brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to InvalidError
Re: Major CRTC decision next week. - CBB said by InvalidError:while the cost of node splitting on coax is driven and borne almost entirely by internet service. Cablecos can even blame internet traffic for the need to invest in converting some channels to SDV to free up QAMs - cablecos need to be compensated for the opportunity cost of allocating more QAMs to internet traffic.
AFAIK with Rogers moving towards IPTV that is shifting as that traffic will go over their DOCSIS network. The Next Box 2.0 is the first device they have rolled out as part of that long term plan to move towards IPTV all together. Rogers plans to be very aggressive with the migration. |
|
| reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:150/10 is also a progressive roll-out on Rogers I do believe, but they still filed tariffs for it. 150/10 is a new tier advertised in size 80 font in their service description pages, which makes it pretty official and rather hard to miss, unlike the 7Mbps speed bump offered on a need-to-ask basis.
With the CRTC's request to file tariffs including upload speeds, you'll know soon enough whether Rogers decides to make it an official speed bump or make it a premium wholesale option. |
|
| reply to brad
said by brad:as part of that long term plan to move towards IPTV all together. Rogers plans to be very aggressive with the migration. "Very aggressive long-term plan" so that would mean 5+ more years of supporting a substantial installed base of conventional STBs before they start becoming actually aggressive about migrating mainstream channels to IPTV. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by resa1983:150/10 is also a progressive roll-out on Rogers I do believe, but they still filed tariffs for it. 150/10 is a new tier advertised in size 80 font in their service description pages, which makes it pretty official and rather hard to miss, unlike the 7Mbps speed bump offered on a need-to-ask basis. With the CRTC's request to file tariffs including upload speeds, you'll know soon enough whether Rogers decides to make it an official speed bump or make it a premium wholesale option. They were bumping people to it without them even asking in 2011.. Thats the main reason I think it's unfair.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by brad:as part of that long term plan to move towards IPTV all together. Rogers plans to be very aggressive with the migration. "Very aggressive long-term plan" so that would mean 5+ more years of supporting a substantial installed base of conventional STBs before they start becoming actually aggressive about migrating mainstream channels to IPTV. it'll probably just as quick and aggressive as their IPv6 migration. It's already in stage 2. Stage one was that whole ipv6.rogers.ca webpage they made. |
|
| reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:said by InvalidError:Is that 7Mbps on Rogers actually an "option"? There is no mention of it anywhere on Rogers' plan description so I would be inclined to believe the 7Mbps is simply something Rogers is starting to roll out and will eventually become standard but isn't quite official yet. The optional upload speed thing is more about Bell's 15/1 vs 15/10 where they charged $4 extra, making 15/10 more expensive than 25/10 and 50/10 which makes no sense and is the reason nobody ever offered it. Yes, 7mbps upload on Rogers is an option, and has been since 2011. 10mbps upload option on Bell is only available in certain areas, but they still filed it. Rogers couldn't be even bothered to do that, despite offering it to new customers, and giving it to those who asked. From my last submission: » Re: Rogers Upstream Bonding» Re: Rogers Upstream Bonding SSDD - and that ain't Solid State Disk Drive.
So Rogers doesn't give TPIA the same speeds for a long time. Big deal. Now it's back in the indie court to spend money on lawyers to file & re-file & re-file documents and submissions to the CRTC - burning a big hole in their pockets with legal fees up the wazoo. Rogers doesn't give a flying f!ck. The CRTC has no teeth. And so it'll take another 6-12 months to get this shite resolved, and Rogers continues to have a competitive advantage.
It's just one regular, my friends..... another day in the life of incumbents and the impotent CRTC. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 | reply to TSI Marc
Oh well. I have no problem filing something, saving indies time & money. :P
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by brad:as part of that long term plan to move towards IPTV all together. Rogers plans to be very aggressive with the migration. "Very aggressive long-term plan" so that would mean 5+ more years of supporting a substantial installed base of conventional STBs before they start becoming actually aggressive about migrating mainstream channels to IPTV. Still doesn't change the fact that increasing IPTV traffic will provide additional incentive to do further node splitting and upgrades to the nodes. Who knows what their plan is for eliminating digital cable but I could see them adding IPTV fairly quickly. From what I read their plan for roll out is over a 2 year period. |
|
| said by brad:Still doesn't change the fact that increasing IPTV traffic will provide additional incentive to do further node splitting and upgrades to the nodes. Not necessarily. I would argue that the very reason why they are interested in going SDV/IPTV is to avoid exactly that.
