dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2828
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca

NEW Wholesale residential high-speed access services150;CBB

Decision CRTC 2012-636
Wholesale residential high-speed access services – Capacity-based billing model service charge rates and related matters
»crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-636.htm

Telecom Order CRTC 2012-634
Videotron G.P. – Introduction of 10 Gigabit Ethernet Interconnecting Option – Third party Internet access service
»crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-634.htm

Telecom Order CRTC 2012-635
Rogers Communications Partnership – Introduction of 10 Gigabit Ethernet Interconnecting Option – Third party Internet access service
»crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-635.htm

First glance looks like price decreases and a larger mark-up for the incumbents. But i'm not sure. One of the resellers here could maybe clarify the new rates versus the old rates.

Also seems like the resellers will have access to fatter pipes, which makes sense.

So are the indie's who are "looking out for the customers" going to drop their monthly rates to reflect the price decreases or is the decrease negligible?

What's the cost saving on the fatter pipes now?

Seems Cogeco got greedy and tried to increase TPIA costs by charging for a dozen "spare parts" (every part imaginable) in case a meteor hits the earth one day and they need 12 of each serviceable part.

CRTC slapped them on the wrist for that one and lowered their costs.


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

JF did a series of tweets on this earlier comparing costs (only editing was fixing spelling mistakes)

#CRTC 2012-636 on CBB change fees may be first one with new transparency rules.. Markup 30% confirmed.

#CRTC decision 2012-636 on CBB changes: old Videotron: $617 for each link. New : $411 for first, $299 for subsequent.

#CRTC decision 2012-636 For Bell Canada: old CBB change fee: $285 per link. New one: $305.49 subsequent ones: $139.54

#CRTC 202-636 For small ISPs with only 1 Bell link. change fee goes from $285 to $305. For multiple links rate is lower.

#CRTC 2012-636 Commission orders Bell (and others) to join the 21st century and provide 10gigE links to ISPs who need them.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23

1 edit
reply to hm

said by hm :

So are the indie's who are "looking out for the customers" going to drop their monthly rates to reflect the price decreases or is the decrease negligible?

There were no significant changes (edit: "to rates that will effect end users"), ie the capacity rates haven't changed yet - these are about service change fees for infrastructure. For what it's worth, we're already priced based on what we expect capacity rates to be lowered to, eating the outrageous costs until then. Ie, if the CBB rates don't go down significantly when the decision comes out then you're more likely to see the rates of indies go up instead as they move to the aggregated platforms.


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

Are you kidding? There are a ton of important changes here.

Firstly, the CRTC has set a maximum amount of time that incumbents are allowed to take for capacity increases, so incumbents can no longer drag their feet for months and months with no promised install date in site. Non-complex requests are now required to be completed within 15 business days, and complex requests within 60 business days. Rogers current rule about "requests must come in by the first day of the preceding month" was ruled arbitrary and no longer permitted.

This means that, even in the worst case of a "complex" order, it must fit within a fixed period. 60 business days is still about 3 months, but it's a MAXIMUM of 3 months, so an indy ISP can plan based on a known fixed schedule instead of Rogers/Bell's current "We'll get to it eventually, 6 months from now."

The other big news is the 10GigE mandatory access. Some providers already offered 10GigE access, like Videotron. Others, like Bell, flat out refused to do so, leading to scenarios where a company like TekSavvy has something like 80 individual connections to manage and balance. The CRTC's order now requires Bell to offer 10GigE by filing tariffs when the service is requested, which will enormously simplify balancing for wholesale ISPs, leading to a substantially increased quality of service for end-users.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rocca

said by rocca:

Ie, if the CBB rates don't go down significantly when the decision comes out then you're more likely to see the rates of indies go up instead as they move to the aggregated platforms.

You are speaking solely for Rogers and Cogeco I take it. People exist outside those realms

There is Videotron and Bell as well. Videotron is already aggregated and now has a decent price decrease.

Videotron usage rates have to go down. They most certainly can't increase. I expect the same to happen in regards to cogeco.

No clue about Rogers or Bell.


yeep

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

So who will be the first to drop their prices?

Who will be the first to say they are keeping all cost savings and not passing it onto their beloved customers?



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

said by yeep :

So who will be the first to drop their prices?

Who will be the first to say they are keeping all cost savings and not passing it onto their beloved customers?

What cost savings? The change in pricing at the end of the day is so tiny as to be largely irrelevant.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to hm

said by hm :

You are speaking solely for Rogers and Cogeco I take it. People exist outside those realms

There is Videotron and Bell as well. Videotron is already aggregated and now has a decent price decrease.

No I mean everyone.

