dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
18838
« Speed Increase?Vmedia vs Zazeen »
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 ... 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · next
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs

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

Frankly, I haven't a clue. I doubt it's ever been levied before.

Besides, if we request this..... Chances are everything else gets delayed even further. :\
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by resa1983:

Frankly, I haven't a clue. I doubt it's ever been levied before.

Besides, if we request this..... Chances are everything else gets delayed even further. :\

I don't know if it's applicable or not either (IANAL) but *maybe* if just one person @ Bell was prosecuted...... it might be worth the delay for all the other matters still to be decided (FTTH, etc...).
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

CNOC states that due to Bell's costs being .00 to .02 for the optional upstream, cost to TPIA/GAS providers should be at most .02 + 30%, and not on the $3.75 that Bell charges their own customers for the additional upstream.

CNOC needs to revisit Bell's website since 15/1 has been scrapped and "optional" upload is no longer optional, merely subject to availability of supporting facilities. ("Upload speeds from 680kbps to 10Mbps" on Fibe 15, no mention of extra speed-related fees in pricing details.)
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by InvalidError:

said by resa1983:

CNOC states that due to Bell's costs being .00 to .02 for the optional upstream, cost to TPIA/GAS providers should be at most .02 + 30%, and not on the $3.75 that Bell charges their own customers for the additional upstream.

CNOC needs to revisit Bell's website since 15/1 has been scrapped and "optional" upload is no longer optional, merely subject to availability of supporting facilities. ("Upload speeds from 680kbps to 10Mbps" on Fibe 15, no mention of extra speed-related fees in pricing details.)

Bell should have filed that in a Tariff Notice then.. :\
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

said by resa1983:

Bell should have filed that in a Tariff Notice then.. :\

I was talking about the retail side of things.

I thought there was a R&V early this year where Bell scrapped the fee on the wholesale side but the official tariff pages still list 15/1 with optional upload for an extra charge.
simsin0
join:2008-01-06

simsin0 to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
So theres a chance it wont be postponed? Nice!

Maybe finally a resolution for modem certifications for VDSL.

Can't believe everything has to be done this way... so crooked of them to have to do everything through a court order to benefit from every little edge they can have, instead of just having a level playing field.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by simsin0:

So theres a chance it wont be postponed? Nice!

Maybe finally a resolution for modem certifications for VDSL.

Can't believe everything has to be done this way... so crooked of them to have to do everything through a court order to benefit from every little edge they can have, instead of just having a level playing field.

Its not a court order. Its a Commission proceeding.

These issues pop up quite a bit because incumbents are forced by the commission to provide access to TPIA/GAS. It means less money for incumbents, which is one of the reasons they don't like it. So these issues pop up, whether by neglect or design, and we need a proceeding to get the issues hashed out & fixed.

Unfortunately the incumbents apparently can't just be adults about it, resign themselves to the fact they have to give TPIA/GAS access, and work things out without the intermediary (the CRTC).
simsin0
join:2008-01-06

simsin0

Member

Yea thats what I meant. Instead of giving the run-around... why not just get it over with swiftly and promptly instead of dragging its feet? maybe they can enjoy more of a monopoly for a bit longer?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by simsin0:

Yea thats what I meant. Instead of giving the run-around... why not just get it over with swiftly and promptly instead of dragging its feet? maybe they can enjoy more of a monopoly for a bit longer?

The incumbents in Canada need to adopt Google's motto: "Don't be evil" and follow it.

But hell.. That's just an consumer's view after more than 2 years of bullshit with Rogers.
simsin0
join:2008-01-06

simsin0

Member

Resa you work for Battle.net? or are you a user/gamer ?

GateKeeper
@videotron.ca

GateKeeper to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

The incumbents in Canada need to adopt Google's motto: "Don't be evil" and follow it.

LOL if they followed in googles footsteps they would be more evil than what they already are. I can see DPI logging turned on for everyone pretty quick.... if it isn't already.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

The incumbents in Canada need to adopt Google's motto: "Don't be evil" and follow it.

I'm not too convinced about Google themselves following their own motto.

When Google originally announced Google Fiber, it was supposed to be a shared passive outside plants anyone could lease fiber on to implement their own ISP or other services but in the end, Google decided to provide end-to-end service - there is a lot more personal data and statistics to be collected from being an ISP than dark fiber provider.

Personally, the way Google and many other online services encroach onto people's privacy often for no apparent reason other than "because they can" (and that's where they get a large chunk of their income from) makes me somewhat nervous.

I think the way Google and others make hiding personal information so inconvenient can be considered evil in and of itself.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to simsin0

Premium Member

to simsin0
said by simsin0:

Resa you work for Battle.net? or are you a user/gamer ?

Oh gosh no.. I work in Toronto for a small accounting firm. Blizzard doesn't have any offices in Canada.

I'm just a volunteer poster who's become a Tech Support MVP after years of helpful posting.
simsin0
join:2008-01-06

simsin0

Member

Aaah k, was curious about that. So you're a dedicated contributor!

Glad to have you post these updates. Hard to get info on what is happening with the CRTC and the big companies.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

Abridged ver···0.zi.zip
991,425 bytes
(Abridged version of TELUS Interrogatory Responses TNC 2013-80.zip)
130531-The C···_ABR.zip
322,276 bytes
Interface responses due today.

Bell & Telus.
Bell has over 20 .doc & .xls files in their filing. I am not .pdf'ing them. Telus has almost a dozen .pdfs in their .zip filing.
resa1983

resa1983

Premium Member

CNOC request for extension of a later filing date.
Bell supports.

