bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada |
to InvalidError
Re: ITMP undue preference complaint filed against BellRight, transport is what you're talking about, right? I sincerely doubt a company like Bell employs third party transport services to 151 Front Street, unless of course that party is Telus, with whom Bell has a network sharing agreement (they refer to each other as "partners" when necessary).
I would love to learn more about this, so far I've found these types of agreements to be shrouded in trade secrecy. |
|
bklass |
to InvalidError
As I understand it, IXPs only charge rent for rackspace, etc, and no toll for data capacity. Andrew Blum's book Tubes was a good infrastructure-for-dummies and I take note of this kind of stuff whenever possible, but if you have some more resources I would be grateful if you passed them along. |
|
|
said by bklass:As I understand it, IXPs only charge rent for rackspace, etc, and no toll for data capacity. Well, one can only cram so much bandwidth in a given footprint and equipment investment at any given time so, even if there is no "per bit" charge, you still have costs that scale with capacity - you aren't going to need quite the same equipment, facilities access and services for 10Gbps as you would for 200Gbps. And there are transit providers who do not take kindly to clients (ISPs) stretching the limit of their traffic volume ratio agreements. Transit providers are in the business of selling globally routable capacity by the Gbps, unlike Internet exchanges that are acting more like a large LAN connecting a bunch of relatively local entities together. |
|
bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada |
bklass
Premium Member
2013-Nov-21 3:23 pm
The regulatory classification of these services depends in large part on whether there are tolls or not, in my understanding. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2013-Nov-22 8:03 pm
Looks like Ben's application has been accepted by the CRTC. The deadline is January 9th 2014 - probably the extended deadline due to the xmas holidays. » services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/ ··· Lang=eng |
|
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
I can hardly wait for MIrko's response.
Now to drag Robbers into the mix. |
|
HiVolt Premium Member join:2000-12-28 Toronto, ON |
HiVolt
Premium Member
2013-Nov-22 9:17 pm
said by elwoodblues:I can hardly wait for MIrko's response.
Now to drag Robbers into the mix. Is that blithering idiot still there? Havent heard his name in the mix for a while... |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
said by HiVolt:said by elwoodblues:I can hardly wait for MIrko's response.
Now to drag Robbers into the mix. Is that blithering idiot still there? Havent heard his name in the mix for a while... Yep » www.bce.ca/aboutbce/exec ··· o-bibic/ |
|
SandroidBSD geek Premium Member join:2002-08-08 Anjou, QC |
to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:Interesting, thats for sure...
Similar thing can be said about FibeTV. You can watch 24/7 HD TV and not be charged a penny more than your TV subscription, but you watch 24/7 Netflix HD and you or your ISP needs to pay insane capacity fees. I can see the argument for not charging against caps, because technically, they can argue that the cost of delivering this is less because it doesn't need to access the internet. That said, imho, it just highlights how extraordinarily retarded those figures are for bandwidth usage. Of course, clearly, this practise has nothing to do with cost, and all to do with control/manipulation of the market |
|
HiVolt Premium Member join:2000-12-28 Toronto, ON |
HiVolt
Premium Member
2013-Nov-24 10:48 am
said by Sandroid:said by HiVolt:Interesting, thats for sure...
Similar thing can be said about FibeTV. You can watch 24/7 HD TV and not be charged a penny more than your TV subscription, but you watch 24/7 Netflix HD and you or your ISP needs to pay insane capacity fees. I can see the argument for not charging against caps, because technically, they can argue that the cost of delivering this is less because it doesn't need to access the internet. That said, imho, it just highlights how extraordinarily retarded those figures are for bandwidth usage. Of course, clearly, this practise has nothing to do with cost, and all to do with control/manipulation of the market But it's not about whether it goes over the public internet. It's about usage & saturation of the last mile infrastructure. In case of Bell, it all goes over the same fibre to the remotes, regardless if its separated via VLAN from the internet. Usage is usage. Let the ISP worry about actual internet usage, which we know costs peanuts as has been demonstrated over the years. |
|
bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada |
to Sandroid
The thing about the caps is, they're justified by the need to manage congestion; the cost does't enter into it in the eyes of the regulator. |
|
SandroidBSD geek Premium Member join:2002-08-08 Anjou, QC |
to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:But it's not about whether it goes over the public internet.
