dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11663
share rss forum feed

geokilla

join:2010-10-04
North York, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

1 edit
reply to LastDon

Re: All This UBB , Usage based BS was such a waste

said by LastDon:

I am sorry did something offend you?

Now that you made those edits, I can understand what you're talking about. The original post, I barely understood it at all.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

1 recommendation

reply to LastDon

It's not a waste ... it is part of a long history of trying to milk this new "internet thing" for all the money they could get out of it.

First Portal Service, UBB and now CBB are attempts by the incumbents to monetize as much as they can.

They've suffered horribly from lack of public interest in the longer term as they tried to milk "portals". The proof that the Portal approach wasn't going to work should have come from Compuserve and AOL, but no our incumbents tried to create their own and failed, so they outsourced to Yahoo! (Rogers) and MSN (Bell) and both failed. People just weren't interested and didn't want portals. Search engines eliminated the need to be spoon fed web pages! So, the money from the portal providers advertising didn't happen.

So, now how do we milk the public? Since they want lots of data from their own sources, perhaps the thing to do is rip them off by charging them for bandwidth on top of the increased monthly rates. Enter UBB. They tried it several years before the third parties started to noticeably impact their turm. It failed because for once competition worked (sort of). Then they seem to collude and everybody started to put caps and fees on together. Hey presto, in spite of complaints, for the incumbents, it worked. But in the meantime, the 3rd parties came along and were able to offer very high limits or even unlimited. This was upsetting the applecart. The incumbents tried to force UBB on 3rd parties to slow down the competition. It didn't work very well, with plenty of public protest and the eventual agreement of the minister and the CRTC. But notice they didn't back away from UBB for their own customers.

Now along comes Capacity Based Billing ... which really is what we have with the incumbents with tiered pricing for faster speeds so really the incumbents are double dipping ... pay for speed which gives you more data and pay for more data moved!. But now they apply it to 3rd parties to keep the milk flowing at a ridiculous rate that has gone to the CRTC in an effort by the 3rd parties to make the charges reasonable.

So, with that, the incumbents foresee that their cash cow has been seen for what it is and decide they need to compete in another way, again by milking their own customers but as a bone they throw "unlimited bandwidth".

So, Portals, UBB and CBB are nothing more than continued attempts to milk subscribers, whether they are direct retail customers or 3rd party customers and you can be sure that they will attempt to find another way to milk customers.

I do remember reading something recently about an ISP that is attempting to revive the portal approach so everything goes through them, and the customer pays.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to Gone

Neither are air fares, but selling air fares below your cost in order to drive out the competition is.

So in the case of Bell selling business DSL for less then wholesale, it could be considered predatory pricing.

Bottom line, it has ZERO do with regulation, but how you compete in the marketplace.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......


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

said by Gone:

said by mlerner:

Not saying it's not in their jurisdiction but the Competition Bureau seems to like to bounce all telecom issues back to the CRTC.

The only time they can legitimately do that is if it's an issue of regulated consumer pricing. Internet pricing for the end-consumer isn't regulated.

In this instance it isn't about price, it's about anti-competitive BEHAVIOR.


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

Behavior has to be demonstrated, and the most obvious way it is demonstrated is through predatory pricing.



dillyhammer
START me up
Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

In this instance it isn't about price, it's about anti-competitive BEHAVIOR.

That's it, in a nutshell.

I guess the only real issue is, is there some company that has been wronged by this behaviour with big enough balls to actually do something about it.

Somehow (from what I've seen so far anyway) I don't think so.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to Gone

If the Comp Bureau hasn't cracked down on the incumbents price fixing on each others plans then good luck getting them to crack down on predatory pricing.



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

said by mlerner:

If the Comp Bureau hasn't cracked down on the incumbents price fixing on each others plans then good luck getting them to crack down on predatory pricing.

Pretty much. I was merely pointing out that they can't simply refer the issue to the CRTC, because the CRTC doesn't have jurisdiction on the issue.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to mlerner

said by mlerner:

If the Comp Bureau hasn't cracked down on the incumbents price fixing on each others plans then good luck getting them to crack down on predatory pricing.

But it's not "price fixing", it's "Competitive Symmetry" LOL


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

It's not a waste ... it is part of a long history of trying to milk this new "internet thing" for all the money they could get out of it....

....the incumbents foresee that their cash cow has been seen for what it is and decide they need to compete in another way, again by milking their own customers but as a bone they throw [in] "unlimited bandwidth".

