 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to aaah
Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers So that indicates some sort of problem, because my downstream RCO is similar to HiVolt, and the DSLAM is most likely in the same building as me. My understanding is that upstream bands are interleaved with downstream bands with VDSL2...
I'm going through an enterphone if it's relevant. I remember one of the Bell guys posting around here that Bell had some equipment they installed on the line if an enterphone was causing issues. Should we be moving this to the direct forum?
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
|
|
 AOD
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1 | The deadline is 8pm today? |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 | Yup. I'm just finishing my submission - I have a few great people proofing for me since my writing usually sucks fairly badly.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 | reply to aaah
Rogers response, via JF: »www.vaxination.ca/crtc/2012/Roge···2012.pdf |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| My response.
Thank you Ares & cloneman for proofing.  |
|
GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20
1 edit | reply to aaah
Rogers contradicts themselves pretty damned obviously:
said by Rogers :CNOC’s assertion that Rogers has already implemented the speed increases to its
Express, Extreme and Extreme Plus retail packages without any price change to Rogers’ retail customers is incorrect. Rogers has not re-speeded its retail customer base. Customers with DOCSIS 2.0 modems will remain at their existing speeds and these customers represent two-thirds of Rogers’ retail end-users. With regard to the one-third of Rogers’ retail customers who do have DOCSIS 3.0 modems, these customers will be moved to the higher speeds over the next five weeks. So, they claim they didn't give speed upgrades, but then the last sentence says they're upgrading a third of their customers.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
Ares45Premium
join:2007-11-14
Toronto, ON | Yeah... I read that as "We haven't done it yet, so they're totally wrong. But we're doing it soon, so STFU". |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
Nicely done.
I'm not sure if it contradicts CNOC in some areas though. Think it does, But don't feel like rereading everything to double check.
But very nicely done. It rubbed Rogers nose in a few things they just stated that appears to not be true.
So w/ Rogers new filing today, I guess this sort of proves this post:
» Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers
Some of this seems to be a fault with the TPIA providers as well since they knew very well everything was being pushed to aggregated (which makes sense) This was even stated.. what.. a year or two ago?
heh resa1983 took Rogers by the scruff of the neck and pushed their nose in their own doodoo. I like it. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by hm :Nicely done. I'm not sure if it contradicts CNOC in some areas though. Think it does, But don't feel like rereading everything to double check. Ack.. Thats not good. I was trying not to. :\
EDIT: Ahh.. I see. Those prices were aggregated, there were different ones for disaggregated. Thats about the only thing. I just added supporting documentation to the CNOC request.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| reply to bt
OOOH it's Docsis 3 so we should get more money, the old speeds were DOCSIS 2
WTF does that have anything do with it. Typical Rogers throw up a red herring and see if they go for it.
The underlying technology has ZERO do with speed matching. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand | reply to resa1983
Nicely done Ressy.
Showing screen shots from the Rogers page is going to kick them in the head hard. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by elwoodblues:Nicely done Ressy.
Showing screen shots from the Rogers page is going to kick them in the head hard.
I hope the Commission sees through the blatant lies Rogers made (as usual), and even decides that despite disagg shouldn't receive upgrades (2011-703 apparently), the fact that Rogers put off doing this TN for so bloody long so they could keep higher speeds to themselves, and pull customers back from TPIA, they'll decide they need to even the playing field some.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:EDIT: Ahh.. I see. Those prices were aggregated, there were different ones for disaggregated.
Yup that's what I noticed, but was too lazy to double check that. |
|
| reply to aaah
Is it just me or has the whole file now disappeared?
As far as I know CNOC still has a right to reply. Why is the whole file gone? Where's the link? What's the new link? Why was it deleted from there?
F&S I hate the CRTC's website. We should all file that their website sucks moose balls. |
|
| reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:said by elwoodblues:Nicely done Ressy.
Showing screen shots from the Rogers page is going to kick them in the head hard.
I hope the Commission sees through the blatant lies Rogers made CRTC, in the past, just ignored peoples comments. So don't be surprised if they believe rogers and just ignore what you gave them.
One time JF filed for Access To Information on what the CRTC chairs got in terms of info. Basically someone breaks it all down for them in a flow chart as follows:
Bell, Rogers, Cogeco, Videotron, Shaw, and Sasktel give us stuff we can't afford
|
|
v
Approved
That's all they see. Well, Maybe not exactly like that, but it was close to it  . You may want to ask JF about that and the info they actually got. JF got a single flow chart with all the info (which ignored 99% of the actual info). They just ignore everyone.
BUT... The Canadian Government marketing machine says it's a brand new CRTC with a consumer focus. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to umm eh
said by umm eh :Is it just me or has the whole file now disappeared? As far as I know CNOC still has a right to reply. Why is the whole file gone? Where's the link? What's the new link? Why was it deleted from there? F&S I hate the CRTC's website. We should all file that their website sucks moose balls. It disappeared just after 8pm last night from the "Open for Comments" section, and moved to the "Closed for Comments" section. Only CNOC can now reply to the Part 1 Application for Speed Matching Enforcement, and they'll do it via Email & Access key, so it doesn't really need to stay on that specific page.
»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instance···Lang=eng
Switch the year to 2012, and it'll be the top listing there.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
| ah lol ty for explaining that. Never saw it cuz I have cookies off. :/ Duh on me. |
|
 TOPDAWGPremium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
kudos:3 | reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:Yup. I'm just finishing my submission - I have a few great people proofing for me since my writing usually sucks fairly badly.
HA yeah I'm god awful at the writing skills too. thank god for spell check on a browser. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| JF tweeted the following 2 hrs ago (formatted for easier reading):
#CRTC schedule for Rogers TN28:
Tue: comments on rates.
Fri: CNOC reply for its Part1 on TN28.
Tue-27, Rogers replies on TN28 rate comment.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| Bell submitted a response in .doc format. I pdf'd it for easier posting here.
Rogers's response is up on the site now as well.
They've also linked Rogers' TN28, 29 & 30 as "Related Links" for the Part 1.
My .zip however isn't showing up under TN28, 29 & 30 for some odd reason...
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
