dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2050
share rss forum feed


Le Wut

@videotron.ca

The JF report -- CNOC's request to improve wholesale Quality

Click for full size
downloadJF.PDF 290,173 bytes
The RedBull Report
Haven't read it yet. But it's sure to be fun.

Anyone have any other submissions to add to this?

References:
Original filing found here:
»[Cable] CRTC - CNOC Part 1 Cable Carrier Services & Update

Electronic Box filing found here:
»Electronic Box letter in response to CNOC part I

Start.ca's filing found here (Start's Rocca is the regulatory guy for CNOC, I believe, so it may be the same as the TSI link):
»CNOC Submission

CRTC link:
Unknown (to me). It was removed from the part 1 section per my browser. Too lazy to search for it. Maybe someone will chime in

Any other ref's/links that I missed?


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
Only read a bit so far, but man... JF is on the mark. Each paragraph is very pointed and slaps the commissioners in the face with reality.

Someone could write a few pages about the pointed comments he makes. All innuendo.
+99.5 (that's an F'n A+).

*looks at watch*
*looks at wine time left*
*Looks at the other remaining 12 pages*

priorities, have to make a wine run to the basement before the wife closes access

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to Le Wut
My Intervention, Bell's comments, and PIAC's Intervention.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
TY for sharing this, Resa.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
Ben Klass's Intervention


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
reply to Le Wut
Click for full size
ouch
As many of you may know, JF always includes a joke, a zinger, or a very blunt comedic comment, or slap in the face, in his submissions.

I found the first one. Are there more??

*sip*


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
Click for full size
Oh My
Zing.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Le Wut
I feel like Sherman & Peabody in the "Wayback Machine" when I read shit like this.....

»business.rogers.com/burstable-internet/

Burstable Internet gives you the flexibility to choose a minimum commitment level, while allowing for burstability beyond that level when it is needed; it’s like having bandwidth on demand. Pay for your minimum commitment and only pay for overage if and when you exceed that commitment level. An industry-standard 95th percentile calculation is used to determine the overage. With near real-time utilization reports available via our secure web portal, Burstable Internet gives you the value and control you need with the built-in flexibility to support extra bandwidth when you need it.

..................................

Back when UBB/CBB fights were taking place I wrote
»2011-77 proposed rebuttal statement
When you read the following, think of the current CBB regime we have whenever you see "AVP", and keep in mind this was written 2-1/2 years ago, so don't get too hung up on the dollar figures I was throwing around back then.

------------------------

Incumbent Statements
Thomas Little, president of Bell Canada's wholesale unit said Bell spent more on its internet revenue infrastructure last year than it brought in from sales of internet services. "The model for recovering those costs is broken," he said. "The solution is to ensure that those who use the most pay the most."

Ok...let's deconstruct this a bit....

Bell spent more than it took in on internet.... well, how many businesses have 1st-year cost recovery on capital investments without some form of government subsidy? Very few.

But more critically, is Mr. Little's broad statement disingenuous? Is he wanting the Commission to believe that the totality of this investment is solely due to residential retail internet service - the very subject of these hearings? Or is he saying something else? Are Bell's expenditures for IPTV included in the statement he made? Is he including backbone infrastructure expenses designed to also support all his Canadian business customers internet access but only including his independent ISP customer sales? Just what is included?

Would the Commission be so bold as to issue a request such as, "Mr. Little, could you please provide a detailed record of exactly how much Bell earned by providing data services over its 'internet' infrastructure last year to all companies such as all the major banks, insurance companies, the government of Canada, provincial governments, and all other commercial, not-for-profit companies, internal charge-backs for your own retail internet services, and charges attributed to independent ISP's? Since Bell is making a claim in a public forum about the extent of its spending and revenues, please provide these detailed numbers for the public record. If Bell chooses not to provide detailed numbers for the public record, then your statement of expenses and revenues shall be ignored in any deliberations as hearsay."

Furthermore, if those that use the most pay the most, can we see what rates Bell charges large customers who push vast amounts of data through Bell's network - Air Canada, the chartered banks, television networks, provincial and federal governments, oil companies, etc.... on a per gigabyte basis where charges are billed that way?

And while we're at it, why does business pay more for the same services as residential customers for the same speeds/usage when the traffic travels on the same backbone at the same speeds? Are retail business internet bytes somehow longer or fatter than residential ones? Do they follow different laws of physics? Is it that business bytes get free drinks and ride in a comfy chair as they shuttle through Bell's network, and as such need to be charged more?