So, Portals, UBB and CBB are nothing more than continued attempts to milk subscribers, whether they are direct retail customers or 3rd party customers and you can be sure that they will attempt to find another way to milk customers....

 
That's a concise synopsis - well composed.

But did you notice (IIRC) that even Bell is calling it unlimited usage rather than bandwidth, this time around ?

--

We have only 2 things about which to worry :
(1) That things may never get back to normal
(2) That they already HAVE !


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

From what I'm reading from you LastDon your english is just fine. Just learn how to write and you're all set to go. Cheers.



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

In this instance it isn't about price, it's about anti-competitive BEHAVIOR.

Wasn't there a similar case that hit the competition bureau from BC?

Wasn't it Shaw Versus Nova (or something like this) and that issue is in this forum.

Nova offered Insane fast internet for something like 20$, so shaw came in and offered internet well below reasonable prices. 9$ to steal those customers.

Then it hit the competition bureau... Don't recall what happened after that.

Quick search show it was a company called NOVUS (not nova).

Some of it is here:
»Shaw Predatory Pricing in Novus Territory


hm

@videotron.ca

said by hm :

said by MaynardKrebs:

In this instance it isn't about price, it's about anti-competitive BEHAVIOR.

Wasn't there a similar case that hit the competition bureau from BC?

Some of it is here:
»Shaw Predatory Pricing in Novus Territory

Just to follow up...
It was tossed out of court as non-anti-competitive.
»www.ipvancouverblog.com/2010/08/···st-shaw/

Then Shaw sued Novus for defamation... heh (I think Karl Bode covered this comical series of events and our dysfunctional laws).

Then there was that little Fibre project Marc and Rocky started, I recall them launching it some place in Ontario at good prices, so one of the cable companies dropped their prices to under-cut them for that small foot print. I don't recall the specifics of this one, Marc would have to reply.

So in this case of business internet, I have zero doubts that a competition bureau complaint would result in nothing except for teksavvy being sued by Bell Canada


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

Proved my point, Comp Bureau or anyone else for that matter will not crack down on it. A court case is just a slap on the wrist.

And as much as Bell would like to get rid of TekSavvy, the irony is they've also said they need wholesale customers, so I'm not sure they would ever sue TekSavvy but then you never know.



hm

@videotron.ca

said by mlerner:

Proved my point

What it also proves is that there is no competition in Canada. Resale or wholesale is a bandaid, and a failure. Wholesale was just something to try and kick start (or pretend there was) competition. Even KvF stated this. His words were, "It's a failure".

When faced with *true* competition, prices drop from 50$/month to 9.95$/month (unlimited 200-meg speed. As was the case with Novus).

You have to keep in mind that Teksavvay, as with all resellers & wholesalers, are not *true* competition. It's just a phenomena placed there by force by the CRTC to give people a minor choice. Nothing else.

True competition would see 2 cable companies in the same area. All we have is 1 cable and 1 DSL. And Keep in mind Rogers and I believe it was shaw divided up a section of Ontario so as not to compete.

Status quo, collusion, price fixing, no-compete pacts = Happy share holders + Money in political party coffers.

It's actually no different than the construction corruption hearings going on in Quebec with the percentage of the money funneled to the political parties.

I'll be dead before a hearing like this for telecom ever happens. But it's no different, and one day it will happen.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

said by hm :

said by mlerner:

Proved my point

What it also proves is that there is no competition in Canada. Resale or wholesale is a bandaid, and a failure. Wholesale was just something to try and kick start (or pretend there was) competition. Even KvF stated this. His words were, "It's a failure".

When faced with *true* competition, prices drop from 50$/month to 9.95$/month (unlimited 200-meg speed. As was the case with Novus).

You have to keep in mind that TekSavvy, as with all resellers & wholesalers, are not *true* competition. It's just a phenomena placed there by force by the CRTC to give people a minor choice. Nothing else.

True competition would see 2 cable companies in the same area. All we have is 1 cable and 1 DSL. And Keep in mind Rogers and I believe it was shaw divided up a section of Ontario so as not to compete.

Status quo, collusion, price fixing, no-compete pacts = Happy share holders + Money in political party coffers.

It's actually no different than the construction corruption hearings going on in Quebec with the percentage of the money funneled to the political parties.

I'll be dead before a hearing like this for telecom ever happens. But it's no different, and one day it will happen.

hum. so... when you talk about true competition.. text books point to 5 or more.

the idea that 5 or more would lay a wire to all homes does not exist anywhere in the world. It's like asking for a unicorn for Christmas.

