 roccaStart.caPremium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:12 | reply to londoner1
Re: CRTC Decision said by londoner1:yes on vdsl i was under the impression that it required a modem rental...further dry loop fees...has todays decision impacted that price
There is an option for a modem purchase, I don't recall the specific price but it isn't cheap and there are still logistical issues with it, ie reactivating a previously purchased modem on a new account and some other oddness's before we can really consider it as a viable product. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Nexicom
| reply to Crashrun2003
Well, in Cogeco land, you're still cheaper and add more cap then Cogeco themselves. Even as an added option of purchasing more BW upfront for cost or a bit higher than cost would offer more choices. Just a random thought I had. Although I seem to recall you saying that you're already eating too much cost as it is. Damn CRTC! |
|
| reply to rocca
Does this mean my rate is going up and I'm losing unlimited? |
|
| reply to rocca
Looks like most of the ppl will be "forced" to use BELL\ROGERS\COGECO with decisions like this.
How i see it ... they will be the one with being able to provide unlimited bw only.
Correct me if i am wrong? |
|
| reply to Crashrun2003
I don't think that anyone should be surprised at this ruling. I mean why would the CRTC want what's best for the consumer.
I could see this coming a mile away, government is always influenced by big business. Big Business likes to give money to government. So why bite the hand that feeds you.
The problem isn't the Incumbents and what they charge, it's the fact the CRTC has rubber stamped Greed and Monopoly!
The next question is this, would the CRTC allow third party ISP to come in and implement their own infrastructure? My thought, probably not as it wouldn't be Canadian enough.
I believe it's long over due that the CRTC be disbanded and removed. It has served no real purpose for the consumer, other than pad the pockets of big business. |
|
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to Crashrun2003
It seems as clear as day (to me anyway) that this ruling (in combination with the recent 'all you can eat' promotions by the big telco's) is a simple one-two punch in the gut of all third party ISPs...
Not sure how they can sell this as a good thing to the consumer with a straight face...honestly... |
|
| Just out of curiosity -- is the 70$ + 30$ for unlimited that rogers is currently offering something that start.ca could offer (sustainably)?
I know its a higher price but what can you do if that's the best Canada has to offer *sigh*.
I'd rather pay the money to start that to rogers. |
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3
·Start Communicat..
| If they could, they probably already would have.
This isn't a good day at all, and I am particularly dismayed since the CRTC had made a whole slew of consumer-friendly rulings prior to this. I was personally expecting something a lot different than this based on other recent rulings. |
|
| True  |
|
| reply to johoja
said by johoja:Just out of curiosity -- is the 70$ + 30$ for unlimited that rogers is currently offering something that start.ca could offer (sustainably)?
I know its a higher price but what can you do if that's the best Canada has to offer *sigh*.
I'd rather pay the money to start that to rogers.
Shaw has 250/15 1tb for $115 a month. I can't wait to get it in July when I move.. but knowing my luck it will get hacked to 300-500 gigs the day I go lol |
|
|
|
| said by chrisl83:said by johoja:Just out of curiosity -- is the 70$ + 30$ for unlimited that rogers is currently offering something that start.ca could offer (sustainably)?
I know its a higher price but what can you do if that's the best Canada has to offer *sigh*.
I'd rather pay the money to start that to rogers.
Shaw has 250/15 1tb for $115 a month. I can't wait to get it in July when I move.. but knowing my luck it will get hacked to 300-500 gigs the day I go lol Static IP? I will ship some of the servers to your place then  |
|
 dillyhammerSTART me upPremium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:9
·Start Communicat..
 ·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·Caneris
| reply to bt
said by bt:But it's bad news across the board for Cable.
Was there ever any doubt? Not in my mind man. Not for 1 second. This was all very predictable.
What shocks me the most is that they didn't raise Cogeco's rates. But the 4% drop I suppose is a big enough kick in the pants, seeing as how their rate is twice as high as the next highest, and 10X higher than the lowest.
I have always thought that Bell was the most evil company in the country. Cogeco is giving it a good run for the money, tell you what.
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 |
|
Guru
join:2008-10-01
kudos:2 | reply to Crashrun2003
I haven't read everything but is there an option for unlimited in cogeco area now after CRTC? |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | said by Guru:I haven't read everything but is there an option for unlimited in cogeco area now after CRTC?
I have my doubts, personally.
What will be most interesting will be to see whether or not TSI offers that, as they have recently said that they WANTED to. |
|
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to Stescotty
said by Stescotty:I don't think that anyone should be surprised at this ruling. I mean why would the CRTC want what's best for the consumer. For people who have dealt with this for years, I suppose it really shouldn't a surprise. The already weak CRTC was castrated in 2006 with the Policy Directive.
The thing is, though, we (that is, IISPs, academics like me who have studied this in some detail [UBB made a great Economics Master's thesis topic for me], and the more informed end-users) actually had some hope.
The previous chair, Konrad von Finckenstein, presided over a terrible period of the CRTC, when its decisions—particularly the chain of rulings leading up to the 2010-255 decision (UBB)—were guided by a lawyer's sense of conforming to rules rather than letting its decisions be guided by the welfare of Canadians. Following the chain of rulings leading up to UBB really is following a chain of consistent findings. Wrong, of course, in the sense that they heavily biased incumbents, but internally consistent. That, I think, explains why Konrad was so surprised at the outrage against UBB: he saw himself as just clarifying the rules rather than doing anything controversial. Perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised, given his legal background, having been a civil servant, lawyer, and judge.