These are service charge changes. In the big picture it's a drop in the bucket. Ie, a $200 savings for a change order on a service costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per month is pretty insignificant.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great decision for the points it covered - ie standard 10G interfaces available, more reasonable ordering intervals, service charges that are not totally insane - all important process related stuff. Hopefully it's a sign of good things to come, but the elephant in the room is still there, jumping and screaming madly. The critical decision of course is the CBB block rate and I'm glad the CRTC is taking it seriously and giving it time to try and get it right, it's crucial they do, but it sure hurts paying the current prices in the mean-time.


creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to hm

Love this gem:

quote:
69. However, the Commission notes that Cogeco’s cost study included supplemental costs associated with spares in the event of a failure, and that a higher level of spares was assumed in their cost study for wholesale services than the level that the company maintains for its own retail services. The Commission considers that this in inappropriate, and that the costs are therefore inflated. The Commission determines that it would be appropriate for Cogeco to apply the same level of spares as it uses in its network for its retail services.
**Emphasis added

Yes Gougeco you cannot play games by claiming that you must keep ready many extra spares on hand when you don't even do this for your own customers.

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

Rogers did the same thing.

Appendix

quote:
Table 1
#9
Commission adjustment
Exclude these costs

Rationale for adjustment
Refer to paragraphs 29 and 31. Documentation and filing activities should already be included in other CSG activities, not as a separate and distinct activity.

Table 2
#10
Commission adjustment
Calculate proposed time estimates by assuming 1.5 interfaces per order on average, assume proposed costs are order-driven, and reduce calculated time estimate by 60%.

#13
Commission adjustment
Calculate proposed time estimates by assuming 1.5 interfaces per order on average and reduce recalculated total time estimate by 73%
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Cogeco PR

@videotron.ca
reply to creed3020


Cogeco PR Man
said by creed3020:

Yes Gougeco you cannot play games by claiming that you must keep ready many extra spares on hand when you don't even do this for your own customers.

There is absolutely *NO* truth to this rumour.
The CRTC is misread it.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to hm

said by hm :

You are speaking solely for Rogers and Cogeco I take it. People exist outside those realms

No, he's talking about CBB rates, which have yet to be decided. His realm is reality.

grunze510

join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
kudos:1

said by Gone:

said by hm :

You are speaking solely for Rogers and Cogeco I take it. People exist outside those realms

No, he's talking about CBB rates, which have yet to be decided. His realm is reality.

I'm not about to look on the CRTC's excuse of a website for the capacity-based prices, so I'm taking some rough guesses here.

I think Rogers is currently charging $1200/100Mbit/s ($12000/Gbit/s), Videotron is charging $1900/100Mbit/s ($19000/Gbit/s), Bell charges about $2200/100Mbit/s ($22000/Gbit/s), and Cogeco charges about $2800/100Mbit/s ($28000/Gbit/s).
Now, with that in mind, and if I remember right, didn't Videotron later file asking to charge an insane $4500/100Mbit/s ($45000/Gbit/s)? I don't know about Robellco, but I wouldn't be surprised if they asked for double their current rates. I'm hoping for the best (but don't know if it'll happen).


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

Don't forget MTS, which was a few hundred bucks per 100 megabit :P
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to grunze510

said by grunze510:

I think Rogers is currently charging $1200/100Mbit/s ($12000/Gbit/s), Videotron is charging $1900/100Mbit/s ($19000/Gbit/s), Bell charges about $2200/100Mbit/s ($22000/Gbit/s), and Cogeco charges about $2800/100Mbit/s ($28000/Gbit/s).
Now, with that in mind, and if I remember right, didn't Videotron later file asking to charge an insane $4500/100Mbit/s ($45000/Gbit/s)? I don't know about Robellco, but I wouldn't be surprised if they asked for double their current rates. I'm hoping for the best (but don't know if it'll happen).

They're probably operating on the assumption that if they ask for something double what they have now, the CRTC keeping the rates what they were in 2011-703 (instead of cutting them in half or more, which is the likely outcome) will be a win.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to grunze510

said by grunze510:

said by Gone:

said by hm :

You are speaking solely for Rogers and Cogeco I take it. People exist outside those realms

No, he's talking about CBB rates, which have yet to be decided. His realm is reality.

I'm not about to look on the CRTC's excuse of a website for the capacity-based prices, so I'm taking some rough guesses here.

I think Rogers is currently charging $1200/100Mbit/s ($12000/Gbit/s), Videotron is charging $1900/100Mbit/s ($19000/Gbit/s), Bell charges about $2200/100Mbit/s ($22000/Gbit/s), and Cogeco charges about $2800/100Mbit/s ($28000/Gbit/s).
Now, with that in mind, and if I remember right, didn't Videotron later file asking to charge an insane $4500/100Mbit/s ($45000/Gbit/s)? I don't know about Robellco, but I wouldn't be surprised if they asked for double their current rates. I'm hoping for the best (but don't know if it'll happen).

