dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8631
share rss forum feed

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to TSI Marc

Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers

said by TSI Marc:

Anybody doing cable *is* subject to such policies, whether they know it or not.

Chapter and verse, please.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
Sure.. When we deal with it thoroughly like I promise to do eventually.. I'll be happy to discuss it then
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy
Expand your moderator at work


Taylortbb
Premium
join:2007-02-18
Kitchener, ON
reply to TwiztedZero

Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers

said by TwiztedZero:

said by Taylortbb:

I think you misunderstood my point. I was saying that it doesn't matter which independent one switches to. If Rogers says that independents are bound by their AUP then Rogers will disconnect someone who breaks it. It doesn't matter whether the independent put it in their AUP, as far as Rogers is concerned everyone is bound by theirs. If it's in the tariffs (which it appears to be) then negotiations don't really factor into it, there's no provider you can go to. Switching to Start (for example) doesn't gain you anything even if their AUP doesn't say it, they're still bound by the same tariffs.

And lets suppose an Incumbent decides that appart from 'servers', that they'll also disconnect anyone using fileshares, netflix, VPNs, Ftp's, etc. pretty much anything they decide against could be stuffed into a AUP oh boy... its not like they actually listen to net neutrality laws, they're only concerned about their bottom line.

I didn't say Rogers' AUP was reasonable, just that cable customers are bound by it rather they like it or not. Changing that is something for the CRTC, TekSavvy changing their AUP doesn't change the tariff. All it would do is give those running servers (which I must point out includes myself) a false sense of security.
--
Taylor Byrnes

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by TSI Marc:

Anybody doing cable *is* subject to such policies, whether they know it or not.

Chapter and verse, please.

TPIA is pretty restrictive. There are all sorts of conditions in the TIPA tariffs that do not exist in the DSL world.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
said by HeadSpinning:

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by TSI Marc:

Anybody doing cable *is* subject to such policies, whether they know it or not.

Chapter and verse, please.

TPIA is pretty restrictive. There are all sorts of conditions in the TIPA tariffs that do not exist in the DSL world.

@Marc:
"....whether they know it or not"
What kind of ISP wouldn't know it?

------------

@HeadSpinning:
Any restriction on sharing what said conditions are? Or is that beyond our pay grade and beyond understanding of our feeble unwashed minds?

It might be something the Competition Bureau ought to know about in detail......or are CNOC members content with being just a 5-6% market share forever?

Maybe we, the great unwashed masses, would like to ensure that our use is not unduly restricted as customers of indies by the actions of incumbents - whether we choose, today, to avail ourselves, or not, of the benign lack of enforcement of provisions in some AUP of some incumbent. 99% of indie customers probably never would consider running servers, but the 1% who do would like the certainty of not having the legs cut out from under them because their ISP is feeling heat from an incumbent - the same bastards we ran from in the first place.

Seems to me that the last time we lowly peons got involved (UBB), a better outcome was had than leaving things solely in CNOC's {cough}{cough} capable {cough}{cough} hands. Of course, CNOC's opinion on that may vary, seeing as how most CNOC members were OK with whatever UBB deal could be cut with Robellus as long as CNOC members made a buck - customers be damned.

Maybe another 500,000 signature petition is in order. Just sayin' - hypothetically, of course.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
said by MaynardKrebs:

@HeadSpinning:
Any restriction on sharing what said conditions are? Or is that beyond our pay grade and beyond understanding of our feeble unwashed minds?

Since we don't do TPIA, the last time I looked at that stuff was a couple of years ago. I don't remember all the details, but I do remember not liking the conditions when I looked at it.

Cogeco does state that their AUP is applicable to TPIA customers.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

@Marc:
"....whether they know it or not"
What kind of ISP wouldn't know it?

------------

@HeadSpinning:
Any restriction on sharing what said conditions are? Or is that beyond our pay grade and beyond understanding of our feeble unwashed minds?

It might be something the Competition Bureau ought to know about in detail......or are CNOC members content with being just a 5-6% market share forever?