An 'internet' byte transferred by a small business is no different than a byte transferred by a residential user. As far as the network is concerned, the 'internet' bytes of business and residential customers are fungible and are counted and transmitted the same way. The CRTC has erred in not considering business and residential internet issues at the same time - we now all have to make submissions to the Commission yet again over the same issues in the weeks ahead.

According to Bell's Mirko Bibic, AVP "is designed to ensure an adequate return on our network investments (and) to create incentives to limit congestion," He also said that wholesale customers now stand at 17 per cent of all users on the network but routinely account for a third of traffic volume.

Limiting core network congestion is the responsibility of network engineers, not billing departments. The Commission itself has said this on many occasions. Bell's and cable's profits over the past number of years have been more than adequate to support network expansion and upgrading without impairing their survival. Their returns on invested capital is far in excess of inflation, and in Bell's case also far in excess of what was granted by the CRTC when Bell was treated as a regulated utility in years gone by. Bell nor the cable companies are lacking in financial wherewithal to fund network capacity expansion.

Notably, some incumbent presentations stated that they had little/no congestion in their core networks.
Should all Canadians be punished for either the deliberate lack of investment in core capacity by some operators, or by the shortcomings of their network planners? The CRTC should NOT be rewarding malfeasance or incompetence.


Returning to Mr. Bibic's statement, Bell has said that it has more load than it feels is fair. Maybe that's an accident of history, or maybe it's a result of having a non-viable TPIA infrastructure until now.

The CRTC has asked several times about evening of the 'burden' on telco vs. cable. But why should the Commission even bother worrying about this? It's similar to the VHS vs. Betamax issue of the late 1970's/early 1980's; maybe one technology, xDSL or cable will prevail, maybe it will be 50/50 or 70/30. Who cares? The market will sort it out, customers will vote with their wallets. For most retail users the technologies are, for the most part, fungible.

Incumbent management will have to reassess whether they are spending money on the correct infrastructure - it happens all the time. Perhaps FTTN is enough, maybe FTTP is required... maybe cable will decide that FTTP is the way to go tomorrow and replace coax with fiber, but that will be a decision for each of the telco/cableco's - not me, and not the Commission. Companies will sink or swim based on their decisions - as it should be. It is NOT the Commission's job to save Bell or Rogers from the worst instincts of their management. However it IS the Commission's job to promote and ensure vibrant competition in the telecommunications market even if it means the incumbents lose market share, or even if it means that there are asymmetrical loses of market share between telco and cable.

If Bell feels it is losing money on retail internet services then perhaps they should consider exiting that market and concentrate on being the best, most cost effective dumb-pipe they can be - in partnership with indie ISP's -and together steal business away from Rogers, Cogeco, and Videotron,.

Alleged Network 'Abuse'
Nobody is abusing anything. Each personal or business user is doing what is best for them and their needs. This is NOT about going out to harm by 'abusing' any other user.

My DSL or cable link is bought and paid for - I'll use it according to way I want. Bell and Rogers wants everything every which way. Buy the link, pay for usage, pay more for usage if you are an indie customer than if you are an incumbent customer.

If I own a house in Toronto and am away in Florida over the winter, does the city charge me less for garbage collection, property tax, not needing snowplowing, or a lessened likelihood that I'll cost them money by calling city hall and having a clerk spend time on the phone with me, etc.. while I'm gone? No, they don't.

Am I subsidizing people who live in the city over the winter? Maybe yes, maybe no. Are the other people in the city over the winter 'abusing' me by using services that I'm not? Yes ....but only if you view the world through Bell or Rogers coloured glasses.

If I'm away over the winter and have Bell internet service which goes unused, does Bell refund money to me? No. Do they let me 'bank' my unused bytes? No. Am I subsidizing others as a result? According to Bell's perverse logic of light vs. heavy users I am, but they won't acknowledge it - they will say that I am using the service as I intended. Well Mr. Chairman, that cuts both ways - if it's fair when I consume zero bytes then it's fair when I consume several terabytes.

AVP Analysis
Albert Einstein was famous for his 'Gedanken' (thought) experiments. Let's use one of these to examine the impact of AVP on IISP's.

Assume for a moment that Bell's AVP is approved. As a result of 'symmetry' the same will be approved for TPIA.

Because of the inefficiencies in the way AVP works at a practical level vs. the simplicity of 95th percentile with or without 'commits', or even the MTS model, there is what is called an 'impedance mismatch' in engineering terms. The mismatch is between what is actually 'consumed' and paid for at the wholesale level vs. what can be charged/recovered at the retail level by the independent ISP's.

In an engineering sense an impedance mismatch typically results in the non-functioning or inefficient operation of the equipment. In the internet access millieu, the practical effect of the crude nature of the AVP cost vs. retail billable mismatch will result in the slow-to-rapid destruction of the independent ISP's finances - and the lessening of competition.

