Theme

Welcome · log in · join	food

Home

Reviews

Speed Test

	All Forums		Hot Topics		Gallery

Search similar:

Forums → O Canada! → Canadian →

Canadian Broadband → The end of ####? - or CRTC orders telecom companies to open

uniqs
4152

« Do we need a mobile broadband clients rebellion ? • Which ISP »
page: 1 · 2 · next

mazhurg Premium Member join:2004-05-02 Brighton, ON 1 edit	mazhurg Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 11:38 am The end of ####? - or CRTC orders telecom companies to open CRTC requires more transparency in rates for wholesale telecommunications services »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com10 ··· 1026.htm Once companies submit their costs and proposed rates to the CRTC, that information is made public. With this additional data, interested parties will be able to provide a more informed analysis. The cynic in me thinks we are going to go from ##### to cooked numbers, or meaningless data.
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 11:38 am ·
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON	TSI Marc Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 11:39 am Re: The end of ####? yup! very sweet.. lets hope it translates into actual change
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 11:39 am ·
ekster Hi there Premium Member join:2010-07-16 Sainte-Anne-De-Bellevue, QC	ekster to mazhurg Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 11:49 am to mazhurg They'll move from #### to a lot, a little, high, low, very high, very little? "Transit costs are very high, profit is very low. Shareholder payout is almost nothing. Upkeep expenses are even higher than very high. Markup can be low, but our costs are very high, so final tariffs should be even higher than very high. In summary, we need a lot more. "
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 11:49 am ·
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON	TSI Marc Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 12:10 pm LOL.. you know. that's probably exactly what will happen! that would make for a great headline in the news though! The high is very high and the low hits us hard and we dont like it lots and so it's a very high bad. big boom, bada boom! bada big boom!
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 12:10 pm ·
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON	Gone Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 12:29 pm Yeah, but even if they cook the numbers there are enough people out there who would be able to put two and two together and see through the bullshit. That, and cooking the numbers too badly could have a negative impact on share or put them into a bad competitive situation with other incumbents. Considering that we now seem to be in an era where the CRTC has no issue laying an incumbent over their knee and providing them with a hard spanking, it's likely that if the numbers are cooked and don't pass the sniff test, the CRTC would be quick to call them on it, too.
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 12:29 pm ·
elwoodblues Elwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in	elwoodblues to mazhurg Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 2:11 pm to mazhurg Fibic must be screaming. He can't lie anymore.
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 2:11 pm ·
Davesnothere Change is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada	Davesnothere to mazhurg Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 2:28 pm to mazhurg said by mazhurg: ....The cynic in me thinks we are going to go from ##### to cooked numbers, or meaningless data. SH## ! What EVER will we rename B#ELL, if THAT comes to pass ???!!! = = = = = = = On a related news item, I heard that Bell has hired The Swedish Chef to cook the numbers for them, Bork, Bork, Bork !!!
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 2:28 pm ·
hm @videotron.ca	hm to mazhurg Anon 2012-Oct-26 3:57 pm to mazhurg While a little tiny bit more transparency is always good, and good for future fights and filings, does this open the door to past data in filings that were held in secret? Example, costs studies for UBB. In some instances I think CNOC was allowed to see some data off public record, but I don't know how much. So how will this affect current situations with filings (secret cost studies, ####) made a year or more ago? Anything? Can CNOC, PIAC, Consumers Union, CIPPIC, or CAIP actually go back and demand values that were hidden to now be placed on public record? If so, will it change anything?
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 3:57 pm ·
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON	TSI Marc Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 4:10 pm sometimes the values aren't necessary... seeing the logic of how they go about it is often all we need.
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 4:10 pm ·
ekster Hi there Premium Member join:2010-07-16 Sainte-Anne-De-Bellevue, QC	ekster Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 4:15 pm Their logic is obviously backwards. They start with how much bonuses they need, then they calculate how much profit will result in those bonuses, then they calculate how much revenues they need to achieve that profit considering the general expenses, and with that, they finally figure out the costs of bits sold. Once they have that, they make the tariffs to stay 'profitable'!
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 4:15 pm ·
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON	TSI Marc Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 4:18 pm LOL I'm sure we'll get to see some interesting stuff! I'm thinking many things will have been double counted... that's the place I'm most keen to look at. Dry loops?? are you kiding me!?
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 4:18 pm ·
eyes @videotron.ca	eyes to mazhurg Anon 2012-Oct-26 6:01 pm to mazhurg said by mazhurg: »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com10 ··· 1026.htm Once companies submit their costs and proposed rates to the CRTC, that information is made public. With this additional data, interested parties will be able to provide a more informed analysis. »www.itworldcanada.com/ne ··· c/146318 Bill Sandiford, chairman of the Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC), stated: “extremely pro-competitive” ruling that will ensure Canadians have access to better-priced Internet service from a variety of providers. Since we have cost + mark-up, I don't see Bell, Rogers and Videotron gladly giving that info w/o a fight. If anything, I expect to see more collusion and more regulatory foot dragging with the telco's/cable-co's now in regards to justifying their costs. Will be interesting to see the outcome of this, but I don't expect to see prices drop like CNOC is saying. At least not anything significant.
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 6:01 pm ·

