dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1947
Paves
join:2014-12-16
CAN

Paves

Member

CIKTEL's new policy

CIK Rogers Cable Network Status Update

Dear Customer:

First, thank you for using our Cable High Speed Internet service.
We are happy to announce we have conducted the following network maintenance as scheduled:

1. 12/1/2014 added 5th 10GE fibre and added 1.8G capacity
2. 12/8/2014 upgraded core routers
3. 12/10/2014 Separated wholesalers' traffic from CIK retail customer traffic

After we implemented the above changes, we have seen our network performance has been improved a lot and we are going to add another 2.5G capacity on January 2, 2015 which should make our network optimized at the best speed even in rush hour.

As 5% of heaviest users in our network used around 20% of our network capacity in peak hour, so we are introducing a new mechanism from now as a testing purpose and it will be fully implemented to all of our internet customers using Rogers cable network by January 15, 2015:

Our system will statistic all of our customers' daily usage in peak hour (from 6:00pm to 12:00am). The speed of the top 300 customers (less than 0.5% of total customers) with heaviest usage will be automatic slowed down for 7 days during peak hour and only back to normal after 12:00am.

This will not affect majority of our customers' normal usage including browsing web page, sending emails, watching online movie, playing gaming, etc.
We would recommend ALL CIK customers move the non-real time applications such as downloading movie/games/Video etc to non-peak hour (2:00am to 10:00am) as much as possible.

We will provide you online portal to track your peak hour usage in January of 2015 and we will also provide more information about this policy later.
If you have any further questions and concerns, pls contact our customer relation department

We apologize for the inconvenience caused and appreciate the continuous support to CIK.
So what do we all think of this? I may or may not have been affected and if I have indeed been affected, the internet during those times is not usable at all - where I can't even connect to gmail.

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

Davesnothere

Premium Member

 
It does not say how much that this group of users will be slowed down (aka throttled).

Will this also affect the VMedia customers which have been known to share CIKTEL service ?

And/Or has VMedia gotten their own Rogers pipe now ?
mr weather
Premium Member
join:2002-02-27
Mississauga, ON

mr weather to Paves

Premium Member

to Paves
Since when is "statistic" a verb?
Expand your moderator at work
Trentelshark
join:2002-12-11
London, ON

Trentelshark to Davesnothere

Member

to Davesnothere

Re: CIKTEL's new policy

Vmedia explained it on their forums they will be throttled similar to what start does if you abuse unlimited at peak as i understand it. They determined some users were pulling 1.2TB a month leading to everyone else seeing ridiculously low speeds. Upgrade capacity and immediately saturated again.

I agree with the change, abuse the fair usage policy and they are now enforcing it as they should have. Even with tv and xb1 i dont use more than 300gb per month and all my games are digital download. This all started when school returned, guessing the majority of affected users will be student households where numerous people are torrenting 24/7. That sort of usage is beyond ridiculous imo and we all know what peak capacity costs.

Vmedia is not a tpia with rogers yet but our traffic is separated from ciks so they can be managed individually. They are moving towards it once rogers approves it and they seem to be dragging their heels as usual.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning to Paves

Member

to Paves
said by Paves:

The speed of the top 300 customers (less than 0.5% of total customers)

Sounds like Bell back when they were throttling. LOL

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

Davesnothere to Trentelshark

Premium Member

to Trentelshark
 
Thanks.

However, START does not throttle.

They instead reduce the priority of any unlimited users' traffic if that user exceeds so much in a day - I think 20 GB.

So if nobody who is at regular priority is asking for enough bandwidth at any point in time to max out START's pipe to a particular incumbent provider, any reduced priority folks who are also on that pipe will still not experience any difference to their traffic (though that would likely only even matter at all during a short part of peak period - possibly only a few minutes at most).

And each user's priority status counter resets each day (not each week), for whether or not a user would have their priority reduced.
Trentelshark
join:2002-12-11
London, ON

Trentelshark

Member

Right thats what I meant it is a similar approach though not identical. Instead if deprioritizing theyre swinging a big hammer instead . I should have clarified what I meant but thanks for clearing it up!

TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON

TypeS to Davesnothere

Member

to Davesnothere
Start also has enough capacity that their systems have rarely ever had to use prioritization, it's back stop in case of unexpected spikes (holidays, sporting events, etc).

Looks like CIKtel has finally seen what every other TPIA deals with, they can only offer unlimited peak internet so cheaply before the price has to be raised or to keep prices where they are, implement some form of network management.

