dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17089
share rss forum feed


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
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
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:1

The deadline is 8pm today?


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

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


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

My response.

Thank you Ares & cloneman for proofing.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

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

Ares45
Premium
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

said by resa1983:

My response.

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.

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

said by hm :

said by resa1983:

My response.

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


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
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.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to resa1983

Nicely done Ressy.

Showing screen shots from the Rogers page is going to kick them in the head hard.


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

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.


umm eh

@videotron.ca
reply to aaah

said by aaah :

CNOC's filing found here (Dated Nov 9th):
»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instance···Lang=eng

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.


shrug

@videotron.ca
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.

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

said by umm eh :

said by aaah :

CNOC's filing found here (Dated Nov 9th):
»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instance···Lang=eng

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


umm eh

@videotron.ca

ah lol ty for explaining that. Never saw it cuz I have cookies off. :/ Duh on me.



TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
kudos:3
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
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.

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

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


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

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


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2

They agree with Robbers, why am I not shocked.


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

1 edit

My filing isn't on the TN pages, but is showing on the CNOC Part 1 Application page.

Just sent off an email inquiring about that - whether its an oversight, or whether I missed a deadline (due to no deadlines being posted publicly). And if I missed a deadline to please take my submission into account for the TN filings as well as the Part 1 Application.

I really don't like how you can't find what you're looking for on the CRTC's website - missing things, some things hard-copy only, not being able to make direct comments via the website - forcing a user who has a comment about the proceedings (but doesn't know all participants) to agree to send their comments to all participants, but doesn't provide a bloody list of all participants.

Its freakin ridiculous.

--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



Fn Dummies

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

This Philippe Gauvin (Senior Counsel- Regulatory Law and Policy) guy from Bell isn't too bright is he?

In the Companies' view, the approach taken by Rogers with respect to prorating existing TPIA rates in order to determine rates for these new speeds is entirely appropriate. Such an approach allows both wholesale and retail customers to benefit from the swift introduction of new speed options without the untimely delays associated with performing additional cost studies.

If most all of TSI's customers are on non-aggregated and Rogers is giving the speed only to aggregated, how does someone "benefit from the swift introduction of new speed options without the untimely delays "?

Are all TPIA resellers supposed to just magically move to aggregated w/ no need to worry about the costs of their non-aggregated links? Rogers will just say, "ok don't pay for those, it's alright we understand"?

Are both customers and TPIA resellers just supposed to accept a cost increase? What about all the people who will remain on the grandfathered speeds because they don't want the price increase or going out to buy a new doc-3 modem?

Well I guess everyone will just accept it all as is. Bell just said so. *head-slap*

I'm heading out to buy a box of crackerjacks so I can get the Regulatory Law degree surprise in the box too.

Basically Bell is stating, "fuck the speed-match policy. We are backing Rogers into twisting what it actually says. Screw the people. Mo money for us."



Yeeep

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

Its freakin ridiculous.

That is our great CRTC. Pretty shitty, eh?

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

said by Yeeep :

said by resa1983:

Its freakin ridiculous.

That is our great CRTC. Pretty shitty, eh?

I think I remember them saying they were working on a rewrite of the site. Hopefully, it will actually work properly once its up.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

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

Got an email back. My submission will count for all 4 files. As well, got the pdf file confirming tonight's deadline for filing comments to Rogers' TNs.

As uploaded.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

eeeaddict

join:2010-02-14
reply to aaah

wait so if I'm reading this right, Rogers won now? How likely will it be that the crtc comes to their sense and realized this is BS?



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

said by eeeaddict:

wait so if I'm reading this right, Rogers won now? How likely will it be that the crtc comes to their sense and realized this is BS?

I think so by process according to the letter. I think CNOC might face a tough battle getting dis aggregated rates according to what the CRTC has set out.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

Got an email back. My submission will count for all 4 files. As well, got the pdf file confirming tonight's deadline for filing comments to Rogers' TNs.

I noticed that the CRTC included everyone's e-mail addresses in their reply letter, but I was surprised to see that Bell wasn't using their 'regulationsucks@bell.ca' address for this submission.

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

They're still 'separate' issues. The TN they want to deal only with the pricing, while with the CNOC Part 1 they want to deal with whether non-agg gets it. I assume the decision for all will come out with the CRTC's order to revise TN28-30.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP