dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1690
share rss forum feed

stevey_frac

join:2009-12-09
Cambridge, ON

Bury the Industry Minister in complaints!

Complain about the CBB ruling. A lot. Make the government sit up and take notice. We did it with UBB, we can do it with CBB.

Here's his email.

christian.paradis@parl.gc.ca

--Steve


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
Paradis is a useless tool.He will do nothing


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
said by andyb:

Paradis is a useless tool.He will do nothing

Cynicism like that is why the the incumbent ISPs walk all over us.

slidebite

join:2012-12-07
Lethbridge, AB
reply to stevey_frac
I don't think you're going to see the same traction with this.

-- slidebite (?)


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to andyb
As I pointed out in another thread in CanBroadband, since he's become Industry minister, you haven't heard a peep out of the guy. The only reason he's got the gig is he's Harper's Quebec lieutenant


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to TypeS
said by TypeS:

said by andyb:

Paradis is a useless tool.He will do nothing

Cynicism like that is why the the incumbent ISPs walk all over us.

I was listening to some of the Wireless code hearings, and the commissioner from Quebec said something to the effect of "The government wants the market to be free".

The problem is they get their walkng papers from the CPC and the CPC is a huge supporter of free markets.
--
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.......

stevey_frac

join:2009-12-09
Cambridge, ON
reply to stevey_frac
The CPC was in power when they killed UBB.

Market forces didn't seem to matter then.

It only takes five minutes to fire off an email. Go ahead and do it. Costs us nothing.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to stevey_frac
Hey gang, thinking we need to let all of this digest. This is certainly much less of a problem than UBB was. That was hugely worse than this decision. Don't want to defend anything but at the same time, I don't think this approach is the right one. There are some good aspects to this...
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to stevey_frac
said by stevey_frac:

The CPC was in power when they killed UBB.

UBB imposed almost direct mirroring between wholesale and retail rates which threatened to render wholesale completely pointless.

CBB is a much lesser threat with rates that are equivalent to a ~80% discount from UBB - over 90% with Bell's new rate.

At 10k$/Gbps with Bell, my suggestion from 4-5 years ago that Bell should simply increase AHSSPI rates by $6000/month and call it a day has effectively come true.

stevey_frac

join:2009-12-09
Cambridge, ON
reply to TSI Marc
You have a better sense of this stuff than I do Marc, so I'll defer. You can understand that a lot of people are really kinda pissed though.

koreyb
Open the Canadian Market NOW

join:2005-01-08
East York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia
·Rogers Hi-Speed

1 edit
reply to andyb
said by andyb:

Paradis is a useless tool.He will do nothing

Not if thousands of people do it. The issue is getting people to actually do it. The issue in Canada is we bitch but do nothing... If this was in the US, people would use their wallets against these companies long ago and demand something get done. This is one thing i like about americans. We just sit back, bitch and do nothing to change things.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to stevey_frac
said by stevey_frac:

You have a better sense of this stuff than I do Marc, so I'll defer. You can understand that a lot of people are really kinda pissed though.

I hear ya. I'll be looking to make lemonade with it is all... Lets see what comes of it.

I'm thinking that the transparency decision could have made a big difference had it have been in effect for this decision. I.e. I don't see complete neglect or lack of caring in this decision. Seems they tried to get it right and much attention was paid but somehow they just got it wrong still it seems.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
said by TSI Marc:

Seems they tried to get it right and much attention was paid but somehow they just got it wrong still it seems.

They do what they can with the numbers they've got.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to koreyb
Americans dont walk with their wallets.If they did they wouldn't be getting screwed by cable/telco's like we are.And I dod do my part to complain to those that can do something.Just not alot of others do.

koreyb
Open the Canadian Market NOW

join:2005-01-08
East York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by andyb:

Americans dont walk with their wallets.If they did they wouldn't be getting screwed by cable/telco's like we are.And I dod do my part to complain to those that can do something.Just not alot of others do.

Look at the last time one of the Cable guys tried to put low caps.. that's why they bumped them back up to 250gig.

It's also why retail is much lower... they just won't buy if you overcharge.. It's how it works there.