AVP is also crude, unnecessarily complicated, and non-reflective of improvements in price/performance of networks. If adopted, AVP will never reflect the relentless drop in cost per byte transmitted which is the hallmark of the telecommunications industry since the earliest days of telegraphy - back in the 1830's.

AVP is the cash cow that keeps on giving at unjustified rates. The ONLY way AVP could be countenanced is if there is a mandated adjustment reflecting Moore's Law (or a close approximation to it) as a divisor applied to the AVP rate each year. But then you'd need an economics department, input from industry about chip fabrication yield rates, throughput rates, monitoring of selling prices of equipment, and so on to fix the divisor annually at a fair value. So why make things complicated?

Occam's Razor postulates the principle of 'lex parsimoniae', or roughly put for our needs here - the simplest solution that does the job is usually the best.

That is what 95th percentile does - it's widely used in the industry, it is an accepted standard everyone is familiar with, it also reflects the changing and ever lowering costs of data transmission. Best of all it is simple - take the maximum usage rate for the month in Gb/second x 0.95 x the price/Gb/second, add the tax, and send out the bill.

95th percentile works and has the added benefit of preventing double or even triple-dipping by the incumbents. 95th percentile captures usage in a fair manner for both the incumbent and its direct customer, and hence provide a fair return to the incumbent.

Even incumbents themselves are users/suppliers of either 95th percentile or MTS-type billing when they deal with other network providers outside their own territory or networks. If they are happy doing that for their own needs - though I'm sure that paying a competitor for anything never makes them happy - or for customers they have contracted to provide national services to - then why should they be unhappy providing 95th percentile billing to independent ISP's? The answer is simple - market power.

The closer the incumbents can make the independent ISP's resemble the incumbent, the less incentive retail customers of all types have to consider purchasing services from those pesky indie ISP's. AVP is as close to that as they can get in the absence of UBB as first proposed by Bell.

As in manufacturing - where the economics of the cost of producing the next incremental widget is next to nothing due to economies of scale, so too is the cost of transmitting the next incremental byte over a network next to nothing. In fact, in modern networks, the cost of transmitting an incremental byte approaches zero perhaps faster than in any other field of human endeavour. However, AVP prices the incremental bytes at the same cost as the first - or even more than that - ad infinitum.

Let's repeat that to make certain you understand ....... In fact, in modern networks, the cost of transmitting an incremental byte approaches zero perhaps faster than in any other field of human endeavour. However, AVP prices the incremental bytes at the same cost as the first - or even more than that - ad infinitum.

AVP will surely create the necessary conditions for a lessening and weakening of competition in the Canadian internet access market. If AVP is adopted, at some point in the not too far distant future, the Commission will be forced to return to something it has declared multiple times that it does not wish to do - declare internet access as 'essential' and regulate *retail* internet access services prices for both business and residential customers.

Last-Mile Analysis
A simplified pricing model based solely on speed ought to be employed for the last mile.**

The Regional Duopolies vs. All Canadians
The uncomfortable truth which the Commission has to face is that the handful of large incumbent telco and cable company incumbents, by their very nature, will never fully embrace competition, and will at every turn attempt to subvert CRTC decisions by simply failing to comply; to co-opt the Commission to their will through veiled threats of denying London Ontario or another municipality some particular service; of making an example of their unbridled power to your political masters.

The incumbents take great glee in repeatedly pointing out to the Commission that the independent ISP's are 'eating their lunch' ..... as if the incumbents have a god-given right to it in the first place. They bemoan the 5-6% market share that the independents have.

Well it may be that the independent ISP's don't have a right to a certain market share either, but what they do have a right to is an unrigged game, and so do Canadian consumers.

If the Commission and the government want a competitive landscape in Canada, then the market share of participants needs to be rearranged - by fiat, legislation, or other means, such that a given market has at least 4-5 competitors at the retail level, each with at least 15% market share - this is the minimum in each geographic area which can be considered effective competition.

The incumbents will cry out that they are 'owed' better - which is hard to fathom given the vast infrastructure they have in place and competitive advantages they have accrued through years of monopoly or quasi-monopoly status, with their attendant guaranteed, or nearly so, rates-of-return on capital.

Then they will cry, "think of the shareholders". Well of course incumbent management must think of the shareholders - and the logical follow though of that will be to split their companies into those divisions they feel they can earn the best rate-of-return on, and spin the rest off to shareholders to let them decide whether to hold on or dispose of the shares of those new companies.

