dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
10501

zacron
Premium Member
join:2008-11-26
Frozen Hoth

zacron to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983

Re: CRTC Wholesale hearing

The English Translator seems to have a cold. Feel bad for him... seems like hes having a hard time.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

Makes me wonder if it's such an issue why do they allow MVNO's on their cell network?

The incumbent mobile companies have always said they want to be the ones to choose their distribution channels. A retailer that wants to add mobile service to their brand poses no threat that they'll leverage to become even a partially facilities based provider, and become a real threat. The incumbent also gets to set the rates.

Long story short - they're not "real" MVNOs in a purely wholesale sense.

andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario

andyb to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
You dont borrow first then decide where it goes.You had to know in order to come up with the number FFS.

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

Davesnothere to diskace

Premium Member

to diskace
said by diskace:

It's pretty simple.....on short/medium term

1- reduce CBB to the real cost.
2- speed matching on any technology (FTTH, FTTN, CABLE, whatever next)
3- SLA on service delivery / repair

/end of story
/end of wasting time

 
I completely agree.

But that means that we must BOTH be dreaming, or high, or something....
alphaz18
join:2005-02-26
CANADA

alphaz18

Member

I would love this too but LoL
1. Great if they did. Possible
2.this is kinda needed... Hopefully possible
3. I hope the sla is 2-4 days. Otherwise I won't be happy with by business because we pay 1500+a month for fiber . For the sla. Makes no sense to have residential have same sla as my business trunk. None whatsoever

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to Mork

Premium Member

to Mork
said by Mork :

*snip*

@Marc, you did very well. Presented very well. I found your talk open, honest and u spoke from the heart. You carried yourself very well and projected the honesty in what you had to say very well.

*snip*

Thank you!
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to creed3020

Premium Member

to creed3020
said by creed3020:

Bibic " We are on the cusp of being the envy of the world"

More like the envy of AT&T, Comcast, and other incumbent providers who gouge their customers.

Incumbents in other parts of the world have long given up gouging and are instead focusing on delivering advertised speeds, cooperating on open access, etc....
fmradio68
join:2013-07-05
Montreal, QC

fmradio68 to creed3020

Member

to creed3020
Though not much will come out of these hearings, I hope Teksavy and Ebox get better cable internet rates from Quebecor. The rates they are charging TPIAs is ridiculous compared to Bell and Rogers. Their wholesale rates are heavily inflated.

But yet they are so hypercritical that they are asking for mobile wholesale rates from the big 3. Accusing the Big 3 of inflating their mobile wholesale rates with many un associated costs. HHmmm... Sounds exactly what Quebecor is doing with cable internet.

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

creed3020

Premium Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by creed3020:

Bibic " We are on the cusp of being the envy of the world"

More like the envy of AT&T, Comcast, and other incumbent providers who gouge their customers.

Incumbents in other parts of the world have long given up gouging and are instead focusing on delivering advertised speeds, cooperating on open access, etc....

Excellent point. The American ISPs have had their challenges but they do seem to moving towards consumer requests, and monetization through the Canadian trend of vertical integration.
said by fmradio68:

Though not much will come out of these hearings, I hope Teksavy and Ebox get better cable internet rates from Quebecor. The rates they are charging TPIAs is ridiculous compared to Bell and Rogers. Their wholesale rates are heavily inflated.

But yet they are so hypercritical that they are asking for mobile wholesale rates from the big 3. Accusing the Big 3 of inflating their mobile wholesale rates with many un associated costs. HHmmm... Sounds exactly what Quebecor is doing with cable internet.

I felt exactly the same yesterday. What a two faced organization.... on one hand they act like they are being treated poorly and yet don't publicly recognize they're doing the same to others. 'Do unto others as you would like done to yourself'... The could certainly think about building alliances with the Indies, for the enemy of my enemies is my friend.
creed3020

1 edit

1 recommendation

creed3020 to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
Blais is pointing out that Cogeco are also being hyprocrites, whereby at the wireless hearings they were crying about the incumbents but now they're blocking services to other new entrants in a different market.

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

jmck to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
regarding the entire Bell "risk" issue with FTTH in Ontario/Quebec, it seems like there could be an argument that IISPs could help lower that risk by being able to bring extra customers and turn up the last third of the cost.

the fact is that some people will refuse to go with Bell because of the type of company they are and are willing to go with cable or inferior services when there's FTTH available.

they've mentioned that FTTH doesn't work too well with IISP customers because it's month to month, but I'm sure a lot of IISP customers (the more advanced ones) would be willing to pay a high install fee to get their units wired for FTTH.

it would also be interesting to see Bell offer other services over that last mile fibre to IISP customers such as IPTV too (which is a higher margin I believe anyways). at the end of the day cable is their biggest competitor especially with their IPTV service now and it's better for them to have an IISP user on the bell network instead of going to cable.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by jmck:

regarding the entire Bell "risk" issue with FTTH in Ontario/Quebec, it seems like there could be an argument that IISPs could help lower that risk by being able to bring extra customers and turn up the last third of the cost.