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

I was listening to some of the Wireless code hearings, and the commissioner from Quebec said something to the effect of "The government wants the market to be free".

The problem is they get their walkng papers from the CPC and the CPC is a huge supporter of free markets.



The Conservatives claim to be right wing and be for free market but they are sell outs much like they're bretherin the Republicans south of the border (ie, bailouts during 2008-2010) Forcing competition via third party entries, is not free market yet they support it.

The truth is free market and capitalism does not work every time. If you left the incumbents on their own, things would be much worse. Greed left unchecked leads to monopolies and loss of competition because the big guys will buy out any competition in order to not compete. We've seen this the past centuries as Telcos and Cablecos bought out all their competitors to the point that the government had to step in force them apart or mandate access to their networks.

graniterock
Premium
join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to stevey_frac
IMHO, Complaining that you don't like the decision is one thing. Being able to articulate why it was the wrong decision and what the right one should be is better. To send that message in large numbers is our best chance.

So.... Given the information available what is the better alternative?


atmx093

join:2009-01-07
Gatineau, QC
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

Hey gang, thinking we need to let all of this digest. This is certainly much less of a problem than UBB was. That was hugely worse than this decision. Don't want to defend anything but at the same time, I don't think this approach is the right one. There are some good aspects to this...

Hey Marc, I agree that this decision may be a step in the right direction, but I think that what most of us are upset about is that again the CRTC's decision seems biased towards the eternal duopoly. So now all we can expect is exactly the same as the past 10 years have given us; No innovation and higher prices.

If someone can draft a letter that can be sent to Christian Paradis, I will absolutely participate and make our voices be heard.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to graniterock
said by graniterock:

IMHO, Complaining that you don't like the decision is one thing. Being able to articulate why it was the wrong decision and what the right one should be is better.

Many good and technically valid points were made in various proceedings, sometimes well, sometimes clumsily, but almost every time they got ignored or (conveniently?) misunderstood.

For example:
1- Incumbents claim load-balancing, fail-over and link aggregation are things that require some form of advanced voodoo magic even though it is a standard feature of just about any managed Ethernet switch/router manufactured in the past 10+ years. Most of the benefits can be achieved with almost no effort by simply enabling LACP.
2- Bell claims that 10GbE AHSSPIs are not viable below 3Gbps but why should Bell care how much load is on individual AHSSPIs? The ISPs already pay a separate per-port fees for that which should cover all capacity-invariant costs of providing that link so Bell's port costs are covered even at 0Gbps.
3- Incumbents say billing for aggregate capacity or "dynamic bandwidth allocation" is too complicated but all it requires is tracking bandwidth in 1-5 minutes increments, summing graphs across all links and bill based on the total, something that can be done fairly easily with tools like MRTG and would be even easier if LACP was enabled so usage statistics would only need to be gathered on a per-LAG basis.
4- Incumbents claim they need to charge on a per-link basis to "share risk" with 3rd-party ISPs but this makes no sense since the incumbent has already incurred all possible bandwidth costs by the time traffic gets aggregated to the POI, it does not make much difference how wider/faster the interface between the POI and ISP is at that point.

This is by no means intended to be an exhaustive list but these are my top-4 issues.

On that 3rd one though, I think CNOC and friends tripped over themselves by calling it "dynamically allocated bandwidth" since what they really want is for ports to be allowed to run at max-speed and then bills be adjusted to the excess of total capacity used beyond commitment. No "dynamic allocation" here, only dynamic billing based on total traffic across all links rather than per-link basis. Much simpler.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to atmx093
said by atmx093:

said by TSI Marc:

Hey gang, thinking we need to let all of this digest. This is certainly much less of a problem than UBB was. That was hugely worse than this decision. Don't want to defend anything but at the same time, I don't think this approach is the right one. There are some good aspects to this...

Hey Marc, I agree that this decision may be a step in the right direction, but I think that what most of us are upset about is that again the CRTC's decision seems biased towards the eternal duopoly. So now all we can expect is exactly the same as the past 10 years have given us; No innovation and higher prices.

