O Canada! > Canadian > Canadian Broadband > CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

reply to andyb

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

reply to resa1983
6. This argument ignores the fact that 18, 28 and 32 Mbps speed services will remain in the market for existing retail and TPIA end-users and that 25, 35 and 45 Mbps are new speeds.

This is irrelevant. Their customers are getting it as a speed upgrade and so should wholesale customers. The "grandfathered" speeds are only there for non-doc-3 modem users who haven't spent the money to upgrade their modems yet. THAT IS ALL.

But Rogers this as not a speed upgrade at all (which is indeed what it is per their marketing material and ad-injections to their own customers, as Rssa pointed out):
7. ... “determines that if a cable carrier introduces a new retail Internet service speed, it is to file, at the same time, proposed revisions to its TPIA tariff to include this new speed offering, with a supporting cost study.”

In other words, Rogers is pretending the old tiers are their as an old offering instead of what it actually is, a grace period for people to upgrade to Doc-3 modems. In other words, they are still claiming it's not a speed upgrade as their marketing material clearly shows.

What a joke.

Then Rogers goes on to state that the cost increases because it's Doc-3 pricing and not Doc-2. But they again negate to mention their own customers are not getting the cost increase. They are instead getting a "free upgrade". Then they again play this as saying CNOC is trying to pretend Doc-3 costing doesn't exist.

Then Rogers mentions the new costs are based on policy 703, but negates to mention these prices are all over-priced and on revue.

In other words Rogers is saying, "Hurry force the over-priced costs on wholesale before they get knocked down so we can have a competitive advantage for a few months before changes occur".

In #13, Rogers then states the flawed 703 costs that will be re-reviewed, are correct and states we have already proved Doc-3 prices are higher. Yet again negates to say they are giving it free to their own customers.

LOL Then Rogers states CNOC lives in denial. LOL

Rogers then states in a round about way that previous price hikes Rogers customers got were applied to these upgrades so customers already paid for it and indeed paying for it now.

So what does this mean? Rogers just stated that Doc-2 customers (their own customers) should be applying to the CCTS because they are paying for a Doc-3 modem with Doc-3 speeds yet don't have it. Too bad for them. Can of worms there... Where is the Consumers Union when you need them?

Rogers then goes on playing the system in regards to the flawed 703 policy and what was stated there with flawed costs.

The who thing is a game.

Man, what a circle of bullshit.

reply to aaah
I have to admit, Rogers certainly did a better job this time attempting to justify their position. Compared to the last response, which was just pathetic.

They certainly get creative here. Still laughable, but I give them points for their ingenuity in finding excuses.

Like Tabernak said, point 6 is irrelevant and glosses over the fact that, while those tiers continue to exist for TPIA, they won't exist any more for their own customers.

In point 28 they say that: "Rogers is free to accept a lesser margin from its services by maintaining its retail prices in the intensely competitive retail market should it wish." So it's okay for them to subsidize the cost of their own customers on the backs of TPIA customers, is essentially what they're saying here? And LOL at "intensely" competitive marketplace.

Then in point 14 they use their annual rate hikes as a defense! They essentially admit that while right now their own customers are getting a supposed "free" upgrade, they are going to do their usual rate hike. Therefore, keeping the prices the same now is not a big deal since they will be raising them later, anyway. Never mind that they have a several month advantage over the competition, in the meantime.

Then they go on and whinge about how increased speeds for everyone would put a horrible burden on their network, and how supporting DOCSIS 3 users will cost them so much more than DOCSIS 2 users. Why did they bother with all those upgrades over the past year in preparation, then? Why not keep everyone on DOCSIS 2? Problem solved! LMAO.

All they do is tap-dance around the fundamental issue. They've given themselves an unfair competitive advantage. Doesn't matter whether it's going to be short-term or not.

reply to aaah
Wow reading their response was like wading through a swamp up to my neck trying to breath. The amount of BS being slung around is ridiculous. I am going to have to read that doc several times more otherwise I might start to believe what some of those artistically crafted paragraphs state LOL.

Paragraph6: How can Rogers say that they still offer the 18, 28, 32 tiers when they clearly don't show them available to the public for purchase? If 25, 35, and 45 tiers are new speed tiers then you need to charge a new price immediately!!!!!

reply to aaah
Reading this stuff is aggravating. It pisses me off reading the BS Rogers slings knowing full well the ridiculous CRTC will side with them anyways.
I think I need to stop reading this thread.

So after reading through all of the Rogers BS, what next?

Does CNOC stand a chance here - will the CRTC be able to wade their way through it and see it for what it is?

How long does the CRTC have to come to a decision?

reply to Tabernak

reply to bt

reply to bt

I think the 703 policy (and I could be wrong in policy number) stated that Cable Co's had a higher cost of maintenance, or a higher cost in general. So bumping costs due to upgrades was acceptable to the CRTC in that policy decision.

I do believe this is what Rogers states (I could be wrong here). Sure there might be checks and balances that equal it all out when up and running. But, there was an investment cost nonetheless.

So is there a direct cost to Rogers to upgrade to D-3 and to aggregated? Of course. But it seems higher costs are only going to you and Rogers is playing games with the costs they say they put on their customers, yet in the same marketing breath call it free.

And also they keep referring to the "correct costs" from an interim order where they know costs are going to be reduced anyhow. So they know they are trying to charge a dollar amount that isn't correct and too high.

Or am I wrong here?

So let's say for sake of argument CNOC loses this and the CRTC accepts Rogers filing at face value.

Let's say, just as an example, you have to charge 2$ more across the board for all CNOC Rogers customers due to this (Just an example with fictitious numbers). Let's say all CNOC Rogers customers total 50,000 users.

In the previous recent ruling where they lowered your costs, the CRTC clearly stated that CNOC did not demand a retroactive refund should costs drop due to one of the interim orders. So CNOC lost out on this.

Don't you think it's in your best interest right now with your next filing that you should state:
Should the commission accept this cost increase at face value, and should the costing which is under review be lowered, CNOC demands a retroactive refund.

I mean 2$ for 50,000 people isn't a lot. But it pays your lawyer fee's and beer for the next round.

Point number 2:
I stated up above:
"... Sure there might be checks and balances that equal it all out when up and running. But, there was an investment cost nonetheless."

Didn't the CRTC also state at one point (I forget where now) that investments to keep a network running should be continuous without the need to have the public shoulder the burden (ie. what people pay now should already cover this). Pretty sure They stated something like this when they were all throttling due to Rogers and Bell not investing in their own network to keep up with demand. Or am I wrong again?

What Rogers is doing, going aggregated and going D-3 is a natural evolution of their network to keep up with demand, as I see it. It's do or die. Are they to keep it in that decrepit mode? I don't think they have a choice but to do it. So does that mean you should be burdened with the cost of their natural network evolution that should have been done 5 years ago? Seems they are playing catch-up to what started the throttling mess.

I mean, all this congestion and clearing up congestion on nodes and what not by going D-3 and aggregated would be normal network maintenance that was never performed going back to the throttling days. Videotron never had these issues. Videotron didn't let their network die a slow death like what Rogers did. So should you be paying for this?

But I could be wrong. Not like I study CRTC policies word for word.

reply to bt

I generally say 90 days as they dont work much faster than that but with the new chairman god only knows

 
Any updates on this ?

Judging by the upcoming decisions, likely not this week unless they're going to surprise us. »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/decisions.htm

Lets hope for this clause to be used: "This list may not be complete and is subject to change without notice." and a decision to come out, but on the other hand I don't want them to rush this. It takes time to wade through all of Roger's BS.

reply to aaah
I like you guys.