|
to LostTheGame
Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against RogersWhat 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 Member join:2005-04-27 Calgary, AB |
to aaah
hm so this stuff means what? |
|
|
to aaah
I guess I'm stuck with my 512kbs upload speed then. |
|
|
bt to HiVolt
Member
2013-Jan-31 11:58 am
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 Member join:2000-12-28 Toronto, ON |
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. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983 to bt
Premium Member
2013-Jan-31 11:34 am
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. |
|
|
bt to aaah
Member
2013-Jan-31 11:27 am
to aaah
Decision is in: » www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archi ··· 3-36.htmSpeed matching for non-aggregate: DeniedNot 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) |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to nupogodi
Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against RogersDude, DSLreports isn't Facebook. |
|
MaynardKrebs |
to nupogodi
Dude, this isn't Facebook. |
|
|
aaah to resa1983
Anon
2013-Jan-29 9:43 am
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 Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
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. |
|
roccaStart.ca Premium Member join:2008-11-16 London, ON |
to resa1983
Doh. Caffeine deficiency. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
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. |
|
roccaStart.ca Premium Member join:2008-11-16 London, ON |
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. |
|
|
|
to resa1983
|
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
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. |
|
|
to nupogodi
said by nupogodi:Are we just stuck waiting on CRTC or what? Basically, yeah. |
|
nupogodi Premium Member join:2012-07-10 Toronto, ON |
to aaah
So... when are we going to hear some more about this? Are we just stuck waiting on CRTC or what? |
|
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON 1 edit |
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 Member join:2012-07-10 Toronto, ON |
to aaah
I like you guys. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
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? |
|
creed3020 Premium Member join:2006-04-26 Kitchener, ON |
to BACONATOR26
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
to andyb
Any updates on this ? |
|
andyb Premium Member join:2003-05-29 SW Ontario |
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 Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
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/ ··· -acc.htmI 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. |
|
hm @videotron.ca |
hm to rocca
Anon
2012-Nov-28 5:52 pm
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. |
|
roccaStart.ca Premium Member join:2008-11-16 London, ON |
rocca to bt
Premium Member
2012-Nov-28 4:56 pm
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. |
|
|
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. |
|