dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
24625

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983

Re: ITMP undue preference complaint filed against Bell

bell doesn't provide a a diagram.. nasty bastards.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

It's just Bell giving themselves another undue preference ....

"Mirko, it's George. Don't give the CRTC the network diagram they asked for. Let the suckers at the cable companies give up their diagrams to the CRTC. Chances are that the CRTC will never ask us for the diagram later anyway. And if they do, our delay in providing it will simply delay any decision the CRTC makes against us, thereby allowing us to continue providing the undue preference to ourselves that much longer. It'll hurt our competitors more, and the CRTC will never require us to disgorge the undue profits, much less penalize us for the delays. If in the end we're forced to provide a diagram, do the diagram on a dot matrix printer using nothing but ####'s."

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

Lol
LastDon
join:2002-08-13

LastDon

Member

You said you want a network diagram..

#############
# #
# #
###################
###################
###################
###################

there you go.. network diagram
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

Here's Bell's entire network ........
bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada

bklass

Premium Member

ROFLMAOSHIDMTAMSFO. (rolling on floor laughing my ass off so hard i dropped my taco and my sombrero fell off)

And in case anyone didn't pick up on it, Bell admits to using the same "Quickplay" brand solutions provider as Rogers (who acknowledges that RAP-TV is an Internet service), yet claims that mobile TV isn't delivered over the Internet.
bklass

bklass to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
So, the official record is closed.

Thanks for all the support, comments, laughs, tears, and

########!

Here's hoping for a favourable decision.

pnjunction
Teksavvy Extreme
Premium Member
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON

4 edits

pnjunction to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
Doesn't the whole section on pricing basically admit they are using anti-competitive pricing in hopes of controlling the market? They talk about how they are not recovering the costs of their wireless infrastructure with this pricing, but obviously they do recover it on the rest of their services which people have to use in order to consume content from competitors.

So basically RAP-TV gets a free ride on Rogers infrastructure but competing content does not. I mean they won't say it as plainly but they do say it.

It is also interesting that in stating that their RAP-TV content has no preferential treatment over other content they also admit that it all flows through the same channels on their network, unlike the case Bell made with FibeTV.

I guess it makes sense as in the end they have no technical case, all they can do is try to sell this ridiculous vertical integration lock-in as commonplace and a good thing. They make it sound like somehow if they aren't allowed their anti-competitive pricing us stupid Canadians will never figure out how to watch videos on our phone otherwise. No the reason we don't watch more already is because of the $10/GB rectal trauma and I hope the CRTC can see that.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

1 recommendation

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by pnjunction:

Doesn't the whole section on pricing basically admit they are using anti-competitive pricing in hopes of controlling the market?

They don't see it that way as it's hard to see the light of day from so far up their rectums, but yes they are using anti-competitive pricing & policies.

Funny thing is that even if they get bitch slapped by the CRTC this time, the indumbents* will continue to engage in anti-competitive practices repeatedly - even for the same issue, despite the CRTC ruling. This will never cease until the indumbents are broken up via functional separation means. See »Re: CRTC Chariman Freaks Out Over Netflix. Recommends Monopolies

*indumbent is a registered trademark of Maynard G. Krebs Enterprises (Panama) Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

.... *indumbent is a registered trademark of Maynard G. Krebs Enterprises (Panama) Limited. All Rights Reserved.

 
@ 'indumbent' !
Davesnothere

Davesnothere to pnjunction

Premium Member

to pnjunction
said by pnjunction:

....They make it sound like somehow if they aren't allowed their anti-competitive pricing us stupid Canadians will never figure out how to watch videos on our phone otherwise.

No, the reason we don't watch more already is because of the $10/GB rectal trauma....

 
EXACTLY !
Davesnothere

Davesnothere to bklass

Premium Member

to bklass
said by bklass:

ROFLMAOSHIDMTAMSFO. (rolling on floor laughing my ass off so hard i dropped my taco and my sombrero fell off) ....

 
Actually, that's FOCROFLMAOSHIDMTAMSFO.

FOC = Falling Off Chair
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

1 edit

resa1983

Premium Member

New interrogatories for Bell, Rogers & Videotron..

Some good questions, comparing how they treat their mobile tv traffic, vs say a competitor's traffic, along with citing AUPs I cited in my submission.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Wow ... for once the CRTC has actually grasped both some of the "broadband" service technical issues as well as the Broadcast act requirements (copyright!)

