Topic 'CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers' in forum 'Canadian Broadband' - dslreports.com

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Sat, 09 Feb 2013 14:57:53 EDT

bdoyledimou posted : they DID in Markham.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:51:45 EDT

yyzlhr posted :

said by bt:

said by vincom:

there wont be any old disaggreated plans anymore as of nov13/2013 as rogers states, everyone will be on the new aggregated system with whatever caps/speeds rogers specifys

Rogers does not get to set TPIA usage limits.

I think vincom meant the caps will essentially decided by Rogers in the sense that TPIAs will be unlikely to be able to offer unlimited plans with the same profit margins as before.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:28:12 EDT

bt posted :

said by vincom:

there wont be any old disaggreated plans anymore as of nov13/2013 as rogers states, everyone will be on the new aggregated system with whatever caps/speeds rogers specifys

Rogers does not get to set TPIA usage limits.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:23:40 EDT

vincom posted :

said by shwatkin:

said by LostTheGame:

Distributel needs to rush to get their AGG POIs online

Agreed. While I'm happy with 28/1 service I'd be happier with 35/3. Mostly looking forward to the faster upload speed. However, if it means losing my unlimited service then I'm happy to stick with 28/1.

there wont be any old disaggreated plans anymore as of nov13/2013 as rogers states, everyone will be on the new aggregated system with whatever caps/speeds rogers specifys and whatever indie can afford to give out as to the caps

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:11:10 EDT

d_source posted :

said by shwatkin:

said by LostTheGame:

Distributel needs to rush to get their AGG POIs online

+1. Must continue to be unlimited.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:33:14 EDT

anon posted :

said by geokilla:

said by aaah :

said by geokilla:

They say they've been upgrading their POIs to deal with their congestion issues and keep up with demand. Something about contract too and Rogers being dumb. Go to Teksavvy's subforum for more info.

Does every Rogers reseller have this issue there? Or only TSI?

Distributel?
Acanac?
Start?
Other?

What issue? Speeds? Or congestion?

Whatever it was that you replied to in this specific region for this specific person, which appears to be all the above.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:07:53 EDT

geokilla posted :

said by aaah :

said by geokilla:

They say they've been upgrading their POIs to deal with their congestion issues and keep up with demand. Something about contract too and Rogers being dumb. Go to Teksavvy's subforum for more info.

Does every Rogers reseller have this issue there? Or only TSI?

Distributel?
Acanac?
Start?
Other?

What issue? Speeds? Or congestion?

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 17:09:45 EDT

shwatkin posted :

said by LostTheGame:

Distributel needs to rush to get their AGG POIs online

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:45:03 EDT

resa1983 posted :

said by bdoyledimou:

right now -- I am fine -- but slowing down -- i am getting between 20 and 28mbps regardless of time of day.

That wasnt the case between June 2011 and October 2012, when they had a stop sell and a massive crush on their poi.

The problems didn't go into late 2012.
»www.speedtest.net/results.php?ria=180704354
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:25:03 EDT

bdoyledimou posted : right now -- I am fine -- but slowing down -- i am getting between 20 and 28mbps regardless of time of day.

That wasnt the case between June 2011 and October 2012, when they had a stop sell and a massive crush on their poi.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 11:00:26 EDT

resa1983 posted :

said by aaah :

You only have half the speed you bought for 1.5 years now? On over-sold cable?

Seriously?

I didn't know Teksavvy never bothered upgrading their links for what they oversold for an entire year and a half. That's something. Really is.

I call BS, cuz Teksavvy is still installing upgrades to POIs.
Either he's using a D2 modem for the D3 service or he's seeing local node congestion. If you check the Rogers forum, there is local node congestion in several areas right now.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:45:13 EDT

anon posted :

said by geokilla:

They say they've been upgrading their POIs to deal with their congestion issues and keep up with demand. Something about contract too and Rogers being dumb. Go to Teksavvy's subforum for more info.

Does every Rogers reseller have this issue there? Or only TSI?

Distributel?
Acanac?
Start?
Other?

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:33:33 EDT

geokilla posted :

said by aaah :

They say they've been upgrading their POIs to deal with their congestion issues and keep up with demand. Something about contract too and Rogers being dumb. Go to Teksavvy's subforum for more info.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:32:17 EDT

anon posted : What was the excuse(s) you got?

