|reply to rocca |
Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against Rogers
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.