Maybe we, the great unwashed masses, would like to ensure that our use is not unduly restricted as customers of indies by the actions of incumbents - whether we choose, today, to avail ourselves, or not, of the benign lack of enforcement of provisions in some AUP of some incumbent. 99% of indie customers probably never would consider running servers, but the 1% who do would like the certainty of not having the legs cut out from under them because their ISP is feeling heat from an incumbent - the same bastards we ran from in the first place.

Seems to me that the last time we lowly peons got involved (UBB), a better outcome was had than leaving things solely in CNOC's {cough}{cough} capable {cough}{cough} hands. Of course, CNOC's opinion on that may vary, seeing as how most CNOC members were OK with whatever UBB deal could be cut with Robellus as long as CNOC members made a buck - customers be damned.

Maybe another 500,000 signature petition is in order. Just sayin' - hypothetically, of course.

WOW
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

Seems to me that the last time we lowly peons got involved (UBB), a better outcome was had than leaving things solely in CNOC's {cough}{cough} capable {cough}{cough} hands. Of course, CNOC's opinion on that may vary, seeing as how most CNOC members were OK with whatever UBB deal could be cut with Robellus as long as CNOC members made a buck - customers be damned.

Except the end result for UBB was still pretty damn bad.


True dat

@videotron.ca
said by 34764170:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Seems to me that the last time we lowly peons got involved (UBB), a better outcome was had than leaving things solely in CNOC's {cough}{cough} capable {cough}{cough} hands. Of course, CNOC's opinion on that may vary, seeing as how most CNOC members were OK with whatever UBB deal could be cut with Robellus as long as CNOC members made a buck - customers be damned.

Except the end result for UBB was still pretty damn bad.

For some it was bad maybe, for other CNOC members it was very welcomed.

Even CAIP stated that many of the so called indi's were all in favour of UBB and profiting off of it. This was not hidden.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
Right but painting CNOC as bad because some of its members may have different views on this isn't the right way to go...

Those who are in favor of that.. Can still do that if they want and I'm sure some do.

The purpose of CNOC is to pool resources together because its just very disruptive to our businesses if we spend too much time on that stuff.. I think we're a prime example of this... I've described this in my latest blog post..

We were certainly never in favor of UBB and I think that's been pretty clear... Yet we were one of the key players in setting up CNOC...

Don't forget that by creating CNOC it also raised the knowledge level of many indies.. Sometimes some people hold certain views when they don't have all the facts.. Once they have a better view of things, their views tend to change. In general, I believe that the vast majority of time CNOC's views are in line with the interest of consumers.. Maybe one day that will change but right now I would say that opposing CNOC can only hurt consumers.

CAIP.. Well, if that worked so well CNOC would never have come about.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to True dat
said by True dat :

For some it was bad maybe, for other CNOC members it was very welcomed.

Even CAIP stated that many of the so called indi's were all in favour of UBB and profiting off of it. This was not hidden.

For most of the indie ISPs the end result of UBB was bad, period. End of story.

If anything it was welcomed because it was the suck less of the two options but it was/is still really bad.

The rates that were decided upon are still crazy insane and need to be revised.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to True dat
said by True dat :

For some it was bad maybe, for other CNOC members it was very welcomed.

Even CAIP stated that many of the so called indi's were all in favour of UBB and profiting off of it. This was not hidden.

The point is that the incumbents should not have downstream control over the packages and pricing offered by independent ISPs. We should be free to offer whatever packages we want at the retail level without the incumbents controlling how services are offered.

A similar comparison would be a sugar supplier telling you that although they will sell you sugar, you MUST sell it in individual teaspoon sized packages, just like they do.

Capacity Based Billing was a victory in as much as it allows independent ISPs to package services however they want to - albeit the capacity rate is absurd.

As near as anyone can tell, it was derived by back computing $/GB in to $/MBPS based on a synthetic conversion value that attempts to represent the impact in speed at peak period of downloading a certain volume of data.