Hopefully 2015 will bring some of the changes CNOC and other smaller ISPs asked for so compensations like these don't need to be made.
Trentelshark
join:2002-12-11
London, ON

Trentelshark

Member

We can only hope . Tbh this happening before vmedia is a registered tpia on Rogers is probably for the best. It is a lesson fornboth them and cik. Almost a case study of what will be required should capacity costs not change when their own equipment and capacity are in play .
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning

Member

I can only imagine what is going to happen as the IPTV service increases in popularity. If everyone flipped on their box during prime time, and consumed a couple of megabits/second at peak, that's $28.00 of CBB on rCable, or $20.00 on Bell...

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

Davesnothere to Trentelshark

Premium Member

to Trentelshark
said by Trentelshark:

....Instead if deprioritizing they're swinging a big hammer instead ....

 
Davesnothere

Davesnothere to HeadSpinning

Premium Member

to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:

I can only imagine what is going to happen as the IPTV service increases in popularity. If everyone flipped on their box during prime time, and consumed a couple of megabits/second at peak, that's $28.00 of CBB on rCable, or $20.00 on Bell...

 
And then there's GOUGEco....
Davesnothere

Davesnothere to TypeS

Premium Member

to TypeS
said by TypeS:

....Hopefully 2015 will bring some of the changes CNOC and other smaller ISPs asked for....

 
And who put what in your eggnog ?
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning to Davesnothere

Member

to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

And then there's GOUGEco....

Yeah, something like $16.00/megabit... yikes.

TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON

TypeS

Member

That's better than it was, something like $24/Mb before.

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

Davesnothere

Premium Member

 
I do not think that GOUGEco has reduced their CBB rates.

Might be in here if they have :

»docs.google.com/spreadsh ··· ng#gid=0

The 2014 interim tariff TN47 says that they HAVE reduced CBB - I had missed that.

TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON

TypeS

Member

They voluntarily dropped the rate this year but you can see from the doc it was $25.56/Mb. I think that was the worst one, looks like Videotron is now the most expensive at $20.31/Mb

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

1 edit

Davesnothere

Premium Member

 
Yes, Cogeco is currently $1,673.63/100Mb in RESA's sheet.

»docs.google.com/spreadsh ··· ng#gid=0

That must be part of why VMedia was brave enough to offer new plans at the latest revised Cogeco speed tiers.

Their 10Mbps became 15, and the 20 became 30, and the price of each rose $5 from what I had reported last Spring at this link :

»Revised COMPARISON CHART for TPIA thru Rogers Cable

I posted the update the other day and bumped the thread.

Nobody has offered a 120Mbps plan for TPIA though.
dsl33
join:2012-02-02

dsl33 to Paves

Member

to Paves
CIKTEL's new policy: " the customer is NOT king anymore?" .... just BLING


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

elwoodblues to Paves

Premium Member

to Paves
So much for unlimited, time to move on.

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

jmck

Member

how much do you actually use?

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

elwoodblues

Premium Member

A lot

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

HiVolt

Premium Member

No surprise really, their prices for unlimited were really quite unsustainable, not only from capacity point but from CBB cost point.
GeorgeBurger
join:2011-12-30

GeorgeBurger to Paves

Member

to Paves
I have to acknowledge the depth of understanding regarding capacity issues among the members of this forum. VMedia tried from the outset of these hearings to turn the attention of the Commission to the interrelationship between CBB and online video content consumption, in particular IPTV, which represents the only alternative to the incumbents. Frankly I truly believe the Commission gets it. The issue is not about giving IPTV providers a break on pricing, but coming up with a CBB pricing or more importantly costing model that reflects reality rather than the magical thinking of most incumbents. For those of you who are interested, I have attached a copy of our final reply in the wholesale framework proceedings, as well as the text of our oral presentation at the hearings. I am not sure why this issue is not catching fire among the same public that was repelled by UBB, but it is at least as important now as ever, especially if Canadians want choice and fair pricing in BOTH internet and TV services. The climbing cost of CBB as usage grows is inexorable, and the trend reflects a very bleak future for ISPs and their ability to provide competitively priced services.

TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON

1 recommendation

TwiztedZero to Paves

Premium Member

to Paves
And so, Canadians are slowly becoming a race of nocturnal internet consumers ...

