elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to resa1983
Re: CRTC Wholesale hearingWhile taxpayers dollars are wasted on a hearing on what do with future tech, Google just made me throw up. From today's headlines quote: On the higher end, Austin users have the choice of a standalone symmetrical 1 Gbps tier for $70
Fuck me, 1gb Symetrical.. OOOOHHHHH |
|
|
creed3020 Premium Member join:2006-04-26 Kitchener, ON |
creed3020
Premium Member
2014-Nov-25 10:00 am
I can only hope that one day because Google has an office here in Kitchener that they may consider this region as a possible Canadian testbed for Google Fibre. I won't hold my breath but it would certainly be a kick in the pants to the incumbents. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to resa1983
Menzies is so technologically challenged.
He asked if CNOC needs a 2nd drop to serve internet access if say Bell owns the TV/phone service for the customer.
Doh. |
|
|
to creed3020
said by creed3020:I can only hope that one day because Google has an office here in Kitchener that they may consider this region as a possible Canadian testbed for Google Fibre. I won't hold my breath but it would certainly be a kick in the pants to the incumbents. The incumbents would fight to their last breath to prevent this from happening. Maybe they would even go so far as to say that letting Google provide this type of service here is un-Canadian. |
|
creed3020 Premium Member join:2006-04-26 Kitchener, ON |
creed3020
Premium Member
2014-Nov-25 10:32 am
I wouldn't expect anything but that |
|
|
to resa1983
Are start and Teksavvy represented by CNOC? |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Nov-25 10:57 am
said by Cyborg994:Are start and Teksavvy represented by CNOC? Yup. This is CNOC up right right now. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to resa1983
Back in the day when Bell WAS a regulated utility, the Gross return allowed was in the range of 8-11%. Then Bell paid their taxes. |
|
|
to resa1983
Annual reports costs are far from directly linked to providing network services, they also include other services support (entreprise services, tv services, cellphone services), as well as all supporting services (ddos protection, surveillance, cutomer service tools, etc...) which are not applicable to wholesale service.
It,s closer to marketing then actual costs... |
|
Teddy Boomk kudos Received Premium Member join:2007-01-29 Toronto, ON |
to resa1983
Tacit says Cable loop costs are more sensitive to usage than DSL? What?
Like, he's saying that it is justified to have different access prices for different speed tiers on cable, but the same access price on DSL. That makes no sense? Why is CNOC saying that? In many ways it is actually the exact opposite... |
|
mazhurg Premium Member join:2004-05-02 Brighton, ON |
mazhurg
Premium Member
2014-Nov-25 11:41 am
said by Teddy Boom:Tacit says Cable loop costs are more sensitive to usage than DSL? What?
Like, he's saying that it is justified to have different access prices for different speed tiers on cable, but the same access price on DSL. That makes no sense? Why is CNOC saying that? In many ways it is actually the exact opposite... Out of curiosity, isn't that local dsl loop are not shared until a multiplexer (converging) device easier to manage than the same loop on cable which is shared on the common cable that serves that street until the multiplexer (converging) device? If the above is still true (been a while) then would that not make cable loops more susceptible to load, requiring more (or more expensive) devices to maintain higher speed - therefore more cost sensitive? |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to resa1983
Menzies needs to understand that NOBODY will lay FTTP in competition to indumbents except in RARE circumstances. Not Verizon (if they came to Canada), Not Google in Canada, or as Mel Lastman would say .... NooooBody!!! |
|
MaynardKrebs |
to resa1983
Tacit is making a decent point about investment where it makes exonomic sense to do so.
Why should CNOC members invest in fiber when Bell et. al. already have fiber and can make a decent markup (regulated) on it selling access to indie ISP's?
