dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2718
share rss forum feed


Rickkins

join:2004-04-05
Mtl, Canada

[Cable] 60/3 now available at Ebox. Teksavvy...???

C'mon guys... you can do it....!!!!



Rickkins

join:2004-04-05
Mtl, Canada

Seriously...??? Almost 400 views, and nary a tsi comment....

Was it something I said...???



elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

said by The Mongoose:

There is a case pending at the CRTC right now. Rogers is denying TSI and all other non-aggregated providers access to the higher speed tiers.

If TSI and the rest of CNOC win, the faster speeds will be available, although to whom and how quickly is unknown. If Rogers wins, TSI won't see these speeds until they go to aggregated POI, probably near the end of 2013.



neuromancer1

join:2007-01-22
York, ON

1 recommendation

reply to Rickkins

Awesome speed but I still don't use all my TSI 18MB Cable speed next to nothing but private tracker torrents can max out the connection. I would like to see faster upload speeds 512KB is bit slow.

Expand your moderator at work

Sanek

join:2006-08-10
Kanata, ON
reply to elitefx

Re: [Cable] 60/3 now available at Ebox. Teksavvy...???

I think that's for Quebec, just FYI.



Rickkins

join:2004-04-05
Mtl, Canada
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to elitefx

said by elitefx:

said by The Mongoose:

There is a case pending at the CRTC right now. Rogers is denying TSI and all other non-aggregated providers access to the higher speed tiers.

If TSI and the rest of CNOC win, the faster speeds will be available, although to whom and how quickly is unknown. If Rogers wins, TSI won't see these speeds until they go to aggregated POI, probably near the end of 2013.

Well, obviously, the speeds are available now, as ebox has them.


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

said by Rickkins:

Well, obviously, the speeds are available now, as ebox has them.

Apparently they're only available for the TPIAs on aggregated POIs. The non-agg (Teksavvy) and others are waiting for the CRTC ruling etc. It's a long drawn out story that's been literally worn out here. Everybody is waiting for the decision to come down sometime soon.


AOD
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:1
reply to Sanek

said by Sanek:

I think that's for Quebec, just FYI.

You're correct.

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Rickkins

said by Rickkins:

said by elitefx:

said by The Mongoose:

There is a case pending at the CRTC right now. Rogers is denying TSI and all other non-aggregated providers access to the higher speed tiers.

If TSI and the rest of CNOC win, the faster speeds will be available, although to whom and how quickly is unknown. If Rogers wins, TSI won't see these speeds until they go to aggregated POI, probably near the end of 2013.

Well, obviously, the speeds are available now, as ebox has them.

I made that comment in a different thread where the OP was in Ontario. I have no idea what the situation in Quebec is.


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

said by The Mongoose:

I made that comment in a different thread where the OP was in Ontario. I have no idea what the situation in Quebec is.

My mistake. Now I understand what you guys are getting at. Sorry for the misunderstanding folks..........

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to The Mongoose

said by The Mongoose:

I have no idea what the situation in Quebec is.

Videotron has been doing aggregated TPIA since long before the CRTC proceedings about it ever started. And even before Videotron aggregated their whole network, they only had 4-5, one per major metropolitan area. Nothing at all like Rogers' 40+.

I think the per-POI thing that the CRTC ended by mandating aggregated access was almost entirely about Rogers and preventing incumbents from forcing ISPs into more expensive and less efficient micro-management and effort duplication.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by InvalidError:

I think the per-POI thing that the CRTC ended by mandating aggregated access was almost entirely about Rogers and preventing incumbents from forcing ISPs into more expensive and less efficient micro-management and effort duplication.

Except aggregate POI is more expensive for the user and a step backwards. Both setups as implemented have pros and cons and the cons are pretty bad.

Cloneman

join:2002-08-29
Montreal
kudos:3
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Fibe
reply to Rickkins

The only thing 60mbits is good for is slowing down your router which probably won't be able to handle it.

30/3 is fine, certainly worth the savings that 60/3 would cost.

Videtron also offers 120/20, but you don't see ebox offering that tier either. Maybe you should make a thread on their board :P


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by Cloneman:

The only thing 60mbits is good for is slowing down your router which probably won't be able to handle it.

Not everyone runs crappy little routers.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

Except aggregate POI is more expensive for the user and a step backwards. Both setups as implemented have pros and cons and the cons are pretty bad.

Biggest "con" is going to be the end of unlimited tiers.
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

Except aggregate POI is more expensive for the user and a step backwards. Both setups as implemented have pros and cons and the cons are pretty bad.

