dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17713
share rss forum feed
« Speed Increase?Vmedia vs Zazeen »
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 ... 9 · 10 · 11 · next

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

CRTC 2013-80 Optional Upstream Speeds, DSL Modem Cert

Consultation:
"Review of outstanding wholesale high-speed access service issues related to interface rates, optional upstream speed rates, and modem certification requirements"
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2013/2013-80.htm

Mandatory filing of whether incumbents offer 'optional' speeds that could be tariffed, ie, non-ftth:
»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/ListeInt···r&lang=e

Nobody but Rogers offers 'optional' speed packages they aren't offering to TPIA/GAS. Rogers' offering was a 'promotion'.

Today (Mar 25) is deadline for interventions on the 3 topics covered in the Consultation. Comments deadline is April 2nd.

TY to JF for forwarding everything.
In order above:
Primus
Vaxination (JF)
CNOC - Some really great points
Bell Companies - reserves the right to post on upstream speeds by Apr 2nd

My own submission:
»docs.google.com/document/d/1B0oe···=sharing
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
Damn.. If you only read 1 submission, make it CNOC's.

They really lay into Bell hard.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


BliZZardX
Premium
join:2002-08-18
Toronto, ON
Great points by CNOC. The Type B semi-compliance with the VDSL2 has created so many problems. It's pretty much the definition of vendor lock-in.

It would be great to see all Stingers replaced with 7330 or fiber. My Stinger has been in service since August 2010 and since about half of my condo are DSL customers they must have broke even on these a long time ago.


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to resa1983
Nice rip into Bell by CNOC... Too bad they didnt mention the 35mbps bridge mode limit on the Sagemcom... That would add further fuel to the fire...
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to resa1983
Ressy, can you post JF's submission?
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
said by HiVolt:

Ressy, can you post JF's submission?

Its there - its the 2nd one.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Oh, i didnt click on it cuz it said CRTC in the title.. hehe.. Thanks..
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
said by HiVolt:

Oh, i didnt click on it cuz it said CRTC in the title.. hehe.. Thanks..

Tried not to change the pdf names too much, except Bell's.. They just have stupid names for their files.. Not to mention they filed a .doc instead of .pdf like everyone else. Ugh.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
Bell always uses .doc. MTS uses .docx Dunno why they dont get with the program


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
CRTC should just reject non PDF stuff... Come on Bell, you can't afford Acrobat?

Yes I know free PDF converters exist
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
said by HiVolt:

CRTC should just reject non PDF stuff... Come on Bell, you can't afford Acrobat?

Yes I know free PDF converters exist

I usually write everything up in Google Docs (which is helpful when I have a sick kid who needs to be tossed in the shower, as I can keep working on my cellphone while he's getting clean, as was the case last night).. With the print option, I can either print to my printer (lawlz), or my free pdf printer.

Bell just doesn't like to make things easy on people.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


regator

@apexcovantage.com
reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:

Nice rip into Bell by CNOC... Too bad they didnt mention the 35mbps bridge mode limit on the Sagemcom... That would add further fuel to the fire...

Agreed. The 35mbps issue seems a little more pressing than a bell logo in the modem configuration page. IISPs aren't going to be facing support costs and losing customers over a logo. The customers likely to subscribe to 50/10 are probably the same who are likely to need/want functioning bridge mode.

Also what's with the 1 year timelines for fixes? There's no reason people on 7330s shouldn't be able to go out and get a vdsl2 modem today. As for the stinger issue my feeling is bell does nothing until the fibetv rollout is done in 2015/they break/run out of capacity.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
said by regator :

said by HiVolt:

Nice rip into Bell by CNOC... Too bad they didnt mention the 35mbps bridge mode limit on the Sagemcom... That would add further fuel to the fire...

Agreed. The 35mbps issue seems a little more pressing than a bell logo in the modem configuration page. IISPs aren't going to be facing support costs and losing customers over a logo. The customers likely to subscribe to 50/10 are probably the same who are likely to need/want functioning bridge mode.

Also what's with the 1 year timelines for fixes? There's no reason people on 7330s shouldn't be able to go out and get a vdsl2 modem today. As for the stinger issue my feeling is bell does nothing until the fibetv rollout is done in 2015/they break/run out of capacity.

That 35mbps issue would be a good one to bring up with the CRTC for comments (due by April 2).

The 1 year timeline would be for Bell to replace all their stingers with 7330s I do believe.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to resa1983
In not so many words they make Bell look completely incompetent.