just Sayn @videotron.ca	just Sayn Anon 2012-Oct-26 7:33 pm Just wanted to add... If we review the "new" CRTC's 3 year plan it seems they are really sticking to their guns. So far they did quite a bit. See: »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/backg ··· 2012.htm If we scroll down to the table titled, "Connect" we see they took care of the first phase of costing today. Seems the 2nd phase, "Review of methods used to establish wholesale prices" will take place next year and into the following year. So if prices do get indeed get affected, we won't be seeing it, it seems, till 2014. At least that what it shows.
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 7:33 pm ·
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON	TSI Marc Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 7:51 pm That's a good point.. I know I'm expecting something late this year or early next in the way of the proceedings that are under way. Usually they would set interim rates and then have the proper proceedings to set them over time...
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 7:51 pm ·
hm @videotron.ca	hm Anon 2012-Oct-26 8:17 pm Well there is something else going on this year which seems in relation to this, not really sure. I've lost track of all these orders, decisions and whatnot from the CRTC. But anyhow, on the same "Connect" table we see near the end it states: "Applications Wholesale high-speed access services billing implementation" under the heading of 2012. Seems to be in relation to this (best I can come up with): Billing practices for wholesale residential high-speed access services »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archi ··· -703.htm So something is happening before the end of the year (unless I am just lost in all these filings now).
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 8:17 pm ·
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON	TSI Marc Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 8:28 pm It's a rats nest to try to figure it all out.. You'd think there should be a better way.. I'm looking into it too.
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 8:28 pm ·
hm @videotron.ca	hm Anon 2012-Oct-26 8:50 pm I don't really know to be honest. I'm starting to get lost on all this. Someone make a flow chart of all these filings in review, in process, in privy council, in court, or to be re-reviewed. tgif
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 8:50 pm ·
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON	TSI Marc Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 9:07 pm Lol yeah, you're driving me to drink! ...it's not so bad if you keep on top of it as it goes. Catching up is a bit of a pain.
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 9:07 pm ·
elwoodblues Elwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in	elwoodblues Premium Member 2012-Oct-26 10:31 pm said by TSI Marc: Lol yeah, you're driving me to drink! ...it's not so bad if you keep on top of it as it goes. Catching up is a bit of a pain. Liquor store has gotten a new brand of small batch bourbon in. Yummmy
	actions · 2012-Oct-26 10:31 pm ·
MaynardKrebs We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17	MaynardKrebs to Gone Premium Member 2012-Oct-27 12:03 am to Gone said by Gone: Yeah, but even if they cook the numbers there are enough people out there who would be able to put two and two together and see through the bullshit. That, and cooking the numbers too badly could have a negative impact on share or put them into a bad competitive situation with other incumbents. Considering that we now seem to be in an era where the CRTC has no issue laying an incumbent over their knee and providing them with a hard spanking, it's likely that if the numbers are cooked and don't pass the sniff test, the CRTC would be quick to call them on it, too. Any company issuing securities in the US has to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley. They HAVE to disclose lots of stuff truthfully & accurately, else their Dear Leader will have to watch out that he doesn't drop a bar of soap in the prison shower. I wonder how he'd Cope. The information they have to file in the US in a prospectus or annual filings won't be Level II costing but there's a lot of stuff which can be used to figure things out. Ditto for analyst conference calls (also required to be truthful and reasonably accurate).
	actions · 2012-Oct-27 12:03 am ·
Atticka join:2001-11-26 Montreal, QC	Atticka to TSI Marc Member 2012-Oct-27 12:28 am to TSI Marc Milla Jovovich fan?
	actions · 2012-Oct-27 12:28 am ·
rocca Start.ca Premium Member join:2008-11-16 London, ON	rocca to hm Premium Member 2012-Oct-27 1:01 am to hm said by hm : Seems to be in relation to this (best I can come up with): Billing practices for wholesale residential high-speed access services »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archi ··· -703.htm So something is happening before the end of the year (unless I am just lost in all these filings now). Yes, 2012-703 is the big one left. While it has to adhere to the 'old' rules prior to the transparency victory today, given the recent direction of the CRTC, I'd be surprised to not see some significant scrutiny of the numbers provided by the incumbents.
	actions · 2012-Oct-27 1:01 am ·
Davesnothere Change is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada	Davesnothere to MaynardKrebs Premium Member 2012-Oct-27 11:06 am to MaynardKrebs said by MaynardKrebs: ....They HAVE to disclose lots of stuff truthfully & accurately, else their Dear Leader will have to watch out that he doesn't drop a bar of soap in the prison shower. I wonder how he'd COPE.... ....with the SOAP ?! He'd prob'ly say something like "@#$%& !" Which is quite different from "#####".