If the policy direction is looking out for what's best for consumers then the CRTC and the Competition Bureau will move to functional separation requirements if shareholders won’t do it themselves. It's easy enough for the incumbents to spin-off their 'arms' into shareholders hot little hands and then let the market pick the winners and losers. The suggestion that the ATT breakup of the 1980's was the model to look at was wrong - for that decision only created a series of smaller clones - each with dominance within their own territories - the situation with frightening similarity to the Canadian telco/cableco market.

Instead, I would suggest looking at the 1948 United States v. Paramount case and the 1956 IBM Consent Decree as the best solutions to our situation in Canada. Considering precedents such as these would have led the Commission and the Competition Bureau to have asked the right questions in the first place. Had they done so, there would be no need for the hearings a few weeks ago, no need for endless internet hearings, no need for the business internet submissions and/or hearings to come - because the framework for a competitive landscape benefiting consumers would have been laid through functional separation.

Commission Actions
If for no other reasons, the Commission must throw caution to the winds and rule more favourably on the side of more effective competition - widespread, and deeper at the wholesale level, resulting in more choice of cost effective solutions for individuals and businesses across Canada.

As long as true competitive conditions exist in a marketplace, capacity will be added and suppliers (incumbents, new entrants, indies) will compete for customer dollars, in their roles as network providers, service providers, network integrators, and possibly just as resellers in some cases. They will compete with types of services, reliability, location of service, price, and customer service. Supplier margins will necessarily decrease - that's how it should be. If the shareholders of a particular supplier don't like that, then they ought to hold a vote to decide whether to exit that business and focus on improving their rate of return elsewhere.

The Banking Act reforms of the 1980's opened up what was considered to be a 'closed' banking market - then populated primarily by the "Big 5" banks - to further competition from Schedule 2 banks, and mandated their access to the Canadian Payments Association, Interac, and other infrastructure of the Canadian banking system. Similar bold rulings from the CRTC are necessary.

The Commission must further and quickly educate itself on the technical details of networks so it can't be 'snowed' by vague statements from fast-talking lawyers and lobbyists in shiny suits. Doing so just might result in asking the right questions and choosing the correct decision the first time, and obviate the need for endless hearings into the future.

Put this issue to bed once and for all - require 95th percentile wholesale billing by all incumbents, and zero usage billing for the last mile connection.

--------------------------------------

Just some thoughts on how the last mile might be charged.
Again, take the following numbers with a grain of salt - they're from July 2011.

**Something along the lines of the following should suffice:

Rates Set Today
6Mbps or under profiles - $5/month
7-10Mbps profiles - $10/month
11-15Mbps profiles - $15/month
16-20Mbps profiles - $20/month
21-25Mbps profiles - $25/month
26-35Mbps profiles - $35/month
36-50Mbps profiles - $45/month
>50Mbps profiles - $60/month

Each time an incumbent introduces a new higher speed profile for its own customers it MUST offer the same speed profile to all other ISP’s. What happens to the tiered profile pricing upon the new speed introduction is as follows:

Say a 65Mbps profile is introduced. Its price is, by CRTC dictat, set identical to the previous highest speed profile price, ie. the new higher speed’s price cannot exceed the tier it supercedes [note” this does not explicitly set the actual dollar amount of the price – it merely caps it relative to what the incumbent priced the previous tier by tariff]. Speed tiers lower than the new higher speed then are automatically collapsed into the tier below’s price point

Rates Set Tomorrow Based on a New Speed Profile Introduction
10Mbps or under profiles - $5/month
11-15Mbps profiles - $10/month
16-20Mbps profiles - $15/month
21-25Mbps profiles - $20/month
26-35Mbps profiles - $25/month
36-50Mbps profiles - $35/month
51-64Mbps profiles - $45/month
>=65Mbps profiles - $60/month

Each existing user, whether incumbent or IISP is automatically lifted to the maximum speed at the new price tier applicable to them. This can be automated within the provisioning system. No service charge to the IISP or end user is applicable to the automatic speed uplift.

Thus a user previously at 6Mbps paying $5 for the link will automatically get ‘bumped’ to 10Mbps for the same $5/month. The only exception to this would be if the line is not capable of handling 10Mbps. If the end user needs to be moved to a ‘remote’ or different type of DLSAM or CMTS in order to achieve the new higher speed, then a one-time service fee of $100 may be charged. Once a user’s speed tier reaches the 7-10Mps speed profile it is deemed that the user’s connection is henceforth exclusively on FTTN and no further service charge may be charged as automated provisioning scripts can take care of successive profile changes.

However should a user request a change of their profile outside the automatic profile upgrade, then a service charge for the change can be charged. Example: a user’s speed profile is currently 10Mbps and the user requests a speed profile change to 25Mbps. The user incurs a service charge for this change.