That Menzies and his gang keep on harping about 'ladder of investment' which makes zero sense. Trucking companies don't build their own roads. They either use public roads (paid for by all of us - ie. a utility, or they use a private toll road like 407 ETR) but in either case they don't get into a 'ladder of investment' in building roads. They just use the roads that are already there and pay a (hopefully) fair price for sending a truck down that road. Neither should CNOC (or some other indie ISP) be forced into committing economic suicide by building their own fiber network unless it makes economic sense to them. |
|
|
to resa1983
Someone should tell Marc to calm down... he's getting pissed by their incompetence I think. |
|
Teddy Boomk kudos Received Premium Member join:2007-01-29 Toronto, ON |
to mazhurg
said by mazhurg:If the above is still true (been a while) then would that not make cable loops more susceptible to load, requiring more (or more expensive) devices to maintain higher speed - therefore more cost sensitive? I'm too sleepy at the moment, but I think this is exactly correct. Except, isn't that extra cost covered in the UBB rate? If not, fine, but I thought UBB existed exactly to differentiate that.. |
|
Teddy Boom |
to resa1983
"advantage of being the first one in is that you'll be the only one in"--Keith Stevens Fantastic. Stealth argument for functional separation, and a rational argument. Commissioners having trouble grokking it |
|
|
to elwoodblues
Yeah, from Google... No thanks. |
|
|
to resa1983
I'm waiting for Mark to rip off his shirt, turn green and yell "HULK SMASH" |
|
creed3020 Premium Member join:2006-04-26 Kitchener, ON |
to resa1983
I missed the last hour and it sure sounds like it was intense. Going to rewatch the whole CNOC interview once it's available. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to resa1983
Sometimes Molnar is out of it.
If there was one fiber (ie. a utility) with regulated rates **just for the fiber from the customer to the aggregation network**, then that fiber would get to maximum practical utilization, hence the cost would be lower. |
|
creed3020 Premium Member join:2006-04-26 Kitchener, ON |
to resa1983
Molnar
"I understand what you say" [but don't give a shit so lets move on to golfing] |
|
Teddy Boomk kudos Received Premium Member join:2007-01-29 Toronto, ON |
to resa1983
This is a little frustrating.. They are doing a great job explaining to Molnar that it is inefficient to overbuilt. Molnar wants to hear about rural reach though.. They could easily tie the efficiency argument into that. Spend more on Toronto, on an inefficient system, and there is no money left for rural reach. But they aren't seeing it--well they see it, it is the reason the whole line of reasoning started, but they aren't tying it together for her.
edit: I mean it seems clear that she doesn't really buy that line of argument anyway, but.. If they could put a pretty little bow on it about accessing Saskatchewan, that would have to be helpful. |
|
|
to creed3020
said by creed3020:Molnar
"I understand what you say" [but don't give a shit so lets move on to golfing] Every hearing I feel like putting a picture of a deer in headlights in her seat would accomplish the same as having her physically sitting there. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to resa1983
What I'm hearing in all this is that the CRTC probably recognizes that the weight of all their previous decisions is poisoning the marketplace but that they have no clue how to get out of the mess of their creation. Hence the question about throwing the indies under a bus and walking away. |
|
MaynardKrebs |
to resa1983
Hey Candace: Bell invested in FTTN because ROGERS was eating their lunch with higher speeds and a then superior TV offering. Bell didn't invest in FTTN to service indie ISP's. |
|
|
to MaynardKrebs
And she thinks the FTTN investment is complete, that would explain all the Bell trucks throwing up 7330s like mad all around London....totally done . |
|
creed3020 Premium Member join:2006-04-26 Kitchener, ON |
to MaynardKrebs
Marc is certainly making that clear and had such a stink face on that it should have scared all in front of him.
Events: 1. Use dis-agg POI [INVEST] 2. No more dis-agg, go agg POI [INVEST] 3. Compete with incumbents by [INVEST] but have no moar monies left due to the CRTC games... |
|
|
to MaynardKrebs
Someone seems to have convinced her that Bell will stop rolling out FTTH(P) if they make any ruling in favour of CNOC...and now it seems like an up-hill battle to convince her that's not the case. |
|
diskaceRetired Premium Member join:2002-02-21
2 recommendations |
to MaynardKrebs
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 |
|
|
to creed3020
said by creed3020:1. Use dis-agg POI [INVEST] 2. No more dis-agg, go agg POI [INVEST] Yeah, that one screwed us up big. We just finished our dis-agg POI connection in Windsor when the decision to kill it by the CRTC came out. We ended up NOT launching TPIA at all. |
|