dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17714
share rss forum feed
« Speed Increase?Vmedia vs Zazeen »
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 ... 9 · 10 · 11 · next

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

Re: CRTC 2013-80 Optional Upstream Speeds, DSL Modem Cert

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.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to resa1983
They state that 2 modems were tested and approved at the request od ISP's but dont say what they were.They also spew some serious bullshit to get around CNOC"s accusations.Hopefully they see this and pick out the good from the bad


hm

@videotron.ca
said by andyb:

They state that 2 modems were tested and approved at the request od ISP's but dont say what they were.They also spew some serious bullshit to get around CNOC"s accusations.Hopefully they see this and pick out the good from the bad

Bell is going to reply to CNOC on or after the 4th. I think.

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

said by andyb:

They state that 2 modems were tested and approved at the request od ISP's but dont say what they were.They also spew some serious bullshit to get around CNOC"s accusations.Hopefully they see this and pick out the good from the bad

Bell is going to reply to CNOC on or after the 4th. I think.

Bell's asking for the comment period to be extended to the 4th due to the holiday, but the deadline is still the 2nd.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
Doesnt matter when the deadline is bell will do it when they feel like it.They dont care about the crtc process.They do as they wish as we have seen for years

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to resa1983
All interventions/comments to now are posted:

»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/ListeInt···c&Lang=e

Vaxination's seems to be missing. A few users have written in with comments already as well.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to resa1983
Just filed by JF.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to resa1983
Date for comments for modem cert & optional upload speeds deadline moved to April 5th.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP
Expand your moderator at work


Good4Him

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

Re: CRTC 2013-80 Optional Upstream Speeds, DSL Modem Cert

Good for him for standing up and calling a spade a spade.

The CRTC is being a complete asshole.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to resa1983
It looks like his stuff isn't being shown (despite being filed on time, while mine technically wasn't), because he filed via access key.

It looks like the CRTC wants everyone to file via the website now....
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

InvalidError

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

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

Not every VDSL2 modem has 100% interoperability with every other VDSL2 remote and the same goes with modems.

Bell has no reason to object to people BYOMing since Bell will be charging ISPs $95 diagnostic when subscribers complain about sync/speed problems and the tech call determines that the modem must be the problem - "Works fine with Sagem/Cellpipe, bad customer-owned CPE."

Things are a little bit more touchy on cable where one rogue modem can fudge up the whole node for all subscribers and services on it. On xDSL, a bad modem is unlikely to have much effect on other lines unless it experiences some sort of catastrophic failure.

BTW, CNOC wasted their time with the $3.75 upload option since Bell removed the fee from their tariffs in February.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to resa1983
I believe the fee is still there for business tariffs? Or maybe it was for HSA (non-PPPoE, not what the CRTC is calling HSA)?

Anyhow, the point is that Bell is basically saying in their filing that they don't care what modem you use, use whatever you want. In practice they're preventing people from using anything but a Bell modem (they require to register serial numbers), but in the filing they're saying BYOM is fine.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

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

Considering what to write in my submission... Other than the fact that Bell should be forced to bear the costs of upgrading their network so Sagemcoms aren't required..

Luckily there's a few extra days.. Will be even more with the CRTC realizing they didn't post some submissions, and need to give additional time for that as well.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
said by resa1983:

Considering what to write in my submission... Other than the fact that Bell should be forced to bear the costs of upgrading their network so Sagemcoms aren't required..

Or identifying which postal codes, areas, or addressed (in their look-up database) have the defective cards/equipment or whatever that requires only a certain type of modem.

Give an option: Fix the defects, or identify them. Or both since they won't fix anything this year or next.

This way both the customer and the ISP know. People shouldn't pay a diagnostic fee of 100$ like InvalidError is saying because of defective equipment that affects the maximum speed they get if they bridge their modems (which is normal to do), or whatever the case(s) may be in regards to Bell's materially defective equipment.

InvalidError

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

They state that 2 modems were tested and approved at the request od ISP's but dont say what they were.

We already know what they are: the discontinued Cellpipe and the Sagem F@st Bell has been shipping to all new subscribers for the last couple of months. They are the only two modems for which Bell has firmware enabling them to work on either Stinger or 7330 remotes.

Since Bell's testing requires that modems submitted for approval support both equipment types and it is extremely unlikely that 3rd-party ISPs will manage to convince any vendor to make IKNS-specific firmware for low-volume customers, this is effectively Bell telling you "you can pick any color as long as it is black."


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
So some ISP's sent in bells own modems for testing? That makes alot of sense -not

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
Doubtful. More like bell required they use bells modems, and bell said ' we have to test them first.'
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

InvalidError

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

So some ISP's sent in bells own modems for testing? That makes alot of sense -not

What Bell said:
- The Companies are currently aware of two different modems that are fully compatible with their VDSL2 architecture. One, supplied by Alcatel-Lucent Canada Inc. (Alcatel) remains functional but the manufacturer recently discontinued its production. The second, supplied by Sagemcom Canada Inc. (Sagemcom), remains in production.

Bell is clearly referring to their own modems there, not units sent in from TPIAs.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
Actually at bottom of page 3 it says 2 ISP's requested modem certification and it was done and approved.The kicker I didn't see right off was that some idiot ISP's asked for ADSL2 modems to be tested.No need for that unless bell asks for them to be certified if the isp sells them retail? Who knows but they were not vdsl anyway


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to resa1983
Bell asking for extension again for HSA

download130405-The C···sion.doc 43219 bytes
bell request
(130405-The Comp-TNC 2013-80-AHSSPI Extension.doc.zip)


EDIT: Telus supports bell as they dunno what it costs either and need to do studies also for the HSA