This last-mile model treats all Canadian users equally – whether incumbent or IISP, and automatically gives them the benefit of better price performance as it becomes available.

However, incumbents, who may prefer to ‘lock’ customers to a fixed speed for the duration of a contract period, should be permitted to NOT upgrade their retail customers until the end of their contract period – but MUST automatically upgrade the customer to the highest speed tier at the end of each contract period should the customer wish to remain a customer of the incumbent.

IISP’s may also elect to follow this contract/upgrade model for some or all of its customers too.

The incumbent is NOT free to substitute, in any way, shape, or form, its own retail provisions on any ISP or their customers. This includes caps, penalty clauses, service charges of any sort other than those approved via tariff application, contract T&C’s, or any other conditions or fees.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to Le Wut
Click for full size
downloadCNOC Part 1 ···2013.pdf 340,157 bytes
Click for full size
downloadRogers ABRID···-Nov29-2 184,230 bytes
(Rogers ABRIDGED Response to CNOC Part I TPIA Application-Nov29-2013.pdf)
Click for full size
download131129 Cogec···rt 1 App 236,034 bytes
(131129 Cogeco Comments ABRIDGED Re CNOC 27 Sept 2013 Part 1 App related to Coge)
Click for full size
downloadShaw - Respo···DGED.pdf 528,619 bytes
Click for full size
downloadVideotron.pdf 67,622 bytes
Cable Carriers Intervention, Rogers Intervention, Cogeco Intervention, Shaw Intervention, Videotron Intervention
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
Had a chance to read these this morning, yours is good resa, shows the disregard Rogers has towards TPIA. Some aspects of Klass' filing concurs with the JF filing (JF's filing is really pointed though).

Ebox's filing doesn't seem to support CNOC's filing in regards to Videotron, that I can recall (read CNOC's filing too long ago to recall it all). Ebox basically states there is room to improve, how to improve, and the conditions CNOC speaks of doesn't exist with Videotron (more or less).

Bell quite simply states the differences with TPIA and TPIA low service quality are not even real. CNOC fabricated them. It only just appears this way. Rather, it's all just minor hiccups. heh gotta love Bell. I swear there is nothing more evil on the face of this earth.

Now on to the latest cable-co filings you kindly shared here...


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
Joint filing Summary:

The cable companies as a whole state that implementing Quality metrics and rebates for low service quality would cost too much to implement. This goes against the Harper Governments policy in regards to competition. Thus CNOC's filing should be dismissed.

You know the CBC article (link in the TSI forum someplace) of the kids who tried to get Teksavvy service installed for a month, gave up, called Rogers and had it installed the same day? Well the Cable companies say it's a lie. It never happened. The CBC are liars and fabricate stories.

Resa's own documented experience (and the hundreds like her)? Never happened. She's a liar and not reliable. Even if it's true (which it isn't) the CRTC has to ignore her, they state. It's all in her head.

All of the peoples complaints and CNOC's filing are unsubstantiated and misrepresent the facts.

*And just in case the CRTC finds something? Videotron, Cogeco and Shaw tosses Rogers under the bus and states, It Rogers fault. Not ours. Don't involve us.

So that's is the summary of their joint filing.

1. Harper's Government policy direction says you can't force this on us.
2. All the people and small ISP's are liars and mental or something. They see dead people.
3. It involves Rogers, let them and CNOC have tea and discuss it while you close this CRTC filing and not involve us.
4. Other service related issues are the small isp's own fault.

Man, they are coming out swinging, eh? lol
-------------------------------

Rogers Filing:

-Rogers offers irrefutable evidence that TPIA get high quality service.
-Rogers states they and their service is astonishing and CNOC is full of shit.
-Rogers directly blames "#" (I guess the # is teksavvy) for being slow.
-They reiterate that Rogers does an exceptional job. They are the best in all of Canada.
-They directly blame "#" (Teksavvy?), their largest TPIA customer stretching Rogers resources with stupidity and that in turn affects all the other small ISP's. The fault lies squarely with "#" (Teksavvy)?
-----
-I'm not sure but I think they then go on to blame Ebox (who stated they had to wait years to be a Rogers TPIA customer). "#" (Ebox?) would request information then Rogers wouldn't hear from them for a year. "#" (Ebox?) is a yoyo and didn't know what they wanted, more or less (if they are talking about Ebox here, and I think they are). "#" (Ebox?) is fulla shit sez Rogers. We even sent them an NDA and questionnaire a year ago and they never bothered to submit it!
-----
-Rogers states that all service delays are communicated to "#" (Teksavvy?). It's "#" who is not communicating with their own customers. In addition, "#" (teksavvy?) makes many, many mistakes on orders when they submit them (my note, tsi's forum complaints does show this to be true)
-Rogers states that 333 incidents of no-show's for one TPIA customer is super-Amazing and this shows high quality service.
*-Rogers says you pissed us off so much, that we are now going to submit a cost increase for a truck roll which we never added before for line tagging. TPIA cost is going up. F you!
*-In addition, The poor attendance record of TPIA end-users for service calls also imposes costs on Rogers that are not currently recovered through the TPIA service tariffs. GUess what? Yeah... F you again. We are going to increase costs!