Nit Pick

@videotron.ca
reply to regator
said by regator :

Agreed. The 35mbps issue seems a little more pressing than a bell logo in the modem configuration page.

I believe you are still permitted to submit comments. I would urge a few of you to file this ASAP. It is a rather important issue. You pay for something, yet can never get it due to well "known" issues. Issues that have existed for a long, long time that Bell knows about.

It's like false advertizing. They know the issue is there. They know you can't get the speeds, yet they try to hide it and play dumb.

Or I guess you can always not say anything and just live with it, and let Bell walked all over you.

Power in numbers.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
Quick link to submit comments to the process:

»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/Interven···ET=N#SE0

You can submit comments up to April 2nd.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
said by resa1983:

You can submit comments up to April 2nd.

Bell - The company that puts more money into R&V's than firmware fixesTM*

*Bell - The company that puts more money into R&V's than firmware fixes is a registered trademark of Maynard G. Krebs Enterprises (Panama) Limited. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
reply to resa1983
They most certainly do. What a lavish fairytale down modem lane and how the evil witch, aka, Bell has terrorized all the internet users with it's wicked spells lol.

Time to read JF's!


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Nit Pick
said by Nit Pick :

It's like false advertizing. They know the issue is there. They know you can't get the speeds, yet they try to hide it and play dumb.

Bell doesn't support third party routers on their service, so as long as they're dealing with their own direct customers, the fact the modem can deliver 50 Mbps in routed mode is sufficient for them to evade any charges of false advertising. With wholesale connections, where they can't claim to not support third party routers (since that's not their call), it's another issue.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to resa1983
said by JFM Paragraph 9 :
While Bell Canada is free to cripple the functions of its modems for its own retail subscribers
Why is when I read that did a vivid picture of a Bell employee bashing out the modem's "knees" with a baseball bat and then placing it into a shipping box for a customer come to mind lol?

It certainly paints a clear picture behind the practice.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to resa1983
Pheww JF - When viewed with a small proportionally-spaced font you almost said the illegal word "tech savvy"


Nit Pick

@videotron.ca
reply to Guspaz
Click for full size
LOOK. 3rd party router support
said by Guspaz:

said by Nit Pick :

It's like false advertizing. They know the issue is there. They know you can't get the speeds, yet they try to hide it and play dumb.

Bell doesn't support third party routers on their service, so as long as they're dealing with their own direct customers, the fact the modem can deliver 50 Mbps in routed mode is sufficient for them to evade any charges of false advertising. With wholesale connections, where they can't claim to not support third party routers (since that's not their call), it's another issue.

Sure they do. They have supported 3rd party routers for a long, long time. Maybe you just aren't aware of it, even after all these years. Learn something new everyday, eh?

PC-care has been around for quite a few years for the extra 8$ or so per month.

No one can deny that in it's current state the modem and/or Line card is "materially defective", regardless.

When people pay extra (Only Bell customers pay extra for this support), what does Bell tell them when they can't achieve the advertized speeds due to their "materially defective" hardware?

Do you think bell states to their beloved and cherished customers: "oh, our hardware is materially defective. Although you bought a 3rd party router, which we state that we do support, and for which you are paying extra. We also forgot to tell you that when when you bought our internet service and the pc-care add-on that due to the "material defective" hardware we can't really support you and what you bought. Nor the speeds we advertized".

"Yes, we knew about this for a long, long time, but we just happened to forget to mention this anywhere on our website, and we forgot to mention it on our PC-Care program, for which you pay extra for, that we have "material defects" in hardware that we can never truly support".

"Is there anything else Bell can help you with today"?


So, Guspaz, yes they support 3rd party routers. And yes, Guspaz, it is false advertizing on more than one level and on more than one service they offer.

They purposely HIDE IT.

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1
reply to resa1983
I am looking to comment on this issue and send my comments to the CRTC regarding Telus locking out their modems and preventing users from using their own hardware for routing purposes.

Do my statements have to be formatted in a certain way? What Info should I include?


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to resa1983
Yeah, I guess they do now. When I was with Bell, they forbade any third party equipment, and mentioning you were using a Linksys router when talking to Bell tech support was a surefire way to get them to hang up on you with the "Sorry, we don't support having a Linksys router within 100 kilometers of your DSL modem, we won't diagnose why your Bell modem is shooting laserbeams that decapitate small kittens." excuse.