Well done to the CRTC on this one!
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

Awesome questions:
quote:
Please indicate if it is possible for the Mobile TV App subscribers to have access to described video and closed captioning when they view content from the App on their smartphones? If not, do you intend to take measures to implement these accessibility features in the future?
quote:
Elaborate on the fact that Bell needs to use traffic management practices but at the same time encourages its consumers to use the Mobile TV App service that consumes considerable bandwidth on the wireless network.
jumpingryan
join:2008-07-27
Pembroke, ON

jumpingryan to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
I got a questions. Turbo Hub is my only internet connection (Bell doesn't want to install DSL to my location).

No cable, and I have nothing else available except for satellite.

1) How much data does 10 hours consume?

2) Since I now pay $105 for 15 gigs, and $10 a gigabyte for anything over 15 gigs... why/how are these Mobile TV people able to consume so much data for so cheap?

Since data is apparently so cheap on the mobile spectrum, it appears that a sharp discount is in order for Bell Internet customers who are forced to use a turbo hub (since Bell controls the access)

Ryan
jumpingryan

jumpingryan

Member

Never mind, found my own answers. Keep in mind, it is important to think of data, as data in this comparison, because that is exactly the medium of transport:

1) »www.bell.ca/Mobility/Cel ··· ta_needs

600 minutes of usage is estimated at 2.34 gigabytes from their own calculator.

Bell is charging $5 for 2.34 Gigabytes which equals $2.13 a gigabyte.

Unfortunately, to consume the same amount of data for Netflix or any other video service, or just downloading a Linux distro, Bell initially charges $7 a gigabyte for their base Mobile Internet.

If you go over 15 gigabytes monthly, the cost would increase to $10 a gigabyte.

So quite the markup... from $2.13 a gig for Bell exclusive content, to $7/$10 for non Bell delivered content. Are backhaul/backend costs that expensive?
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

New interrogatories for Bell, Rogers & Videotron..

Bell's answers to all these very specific questions will be ############
but then again Bell gets them wholesale (in an exclusive agreement).
bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada

bklass to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
Click for full size
Click for full size
Caught these this evening on the Rogers website. Two down...

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

HiVolt

Premium Member

Typical Rogers... when the seat gets warm, they run away! They did it with throttling, now with this. lol...

Good job Ben!
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

And it continues.. CRTC has asked Bell & Videotron MORE questions.. Rogers is of course off the hook completely since they dropped it already.

creed3020
Premium Member
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON

creed3020

Premium Member

Thanks for the update Resa. This one is sure dragging on is classic CRTC style, no?
bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada

bklass

Premium Member

There's a ton going on in the broadcast/telecom divide right now - anyone read the dissent from Raj Shoan on the pickTV file?
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by bklass:

There's a ton going on in the broadcast/telecom divide right now - anyone read the dissent from Raj Shoan on the pickTV file?

Got a link to this?
bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada

bklass

Premium Member

»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archi ··· -486.htm

In which Shoan calls into question the continuing appropriateness of keeping separate regimes for IPTV and OTT

brokenCRTC
@108.168.105.x

brokenCRTC

Anon

said by bklass:

»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archi ··· -486.htm

In which Shoan calls into question the continuing appropriateness of keeping separate regimes for IPTV and OTT

His observances and dissension encompass the whole spectrum of what is wrong with our system in general.

"...this decision of the Commission threatens principles fundamental to the Broadcasting Act..."

The fact is, the threat the CRTC poses to the spirit and fundamentals of the Broadcasting Act has been present for decades and is just now becoming ominously emboldened due to the not-so-hidden agenda of the Harperite regime.

Things will get much worse. Soon. If Harper wins the next election, 2015-2019 looks so grim.

fmradio68
join:2013-07-05
Montreal, QC

fmradio68 to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
Now we only need Bell and Videotron to do the same.
bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada

bklass

Premium Member

I would be willing to bet Vidéotron will be out just as soon as they can push an update to their apps.

Bell wants to push the issue. We need a decision out of this, not just a slap on the wrist, or a "you caught us", or else the line drawing between broadcasting (free from telecom regulation) and telecom will continue indefinitely.

And Maynard, I still laugh every time I see your "network diagram"
fmradio68
join:2013-07-05
Montreal, QC

fmradio68

Member

said by bklass:

I would be willing to bet Vidéotron will be out just as soon as they can push an update to their apps.

Can you elaborate.Thanks

Yeah that is one funny diagram.
bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada

bklass

Premium Member

Throughout the proceeding, Videotron has been on the fence, stating that it has stopped giving the data cap exemption for some users and intimating that it is considering stopping altogether. With Rogers backing out, and this latest round of interrogatories, I'm hoping that they do the right thing.