Anyhow, Rogers is pulling "#" (TSI's?) hair and calling them full of it.

Man, this was like reading a cat fight.

I love how the rest of the cable companies tossed Rogers under the bus, just in case.

Will read the rest of them later on. Rogers filing gave me a headache. But, they did raise some points that seem to hold water when we look at certain forums. Is it really all "Rogers Fault"?

bklass
Premium
join:2012-02-06
Canada
kudos:2
reply to Le Wut
Unfortunately I didn't have more time, I would have liked to have made at least an attempt to proof read

Resas was really great IMO, and exactly what the CRTC is looking for. Evidence-based account of abuse, with a human element and a writers' touch

bklass
Premium
join:2012-02-06
Canada
kudos:2
reply to Le Wut
That's a great dramatization. Someone should read it like "Dear Loser [Chris] - I thought you liked me you said it yourself I hate you "

In any case, let's hope the CRTC sees through the BS. Hard not to with evidence like Resa's filing. However, in the news the abuse does seem mainly limited to Rogers, and with the FTTH/Mandated wholesale hearing coming up, who knows what they'll decide?


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
reply to bklass
Yup hers was good. She did some digging as well and put some stuff I wasn't expecting.

Ben, what you wrote was, you know, "just ok"
(had to say that you know)

It's clear that Bell consulted with the cable-co's before submitting. They are all tag-teaming on TSI/CNOC. But... just in case, Videotron, Shaw and Cogeco tossed Rogers under the bus. I love it.

bklass
Premium
join:2012-02-06
Canada
kudos:2
I'm just getting through them myself now. It really does seem like a bunch of kids who all got dragged to the principal's office following a schoolyard brawl.

Makes you think they need some kind of a structural change, either a better dispute resolution process, rather than ex post approach to discrimination, or, structural separation.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
Good work on your submissions guys.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to Le Wut
The Incumbents attitudes in these reports is exactly why I will always go with an IISP or go without if I have no other alternatives. Rogers is the worst, Bell is a very close second/tied. None of these companies will ever see another red cent from me directly.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Le Wut
Functional separation/forced spinoffs (Paramount breakup/the 1982 AT&T breakup/IBM consent decree) is the only sane way to approach this problem.

Let the carriers (xDSL/cable) be the best dumb pipes they can be - falling all over themselves to out-service their customers.

This approach fixes pretty much everything that's wrong with the Canadian telecom industry from a competition point of view.

If Blais doesn't see this, then he's a moron.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by MaynardKrebs:

If Blais doesn't see this, then he's a moron.

Or getting monthly envelopes of cash......

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Le Wut
said by Le Wut :

You know the CBC article (link in the TSI forum someplace) of the kids who tried to get Teksavvy service installed for a month, gave up, called Rogers and had it installed the same day? Well the Cable companies say it's a lie. It never happened. The CBC are liars and fabricate stories.

I hate to break it to you, but the CBC are liars. They came to Prince Edward County to do a story on the windmill issues there. Not only was their coverage highly bias in favour of anti-wind, they actually refused to speak with the person everyone was saying was the expert on the issue. Instead they interviewed a lady, in front of her horse, to make her look like a hippie country bumpkin. The 5 minute segment ran the next night, anti-wind got 3m30s, pro-wind 45s. The next time it aired (later that night, 2m segment) pro-wind had been cut entirely.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21

1 edit
reply to resa1983
Thanks resa!

I got through the combined cable carrier submission, and I'm in the middle of the Rogers submission, and I just can't keep reading. It makes my cry..

