elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to resa1983
Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against RogersNicely done Ressy.
Showing screen shots from the Rogers page is going to kick them in the head hard. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-16 9:55 pm
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. |
|
hm @videotron.ca |
hm to resa1983
Anon
2012-Nov-16 10:15 pm
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 to aaah
Anon
2012-Nov-17 2:05 am
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. |
|
|
shrug to resa1983
Anon
2012-Nov-17 2:08 am
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 Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
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/ ··· Lang=engSwitch the year to 2012, and it'll be the top listing there. |
|
|
|
umm eh
Anon
2012-Nov-17 2:16 pm
ah lol ty for explaining that. Never saw it cuz I have cookies off. :/ Duh on me. |
|
TOPDAWG Premium Member join:2005-04-27 Calgary, AB |
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 Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-19 8:59 am
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. |
|
resa1983 |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-20 8:59 am
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... |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
They agree with Robbers, why am I not shocked. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON 1 edit |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-20 9:25 am
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. |
|
|
Fn Dummies to resa1983
Anon
2012-Nov-20 9:42 am
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 to resa1983
Anon
2012-Nov-20 9:52 am
to resa1983
said by resa1983:Its freakin ridiculous. That is our great CRTC. Pretty shitty, eh? |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-20 10:17 am
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. |
|
resa1983 |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-20 4:05 pm
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. |
|
|
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? |
|
|
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. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
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 Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-20 6:16 pm
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. |
|
resa1983 |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-20 7:59 pm
Added the following .pdf file to my revised submission to make it crystal clear these are not 'new' tiers, but upgrades. |
|
|
i LOLd to resa1983
Anon
2012-Nov-20 8:03 pm
to resa1983
Resa, seems to me Rogers got away with another lie. As you are finding out, the CRTC doesn't care Bell or Rogers say one thing and do another. Or lie through their teeth. Their is no honour nor integrity at this Canadian government institution. See: » Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against RogersHowever, I think it would be funny if someone pushed the issue and directly asked the CRTC chair why they accept the lies as is while ignoring what is actually happening. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-20 8:46 pm
New JF submission for TN28-30. Haven't read it yet. |
|
hm @videotron.ca |
hm
Anon
2012-Nov-20 9:18 pm
said by resa1983:New JF submission for TN28-30. Haven't read it yet. Basically JF is stating this: Point #1: 1) The CRTC is giving preference to Rogers over Bell in allowing a cost increase for the speed tiers. The commission already stated that Bell is to give the same speed upgrades at no cost. So if the CRTC allows Rogers to increase costs Bell can & will file an undue preference and demand the same. This in turn will also justify Bell increasing rates for no reason. In addition the CRTC will disregard & toss out previous policy. Also, JF points out the lies you caught them in which the CRTC is once again ignoring. Ramifications: Both resellers and customers of resellers will be getting price increases. Summary: if the CRTC allows this a an of worms will be opened for price hikes across the board for everything. Be prepared for price hikes to your 3rd party internet provider. Both cable and DSL for each miniscule 1-meg increase. In addition to the raising of rates for all 3rd party internet service, Bell and rogers will undercut price since the CRTC is allowing & putting price hikes in stone for resellers but not for the incumbents, Bell, Rogers et al. Simply put, the CRTC is tossing out speed match policies and also creating new pricing policies. +1 JF! It's pretty clear Bell is going to jump on the band-wagon. And if the CRTC refuses then Bell can state the CRTC is giving Rogers a competitive advantage. However, the CRTC already said Cable-co costs are more than DSL in a previous ruling. So this is the only wiggle room I see for both CNOC and the CRTC to use to disapprove a Bell rate hike. And this one point may be weak. CNOC turn in this chess match. Ressa went ignored. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-20 10:07 pm
I wouldn't say ignored. I'd say someone who is much more experienced than I, read my submission, took information I gathered, and put it into a submission the CRTC would take much more seriously and accept.
Curious how they're going to try to wiggle out of these not being upgrades, instead of new packages like they stated though. |
|
hm @videotron.ca |
hm
Anon
2012-Nov-20 11:50 pm
said by resa1983:I wouldn't say ignored. I'd say someone who is much more experienced than I, read my submission, took information I gathered, and put it into a submission the CRTC would take much more seriously and accept. No Resa. Your submission should should be taken equally as serious as JF's submission or Bell's submission. Don't put yourself down or even think that you are less important or less serious. You did well. You showed and brought up Rogers lies that both CNOC and JF missed at first chance. The Harper governments CRTC *chose* to ignore you. I hope you now explore how to file an access to Information request to see all the info that was used to judge this case. I would also hope JF does as well. I've never done one so i'm access to Information dumb. But I'm sure JF would help you if you asked him. Or maybe someone else here who has experience in it. Then you can post it for all to see. You did very well and are also seeing how for years people have been screaming and the CRTC just ignores everyone except for Bell and Rogers. Even when they are blatantly lying through their teeth and everyone knows it (yet the Harper CRTC chooses to pretend it doesn't exist). |
|
|
to aaah
Sorry but, has anything been said about the speed matching on non-argg poi's? |
|
|
The Tone
Anon
2012-Nov-21 7:32 am
said by Robleh:Sorry but, has anything been said about the speed matching on non-argg poi's? Nothing written in stone yet. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-23 9:05 am
CNOC's filing on Wed re: Rogers TN28 This deals with the pricing of the 'new' speeds. |
|
resa1983 |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-23 9:07 am
CNOC's final filing to their Part 1 application requesting enforcement for speedmatching. Haven't read it yet (JF just forwarded it to me), but a nice gentlemen yesterday informed me they'd be referencing my submission. |
|