Those are the interim rates.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

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

said by Guspaz:

Firstly, the CRTC has set a maximum amount of time that incumbents are allowed to take for capacity increases, so incumbents can no longer drag their feet for months and months with no promised install date in site. Non-complex requests are now required to be completed within 15 business days, and complex requests within 60 business days.

And the penalties for NOT complying are what exactly?
Most likely the incumbent CEO being forced to stand at a bar in Yellowknife and being forced to buy shots for any CRTC commissioner who shows up between 6:00pm to 6:01pm each Thursday there is a full moon from today through to next Friday - would be my guess.

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

said by MaynardKrebs:

And the penalties for NOT complying are what exactly?
Most likely the incumbent CEO being forced to stand at a bar in Yellowknife and being forced to buy shots for any CRTC commissioner who shows up between 6:00pm to 6:01pm each Thursday there is a full moon from today through to next Friday - would be my guess.

I think they can revoke licenses.. But we all know that'll never happen for any incumbents unless its a radio station or something.

But yeah, its essentially "Do what we tell you, or we'll shake our fist at you... And yeah, thats all."
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

said by hm :

You are speaking solely for Rogers and Cogeco I take it. People exist outside those realms

No, he's talking about CBB rates, which have yet to be decided. His realm is reality.

Well that exactly what I was getting at (as shown if you quote the whole thing and not selectively cherry-pick).

He is speaking strictly of Ontario cable. Not the whole reality of cable everywhere. Quebec cable is already aggregated so there is no price increase for this. It's only Rogers and Cogeco.

In regards to the price he is stating that is to come out, again an increase would happen with Rogers and perhaps cogeco (assuming their numbers they filed are honest...). Again, in the case of videotron it can't increase. They are already on the border of resellers not wanting to resell them since their price is so high as is. It takes only a couple of "free" speed upgrades to force TPIA providers to *have* to increase costs to their customers themselves to cover usage costs while videotron wouldn't have to.

In the case of Rogers and Cogeco, yeah there are possible price increases. With Videotron it just isn't going to happen. There already isn't lots of room to maneuver w/o eating into their profits (see grunze510 posted rates). Maybe Ebox and TSI-Marc can comment on this.

However, I am thinking prices will decrease across the board for all of them. As the CRTC already pointed out, all the players are gaming the system with inflated costs and made up labour costs (ie 70% overboard!) that does not reflect reality, and no one can argue their costs since no one was allowed to see them. Thus the tiny bit of transparency we are seeing in these last 3 decisions which are pointing out how they played the CRTC, the iisp's, and of course everyone in Canada using a reseller.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by hm :

Well that exactly what I was getting at (as shown if you quote the whole thing and not selectively cherry-pick).

I don't think you do, particularly since Rogers and Cogeco are already aggregated and rocca's ISP is running on those aggregated links right now in Ontario. Anything that would apply to the context of Videotron's aggregate network as far as pricing goes would just as equally apply to Rogers' and Cogeco's aggregate networks as well.


hm

@videotron.ca

said by Gone:

said by hm :

Well that exactly what I was getting at (as shown if you quote the whole thing and not selectively cherry-pick).

I don't think you do, particularly since Rogers and Cogeco are already aggregated and rocca's ISP is running on those aggregated links right now in Ontario. Anything that would apply to the context of Videotron's aggregate network as far as pricing goes would just as equally apply to Rogers' and Cogeco's aggregate networks as well.

Rogers did not have aggregated. It was mandated to do this over time. And now they are ready for it after X-years in the works. Cogeco, no clue, they are broken up in diff territories and prov's with diff points of interconnect the last time I looked. Does Start also Service Quebec Cogeco territory though a single point of interconnection? Because this was also something asked to do. Does one point of interconnect give Start the whole of cogeco's Quebec and Ontario foot print? Last I read, the answer was no. Unless this has now been addressed.

Rocca can maybe answer that one.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by hm :

Rogers did not have aggregated. It was mandated to do this over time. And now they are ready for it after X-years in the works.

So what? They have a functional aggregated POI available now. What's your point?

said by hm :

Cogeco, no clue, they are broken up in diff territories and prov's with diff points of interconnect the last time I looked.

There's only two interconnects - Burlington for Ontario and Trois-Rivieres for Quebec. This isn't "broken up" - the Burlington POI aggregates roughly 20-30 POIs in Ontario and Trois-Rivieresaround ten or so in Quebec. Cogeco Ontario and Cogeco Quebec are functionally separated, just like Rogers Ontario and Rogers Atlantic Canada are.

said by hm :

Does Start also Service Quebec Cogeco territory though a single point of interconnection? Because this was also something asked to do. Does one point of interconnect give Start the whole of cogeco's Quebec and Ontario foot print? Last I read, the answer was no. Unless this has now been addressed.

