISPs will continue to lose share to the incumbents under the current rate structure. Accordingly, Canadian consumers will lose out on different competitive market options in terms of price, connectivity, and choice. [emphasis added]

reply to jfmezei
Reading the Nordicity report made me hungry....... what with all the Pizza references.

reply to ihatebell21

reply to jfmezei

quote:

---

MTS Allstream concurs with CNOC’s conclusion that Bell’s new capacity rate is
unjustifiably high, reflecting a per Gigabyte (GB) rate contrary to the Commission’s
findings in TRP 2011703, and according to Bell’s own cost evidence

---

quote:

---

Further, Bell’s own evidence points out the fantastical nature of the $2,213 rate. [...] From its various comments and submissions in various recent proceedings, what is clear is that Bell is confused about the difference between economic Internet traffic management practices (ITMPs), i.e. economic penalties to reduce network consumption, and capacity based billing

---

reply to alienzzz

reply to alienzzz

reply to ihatebell21

Sneak preview:

quote:

---

Or perhaps the Commission meant to remove the AHSSPI completely since all its costs were factored into the capacity rate but Bell Canada didn't get the memo and still bills it to ISPs ?

---

quote:

---

The costing studies were prepared before the January/February "UBB Winter" civil uprising which forced a regime change by toppling the incumbant dictated UBB.

---

I think Bell has make it very clear that the capacity pays for their core + transport cost for spanning the area served and physical facilities and has nothing to do with AHSSPI inside a shelf. This follows that the capacity charges should then be billed as separate items and not to tie to individual AHSSPI.

This allows for IISP flexibility for AHSSPI level link redundancy without paying for capacity that they cannot used under the current rules.

reply to jfmezei

3 - "Vaxination does not see seek any request" ?

14 - there is a reliable manner: create an app that registers the customer's IP with login+password by maintaining a TCP/IP session, now the ISP knows which customer has which IP and can act accordingly Not as transparent to the end-user as the ISP knowing who has which IP beforehand but at least it makes what you claim is impossible possible for an ISP and subscribers who want it badly enough.

17 - ISPs that cater to aunts and so also pay "disproportionately high" capacity rate so heavy-user ISPs don't subsidize them.

18 - peak demand is increasing by 50-60%/year, which is about twice as fast as transit costs are dropping.

20 - for that to happen, Videotron would have to start dropping prices and increase caps... but the trend for most of the past 10 years is to increase prices and leave caps largely unchanged or at the very least, not increasing anywhere near as fast as "natural growth".

21 - "four letter word"? FS is two words and 20 letters...

22a - Cable has diagnostic charges too, it isn't unique to DSL

30 - if ISPs are so sure Bell's rate are hyper-inflated then they should be granted the chance to take the risk of getting retroactively billed ever higher rates if proven wrong... worst case, the higher rates shouldn't be that much higher than current ones.

39 - aggregated and non-aggregated not generating the exact same amount of revenue for a given traffic level does not mean either one is automatically subsidizing the other, it just means that one will be more profitable to Rogers than the other

43 - since 25/7 is only $0.12/month more than 16/1, there effectively is no reason to even bother offering 7Mbps upload as a separate option on slower wholesale tiers

50 - I doubt many people bothered with the 7Mbps upload option, most of those who wanted 7Mbps likely opted for the full 25/7

80 - the definition of AHSSPI is in the GAS tariffs where they are defined as "burstable to X Mbps" and makes no mention of any particular sustainable bandwidth commitment

106 - a Fibe50 subscriber won't cost ISPs $1106.50 unless he happens to be active at maximum speed during every peak every day of the month, which is highly unlikely on a 100GB cap

109 - the bulk of wholesale costs are "first-mile" costs (from the copper loop to the BRAS' interface with Bell's backbone, all of which being broadband-specific costs) so the "gargantuan amounts of capacity" on Bell's backbone are not of much significance here

111/113 - before Youtube, Netflix and friends, P2P was one of the major traffic drivers and load was more evenly distributed 24/7 at a growth rate of about 30% any time of day but now, peak-hour traffic grows at rates in excess of 50%/year which is well in excess of any efficiency or cost reduction gains

116 - Since the current rates were based on 10-years study periods that factor in future cost/efficiency improvements, going to bi-annual and forfeiting 8 years of future improvements will offset a large chunk of any gains from reviewing current rates assuming such a revision is in our favor at all

reply to jfmezei