From a technical standpoint, aggregated (when done properly) should be (much) cheaper overall and there should not be any significant cons to it. It should be an "everybody wins" scenario since it enables everyone involved to make better utilization of their infrastructure and equipment instead of wasting time and resources duplicating/managing middle-mile infrastructure. Adding capacity in 10Gbps increments to a LAG/MPLS/whatever trunk between backbone routers serving a shared aggregation backbone is much cheaper, much more efficient and more reliable than the 10 isolated 1GbE links ISPs get under current AGAS/AHSSPI tariffs.

With the bulk of congestion and connectivity problems occurring either at the ISP's first mile (AHSSPI/AGAS) or subscriber first mile (DSL/DOCSIS), the ISP is still entirely dependent on the incumbent to resolve incumbent-side issues (be it aggregated or intra-POI) and capacity orders regardless of aggregated or not at either end of the middle-mile.

The only "real" pro to non-aggregated (which is still aggregated, albeit at the POI/local rather than regional/national level) is avoiding congestion/failures within the incumbent's WAN middle-mile but if that middle-mile is built properly, this should hardly ever happen and the incumbent should be in a better position to fix it - you hardly ever hear about any major downtime on Bell's massive network. On the other hand, non-aggregated has countless very real and expensive cons from infrastructure duplication.

Most of the cons to aggregated (and semi-aggregated "non-aggregated") have a lot more to do with incumbents trying to keep 3rd-party ISPs from undercutting them too much than anything else.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL

said by InvalidError:

Most of the cons to aggregated (and semi-aggregated "non-aggregated") have a lot more to do with incumbents trying to keep 3rd-party ISPs from undercutting them too much than anything else.

It's a fairly major stumbling block, considering incumbents have no interest in offering unlimited.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

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

said by TwiztedZero:

said by 34764170:

Except aggregate POI is more expensive for the user and a step backwards. Both setups as implemented have pros and cons and the cons are pretty bad.

Biggest "con" is going to be the end of unlimited tiers.

Personally, I'm ok with a 300GB cap today, as long as the capacity pricing is adjusted every 2-3 years to some reasonable approximation of Moore's Law, ie. 1.5x the capacity @ 0.50x the previous price at each successive adjustment point.

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

said by InvalidError:

Most of the cons to aggregated (and semi-aggregated "non-aggregated") have a lot more to do with incumbents trying to keep 3rd-party ISPs from undercutting them too much than anything else.

I've mentioned this before and I still think it's a good idea.....
the indies ought to stick a shared "datacentre-in-a-can" right beside a CO and do their own dark fiber aggregation - and 5 day log retention - via "CNOC Middle Mile Infrastructure Co. Limited", a co-op of CNOC members.

They should start with those CO's/POI's with the highest indie customer densities.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by MaynardKrebs:

I've mentioned this before and I still think it's a good idea.....
the indies ought to stick a shared "datacentre-in-a-can" right beside a CO and do their own dark fiber aggregation

Even if they did that (at great expense to themselves if they did it 'properly' including chassis and link level redundancies at every hop), they still do not have access to DSLAMs, CMTS, DSLAM/CMTS aggregation routers within the head-end/COs and whatever other routers/equipments between those and the point where ISPs get to hook into the incumbent's network nor any form of traffic QoS management for that most critical part of the whole GAS/TPIA service where the bulk of QoS problems occur. There already are at least two, likely three layers of aggregation by the time ISPs get their "non-aggregated" hand-off.

If aggregated access was done properly (instead of making it as crippled and expensive as regulations and costing rules will allow), it would be difficult if not impossible for 3rd-party ISPs to whip up something faster, more reliable and cheaper. It costs ~$150k to add 80Gbps worth of capacity through an existing hop vs the better part of $200k just to get a carrier-grade "datacenter-in-a-box" running before you can start doing anything useful with it. If you use "real" routers (which you would not have much choice to due to space, power and cooling constraints) you then get to pay a similar $100k per 16x10GbE line card + $100k per router chassis with licenses and essentials + $50k in support components per 80Gbps worth of route-through capacity... add redundancy (two routers, two cards each) and you get a startup cost approaching $1M per hop/PoP.

If you need to lease wavelengths or dark fiber from Quebec City to Montreal to Ottawa to Toronto at often well over $1000/month/hop, it quickly starts costing over $10k/Gbps from end to end.