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:19:04 EDT

bdoyledimou posted : NOT now although it is starting to slow down again at peak hours -- from June 2010 to Nov 2012 i was paying for the 24 Mbps and getting (if i was lucky) 12 Mbps during off peak, and maybe 5 mbps from 4 pm to 2 am. they had a stop sell on the node, but it still took 1.5 years to upgrade and fix the issue.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:16:24 EDT

anon posted : You only have half the speed you bought for 1.5 years now? On over-sold cable?

Seriously?

I didn't know Teksavvy never bothered upgrading their links for what they oversold for an entire year and a half. That's something. Really is.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:08:18 EDT

bdoyledimou posted : Tek is going to have to pull a rabbit out of someplace or Start is going to get the business.

If i can have faster speeds and same downloads cap for the same price -- guess where i am headed.

As it is i have only recieved half the promised speed that i was paying for from tek for 1.5 years while they were oversold in my area..

not going to sit here and let them take my $$$ for half service for much longer.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:37:55 EDT

anon posted :

said by TOPDAWG:

hm so this stuff means what?

Means non-aggregated resellers will need to move to aggregated to get the same speeds.

The writing was on the wall with this one. Besides it's already be stated and known ISP's have to move over to aggregated.

For example:
I believe Start is aggregated, so they got the speed match
Teksavvy is not, so no speed match for them.

So little by little Teksavvy will have to make the migration over the year. This means that people on Rogers and Start, for example, get the new speeds right away (rogers has to file the tariff's for the faster upload), teksavvy users may get it 10-months to a year from now. So I envision lots of TSI people jumping ship in the coming months not wanting to wait till the end of the year to get a speed increase.

I don't know how Acanac or distributel are set-up. You need to ask them.

Maybe create a new topic asking this, or ask Acanac over here, »community.acanac.com/acanac/

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:53:42 EDT

LostTheGame posted : Distributel needs to rush to get their AGG POIs online

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:41:08 EDT

Samgee posted : For now nothing changes. The hope was this would force speed increases for current TPIA customers. The speed matching will take place when those providers move to aggregate connections, which must be completed by mid-November of this year. Start is already on aggregate which is why they currently offer the higher speeds. The rest will move over by November.

The next CRTC decision will impact the pricing of those new plans.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:24:11 EDT

anon posted : What 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!

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:20:43 EDT

TOPDAWG posted : hm so this stuff means what?

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:15:50 EDT

LostTheGame posted : I guess I'm stuck with my 512kbs upload speed then.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:58:52 EDT

bt posted :

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.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:56:11 EDT

HiVolt posted :

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.
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:34:54 EDT

resa1983 posted :

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.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:27:07 EDT

bt posted : Decision is in:

»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2013/2013-36.htm

Speed matching for non-aggregate: Denied

Not 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)

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:41:04 EDT

MaynardKrebs posted :

said by nupogodi:

I like you guys.

Dude, DSLreports isn't Facebook.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:36:57 EDT

MaynardKrebs posted :

said by nupogodi:

I like you guys.

Dude, this isn't Facebook.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:43:18 EDT

anon posted :

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...

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:36:19 EDT

resa1983 posted :

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.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:55:33 EDT

rocca posted : Doh. Caffeine deficiency.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:54:18 EDT

resa1983 posted :

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. ;)
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:52:15 EDT

rocca posted : That's for speed matching on disaggregated, still very important but not the 'big one' on capacity rates that we're waiting for.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:50:53 EDT

LostTheGame posted : This week!

»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/decisions.htm

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:49:58 EDT

resa1983 posted :

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.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:46:46 EDT

bt posted :

said by nupogodi:

Are we just stuck waiting on CRTC or what?

Basically, yeah.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:43:55 EDT

nupogodi posted : So... when are we going to hear some more about this? Are we just stuck waiting on CRTC or what?

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 03:54:34 EDT

brad posted :

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.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 02:43:14 EDT

nupogodi posted : I like you guys.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:14:17 EDT

resa1983 posted :

said by c2roth:

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?
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:54:46 EDT

c2roth posted : 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.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Sun, 06 Jan 2013 18:34:55 EDT

mlerner posted : Judging by the upcoming decisions, likely not this week unless they're going to surprise us. »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/decisions.htm

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Sun, 06 Jan 2013 18:28:08 EDT

Davesnothere posted :
Any updates on this ?

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:02:59 EDT

andyb posted : I generally say 90 days as they dont work much faster than that but with the new chairman god only knows

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:21:52 EDT

resa1983 posted :

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/exp-acc.htm

I 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.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:52:55 EDT

anon posted : 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.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:56:08 EDT

rocca posted :

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.

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:22:00 EDT

bt posted :

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.