	actions · 2012-Oct-27 11:06 am ·
hm @videotron.ca	hm to rocca Anon 2012-Oct-27 1:25 pm to rocca said by rocca: While it has to adhere to the 'old' rules prior to the transparency victory today I don't know. As some regulatory person I assume you are correct. But, I was looking it over and reading different things about it and saw this quote pulled over @ cartt.ca: “The Commission notes that the rules with respect to the treatment and disclosure of confidential information are set out in sections 30 to 34 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure). The Commission considers that any disclosure requests will be guided by subsection 39(4) of the Act, based on evidence submitted by parties and using the disclosure guidelines set out in this decision as the basis for its determinations.” Seems to me that either you at CNOC, or PIAC, CIPPIC, Consumers Union, Vaxination (JF), or open Media (or others, including public comments of participation) need to make some claims in your next filings/war: »laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· tml#h-16 Section 32 & 33 & 34: Public interest versus Direct harm: Bell et al always cite "direct harm", never public interest. (except for Rogers who claims the public is not interested, doesn't want to know, and data on public records should be expunged). Tens of thousands of people submitting comments over the years is certainly public interest. No? Also the wild cost variance that occurred during wholesale costing is another. Blais and the "new" CRTC have the balance in their hands. Up to you guys to try and convince him which way that balance needs to tilt. I mean, if the issue of rates come up, and it will in 2013, it's in your own best interest to think up creative ways as to why it needs to be on public record (doubt, double-dipping, or other), and you need to engage the public to support you. Seems to me you just need to open old wounds to get the ball going on opening the old grandfathered costing data. At least, that's what I understand from this "new" CRTC. Maybe that's why they are giving this phase 2 an entire year to complete, till 2014.
	actions · 2012-Oct-27 1:25 pm ·
rocca Start.ca Premium Member join:2008-11-16 London, ON	rocca Premium Member 2012-Oct-27 1:35 pm said by hm : I don't know. As some regulatory person I assume you are correct. ... I mean, if the issue of rates come up, and it will in 2013, it's in your own best interest to think up creative ways as to why it needs to be on public record (doubt, double-dipping, or other), and you need to engage the public to support you. Yes, absolutely. The second part of my quote was "given the recent direction of the CRTC, I'd be surprised to not see some significant scrutiny of the numbers provided by the incumbents". As the 703 file is closed and awaiting decision it would be out of process to ask for a change prior to the decision coming out. I'm hopeful we'll see rates that make sense, if not then I'd expect that the new policy would have to be used to add more transparency to a review. The Commission asked some really good questions during the interrogatories, they're doing their homework, and hopefully we'll see something more sustainable that everyone can work with without having to reopen this can of worms again.
	actions · 2012-Oct-27 1:35 pm ·
to add @videotron.ca	to add to hm Anon 2012-Oct-27 1:44 pm to hm Just to add to the above... If we look at the title of what's coming up at the "new" CRTC for 2013-2014: "Review of methods used to establish wholesale prices" It just makes sense to me.
	actions · 2012-Oct-27 1:44 pm ·
Davesnothere Change is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada	Davesnothere to rocca Premium Member 2012-Oct-28 3:07 am to rocca said by rocca: Yes, absolutely. The second part of my quote was "given the recent direction of the CRTC, I'd be surprised to not see some significant scrutiny of the numbers provided by the incumbents". As the 703 file is closed and awaiting decision it would be out of process to ask for a change prior to the decision coming out. I'm hopeful we'll see rates that make sense, if not then I'd expect that the new policy would have to be used to add more transparency to a review. The Commission asked some really good questions during the interrogatories, they're doing their homework, and hopefully we'll see something more sustainable that everyone can work with without having to reopen this can of worms again. But AFTER that decision has been pronounced, would not a further R&V be appropriate, particularly considering alleged concealment of cooked numbers by (at least) Bell ? If Bell was not so corporately paranoid as to feel that they even NEEDED to file things in confidence in the first place, we also would never have needed such new rules as have now been seen coming down the pipe. And as for cans of worms, my father used to say *"Once you open a can of worms, the only way to get them all back into the can is to use a BIGGER can."*
	actions · 2012-Oct-28 3:07 am ·
rocca Start.ca Premium Member join:2008-11-16 London, ON	rocca Premium Member 2012-Oct-28 11:08 am You missed highlighting one. "I'm hopeful we'll see rates that make sense, if not then I'd expect that the new policy would have to be used to add more transparency to a review."
	actions · 2012-Oct-28 11:08 am ·
BananaBoat @videotron.ca	BananaBoat Anon 2012-Oct-28 11:18 am said by rocca: You missed highlighting one. We're all testing you to make sure you remain sharp and in shape.
	actions · 2012-Oct-28 11:18 am ·
rocca Start.ca Premium Member join:2008-11-16 London, ON	rocca Premium Member 2012-Oct-28 12:35 pm Thanks!
	actions · 2012-Oct-28 12:35 pm ·