No, and it never will. Seeing as how Videotron doesn't serve anywhere except for Quebec and the very immediate Francophone near-periphery in Ontario and New Brunswick, we have zero way of knowing if they would have designed their network any differently and if they would have functional separation, though from what I remember - and this is going back at least 15 years or so now - when they had operations in Alberta and Manitoba, they *were* functionally separated from Quebec and if we were to translate this into a similar parallel today in is more than logical that they would have regional aggregate POIs for Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec like Rogers has for Ontario and Atlantic and Cogeco has for Ontario and Quebec. Ultimately we'll never know, and any comments you make on this particular issue would be nothing more than speculation seeing as how they only function in one province today.


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to hm

said by hm :

Does one point of interconnect give Start the whole of cogeco's Quebec and Ontario foot print? Last I read, the answer was no. Unless this has now been addressed.

No, Cogeco has two POI's, one in Ontario and one in Quebec. To connect to their entire footprint you'd have to connect to both POI's.


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to hm

said by hm :

However, I am thinking prices will decrease across the board for all of them. As the CRTC already pointed out, all the players are gaming the system with inflated costs and made up labour costs (ie 70% overboard!) that does not reflect reality, and no one can argue their costs since no one was allowed to see them.

If you're talking about the CBB block capacity rate, then yes, we're expecting them to go down too but that was my point. If IISP's have to keep paying $15,000-$30,000/Gbps for capacity and backhaul then I think it's more likely to see prices increase for consumers in the near future. If the prices come down 50% then I think you'll see the current retail prices stay where they are. Alternatively, if the CRTC comes back at $2/Mbps like MTS then yes at that type of reduction it could be a game changer and see a reduction in prices for consumers, but I don't think that's too likely even though it'd be considerably closer to the actual transport costs compared to where they are today.

geokilla

join:2010-10-04
North York, ON

Guys guys. "Idiots" read this forum too. Can someone summarize this in idiot terms?



creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

Rogers did the same thing.

Appendix

quote:
Table 1
#9
Commission adjustment
Exclude these costs

Rationale for adjustment
Refer to paragraphs 29 and 31. Documentation and filing activities should already be included in other CSG activities, not as a separate and distinct activity.

Table 2
#10
Commission adjustment
Calculate proposed time estimates by assuming 1.5 interfaces per order on average, assume proposed costs are order-driven, and reduce calculated time estimate by 60%.

#13
Commission adjustment
Calculate proposed time estimates by assuming 1.5 interfaces per order on average and reduce recalculated total time estimate by 73%

Wow I missed those in the bottom section. This stuff is sure written in such a way that 90% of the good content can be missed completely. A mandate to switch to plain language would do the Canadian public a lot of good.

Gosh Rogers has a freaking off the chart markup on time estimates. That is plain scary.

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

said by creed3020:

Wow I missed those in the bottom section. This stuff is sure written in such a way that 90% of the good content can be missed completely. A mandate to switch to plain language would do the Canadian public a lot of good.

Gosh Rogers has a freaking off the chart markup on time estimates. That is plain scary.

It really looks like they added in a coffee break/smoke break/bathroom break for every little thing they do for TPIA.

Possibly because none of their reps WANT to work on the TPIA stuff.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

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

said by geokilla:

Guys guys. "Idiots" read this forum too. Can someone summarize this in idiot terms?

Have lots of lube handy, just in case.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to geokilla

said by geokilla:

Guys guys. "Idiots" read this forum too. Can someone summarize this in idiot terms?

Summary:

Nothing.
Nothing affects the end user. Except resellers get a small price decrease and they can remain in business so that you have a choice of buying their services at the same (or more) cost.

If we review what was said here, the next cost review (the big one) will have no impact on the end user who are over-paying as well. The so called indi's stated they will keep any money, and not reduce costs.

So this is your answer for these releases, and for the next big cost decrease coming. You are to remain happy that prices won't go down and just be happy you can buy a bell reseller.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by hm :

If we review what was said here, the next cost review (the big one) will have no impact on the end user who are over-paying as well. The so called indi's stated they will keep any money, and not reduce costs.
So this is your answer for these releases, and for the next big cost decrease coming. You are to remain happy that prices won't go down and just be happy you can buy a bell reseller.

BZZZT wrong again. The indies will not be "keeping" any money. Instead, if you read what one here has said, they've priced their services based on the expected cost adjustments in the CBB R&V. There's no money to "keep" when you're already operating at a loss.