dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
37
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt to TakeOffEh

Member

to TakeOffEh

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

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 Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

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 ··· RTC.html

TakeOffEh
@teksavvy.com

TakeOffEh

Anon

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 Member
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON

HiVolt

Premium Member

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 Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

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.
resa1983

resa1983

Premium Member

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.

Feelings
@videotron.ca

Feelings

Anon

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

resa1983

Premium Member

said by Feelings :

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.

Lawlz. I was talking with someone about that this morning.

For those who don't know: Bill was cut off on the 401 Express, and totaled his car. He's ok.

Shrug
@videotron.ca

Shrug

Anon

I'm glad CNOC made reference to your filing and more or less copied it. I'm pretty sure it would have went ignored, as they always have in the past.

CNOC and JF made sure it didn't.

But then again, we have seen over the years how CNOC, CAIP, and JF referenced blatant lies people have pointed out and the CRTC ignored it anyhow. *shrug*

I'm also kind of surprised that PIAC or the consumers union didn't bother with this one (equal access). But then again Since Anthony Hemond left the consumers union I find they aren't the same, or as involved or as vocal.

You did good. +1 to you. Let's wait and see how (if) the CRTC acknowledges it.
Expand your moderator at work
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning to Anon

Member

to Anon

Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers

said by HiVolt:

Are you f'n kidding me? It was probably Bell ordering the hit on him last time, now it's probably Rogers! LOL.

He's fine. Car not so much...

PrettyPink
@telus.com

PrettyPink

Anon

Any word on Roger's response today?

AOD
Premium Member
join:2008-01-24
M9B

AOD

Premium Member

said by PrettyPink :

Any word on Roger's response today?

+1?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

Rogers doesn't have to file til 8pm EST.

I haven't received anything from JF today - he's been forwarding me everything as I'm not on any of the established email lists.
resa1983

resa1983

Premium Member

Here's Rogers's final response to TN28-30. They sent it to me directly for once.

andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario

andyb

Premium Member

If you has signed up for UBB stuff you would get everything still.I get everything for this rogers tariff too from that.Well except from CNOC who seem incapable of sending to anyone but the CRTC
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

I didn't sign up during the UBB process to get the filings

Tabernak
@videotron.ca

Tabernak to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
6. This argument ignores the fact that 18, 28 and 32 Mbps speed services will remain in the market for existing retail and TPIA end-users and that 25, 35 and 45 Mbps are new speeds.

This is irrelevant. Their customers are getting it as a speed upgrade and so should wholesale customers. The "grandfathered" speeds are only there for non-doc-3 modem users who haven't spent the money to upgrade their modems yet. THAT IS ALL.

But Rogers this as not a speed upgrade at all (which is indeed what it is per their marketing material and ad-injections to their own customers, as Rssa pointed out):
7. ... “determines that if a cable carrier introduces a new retail Internet service speed, it is to file, at the same time, proposed revisions to its TPIA tariff to include this new speed offering, with a supporting cost study.”

In other words, Rogers is pretending the old tiers are their as an old offering instead of what it actually is, a grace period for people to upgrade to Doc-3 modems. In other words, they are still claiming it's not a speed upgrade as their marketing material clearly shows.

What a joke.

Then Rogers goes on to state that the cost increases because it's Doc-3 pricing and not Doc-2. But they again negate to mention their own customers are not getting the cost increase. They are instead getting a "free upgrade". Then they again play this as saying CNOC is trying to pretend Doc-3 costing doesn't exist.

Then Rogers mentions the new costs are based on policy 703, but negates to mention these prices are all over-priced and on revue.

In other words Rogers is saying, "Hurry force the over-priced costs on wholesale before they get knocked down so we can have a competitive advantage for a few months before changes occur".

In #13, Rogers then states the flawed 703 costs that will be re-reviewed, are correct and states we have already proved Doc-3 prices are higher. Yet again negates to say they are giving it free to their own customers.

LOL Then Rogers states CNOC lives in denial. LOL

Rogers then states in a round about way that previous price hikes Rogers customers got were applied to these upgrades so customers already paid for it and indeed paying for it now.

So what does this mean? Rogers just stated that Doc-2 customers (their own customers) should be applying to the CCTS because they are paying for a Doc-3 modem with Doc-3 speeds yet don't have it. Too bad for them. Can of worms there... Where is the Consumers Union when you need them?

Rogers then goes on playing the system in regards to the flawed 703 policy and what was stated there with flawed costs.

The who thing is a game.

Man, what a circle of bullshit.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt

Member

said by Tabernak :

So what does this mean? Rogers just stated that Doc-2 customers (their own customers) should be applying to the CCTS because they are paying for a Doc-3 modem with Doc-3 speeds yet don't have it.

The prices don't include modem rental/purchase. So no, Doc2 customers aren't paying for Doc3 modems. Speeds, though - yes.

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

rocca

Premium Member

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.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

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.