In the mean time, those of us stuck using the Bell hardware in routed mode have found that a double-nat solution using the Bell modem's DMZ host option is an effective workaround with seemingly no side-effects or limitations, although it's not ideal.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to DanteX
said by DanteX:

I am looking to comment on this issue and send my comments to the CRTC regarding Telus locking out their modems and preventing users from using their own hardware for routing purposes.

Do my statements have to be formatted in a certain way? What Info should I include?

Depends. If you plan on submitting comments via pdf, they should be in some sort of numbered format, with the name & address of Traversy, as well as your name & email address.

If you're just going to put a short comment into the comment box, then no.

Keep in mind tho, that CRTC doesn't care about retail. This is all about wholesale.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to DanteX
said by DanteX:

I am looking to comment on this issue and send my comments to the CRTC regarding Telus locking out their modems and preventing users from using their own hardware for routing purposes.

Do my statements have to be formatted in a certain way? What Info should I include?

Follow the directions here:
»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/Interven···ET=N#SE0

Comments need not be formatted a certain way for us public people.

Info to include... Let's see.

State what happened. Telus is pulling a Bell on you.
1. They pushed a firmware update to your home without notice.
2. They locked you out of the already crippled firmware.
3. You lost your setting and whatever other info you had in there. Or can no longer access them.
4. You lost bridge mode (as you know it).

All without being informed of anything.

And there are more consequences for you, as a consumer, should Telus should take this a step further, like Bell has done, and prevent wholesale from one day providing their own non-locked out modems (just like Bell). Regardless of what promises they may wish to say.

Telus has already just shown they will use administrative back-doors in hardware within your home to cripple the functionality and accessibility of your modem. What else would/can they do?

Encourage the CRTC to not let wholesale customers be stepped on like this and be treated with such disregard. Should one day you decide to change provider away from Telus to a wholesaler, you can find yourself in the same shoes as Bell-wholesale customers where Telus will invade your hardware and cripple it to any extent that they deem fit to do and prevent you from using your purchased hardware as you see fit to use it.

For other following, Seems Telus pulled a Bell on their beloved and cherished customers as seen here:
»Locked out of Actiontech can not use Own ROuter

It's in your best interest to raise your voice now after what Telus did to you and to prevent Telus from taking this a step further like Bell has done.

I'm not sure if others can add to this in regards to Telus and to prevent Telus from going the direction Bell has.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:

Keep in mind tho, that CRTC doesn't care about retail. This is all about wholesale.

Yes, but the point is to drive the issue home that although Telus is pulling this on people, it should not occur, ever, to wholesale.

One day Telus can indeed pull a Bell on everyone in Telus-wholesale-land. Best to stop it in it's tracks and make sure it never, ever, does happen in Telus-wholesale-land.

That is what he he writing in support for. He just got kicked in the ass first hand with Telus. What if he leaves and next year Telus does a Bell with their locked out and flukey firmware on second rate hardware?

Put your foot down now. Prevent it. This issue won't likely ever be brought up again. You have one chance. And that is now.

You have till the 2nd of April to file.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to resa1983
Bell has filed their comments for modem certification.

quote:
3. Pursuant to [.. blah blah blah..] certain information in these Comments is being provided in confidence to the Commission. Release of this information on the public record would allow existing and potential competitors to formulate more effective business plans and marketing strategies which would therefore prejudice the Companies' competitive position and cause specific direct harm to the Companies. An abridged version is provided for the public record.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to resa1983
I approve of everything Bell said, which is that modem certification makes no sense, they don't want to do it, wholesalers can use whatever they want, try don't have to use the sagemcom. There is nothing in the filing that CNOC could disagree with. They even make some good points about why cable modem certification shouldn't be required for cable either (because the requirement predates widespread DOCSIS, which is now mature and ubiquitous).

The only problem is that in practice Bell is requiring wholesalers to use sagemcom modems with registered serial numbers in direct conflict with their position in this filing.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


hm

@videotron.ca
Bell never addressed the issue CNOC brought up about these modems being materially defective.

Was this the part they censored?

CNOC should make a demand for the information to be made public.

And for i don't know how many hundreds of thousands of people, Bell is stating they have only one sole source of modems. heh

Reminds me of when a sole source RAM manufacturer in China went up in flames and 1-gig sticks were selling for 300$ back in the 90's.

I think what Bell could be hiding here is their flukey defective hardware that works with nothing else.