HiVolt
Premium Member
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON

HiVolt

Premium Member

Ay, even more delays... god damn... $8 rental EVERY month goes to bell for a freakin obsolete piece of shit...
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

As for TODAY's deadline, response to filings done May 15, 2013.

First up is CNOC really early.
resa1983

resa1983 to HiVolt

Premium Member

to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:

Ay, even more delays... god damn... $8 rental EVERY month goes to bell for a freakin obsolete piece of shit...

Thats just response to response to comments. lol
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

As for TODAY's deadline, response to filings done May 15, 2013.

You filed in this proceeding, correct?

How about filing another response talking about Bell unjustly enriching themselves to the tune of $8 x (# of indie customers affected) x (# of months Bell delays filing information on-time or delays providing adequate unbranded firmware).

Suggest to the CRTC that Bell be required to pay the indies this amount (plus 30% markup) to cover the cost of modem rental refunds to indie customers & the costs the indies incur in crediting their customers these amounts.

In round terms, this is costing indie customers probably $1MM or so/month.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

Yes I filed in this proceeding - CNOC mentions me & my submission.

I'm not filing anything today.. There was nothing May 15th I really want to comment on really.

There's another comment period next week I do believe - to comment on today's comments. lol.
resa1983

resa1983

Premium Member

I know I said I wouldn't be filing, but I had to update something I wrote in my original filing in March.

Also attached is Bell's Comments to rates for optional upstream speeds, Comments to Modem Certification, and Additional request for information - this is the # of customers on optional speeds for Bell/Bell Aliant companies. There are no ### in that filing.

Finally the cable cos submission.

Snuck a peak at the 3rd doc from Bell, but thats about it - I have a lot to read.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

om my @$%!@$@% Bhell's response on the modem issue pisses me off to no end. Deny there's a problem, lie about modem compatibility, and deny some more.

I wish I knew how to file properly cause I'd rip them a new one on the denials.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

Everything is about can you back it up with evidence...
Which is why i try to put a bunch of footnotes in my submissions to back up what I say.

They know that the tsi modem purchase deal was with them, but didnt want to admit.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by resa1983:

Everything is about can you back it up with evidence...

Would they accept video submission of sync-no-surf in action?
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by JMJimmy:

said by resa1983:

Everything is about can you back it up with evidence...

Would they accept video submission of sync-no-surf in action?

You should mess with them.
Submit one that has #'s in most places.
Then submit the real video 'in confidence'.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

I find it funny Rogers didn't have much to say regarding my request that the CRTC force them to push approved firmware to TPIA, other than to say they have no idea what I'm saying/asking for.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to resa1983

MVM

to resa1983
I guess it's good news that Bell will shortly have additional chipsets working for the stingers... but in the mean time they continue to pretend the 33Mbps speed limit and sync-no-surf doesn't exist...
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

said by Guspaz:

but in the mean time they continue to pretend the 33Mbps speed limit and sync-no-surf doesn't exist...

Regardless of whether it exists or not, it causes no competitive harm since it affects both wholesale and retail subscribers just as much... in other words: "we aren't going to make an additional effort for wholesale that we aren't making for retail and forcing us to do otherwise is beyond the CRTC's authority/jurisdiction."

Bell is a relatively small company compared to other incumbents around the globe. I bet even they lack the clout to get modem and chipset manufacturers to turn on a dime for service so it isn't that much of a surprise that it takes them so long to get firmwares tailored to their specific needs on whatever new modems they are pursuing.

Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON

1 edit

1 recommendation

Teddy Boom to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

I find it funny Rogers didn't have much to say regarding my request that the CRTC force them to push approved firmware to TPIA, other than to say they have no idea what I'm saying/asking for.

So the Cable carriers (including Rogers) said:
The Cable Carriers confirm they allow any ISP modem that has passed second level modem testing by a specific cable carrier to be used by any other ISP using that cable carrier’s network.
So, open season for DPC3825 and Hitron modems then?
The reason is that the firmware loaded into this gateway modem is specifically configured for Rogers’ retail service including an initial Rogers splash page.
It appears that this is not true for the Hitron:
»www.wikihow.com/Set-up-a ··· ay-Modem

I have a DPC3825 right here in front of me with Rogers current DPC3825-v302r125533-111108a-ROG firmware. The only signs of Rogers branding in it are the "ROG" in the firmware name and the default wireless network name. The default wireless network name is RogersXXXXX, where the X's are the last 5 digits of the serial number.

Of course it also completely misses the point of the initial CRTC ruling from way back when, which was to allow Rogers customers to take their existing modems from Rogers service to TPIA service.

Then Rogers says:
Ironically, in the past Rogers has received complaints from ISPs who inadvertently deployed modems with Rogers-specific firmware that Rogers was subverting the competitive process by trying to win customers back during the provisioning process.
This is almost certainly not true. It is very likely this refers to the Rogers splash screen that shows up whenever an unprovisioned modem is connected--often referred to as Rogers walled garden. Firmware or modem type has nothing to do with this. Any modem, even an unofficial model let alone unofficial firmware, will have all web site addresses redirected to a Rogers splash page until that modem is associated with an active account (aka provisioned).

No doubt TPIAs have complained about this, because Rogers makes frequent provisioning errors. When these errors are made the TPIA's customers are confronted with Rogers marketing material.

Finally:
In any event, TPIA ISPs are free to request certification of this device with non-Rogers-specific firmware.
So they are not FREE at all. And further, Rogers is arrogantly flouting the letter and spirit of previous CRTC rulings on this issue.