It's not something they tried. Wholesale is the *only* way to have any competition at all.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to hm

It's not really a failure if three of the big ISPs are now offering unlimited options in advance of new wholesale rates. Seems like they're afraid of the 'failed' indies.



Nagilum
Premium
join:2012-08-15
Kitchener, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to TSI Marc

I know it's a pipe dream, but I would rather see full functional separation. Have the municipalities put in and maintain their own fiber networks. These networks could then be used by any ISP on equal terms, giving customers true choice and, more practically, only a single connection to their homes. The ISPs paying for access to utilize these network should offset the cost of maintaining it (hopefully at least).
--
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore, 1993



mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

Yup, not going to happen now. Bell could never achieve functional separation as all of their engineering, marketing, operations and support is all grouped in one. At one point there was a support group along with the business office in Ottawa and Bell Nexxia which handled the wholesale side. Their technical side is now heavily involved in their own operations.

Plus the municipalities and hydro companies which are supposed to by law support a theoretical third wire just put up a lot of red tape and give preference to the incumbents.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
reply to Nagilum

All the municipal fibre networks that I'm aware of sold themselves out of the business.



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to mlerner

said by mlerner:

It's not really a failure if three of the big ISPs are now offering unlimited options in advance of new wholesale rates. Seems like they're afraid of the 'failed' indies.

It not competition either. This whole thing is "created" by the regulator. It's fabricated, just like you would fabricate a widget. In this case the fabricating unit is wholesale. Really no different. It's a forced thing. A created thing.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

said by hm :

said by mlerner:

Proved my point

What it also proves is that there is no competition in Canada. Resale or wholesale is a bandaid, and a failure. Wholesale was just something to try and kick start (or pretend there was) competition. Even KvF stated this. His words were, "It's a failure".

When faced with *true* competition, prices drop from 50$/month to 9.95$/month (unlimited 200-meg speed. As was the case with Novus).

You have to keep in mind that TekSavvy, as with all resellers & wholesalers, are not *true* competition. It's just a phenomena placed there by force by the CRTC to give people a minor choice. Nothing else.

True competition would see 2 cable companies in the same area. All we have is 1 cable and 1 DSL. And Keep in mind Rogers and I believe it was shaw divided up a section of Ontario so as not to compete.

Status quo, collusion, price fixing, no-compete pacts = Happy share holders + Money in political party coffers.

It's actually no different than the construction corruption hearings going on in Quebec with the percentage of the money funneled to the political parties.

I'll be dead before a hearing like this for telecom ever happens. But it's no different, and one day it will happen.


hum. so... when you talk about true competition.. text books point to 5 or more.

the idea that 5 or more would lay a wire to all homes does not exist anywhere in the world. It's like asking for a unicorn for Christmas.

It's not something they tried. Wholesale is the *only* way to have any competition at all.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

5 or more wouldn't happen here.

The argument of passing 3 different cables is as weak as the argument that Canada is to vast to supply proper service to everyone.

You yourself saw what true competition did to your fibre project (which wasn't a resale as far as I know). Rocky spoke about it and the price drop from the competition.

It's no different than the Shaw & Telus territory that saw Novas move in and prices dropped to $9.95 from about 50$. Then both of them started competing for the customer for 10$ internet with crazy speeds.

Do you think that could ever happen in Ontario and Quebec with the pseudo competition created by the CRTC that we have now?

I'm not sure what you are getting at or trying to state, but I doubt we would see 5 players in any one given area. Money isn't there, and one or two out of the 5 would go bankrupt (even the CRTC stated we will likely see one go bankrupt or sold anyhow). But, that is part of competition and part of who supplies the better competing product (or value).

When wholesale was first forced by the CRTC it was so that it could grow to become more, but it never did. Nothing ever materialized from it, as the CRTC stated. They called it a failure.

Maybe a failure from their own myopic view of wholesale becoming more due to costs. Or the control the incumbent has to prevent competition (or both). Who knows.. Either way the only competition we have now is as you stated. Wholesale. But costs are controlled. You can't really and truly compete. You get what the regulator will give you and that's the extent of it. And you innovate your given and mandated business model based on that. You could never get into a price war like Novus and Shaw for the customer when Bell, Rogers, videotron, telus and cogeco control your costs. Just like this case here where Bell under-cut you for business internet. You can't compete, as you stated.


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

said by hm :

It not competition either. This whole thing is "created" by the regulator. It's fabricated, just like you would fabricate a widget. In this case the fabricating unit is wholesale. Really no different. It's a forced thing. A created thing.

