said by heavyduty :

It adds quite important stuff. Firstly, they request the CRTC at least for the interim order throttling of GAS turned off. If you don't ask for it, CRTC could (and would) simply let Bell Canada continue wholesale throttling while this all plays out. Primus is correct to ask that while this plays out, to revert to no-throttling.

Secondly, point #12 is very appropriate -market forces alone cannot address the competitive impact Bell is unilaterally imposing on wholesalers.

As an example: prior to GAS throttling, TSI was able to differentiate itself from other ISPs by investing heavily in their Internet Transport infrastructure. This is a strategic choice TSI made to draw customers from other ISPs, including other wholesalers, Bell and Rogers.

Once GAS throttling was enabled, Bell automatically rendered the bulk of TSI's strategic investment and planning by marginalizing the positive effect TSI investment would have on TSI service. By throttling, Bell Canada has effectively cost TSI a huge amount of capital and recurring expense to which TSI is obligated per contracts to continue to finance. That's a lot of benefit for Bell Canada - make your competitor spend a ton of money and render that investment moot - thereby weakening your competitor through monopolistic tactics. Quite frankly, Bell Canada should be held culpable for their intentional lack of any forewarning to such a monstrous impact to GAS tarif service, and should be made to pay the costs TSI has incurred, and will incur to get out of their relevant long-term infrastructure commitments. To say "Sorry we regret not informing you" is not enough. Financially, legally, they have materially impacted GAS tarif service.

Many other ISPs are likely in the same situation. Blind-sided, and now weakened financially by Bell's throttling ambush. I hope they speak up, and go after Bell for financial reimbursement.

said by heavyduty :

I hope they speak up, and go after Bell for financial reimbursement.

said by jfmezei :

>I am not sure if Bell will respond to the Primus letter since it doesn't really add anything to the CAIP letter.

said by jfmezei :

>Everybody has, to date, ignored JF's filing

Primus mentions it in their filing. (as in "we've read it").

The response from Bell covers only the CAIP letter. Bell must respond in a separate letter to my letter. The deadline for Bell's response to mine should be this friday unless the CRTC has changed it. (normally 10 business days).

Expect Bell to act as a politician and respond to mine with a 4 page letter that says absolutely nothing except they have the right to manage their network bla bla bla (aka: not cover any points I have made).

I am not sure if Bell will respond to the Primus letter since it doesn't really add anything to the CAIP letter.