It's about usage & saturation of the last mile infrastructure. In case of Bell, it all goes over the same fibre to the remotes, regardless if its separated via VLAN from the internet. Usage is usage. Let the ISP worry about actual internet usage, which we know costs peanuts as has been demonstrated over the years. Bon point, jacques. |
|
|
JMJimmy
Member
2013-Nov-24 11:33 am
said by Sandroid:said by HiVolt:But it's not about whether it goes over the public internet.
It's about usage & saturation of the last mile infrastructure. In case of Bell, it all goes over the same fibre to the remotes, regardless if its separated via VLAN from the internet. Usage is usage. Let the ISP worry about actual internet usage, which we know costs peanuts as has been demonstrated over the years. Bon point, jacques. I think to a point it is about usage. If Bhell is currently charging $10/GB for data sticks $51.20/GB for cellphone data plans or $50/$256 for the equivalent of what they are charging $1/GB for in TV. If their costs are able to support sub $1/gb overages then where's the extra $9-50 going to for identical usage with different devices/vlans? |
|
|
to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:It's about usage & saturation of the last mile infrastructure. But what is the likelihood of having congestion on VDSL2 remotes? On current VDSL2 gear, you have at least 1Gbps of uplink capacity shared between 48 ports. That's 20Mbps per port when the average sync is likely less than 25Mbps so "saturating the first mile fiber" is nearly impossible regardless of IPTV traffic. Even if Bell gave everyone unlimited 50/10, you would still need an extremely unlikely number of people trying to pull maximum speed at the same time to make congestion happen. On cable, you have around 1/6th as much bandwidth per subscriber available (8 QAMs per ~100 subscribers or ~3Mbps per sub) and this already works relatively well most of the time. If congestion is going to come in on VDSL2, it would be somewhere further upstream in the middle-mile such as remote aggregation. With the majority of wholesale traffic headed to Toronto, I can imagine how that could cause Bell to need to upgrade some network paths they do not need for themselves more quickly than they might like: if Bell needs to increase capacity in/out of Quebec for themselves, they can buff their Boston or NY links if those happen to be either more cost-effective or facilitate additional objectives but for TPIA, they will always have to upgrade spreading out from Toronto, which may translate into missed opportunities to optimize traffic and investments. |
|
InvalidError |
to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:If Bhell is currently charging $10/GB for data sticks $51.20/GB for cellphone data plans or $50/$256 for the equivalent of what they are charging $1/GB for in TV. If their costs are able to support sub $1/gb overages then where's the extra $9-50 going to for identical usage with different devices/vlans? The $10-50/GB is for cellular data plans which are a considerably different story from VLANs on wired networks. That said though, I have a hard time imagining wired data costing more than $0.10/GB all-inclusive and 3G/4G costing over $1/GB. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to bklass
Senor Klass,
Finally had a chance last night to read through your submission. Great work. |
|
bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada
2 recommendations |
bklass
Premium Member
2013-Nov-25 9:33 am
Thanks Senor Maynard,
I try, I try. Actually, when I first heard about the situation (special treatment for Bell content) I couldn't believe someone else hadn't already filed a complaint. |
|
HiVolt Premium Member join:2000-12-28 Toronto, ON |
to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by HiVolt:It's about usage & saturation of the last mile infrastructure. But what is the likelihood of having congestion on VDSL2 remotes? On current VDSL2 gear, you have at least 1Gbps of uplink capacity shared between 48 ports. That's 20Mbps per port when the average sync is likely less than 25Mbps so "saturating the first mile fiber" is nearly impossible regardless of IPTV traffic. Even if Bell gave everyone unlimited 50/10, you would still need an extremely unlikely number of people trying to pull maximum speed at the same time to make congestion happen. On cable, you have around 1/6th as much bandwidth per subscriber available (8 QAMs per ~100 subscribers or ~3Mbps per sub) and this already works relatively well most of the time. If congestion is going to come in on VDSL2, it would be somewhere further upstream in the middle-mile such as remote aggregation. I experienced VDSL2 congestion for the first 6-8 months of my TekSavvy VDSL2 service in 2012. At the time it was the 25/7 then 25/10 service. It wasn't brutal, speed slowed down to about 17-18meg between 8-11pm. I tried several logins including Bell and it was the same. I had a friendly Bell tech verify that the remote was maxed out and it was only fed by 1xGigE port. Nothing much I could have done but wait, and indeed at some point they upgraded it to 2xGigE and all has been well since, on 50/10 even. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2013-Nov-25 11:16 am
Looks like PIAC has already filed a procedural request to it.. And Ben's already responded. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in 1 edit |
to resa1983
I don't know why Ben bothered with Mobilcity and Wind, they technically have no caps, but also have no TV offerings.