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

4 edits

Davesnothere to GeorgeBurger

Premium Member

to GeorgeBurger
said by GeorgeBurger:

I have to acknowledge the depth of understanding regarding capacity issues among the members of this forum.

VMedia tried from the outset of these hearings to turn the attention of the Commission to the interrelationship between CBB and online video content consumption, in particular IPTV, which represents the only alternative to the incumbents.

Frankly I truly believe the Commission gets it. The issue is not about giving IPTV providers a break on pricing, but coming up with a CBB pricing or more importantly costing model that reflects reality rather than the magical thinking of most incumbents.

For those of you who are interested, I have attached a copy of our final reply in the wholesale framework proceedings, as well as the text of our oral presentation at the hearings.

I am not sure why this issue is not catching fire among the same public that was repelled by UBB, but it is at least as important now as ever, especially if Canadians want choice and fair pricing in BOTH internet and TV services.

The climbing cost of CBB as usage grows is inexorable, and the trend reflects a very bleak future for ISPs and their ability to provide competitively priced services.

 
I for one appreciate that you have noticed the comprehension levels of many of us here.

Having not fully read the attached docs, my reply will be mostly to your post itself.

BTW, I have separated your paragraph into 'clauses', much like those in the attached legal documents, as it makes it easier to read and to pinpoint replies in proper context, in this case, equally as in that.

Anyway, particularly in regard to your observed 'fire resistance' of the CBB regimen, I feel that the underlying reasoning for the public's more recent non-participation has been several-fold, and I will try to shed some light upon why :

(1) The relatively short attention span of the general public, even folks like most of those who post here. - Some just gave up.

(2) The difficulty of wrapping even OUR techie minds around the dynamic mathematical relationship between the 'C' in CBB (a new term for most of us) and the 'U' in UBB (something which we all understood quite well). - The CRTC has this shortcoming too, IMNSHO.

SIDEBAR : In that regard, I much preferred the concept of wholesale UBB (albeit instead at a fair and reasonable price point, and also on a bulk rather than a then-Bell-proposed per-TPIA-enduser basis), and I stated so on numerous occasions here, to the frequent misunderstanding and negative response of some posters who will state to this day that ALL UBB is bad, when instead, a properly managed UBB would be fine, just as would be the case with CBB.

(3) Some of us have more recently operated on the premise that the CNOC (as well as groups like Open Media) would instead represent our interests as consumers in the process of representing those of the various TPIA IISPs - and with which logic I to some extent do concur.

(4) The 2012 Springtime departure from this forum of one of our long-term 'folk heroes', known here as 'JF', has removed much of the spark from what and how things have been discussed in the interim, even though we know that he still makes CRTC presentations which serve our interests, and for which we are thankful.

BTW, the same short attention span of (1) may also have allowed some here to forget that you are the same George Burger who for a period of time very effectively represented the interests of Teksavvy, prior to the advent and implementation of CBB, and the mobilization of the CNOC, in which another person serves that legal function on a collective basis.

I plan to post again after reading your attached docs (or maybe before), and I hope that I have reasonably answered one of your questions.

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

Teddy Boom to Paves

Premium Member

to Paves
It's very interesting, for sure. Respect to CIK for the frank communication! However, assuming this is meant at face value, it is not great policy:
The speed of the top 300 customers (less than 0.5% of total customers) with heaviest usage will be automatic slowed down for 7 days during peak hour and only back to normal after 12:00am.
Top 300 customers is far too arbitrary.. I like Start's approach better. Of course a fair evaluation of the policies also has to consider how well each controls costs, but I guess we'll never know about that
Teddy Boom

Teddy Boom to Davesnothere

Premium Member

to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

SIDEBAR : In that regard, I much preferred the concept of wholesale UBB (albeit instead at a fair and reasonable price point, and also on a bulk rather than a then-Bell-proposed per-TPIA-enduser basis), and I stated so on numerous occasions here, to the frequent misunderstanding and negative response of some posters who will state to this day that ALL UBB is bad, when instead, a properly managed UBB would be fine, just as would be the case with CBB.

A properly managed UBB regime might be possible, but it isn't ideal. CBB is a much fairer methodology for reflecting the true costs.

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

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by Teddy Boom:

A properly managed UBB regime might be possible, but it isn't ideal. CBB is a much fairer methodology for reflecting the true costs.

 
Given the manner in which the incumbents will try to abuse in their favour WHATEVER system that might be put in place, ANY method could prove either satisfactory or otherwise to the consumer.