Factoring in all the power, maintenance, administration, rent, etc. recurring costs for each hop, I would not be surprised if total cost of bypassing the incumbents' WAN aggregation by doing your own on a per-CO/head-end basis ended up in the neighborhood of $20k/Gbps/month, which is why ISPs only did stuff like that in areas where they can get cheap back-haul and colocation. Just like aggregated GAS/TPIA, most of that money still goes to companies that own the outside plant. There just is less of it (directly) getting into incumbents' pockets.

If Incumbents wanted to play nice (quit stalling and inflating figures/complexity just to increase costs and simply get stuff done efficiently as simply as possible), the AHSSPI/AGAS rates should be closer to $50k per 10GbE, not $20k per 1GbE.

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

said by InvalidError:

Even if they did that (at great expense to themselves if they did it 'properly' ......

Just to clarify your remarks, are you saying this is a less than cost-effective way based on a per indie ISP?

My thesis was that the indies "aggregate" themselves via a co-op facility which they own collectively and share the expenses on the basis of perhaps traffic percentages.


rodjames
Premium
join:2010-06-19
Gloucester, ON
reply to Rickkins

I say the government needs to get off it's arse and mandate something that says the infrastructure in place is federally controlled.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to InvalidError

I clearly was not speaking about the technical standpoint and the technical standpoint is NOT what the ISPs are fighting over. A whole lot of words and technical jargon and yet you don't get it.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to TwiztedZero

said by TwiztedZero:

said by 34764170:

Except aggregate POI is more expensive for the user and a step backwards. Both setups as implemented have pros and cons and the cons are pretty bad.

Biggest "con" is going to be the end of unlimited tiers.

That is a huge issue.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

Just to clarify your remarks, are you saying this is a less than cost-effective way based on a per indie ISP?

I did base many of my assumptions on a TSI-scale scenario.

If you lump all 3rd-party together and assume they use ~100Gbps collectively, the average cost could drop in the neighborhood of $10k/Gbps. To go much lower than that, you end up having to look at traffic volume exceeding 500Gbps... which means providing peering between members and exchanges across the footprint, transit to/from other networks, specialized services, etc. on top of aggregation.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

I clearly was not speaking about the technical standpoint and the technical standpoint is NOT what the ISPs are fighting over.

Pick whatever viewpoint you want, it does not change the fundamental fact that aggregated would be cheaper, faster and more reliable than non-aggregated when done correctly and "non-aggregated" still depends on several levels of aggregation between the subscribers, the first-mile and the network within the POI itself. There is effectively no such thing as fully non-aggregated wholesale unless you operate your own CMTS or DSLAMs.

The biggest problem as I stated earlier is that incumbents have a vested interest in making the whole thing a lot more complicated and expensive than it should be regardless of (non-)aggregation.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit

said by InvalidError:

Pick whatever viewpoint you want, it does not change the fundamental fact that aggregated would be cheaper, faster and more reliable than non-aggregated when done correctly and "non-aggregated" still depends on several levels of aggregation between the subscribers, the first-mile and the network within the POI itself. There is effectively no such thing as fully non-aggregated wholesale unless you operate your own CMTS or DSLAMs.

The biggest problem as I stated earlier is that incumbents have a vested interest in making the whole thing a lot more complicated and expensive than it should be regardless of (non-)aggregation.

Except it is NOT cheaper with the current pricing as mandated by the CRTC. Until the rates come down big time it makes the situation WORSE by going to aggregated. Being faster and more reliable is debatable at best.

Also I'm talking about the current framework and pricing, not theoretical what ifs if we had ideal conditions. I agree that aggregated in theory and under ideal conditions would be better.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by 34764170:

Also I'm talking about the current framework and pricing, not theoretical what ifs if we had ideal conditions.

Ideal conditions? Most of my theorizing is more like a worst-case since everything is a lot more expensive and much less cost-efficient on a (relatively) small scale.

The fact that Bell's and most other incumbents AHSSPI/AGAS rates are between double and triple what they should be is not a theory but you do need to theorize to come to that conclusion first. Otherwise, you are just saying "the price is too high because I feel like I am being ripped off", not quite as strong an argument as saying that most current rates are more than double the estimated cost of building from scratch as a new-entrant if non-aggregated became a mandated service rather than its current end-of-life status.

Since the CRTC decided to mandate only aggregated access only, the CRTC has to ensure tariff rates are at least comparable to such hypothetical scenarios. IIRC, the new CRTC chairman said he was going to look back into it since so many wildly different rates have been filed.


Rickkins

join:2004-04-05
Mtl, Canada
reply to Rickkins

Still nothing from the tsi folks.