dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17040
share rss forum feed


atschool

@fanshawec.ca
reply to LostTheGame

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

What does this mean if anything if I'm on Distributel?

At school crazy busy sorry can't log into my official account!

Please & thanks in advance! :P! ! Cheers!



TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
kudos:3
reply to aaah

hm so this stuff means what?


LostTheGame

join:2012-11-24
Ottawa, ON
reply to aaah

I guess I'm stuck with my 512kbs upload speed then.


bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to HiVolt

said by HiVolt:

said by resa1983:

Rogers is now forced to file all optional speeds (and provide to wholesale), as well as file all future tariffs with upstream speeds included, so they can't pull this nonsense again.

What they also should be forced to do is file new tariffs ahead of their own speed upgrades, so when they release their upgrades, TPIA ISP's don't have to wait months for the tariffs to be approved.

quote:
Where a cost study has not been provided, rates for WHSA services at an existing lower speed would provide an appropriate interim rate for the new service speed.


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

Rogers is now forced to file all optional speeds (and provide to wholesale), as well as file all future tariffs with upstream speeds included, so they can't pull this nonsense again.

What they also should be forced to do is file new tariffs ahead of their own speed upgrades, so when they release their upgrades, TPIA ISP's don't have to wait months for the tariffs to be approved.
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to bt

said by bt:

Requiring access to optional higher upload speeds (ie: 45/7 instead of 45/4): Approved (aggregated only, where available to retail customers)

Very glad to note that they took my comments on 45/7 into account.

Rogers is now forced to file all optional speeds (and provide to wholesale), as well as file all future tariffs with upstream speeds included, so they can't pull this nonsense again.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to aaah

Decision is in:

»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2013/2013-36.htm

Speed matching for non-aggregate: Denied

Not allowing a wholesale price increase for higher speeds if there's no retail price increase: Denied (but any cost increases do have to be based on a costing analysis)

Requiring access to optional higher upload speeds (ie: 45/7 instead of 45/4): Approved (aggregated only, where available to retail customers)

Expand your moderator at work

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

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

said by nupogodi:

I like you guys.

Dude, DSLreports isn't Facebook.

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

said by nupogodi:

I like you guys.

Dude, this isn't Facebook.


aaah

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

said by rocca:

Doh. Caffeine deficiency.

Doesn't help that this UBB/AVP/CBB decision has dragged on for years now, and encompasses multiple threads based on Decisions, interim, R&V, etc.

Just reading that paragraph w/o a coffee I.V. causes dizziness. If you take a couple of weeks break from these diff filings one gets confused as to what is what.

It seems I started this topic under the name of "aaah", and I don't even recall what it's about anymore. Maybe I knew it would cause me to drool at some point in time while I say "aaah".

Back to the coffee...

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to rocca

said by rocca:

Doh. Caffeine deficiency.

Too many similar threads imo.

Doesn't help that this UBB/AVP/CBB decision has dragged on for years now, and encompasses multiple threads based on Decisions, interim, R&V, etc.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to resa1983

Doh. Caffeine deficiency.


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to rocca

said by rocca:

That's for speed matching on disaggregated, still very important but not the 'big one' on capacity rates that we're waiting for.

Thats the decision this thread is about.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to LostTheGame

That's for speed matching on disaggregated, still very important but not the 'big one' on capacity rates that we're waiting for.


LostTheGame

join:2012-11-24
Ottawa, ON
reply to resa1983

This week!

»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/decisions.htm


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to nupogodi

said by nupogodi:

So... when are we going to hear some more about this? Are we just stuck waiting on CRTC or what?

Waiting on CRTC, yes.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to nupogodi

said by nupogodi:

Are we just stuck waiting on CRTC or what?

Basically, yeah.


nupogodi
Premium
join:2012-07-10
Toronto, ON
reply to aaah

So... when are we going to hear some more about this? Are we just stuck waiting on CRTC or what?


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
reply to HiVolt

said by HiVolt:

[
LOL... JF's a bright guy

His posts seem to be so 50/50 on here. Maybe he is trying to fool people on here.


nupogodi
Premium
join:2012-07-10
Toronto, ON
reply to aaah

I like you guys.


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to creed3020

said by creed3020:

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.

There are a few possibilities here as to what's gonna happen.. I haven't a clue as to what CRTC is going to do however.

1. Since CNOC's Part 1 has to do with enforcing the speed matching within the time limits in 2011-703, its possible they will release the R&Vs, then immediately after, release CNOC's decision. All of this would need to be done soon, as right now there's no competition.

2. Due to lack of competition due to Rogers actions and because 2011-703 isn't close to being ready, the CRTC releases the CNOC Part 1, TN29 & TN30 all at once, with the R&V decision of 2011-703 to come later.

As for CRTC's 'big' decisions... They don't always post them in advance I don't think.. Was the original 2011-703 posted on the 'upcoming decisions' page?
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
reply to mlerner

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.



mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to Davesnothere

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



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to andyb

 
Any updates on this ?



andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to resa1983

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


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to bt

said by bt:

said by resa1983:

Past expedited hearings/decisions were 2-4 weeks.

I'll bow to your deeper knowledge on that one. Pretty sure I was just mis-quoting you anyways.

More googling than anything..

Via google I found the CRTC's Expedited hearings page (which is mostly dispute resolution, but should still be relevant?):
»www.crtc.gc.ca/4250/eng/exp-acc.htm

I then looked through all the various hearings, and submissions which didn't need to go to hearings (like this one), and saw that CRTC responses were usually 2-4 weeks after the last submission.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rocca

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.



rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to bt

said by bt:

The prices don't include modem rental/purchase. So no, Doc2 customers aren't paying for Doc3 modems. Speeds, though - yes.

One could probably argue that DOCSIS 3.0 is cheaper than DOCSIS 2.0 for them, since I'd imagine it's impossible to buy D2 only CMTS's at this point and with D3 they have the option to use channel bonding to add more capacity to a node vs with D2 and single channel contention that they have to more often physically split the node to reduce congestion. I'd go further and say this is also why they want D2 off their network and are continuing to decertify older D2 models. It's hard to imagine that D3 profiles themselves are more expensive in a network that is already fully D3 capable. Yes the CPE's are more expensive, but this is of zero impact to the cable company.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

Past expedited hearings/decisions were 2-4 weeks.

I'll bow to your deeper knowledge on that one. Pretty sure I was just mis-quoting you anyways.