Not to mention Public Mobile is now owned by Telus. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2013-Nov-25 12:06 pm
PIAC did that, not Ben.
PIAC increased scope to all WSPs - I assume so others don't pull this in future - and Ben said he'd go along with whatever the Commission decided. |
|
|
Shrugs to bklass
Anon
2013-Nov-25 12:34 pm
to bklass
Well, Ben, two things are going to happen here. 1. Chances are you ruined you chances to work for Bell as a phone jockey now, and 2. you are going to get to taste the Bell kool-aid and you will disappear from DSLr this time next year. We tried to warn JF, but he wouldn't listen. Now he's just a memory... See, broadcasting is coming into play after-all. You do realize that this is going to spill over well into 2016 with all the R&V's, right? You should be finished your post-PhD by the time this is all wrapped up. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
JF left because of a dispute with DLSR,he claimed they were blocking his IP address. IIRC Fatness trying to help him, but he'd have nothing to do with it. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2013-Nov-25 10:14 pm
|
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
Love the taxi analogy. |
|
|
Ramp Up
Anon
2013-Nov-26 8:36 pm
Bell Mobility Accused Of 800% Markup On Netflix In CRTC Complaint » www.huffingtonpost.ca/20 ··· 654.htmlBell accused of charging Canadians more for competitor services » ca.finance.yahoo.com/blo ··· 128.html |
|
|
to elwoodblues
he's sneering in that picture |
|
|
F PIAC
Anon
2013-Nov-29 3:08 pm
Face Push |
Did anyone read that yahoo piece? » ca.finance.yahoo.com/blo ··· 128.html"He did an okay job", says PIAC. Just, an ok job. "He did an okay job, but its best to be laser focused", sez PIAC. In other words, "meh, you found something we never even thought of while we were filing at the CRTC for monies owed, now move aside and let us experts handle it". I don't know about you, but I find Lawford over at PIAC starting to bug me this past year. First they come out banging their chests with Bell saying Quebec has no legal leg to stand on with their own wireless code (and thus every other prov), and now this. They just annoy me more than anything over the past year. Wonder how many hours of time and lost sleep this Klass guy put in only to be told, "Meh, you did ok, now step aside *face push*. heh For what it's worth, I think he did more than "ok" while PIAC picked their noses. |
|
Teddy Boomk kudos Received Premium Member join:2007-01-29 Toronto, ON
1 recommendation |
What is this "face push" you are talking about?!?! In my Canada it is called a Shawinigan Handshake |
|
|
F PIAC
Anon
2013-Nov-29 6:09 pm
said by Teddy Boom:What is this "face push" you are talking about?!?! In my Canada it is called a Shawinigan Handshake lol. I think your hands have to be around the neck for that For those that don't know what a Shawinigan Handshake is: » www.thestar.com/sports/h ··· bel.htmlLikely PIAC's next remarkable gesture as the give him a Trudeau salute and collect their money. |
|