With SDV/IPTV, you can cram many more channels per MHz since you aren't wasting spectrum on channels nobody is watching (your grid has over 300 channels but nodes only have 100-150 subscribers each who are likely watching (much) fewer than 100 unique channels collectively) which leaves more room for more data QAMs so no need to split the nodes any further.
If they converted all digital and analog TV spectrum to SDV/IPTV, cablecos would end up with over 400MHz of unused spectrum and need to fill that up. Easiest way to do that while cutting costs would actually be node merges. |
|
|
|
 andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 | reply to InvalidError
A post just below yours has one,and I have seen them on ebay for about 50.Used from 10 |
|
| said by andyb:A post just below yours has one,and I have seen them on ebay for about 50.Used from 10 I did specifically ask for NON-used (brand-new) from legit/retail source. Not refurb/second-hand/potentially-stolen/non-returned units. |
|
andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 | And I did say I seen them as low as 50.10 was used/stolen |
|
| reply to InvalidError
Like I posted, $126 for a VDSL modem/router combo. A modem only is likely around $100, so if that's what Bell is offering its pretty reasonable. Except that Telus doesn't charge anything for their modems and neither does Shaw. You guys are really being screwed in the East. |
|
| reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:Oh well. I have no problem filing something, saving indies time & money. :P
Don't forget to add the the additional block of "unlimited" for videotron land customers to your complaint.
CRTC stated that blocks of B/W being sold by the incumbents must also be given to the wholesalers. This is no different. |
|
| said by BW blocks :Don't forget to add the the additional block of "unlimited" for videotron land customers to your complaint.
CRTC stated that blocks of B/W being sold by the incumbents must also be given to the wholesalers. This is no different. It is different.
The "unlimited block" only applies to UBB but since there is no UBB on wholesale, there is no way to translate that retail option to wholesale so this particular request is non-applicable. Each ISP has to decide for itself how much of a premium "unlimited" costs them and price their equivalent tier or option accordingly.
If wholesale traffic was under the UBB regime, incumbents would certainly have been required to accommodate this somehow but under CBB, it is a dead-end since the concept of "usage block", whatever its size may be, does not exist. |
|
andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 | reply to BW blocks
As much as I hate Invalids answers to most things he is correct on usage blocks. |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:The "unlimited block" only applies to UBB
CBB, UBB, whatever. You are right.
The thing is... If Teksavvy can't sell 60/10 internet with an unlimited option for 10$/month and still be at, or below, videotron in price, then something is broken and not right.
As is they don't sell 60/3 (never mind 60/10) because they stated it would saturated their links. No money to be made or something.
But we can leave that to the beans counters at TSI to figure out how the new and increased pricing puts them in an equal wholesale position next to Videotron, and turn a profit.
They pulled it off with the 30/3 (soon to be 30/10) profile. But can they do it with the 60/10. Apparently not, per TSI.
And if they can't, then it seems to me the numbers aren't jiving with what the commission wants done. |
|
mlord
join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:9 Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:said by InvalidError:If what was announced in Videotron's forum is real, all TGV tiers are getting bumped to 10Mbps upload in April. That's surprising, since Videotron doesn't support upstream bonding There have been a couple of postings here over the past few days of people reporting 3X upstream bonding in Quebec.. I assume those are on Videotron (?).
Edit: Can't find them right now.. I could have been confusing Cogeco's recent 3X uplink with Videotron in my mind.  |
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3
·Start Communicat..
| said by mlord:Edit: Can't find them right now.. I could have been confusing Cogeco's recent 3X uplink with Videotron in my mind. Cogeco's doing four channel 64QAM in a bunch of places, too.
But yeah, they're running three upstream channels on my node. My DPC3000 won't tell me if they're 16 or 64, though. |
|
 MJB
join:2012-01-29 | Will The SBG6580 Modem Work On Teksavvy Cable? 8*4 Channel Bonding..
TSI Marc? |
|