The reading comprehension level of Rogers regulatory affairs people is at a very low level. Specifically:
16. In paragraph 58 of its Complaint, CNOC submits, "where the ISP's new subscriber currently subscribes to the Carrier's retail Internet service or that of another ISP on the Carrier's TPIA platform, there is no need to dispatch a technician." (emphasis added) This submission directly contradicts CNOC's demand in paragraph 125,
"Another order requested would require Carriers to insert a provision in their tariffs requiring them to tag all TPIA connections whenever a TPIA end-user installation requires a premise visit by a Carrier technician. Such a requirement will standardize tagging as a required practice, hopefully leading to greater consistency in tagging and the elimination or significant reduction in accidental disconnections of active TPIA end-user accesses."
And Rogers regulatory affairs do not know their own procedures (and by implication, are at best negligently misleading the CRTC on a matter of fact--perjury?):
Rogers' process is that the technician rolls to the address for every TPIA install call requiring a truck roll. If there is no answer, the technician communicates this back to the Dispatch Centre and then the Dispatch Centre calls the telephone number provided to confirm. The technician waits at the location until Dispatch confirms that there was no answer and then goes to next appointment.
Rogers activation appointment confirmation messages reveal the true process:
Please make sure that someone 18 or older is available for the appointment. The customer will be contacted prior to the appointment to make sure that they are available. If they do not answer at the number provided - (647) XXX-XXXX - the appointment will be cancelled.
--
electronicsguru.ca


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
Oh man, just wait till you get to the Cogeco file, Teddy. JUST YOU WAIT! Your eyeballs will pop out of your head.

Cogeco's Filing:

This one is just UnFNbelievable.

CNOC doesn't even know what they are talking about. They provided no scientific analysis of anything. It's all anecdotal. Fast glance observations. Preceived. All in their head. The only thing CNOC demonstrated is their own ignorance. CNOC is just dragging Cogeco down based on nothing. There is no evidence of anything.

Cogeco can't even reply to CNOC's complaint because we never even knew there were any issues to begin with. No one brought anything to our attention.

*But, yeah, for the past two years "#" and "#" (TSI and Start or Acanac??) have had issues (even though we just stated above there are no issues at all, and we were never told there were any issues by anyone (I think we just got caught ion a lie, oops). But yeah, there were issues. But we increased our staff to deal with it. We dropped the ball. It affected their sales and service quality. Sorry. But Cogeco does not unjustly discriminate. We suck just as bad as well. Let us address each issue:

Late installs by more than 2 weeks:

CNOC alleges that Cogeco has taken up to 15 days to complete installations for # (TSI, Start or Acanac??). Well it just so happens we have no records. Nothing. We don't know what we do and when we do it. We just submit bills, that's all that matters. Thus there is no credibility of this measurement CNOC gave the CRTC and this allegation. The only thing we can tell you is that TPIA get their installs 48 hours longer than we give our own customers. So see, we suck just as bad.

(my notes: I kid you not, that is basically what they state)

But anyhow, like we said above, it may have taken 2 years to fix, but as of today, Right Now, TPIA customers are happy because we increased staff. Sorry it took 2 years. Oopsie. We forgot.

Feather Knocking and hanging up on TPIA customers:

CNOC alleges in this matter “uncooperative behaviors” from the technicians deployed by Cable Carriers, such as “feather knocking” at doors or hanging up on a call to the premises after few rings.

Cogeco states this has NEVER happened. It just does not exist. We are completely 100% unaware this has ever happened.

But each complete we recieved for this we investigated it.

(my notes: I kid you not, that is basically what they state. First they are totally unaware of this, then they investigated each complaint related to this. Which is it?)

Therefore there is no evidence the above ever happened, even though we had complaints, and even though we just said above we are not aware this ever happened. So we encourage the CRTC to just dismiss CNOC's file.

(The guy who wrote this is likely going to be our next PM or CSEC chief)

Tagging TPIA cable connections:

It's very complex. Too complicated to discuss.
We disconnect TPIA customers all the time, but it's only by mistake. Trust us. So this recurring cause of service outages is without merit and does not support the allegation of discriminatory behavior.

Trouble ticket status:

We don't even tell our own customers when there are issues, so we don't tell TPIA customers either. We just let our own customers call in or bitch online. CNOC should just accept that and accept the same low quality. Thus, CNOC clearly fails to demonstrate discriminatory behavior from Cogeco. We suck just as bad and this is not discriminatory. Accordingly, Cogeco submits that CNOC’s concern in this matter should be dismissed by the Commission.



Repair windows:

-CNOC explains the importance of prompt repair service and complains of: (i) no-shows (ii) “feather knocking” or hanging up on a call to premises after a few rings, and (iii) that a “Carrier’s repair technician may also use the opportunity of a repair visit to attempt to switch the customer to the retail service of the Carrier.

We already stated this never happenend, even though we admitted it does happen, but we keep no records of anything. Thus, we can't comment on this. Hence, no proof. Thus the CRTC should dismiss the CNOC file.

(i'm 100% positive the guy who wrote this is the next PM of Canada)

Escalation procedures:
CNOC can call us and we'll discuss it over tea. Thus the CRTC should dismiss the CNOC file.