The fact of the matter is that subscriber growth is now pretty much over except in high cost rural areas. All the low-hanging fruit now has service from one indumbent or the other, or both.

From now on the only real growth is that from general population growth (primarily in urban areas) and by stealing customers from your competitors. Hence the indumbents look at the pie and say "It's not growing, so the only way to increase profits is to raise ARPU and cut my costs and I don't do either of those things by letting an indie "ride on my pipes"."
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning to jmck

Member

to jmck
said by jmck:

they've mentioned that FTTH doesn't work too well with IISP customers because it's month to month, but I'm sure a lot of IISP customers (the more advanced ones) would be willing to pay a high install fee to get their units wired for FTTH.

There would have to be some method of tracking if the drop has already been paid for, so if someone changes IISPs, or goes to the incumbent, they're not double charged.

The other option would be to make an install fee that averages that cost and it's the same regardless.

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

Davesnothere to JMJimmy

Premium Member

to JMJimmy

Quadruple Dipping

said by JMJimmy:

....I'm no expert, but after looking at Robbers costing vs their public filing, they're getting the Indies to pay for 80-85% of their operating/deployment costs, while it's only comprising 20-25% of their costs (if I'm being incredibly generous).

The fact that [CRTC] they can't recognize simple double dipping accounting scams (triple in Robbers' case) is truly pathetic.

Edit 2:

I should explain the [Triple Dipping] scam for those who may not know what I'm talking about... Robbers calculates the capital expenditure for the assets, bills the majority of it to IISPs through inflated cost studies. That would be bad enough in its own right but here's what they do after that...

Double dip - they depreciate the costs as a capital loss as an expense, the amount seems to be consistently applied over 10 years at the full % instead of a % depreciated per year that would gradually decrease, it would also be done over a 15 to 25 year period not 10 years. These depreciations are expressed as capital expenditure costs even though they are not real costs for the purpose of cost studies.

Triple dip - they convert taxes into a depreciable capital expenditure and lump it in with the cost - again at a consistent rate instead of a decreasing one. They then add taxes on that total amount, as specified by the CRTC, for the purpose of the cost studies even though it's been added already as an expense.

 
Quad Dip - Incumbents still get to bill their OWN retail customers, and obtain what amounts to nearly pure profit revenue from THEM, while the Indie ISPs and THEIR customers are paying for most of the incumbents' capital costs (and other things) which you mentioned above, yes ?

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

jmck to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs

Re: CRTC Wholesale hearing

said by MaynardKrebs:

The fact of the matter is that subscriber growth is now pretty much over except in high cost rural areas. All the low-hanging fruit now has service from one indumbent or the other, or both.

From now on the only real growth is that from general population growth (primarily in urban areas) and by stealing customers from your competitors. Hence the indumbents look at the pie and say "It's not growing, so the only way to increase profits is to raise ARPU and cut my costs and I don't do either of those things by letting an indie "ride on my pipes"."

there's tons of growth room for Bell in areas where they don't have FTTN in yet.
Dunlop
join:2011-07-13

Dunlop to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
you mean FTTH?

mazhurg
Premium Member
join:2004-05-02
Brighton, ON

mazhurg to jmck

Premium Member

to jmck
said by jmck:

there's tons of growth room for Bell in areas where they don't have FTTN in yet.

Scavenger growth; not new growth. Those areas are likely already being serviced by cable.

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

Davesnothere to creed3020

Premium Member

to creed3020
said by creed3020:

Blais is pointing out that Cogeco are also being hyprocrites, whereby at the wireless hearings they were crying about the incumbents, but now they're blocking services to other new entrants in a different market.

 
Looks good on 'em ! (on GOUGEco, that is)

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

creed3020 to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
The CRTC doesn't understand it's own policies that restrict how soon the TPIA's get service from an incumbent...Menzies stop playing dumb.

Or am I wrong?
iamhere
join:2013-01-26
canada

iamhere to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
What if Google Fiber came to Canada, even to just one city?

i) what would the incumbents do?
ii) would this even be permitted by our good friends at the CRTC? after all, they only want what is best for the Canadian consumer.