They might as well be trying to convert furlongs per fortnight in to megabits per second.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
Actually, some manufacturers DO control packaging and things like warranty. Some variants of products must be sold in their original packaging. Some versions of the same products are packed specifically for some stores to sell at different prices with different warranty. There are a lot of products you will see "Not for retail sale" or "Not for individual sale"

They have a great deal of *influence* over price now creating the MSRP ("Suggested") when not so many years ago it was the MRP.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
said by sbrook:

Actually, some manufacturers DO control packaging and things like warranty. Some variants of products must be sold in their original packaging. Some versions of the same products are packed specifically for some stores to sell at different prices with different warranty. There are a lot of products you will see "Not for retail sale" or "Not for individual sale"

They have a great deal of *influence* over price now creating the MSRP ("Suggested") when not so many years ago it was the MRP.

This is perfectly acceptable when you're selling the manufacturer's brand, and they don't have a monopoly over the supply of the inputs.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:

The point is that the incumbents should not have downstream control over the packages and pricing offered by independent ISPs. We should be free to offer whatever packages we want at the retail level without the incumbents controlling how services are offered.

-------------

+1
You don't see Bell telling the Royal Bank/Manulife/Cameco what they can/can't do with circuits they buy/lease/rent. And there's no separate backbone for 'business' vs. residential - except in situation where the business customer pays for it upfront or via multi-year contractual commitment .....and VLAN's don't count cuz they run through the same gear as traffic belonging to the great unwashed masses.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
reply to HeadSpinning
In doing these things, the manufacturer is generally STOPPING the retailer from selling the "retailer's" brand to get the customer to focus on the product and not the retailer.

So, no, it's not perfectly acceptable as is proven by most jurisdictions banning manufacturers from forcing the MRP when the R stood for Retail and was changed Recommended or SR stood for Suggested Retail.

And even more market manipulation where manufacturers will only supply stores with their product if they get prominent placement ... e.g. eye level 3 facings.

Manufacturers go to great ends on how to sell / use their product to influence the consumer market.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
said by sbrook:

Manufacturers go to great ends on how to sell / use their product to influence the consumer market.

If I were an incumbent, I'd make it mandatory that all indies "reselling" (their view) my product include the words "Powered by Robellus" prominently on their websites and on each customer bill. No words to this effect = no access. Hey, it's just the free market (policy direction) operating as it should.

It's no different than having a sign outside a subsidiary company that says "ABC Electrical - a XYZ Company subsidiary". Lets everyone know who the boss is.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by sbrook:

Manufacturers go to great ends on how to sell / use their product to influence the consumer market.

If I were an incumbent, I'd make it mandatory that all indies "reselling" (their view) my product include the words "Powered by Robellus" prominently on their websites and on each customer bill. No words to this effect = no access. Hey, it's just the free market (policy direction) operating as it should.

It's no different than having a sign outside a subsidiary company that says "ABC Electrical - a XYZ Company subsidiary". Lets everyone know who the boss is.

The incumbents specifically prohibit us from stating that our product is in any way shape or form their product. The most we can do is say that we rent certain service from various suppliers to be able to offer our services. We are in no way authorized to use the Bell name, logo, etc. in any of our marketing, nor are we allowed to state there is any sort of partnership.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
And that's precisely so no TPIA (cable or dsl) customer can go to the incumbent and demand services of any kind.

If I were Robellus I sure wouldn't want a TPIA's customer calling me for example to complain that the performance was bad when it could be the TPIA's own network routers.

The incumbents really want to distance themselves from TPIA services anyway ... if they had their way, they'd go out of their way NOT to provide TPIA services at all.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to mlord
Yeah, but as an incumbent I'd then say, "Our direct customers don't have the same issues reseller customers do. Come home to papa."


pick a name

@videotron.ca
said by MaynardKrebs:

Yeah, but as an incumbent I'd then say, "Our direct customers don't have the same issues reseller customers do. Come home to papa."

Bell has done this, as reported in these forums time and time again.

Don't know about the cable-co's though.