Considering that the regulator created the monopoly in the first place, it's only fair that they create the competition as well.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to hm

yeah sorry. I could have explained better.. my point is that there is only one way to create competition in the wireline space.. it's through regulation. that's why it's mandated.

so to expand on that, the thought of 3 wires to most homes, let alone 5. (not in a small area either where it may be possible to sustain something if say, one of the other two weren't really servicing the needs that well, I'm talking generally available) is like wishing for unicorns... it doesn't exist. not anywhere.

I'm not aware that there is a thought that it's been a failure. If anything it appears to me that they always thought that by allowing us to exist at all was enough to create a vibrant competitive market. i.e. that somehow there would be no down side for the incumbents. so they could have the best of both worlds.. giving the incumbents what they want and allowing independents to do their thing.

the problem of course is that it's not possible to please both. the CRTC necessarily has to take something away from one and give it to the other. that's their job.. and they haven't been willing to do it.

I'm hoping that now that they've nearly made us extinct, they can clearly see that we were never the problem to begin with and so I really hope that this decision comes out really positive for us. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. If they dont.. we all know how to revert back to our old discourse pretty easily.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



elitefx

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

1 edit

Apparently the Rogers boss said "Rogers’ wireless division represents about 65 per cent of its business, cable about 25 per cent and media 10 per cent, Mohamed said."

If you figure of the 25% cable, that half is TV and only 12.5% is internet then for Rogers to take such a predatory stance against TPIA really demonstrates what kind of business mentality Rogers presents.

Canada would be far better off to ban businesses like Rogers from operating within it's borders. Who would want to invest here knowing Canada approves of such anti-competitive practices?



TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

said by elitefx:

Canada would be far better off to ban businesses like Rogers from operating within it's borders. Who would want to invest here knowing Canada approves of such anti-competitive practices?

And with its ban would go ALL the Cable TPIAs and Bell/Telus would be left to impose far higher rates one everyone.

I gotta wonder something elitefx, you rail on Rogers pretty hard yet you are a stoic customer of theirs, always posting in a TPIA outage thread. Why stay with a company you so loathe? Start & TekSavvy are there as alternatives. Start offers $0 activation if you already have cable internet.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to LastDon

Just something to remember though, in the 90's there were multiple cable companies than companies like Rogers and Shaw bought them all up, with that the infrastructure and cabling. The Government did not attempt to stop it at all. So multiple parties are to blame for it and that's primarily how we got into this.



alienzzz
Kill Bell

join:2011-02-17
Verdun, QC

1 edit

This doesn't change the fact that even before the buyouts there were no overlapping territories between providers.

Cable (as phone) infrastructure should be considered separate from the provider company and every currently existing cable company should be able to offer services (whether TV or internet) over it. So for example, both Toronto and MTL should be able to be serviced by any choice of Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco, Videotron, TSI, whatever, regardless of who owns the infrastructure.

That's the only way to fix the system. The mafia-style territory division should not be allowed to exist.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

All the municipal fibre networks that I'm aware of sold themselves out of the business.

Yep, Comrade Miller sold Toronto Hydro Internet to Gougeco , no doubt for pennies on the dollar.


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to alienzzz

said by alienzzz:

This doesn't change the fact that even before the buyouts there were no overlapping territories between providers.

Cable (as phone) infrastructure should be considered separate from the provider company and every currently existing cable company should be able to offer services (whether TV or internet) over it. So for example, both Toronto and MTL should be able to be serviced by any choice of Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco, Videotron, TSI, whatever, regardless of who owns the infrastructure.

That's the only way to fix the system. The mafia-style territory division should not be allowed to exist.

I agree that is the most ideal situation, last mile access into homes should be owned by a body regulated by all ISPs and they conneect their back-end networks into entry points.

Unfortunately the current state of ownership of last mile access would make that kind of scenario complicated. You have the copper PSTN network and HFC network. All the incumbents owning these infrastructures would need be reimbursed for their investments in building them to begin with (minus any subsidies they got from the government). The government couldn't just snatch them up and give everyone access. This would scare away a lot of international investors from wanting to invest capital in Canada, in all industry. A government that seizes assets from private organizations would destroy its own economy.

A more viable option would be to have all ISPs wanting to participate invest together to roll out a new last mile network based on fibre, starting with large urban cores first (where FTTH isnt already present). This would create 1 last mile infrastructure and almost fresh start so no one can claim they need to be reimbursed for decades of prior investment.

One can dream I guess.