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."

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

We deal with 7 different incumbents. We have more cable users than DSL.

It's not a question zeal. It's more of a practical question. Do we do 7 AUPs? What a nightmare that would be.

I can tell you that I'm not a very litigious person.. It would have to be something very serious to get me to enforce such things.

The history of how this was borne stems from when we started doing cable. Anybody doing cable *is* subject to such policies, whether they know it or not. At the time, we just needed to cover the bases...

Going forward, as I continue to wrap my head around things since taking full control.. I can promise that if there's a way to simplify it or if its a case of one technology vs. another where it might be easy to incorporate.. Ill be happy to do that. Right now, to divert much energy to this, when there's really no problem, to the degree that people have faith in us... I think would just be a waste of resources when so many other things need attention.. To really do this right, it will take a great deal of time and resources.

Not trying to down play this but if it were a simple thing.. I'd gladly change it... Even just doing that is a big deal now.

I don't recall Rocky ever saying they were going to get rid of it. Nor any promise to that effect.

Where is this promise?

Rocky's promise.

For sure... In the mean time though, there's good cause for having that language there... This is all stuff that's already been in effect for months and months and harmed nobody. With time we'll double back... as it is important.

It could still be accomplished with one AUP - just language to handle the different cases.

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.

It's not a question zeal. It's more of a practical question. Do we do 7 AUPs? What a nightmare that would be.

taylortbb ... this is the land of lawyers and interaction between TSI and the incumbents.

You never know what the interactions have been on other matters that might for example provoke the lawyers to say "You'd better include the AUP info they want just in case".

Sometimes you have to make compromises that have next to nothing to do with what you're negotiating to actually GET what you want. For example imagine this exchange ...

[snip]

As to Rocky promising to get rid of it ... have you been fortunate to have never made a promise that in the end you couldn't deliver on?

Ahh but is there anything hidden in the tarrifs?

For example imagine this exchange ...

TSI - "We want higher speeds for our customers"
Bell - "Well, that means you'll max out our links so you ain't getting them"
TSI - "Say we put in AUP stuff to ensure nobody gobbles too much"
Bell - "OK"

If the ISP expressly forbids it (teksavvy), they can terminate service at any time without notice, and therefore without leaving time for the subscriber to seek alternatives. So suddenly no internet at all, requiring about 10 days to get reconnected elsewhere.

If they don't expressly forbid it (start.ca), or do explicitly allow it (ncf.ca), then one can reasonably expect advance notice from them if they decide they no longer want to allow it. Giving time to move services elsewhere, or to simply comply with the change in AUP by stopping the servers. Without losing internet connectivity completely.

Here is the last know link to the CRTC filed ToS. For some reason the CRTC removed the original link from their site... maybe to pretend it never existed while they approved it. :p

»/r0/downloa···/aup.pdf

So the server thing applies to bell resold DSL. As far as I can recall, Videotron, Rogers et al did not impose this (that I can recall). So if this is correct, TSI should state that ToS is for DSL only (at the time they didn't resell cable that I can recall).

How can "a customer risk the overall health of network and experience of other users" with such a miserable upload speed on cable?

Personal attacks are unnecessary, guys. I'm just raising awareness here that Teksavvy has not followed through with the promise Rocky made last year when this first came up. Many of us (all of us?) thought he had followed through.

I run servers, and I like to comply with my ISP's rules.
That's why I've been with Teksavvy for so long.

Cheers