If someone can draft a letter that can be sent to Christian Paradis, I will absolutely participate and make our voices be heard.

I can't argue that.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

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

said by graniterock:

IMHO, Complaining that you don't like the decision is one thing. Being able to articulate why it was the wrong decision and what the right one should be is better.

Many good and technically valid points were made in various proceedings, sometimes well, sometimes clumsily, but almost every time they got ignored or (conveniently?) misunderstood.

For example:
1- Incumbents claim load-balancing, fail-over and link aggregation are things that require some form of advanced voodoo magic even though it is a standard feature of just about any managed Ethernet switch/router manufactured in the past 10+ years. Most of the benefits can be achieved with almost no effort by simply enabling LACP.
2- Bell claims that 10GbE AHSSPIs are not viable below 3Gbps but why should Bell care how much load is on individual AHSSPIs? The ISPs already pay a separate per-port fees for that which should cover all capacity-invariant costs of providing that link so Bell's port costs are covered even at 0Gbps.
3- Incumbents say billing for aggregate capacity or "dynamic bandwidth allocation" is too complicated but all it requires is tracking bandwidth in 1-5 minutes increments, summing graphs across all links and bill based on the total, something that can be done fairly easily with tools like MRTG and would be even easier if LACP was enabled so usage statistics would only need to be gathered on a per-LAG basis.
4- Incumbents claim they need to charge on a per-link basis to "share risk" with 3rd-party ISPs but this makes no sense since the incumbent has already incurred all possible bandwidth costs by the time traffic gets aggregated to the POI, it does not make much difference how wider/faster the interface between the POI and ISP is at that point.

This is by no means intended to be an exhaustive list but these are my top-4 issues.

On that 3rd one though, I think CNOC and friends tripped over themselves by calling it "dynamically allocated bandwidth" since what they really want is for ports to be allowed to run at max-speed and then bills be adjusted to the excess of total capacity used beyond commitment. No "dynamic allocation" here, only dynamic billing based on total traffic across all links rather than per-link basis. Much simpler.

You just wrote CNOC's R&V.
Hope you get paid for it.


AOD
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by InvalidError:

said by graniterock:

IMHO, Complaining that you don't like the decision is one thing. Being able to articulate why it was the wrong decision and what the right one should be is better.

Many good and technically valid points were made in various proceedings, sometimes well, sometimes clumsily, but almost every time they got ignored or (conveniently?) misunderstood.

For example:
1- Incumbents claim load-balancing, fail-over and link aggregation are things that require some form of advanced voodoo magic even though it is a standard feature of just about any managed Ethernet switch/router manufactured in the past 10+ years. Most of the benefits can be achieved with almost no effort by simply enabling LACP.
2- Bell claims that 10GbE AHSSPIs are not viable below 3Gbps but why should Bell care how much load is on individual AHSSPIs? The ISPs already pay a separate per-port fees for that which should cover all capacity-invariant costs of providing that link so Bell's port costs are covered even at 0Gbps.
3- Incumbents say billing for aggregate capacity or "dynamic bandwidth allocation" is too complicated but all it requires is tracking bandwidth in 1-5 minutes increments, summing graphs across all links and bill based on the total, something that can be done fairly easily with tools like MRTG and would be even easier if LACP was enabled so usage statistics would only need to be gathered on a per-LAG basis.
4- Incumbents claim they need to charge on a per-link basis to "share risk" with 3rd-party ISPs but this makes no sense since the incumbent has already incurred all possible bandwidth costs by the time traffic gets aggregated to the POI, it does not make much difference how wider/faster the interface between the POI and ISP is at that point.

This is by no means intended to be an exhaustive list but these are my top-4 issues.

On that 3rd one though, I think CNOC and friends tripped over themselves by calling it "dynamically allocated bandwidth" since what they really want is for ports to be allowed to run at max-speed and then bills be adjusted to the excess of total capacity used beyond commitment. No "dynamic allocation" here, only dynamic billing based on total traffic across all links rather than per-link basis. Much simpler.

You just wrote CNOC's R&V.
Hope you get paid for it.

well played.