When Konrad left and Jean-Pierre Blais came in to replace him, we at first weren't sure what to think. Would he be another Konrad, or would he offer something better? He started making announcements that this was a new CRTC, that now it would be consumer-friendly, that it would redeem itself, that it wasn't afraid to tell the Big Guys that they were wrong. Of course, we'd all heard it all before and were suitably skeptical. Then last fall, the CRTC blocked Bell's takeover of Astral. They didn't just announce some sort of token concessions from Bell, they actually blocked the deal on the grounds that it would be bad for consumers. That was, to put it mildly, huge.
So then we got hopeful: maybe all this rhetoric about a new, consumer-friendly CRTC era would actually come to pass; maybe, instead of CRTC rulings tilting the company consumer balance ever in favour of larger transfers to the big incumbents, we would start to see the balance go the other way. That instead of a lawyer's reliance on following stated policies, we'd have a CRTC brave enough to throw out old, broken policy with new policies for the good of Canada.
Some of us wanted to believe the rhetoric, wanted to believe that the CRTC couldn't actually let a cost difference of almost 10 fold (MTS vs. Cogeco) persist, wanted to believe that this really was a new CRTC.
But as the saying goes: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
said by Stescotty:I could see this coming a mile away, government is always influenced by big business. Big Business likes to give money to government. So why bite the hand that feeds you.
The problem isn't the Incumbents and what they charge, it's the fact the CRTC has rubber stamped Greed and Monopoly! I don't think that's a fair or accurate assessment. I don't believe the CRTC isn't evil or in the pocket of big business, I think it just doesn't have the competence to address the market power concerns that it has absorbed into its domain: it is composed entirely of lawyers and lifetime civil servants, and doesn't seem to have any input—aside from briefs submitted by interested parties—by economists, who, you kinow, actually study market power. Once you see the CRTC in that light—a body whose main purpose is to not contradict itself, rather than the enact socially optimal policies—the CRTC's behaviour starts to make a lot of sense. Just like before it's bad for Canada, sure, but it makes sense. I really don't think the CRTC is corrupt, just lacking in the sort of competence it needs to make the decisions it is being asked to make.
A case in point is the recent wireless code of conduct: upon release of a draft, in which the CRTC tried to make everyone happy (and in the end made no one happy) the Competition Bureau had to step in and tell the CRTC that it simply wasn't strong enough in furthering competition. That was rather a large step as government departments generally don't like to step on each others' toes (hence the Competition Bureau's absence on UBB and CBB, where really the issues involves are exactly the sort of issue the Competition Bureau exists to deal with). I'd love it if the Competition Bureau would take over from the CRTC on deciding internet competition-related issues, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
said by Stescotty:The next question is this, would the CRTC allow third party ISP to come in and implement their own infrastructure? My thought, probably not as it wouldn't be Canadian enough. You're flat out wrong on that one: there are a few small ISPs with their own infrastructure: Novus in Vancouver, for example (though they tend to serve only relatively newer high-rise apartment buildings), and there is one in some municipalities of Ontario, whose name escapes me at the moment; quite possibly there are more.
The issue is, from an economic point of view, it's a total waste to build out a third, parallel set of network infrastructure. The countries that put us to shame in consumer internet access (i.e. most of them aside from the US and third-world countries, most of which are still better than Canada, but perhaps not better enough to consider the difference shameful) generally have functional separation, where "incumbents" only provide wholesale access; consumer access is entirely through independent companies who purchase access through incument lines. Those countries typically have just one set of network infrastructure; two, occassionally, and almost never 3. A third network just isn't worthwhile when you can regulate a far more efficient system that relies on just one or two.
So, to respond to your suggestion, third party ISPs certainly can set up new infrastructure in Canada, but doing so on any sort of national level really isn't a viable business plan.
said by Stescotty:I believe it's long over due [sic] that the CRTC be disbanded and removed. It has served no real purpose for the consumer, other than pad the pockets of big business. (Joking) Disbanded and removed? Surely just one without the other would be enough! (/Joking)
Seriously, though, what would that accomplish? Then we'd just have a local telco incumbent vs. local cable incumbent in any given region, with no IISPs at all. Are you telling me you really think that would reduce the size of big business' pockets?
Intenet in Canada under the CRTC regulations (CBB, that is, not UBB) really are better than nothing, let's not forget that; they are just a whole lot worse than what they could be, and the failure of the CRTC is in letting policy outcomes be so drastically far from what it could have achieved. |
|
Guru
join:2008-10-01
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:said by Guru:I haven't read everything but is there an option for unlimited in cogeco area now after CRTC?
I have my doubts, personally. What will be most interesting will be to see whether or not TSI offers that, as they have recently said that they WANTED to. True. Marc said they always had and always will....so lets see! It will be interesting and unexpected! Keeping my fingers crossed on both ISP to offer Unlimited! |
|
roccaStart.caPremium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:12 | reply to jagerman
Great post! |
|
Guru
join:2008-10-01
kudos:2
1 edit | reply to Crashrun2003
How long would it take for Start to come up with changes if there are any? |
|
roccaStart.caPremium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:12 | Not sure yet, will keep everyone in the loop. |
|
| Bedside there are rarely any changes in Toronto with Rogers, are your current pricing for cable services going to stay the same? |
|
