dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17143
share rss forum feed


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

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

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

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
Click for full size
downloadTN2829Addendum.pdf 56,413 bytes
Added the following .pdf file to my revised submission to make it crystal clear these are not 'new' tiers, but upgrades.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


i LOLd

@videotron.ca
reply 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 Rogers

However, 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
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
New JF submission for TN28-30. Haven't read it yet.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
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
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
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.

--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
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).


Robleh

join:2009-07-14
canada
reply to aaah
Sorry but, has anything been said about the speed matching on non-argg poi's?


The Tone

@videotron.ca
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
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
CNOC's filing on Wed re: Rogers TN28

This deals with the pricing of the 'new' speeds.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
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.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


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

1 edit
reply to aaah
Hmm, a few typos in the CNOC letters. Orphan words, asking the CRTC to be "grating" them relief, etc.

resa: the reference to you, on top of the "is in receipt of" thing at the start, appears to be these paragraphs:

said by CNOC :

As noted by Ms. Murphy, it is crystal clear that for those Rogers retail end-users that have or acquire DOCSIS 3.0 modems, the speed increases are automatic (i.e., do constitute a “re-speeding”) and do not involve any rate increase as admitted by Rogers in the press release attached to this reply in which Rogers announced the speed increases;

and
said by CNOC :

Finally, CNOC shares the concern expressed by Ms. Murphy that upstream speed increases provided to Rogers’ retail end-users free of charge are not also being extended to end-users of TPIA customers as required by paragraph 210 of Decision 2006-77, and so CNOC urges the Commission to act on this matter as well, but without holding up the etermination of the CNOC Application as it related to Rogers Tariff Notice 28.

--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
Read it right after I posted it.

The "crystal clear" comment was in the email I sent to the TN28-30 filing (ie the 2011-703 participants).
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


TakeOffEh

@teksavvy.com
reply to aaah
So CNOC filed, Rogers responded, CNOC followed up, now it's time for CRTC to decide? Is that correct? As far as I can tell, that seems to be the case. If so, could that mean we may finally see a decision some time next week?

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by TakeOffEh :

So CNOC filed, Rogers responded, CNOC followed up, now it's time for CRTC to decide? Is that correct? As far as I can tell, that seems to be the case.

Rogers response to the CNOC response is due Tuesday, IIRC.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
Someone in IRC asked me to create an easier to follow timeline of everything, because the CRTC's site really sucks, and cuz this thread bounced a bit between the 2 proceedings.

So here's the full timeline with links, and a bit of a summary:
»dl.dropbox.com/u/9038867/Rogers/CRTC.html
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


TakeOffEh

@teksavvy.com
said by resa1983:

Someone in IRC asked me to create an easier to follow timeline of everything, because the CRTC's site really sucks, and cuz this thread bounced a bit between the 2 proceedings.

Thanks, that helped immensely.

Sigh. It's as I feared. We won't be seeing any resolution on this until next year.


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
said by TakeOffEh :

Sigh. It's as I feared. We won't be seeing any resolution on this until next year.

Which was probably precisely Rogers' plan, given that they had to know that TPIA providers would protest and the CRTC back & forth isn't quick...

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

said by TakeOffEh :

Sigh. It's as I feared. We won't be seeing any resolution on this until next year.

Which was probably precisely Rogers' plan, given that they had to know that TPIA providers would protest and the CRTC back & forth isn't quick...

Its quicker than usual as this is an expedited process. Some of those other processes can take months on end.

Its very possible the CRTC decides before the beginning of Christmas break, and order they provide the upgrades immediately.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
CNOC refiled their submission. Will update my html page in a minute.

EDIT: Done. Looks like they added a pdf printout of Rogers' own press release showing they said it was re-speeding, and not 'new' tiers like Rogers had stated.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Feelings

@videotron.ca
I have a good feeling.

Karma is definitely on the side of CNOC

First the prez of CNOC gets struck by lightning and lived to tell about it
»Prez of CNOC Hit by Lightening

and now he just got in a car accident which totaled his car on the 401 and he's still chugging away.

Both heaven and hell doesn't want this guy. Guess he's stuck in CRTC purgatory.