What something like that throw these hearings on their head?
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to Davesnothere

Member

to Davesnothere

Re: Quadruple Dipping

That's just the first gouge though I'm sure they're quadruple dipping in some other way that I can't see with the macro data available. Heck, spotting the double tax grab (26.5% btw) was almost a fluke, it's buried as a note in their yearly earnings report as a non-standard accounting practice.
Trentelshark
join:2002-12-11
London, ON

Trentelshark to Dunlop

Member

to Dunlop

Re: CRTC Wholesale hearing

said by Dunlop:

you mean FTTH?

He could have meant FTTN. Example, my area in London finally has FTTN as of a couple weeks ago and I am strongly considering switching from cable to DSL now that I am no longer stuck with laughable down/up speeds that standards DSL provided. Not only for the stability but also the fact if I recall correctly capacity on Bell's network costs less than Rogers (correct me here if I'm wrong) for the IISPs.

Expanding the FTTN deployment and advertising Fibe for those still with Rogers (and only Rogers having been available) could seem attractive to the average end-user imo.

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

Guspaz to iamhere

MVM

to iamhere
Assuming all the regulatory hurdles to doing this were passed, the incumbents would likely react by beginning upgrading their FTTP service in that city from GPON to 10GPON to match what Google is using. They wouldn't need to bury any new fibre, just swap out the ONT and head-end equipment (and backhaul perhaps).
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
Going back to Videotron's presentation where they said that they wanted speeds above 50Mbps foreborne .....

When you get Fibe TV and 25mbps internet from Bell, Bell provisions the service as 50Mbps and then reserves half of that for TV. I've forgotten the bit rates, but that's basically enough bandwidth for 3 simultaneous unique TV streams at current bit rates + internet session(s) (ie. downloading your favourite ISO's).

What happens when 4K becomes the norm and if Videotron gets their 50Mbps forebearance?
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

upgrading their FTTP service in that city from GPON to 10GPON to match what Google is using

Google is actually using 2.5G GPON...

»networkmatter.com/2014/0 ··· ts-gpon/
HeadSpinning

HeadSpinning to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

What happens when 4K becomes the norm and if Videotron gets their 50Mbps forebearance?

For the IISPs?

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· CEuuW2_A
fmradio68
join:2013-07-05
Montreal, QC

fmradio68 to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs
"Going back to Videotron's presentation where they said that they wanted speeds above 50Mbps foreborne ....."

Pardon my ignorance but can you explain what this means. Don't know what it means but doesn't sound good for TPIAs.

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

Guspaz to resa1983

MVM

to resa1983
Videotron argued that if FTTP services are exempt from regulated wholesale access, then cable service of 50 meg and higher should be exempt from regulated wholesale access too, because the delivery technology is irrelevant and there's no big difference between cable and fibre at current speeds. Heck, Videotron's cable service offers higher speed's than Bell's fibre service.

I agree with Videotron. The CRTC's current situation makes zero sense, where they force cable companies to wholesale their 50+ meg speeds, but at the same time don't require Bell to wholesale their 50+ meg speeds. Either open up FTTP, or remove the requirement on cable. The current regulation is highly preferential to Bell.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning

Member

said by Guspaz:

The current regulation is highly preferential to Bell.

Is it? Assuming that some IISP customers is better than none, Videotron would end up getting the higher speed customers and Bell would get none. Videotron's CBB rate is higher than Bell's, and presumably the IISP would have to purchase more CBB to support the higher speeds. Bell won't be getting any of that revenue stream.

Of course, if NOBODY will sell access to the IISPs at the higher speeds, then the end users will have to buy it from an incumbent - but then the CRTC's goals of giving consumers the illusion of choice wouldn't be met and you'd see a bunch of IISPs go out of business.

Bell knows they'll have to provide wholesale FTTP eventually - they just want to make sure they exhaust all their options first.
lowping
join:2013-08-04

lowping to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

Videotron argued that if FTTP services are exempt from regulated wholesale access, then cable service of 50 meg and higher should be exempt from regulated wholesale access too, because the delivery technology is irrelevant and there's no big difference between cable and fibre at current speeds. Heck, Videotron's cable service offers higher speed's than Bell's fibre service.

I agree with Videotron. The CRTC's current situation makes zero sense, where they force cable companies to wholesale their 50+ meg speeds, but at the same time don't require Bell to wholesale their 50+ meg speeds. Either open up FTTP, or remove the requirement on cable. The current regulation is highly preferential to Bell.

Well for business, Bell has 250/250.

»business.bell.ca/shop/sm ··· -250-250