Networks maintenance and modifications:

CNOC claims that TPIA customers are not properly notified of network maintenance and modifications that could adversely impact the Internet service. Well we don't know what they're talking about. We always notify them. CNOC is just confused. Thus the CRTC should dismiss the CNOC file.

CNOC also alleges that without notification, the introduction of DOCSIS upgrades (from version 2.0 to 3.0) coupled with speed upgrades “may mean that existing modems that are not compatible with the new DOCSIS version. And CNOC also alleges that because TPIA customers are not properly informed of the precise boundaries of areas in which DOCSIS 3.0 services are or are not supported, TPIA customers are somehow disadvantaged from a marketing perspective.

Listen, it took us two years to add 10 people to support TPIA. We will need at least X more years to update our website on what area's are DOCSIS 2 or 3. Thus CNOC's complant is without merit and needs to be expunged.

If teksavvy's or Starts customers really want to know what area is Docsis 2 or 3, they can can on the Cogeco website and click on “How to order”. Really, TPIA need no other tool, their customers can go thorugh the cogeco ordering process. Besides it could win us a customer when they see our fantastic prices. Rock on commissioners *hi-five*.

IP address allocation:

Cogeco notes that in some instances TPIA customers try to cover an entire province with a volume of IP addresses that is only enough to service a city or even just a sector of a city. Thus the CRTC should dismiss the CNOC file.

Billing:

Dear CRTC chair, yeah we billed Start, or Teksavvy Or Acanac 3 times for the same thing. BUt listen, this is called building a billing relationship. See, it works like this. we charge them for everything possible 3 times over. They call us and we threaten to cut their services unless they pay us for stuff we invent. They don't want their customers to lose connectivity so they kiss our ass. This is called "a billing relationship". It cool with everyone.

A billing relationship issue with one TPIA customer does not call for an overhaul of the entire invoicing system of the Cable Carriers, Thus the CRTC should dismiss the CNOC file.

Disconnection:

CNOC alleges that the standard disconnection intervals imposed by the Cable Carriers do not allow customers “to make it easy to choose their service providers on an ongoing basis”. Furthermore, # claims that “Cogeco took up to several weeks in some cases to disconnect its former end-users”.

Cogeco is not aware of any TPIA end-user disconnection that took several weeks. We have no records of anything. CNOC is fabricating stuff. Thus the CRTC should dismiss the CNOC file.
--------------

I swear to god, the guy who wrote this is going to be our next PM or spy chief.
Claim it doesn't exist. Claim it exists. Then claim no data exists to back up the lie you tried to say doesn't exist.

CNOC will need a lawyer with a degree in existentialism to even reply to this one.

Cogeco's summary can best be explained like this:

Is CNOC right? Yes. But no one heard the complaints so it never existed.

If a tree falls in the forest....


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
That you JF? The sarcasm really shines through.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Le Wut
JF doesn't use Videotron.


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

That you JF? The sarcasm really shines through.

I am never sarcastic. Ever.
Even if I may be sarcastic (which i'm not) you have no proof.

BTW, Elwood, did you see this?
»cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2013/···846.html

And like Guspaz stated, JF doesn't use Videotorn. He uses CableGator.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to Guspaz
I forgot, hes on Ebox


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
The shaw and videotron filings aren't as rabid as Rogers and Cogeco's. They take issue with certain things but seem to want no part of anything. Matter of fact videotron agreed with CNOC on a couple of points and said they will hop to it and fix it. Seems they don't really have the stomach for anything that may go sour due to Rogers.

Shaw more or less professed its love for TSI/CNOC. I was surprised they didn't end their filing with hugs and kisses.

Stark contrast to Rogers and Cogeco.

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

1 recommendation

said by Le Wut :

Stark contrast to Rogers and Cogeco.

No real surprise Cogeco agrees with Rogers as Rogers owns part of Cogeco Cable.
»www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership/eng/cht043.pdf
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
Oh that's right. I forgot about that. Rogers owns X% of Cogeco.


Le Wut

@videotron.ca
And you know, for Cogeco to constantly come out and say they know nothing about anything and don't have any records of anything to do with their own network service... Well... Why do they have DPI then? They stated to the CRTC they capture everything and keep it all for 30-days.

Yet if they have no records of anything (and just can't find any) just how useful is their DPI? The compiled stats derived from it?

Maybe someone should file that Cogeco doesn't need it since nothing useful comes from it, and the data they retain on everyone for 30-days, per them.

(and no elwood, I wasn't all that sarcastic. Read their filing. Summarize it. Let me know how far off I was).