how-to block ads
|
despe
@interplex.ca | Re: Acanac Paul, what time is the conference call with bell? I'm anxious to know what comes out of it! | |
|  
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
4 edits | Re: Acanac Just got back from the conference and here is what Bell is proposing.
512Kbps service will be limited to 2GB per month
5Mbps service will be limited to 60GB per month
They did not disclose what the overcharges will be, but don't expect it to be cheap. Simply put DSL as we know it right now will no longer exist.
We find this proposal to be totally unexceptable. The only good news is that it will not affect current clients. So as long as you don't change ISP's you can keep your current unlimited connection. Bell proposes to start shadow billing in October and usage based billing in Jan of 2009.
This has given me a new sense urgency to setup our own equipment at the CO. I will be approaching a few other ISP in the next little while to see if we can come to some type of agreement. We prefer not to do this alone.
As for having control of the profile: They hope to offer us this ability towards the end of the year.
Best Regards,
Paul
www.acanac.ca | |
| | 
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
 ·Colbanet
1 edit | Re: Acanac And is control over the profile tied to the usage-based billing? I hear that they've been promising wholesalers control over profiles for several years now and have yet to actually do anything.
This would really suck for me. I'm not exactly a "heavy" user. I have a 200GB cap and tend to use 100-150GB per month. But I'd still go way over a piddly little 60GB cap...
EDIT: Wholesalers forming an alliance to share colocated DSLAMs is an interesting idea, and it'd be great for me, being directly connected to the Atwater CO (one of the main downtown Montreal COs). But it'll suck for everybody on remotes... On the other hand, I guess building your own remotes would be easier as a group. | |
| | | 
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
| Re: Acanac said by Guspaz  :On the other hand, I guess building your own remotes would be easier as a group. *IF* the CRTC forces Bell to allow placing remote xSLAMs just like the Stingers Bell puts on the side of their OPIs. | |
| | | |
Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON | Re: Acanac Forming an alliance in my opinion is the only real longer term solution. We need to make Bell think twice before they come up with these ridiculous ideas. The only way to do this is to offer real compationtion. | |
| | | | | beamer69
join:2007-05-10
Burnaby, BC
| Re: Acanac said by Acanac Inc :Forming an alliance in my opinion is the only real longer term solution. While still fighting Bell against these actions in the hope at some point the last mile is broken off from the rest of Bell so everyone is treated equally. 
Right now all they are doing is moving the restrictions they have on Sympatico to wholesalers 
Keep fighting Paul this is really a joke what they are doing. Well wish it was a joke but it is not  | |
| | | | djweis
join:2006-04-02
West Des Moines, IA
| said by CanerisErik :said by Guspaz :On the other hand, I guess building your own remotes would be easier as a group. *IF* the CRTC forces Bell to allow placing remote xSLAMs just like the Stingers Bell puts on the side of their OPIs. We have something in the US called a field connection point as well as remote collocation. With the field connection point you physically place a cabinet or other DSLAM near the FDI (cross connect) in remote areas and pay the LEC a large amount of money to connect in a cable you provide to the cross connect field in the box.
We've done 5 of them with Qwest with pretty good success. Some are fed with multiple T1's and a couple are fed with fiber.
I don't see a wholesale/CLEC portion of www.bell.ca so I can't say for sure if that's available but it would be an option if it was. It only made sense for us in business parks that didn't have any ILEC DSL available. | |
| | | | |
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
1 edit | Re: Acanac said by djweis :said by CanerisErik :said by Guspaz :On the other hand, I guess building your own remotes would be easier as a group. *IF* the CRTC forces Bell to allow placing remote xSLAMs just like the Stingers Bell puts on the side of their OPIs. We have something in the US called a field connection point as well as remote collocation. With the field connection point you physically place a cabinet or other DSLAM near the FDI (cross connect) in remote areas and pay the LEC a large amount of money to connect in a cable you provide to the cross connect field in the box. We've done 5 of them with Qwest with pretty good success. Some are fed with multiple T1's and a couple are fed with fiber. I don't see a wholesale/CLEC portion of www.bell.ca so I can't say for sure if that's available but it would be an option if it was. It only made sense for us in business parks that didn't have any ILEC DSL available. AFAIK, we don't have anything like that, despite the fact that an ever increasing number of loops is served from remotes (well over 50% in certain bands now). Bell will always find excuses and nonsense to feed the CRTC to prevent CLECs and DSLSPs from accessing remotes.
Just look at the past five years.
Here's a perfect example of their blatant disregard for their ILEC obligations and CRTC, from three years ago: »www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2005/···0497.htm
BS seems familiar? | |
| | 
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | Is that even allowed under the regulations?Somethin doesn't seem legal in all this. | |
| | | | | | | 
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Acanac said by fatness :Just thinking out loud, that will serve to keep down criticism at the present time. Later, if the caps go into effect and the hubbub had died down, ending the "grandfathering" of existing accounts would generate less criticism. And that's why this has to be fought from the onset, whether you *think* that it directly affects you or not. Even if you *think* this won't affect you in the near future, guaranteed it will down the road. And by then, it will be too late, because the precedence will already be made. It's too easy to sit back and take a passive stance, thinking only of self, instead of as a whole. | |
| | Walter Dnes
join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by Acanac Inc :Just got back from the conference and here is what Bell is proposing. 512Kbps service will be limited to 2GB per month 5Mbps service will be limited to 60GB per month Let me get this straight. Bell sells X bandwidth to a re-seller. Why is it any of Bell's f***ing business whether those 3rd-party ADSL re-sellers doled out the 10 or 20 gigs at 512 kbits or 5 megabits to their customers??? If Bell's network can stand the hit at 5 megabits, why can't it stand the hit of half-a-megabit.
Full disclosure... I recently switched down from 5 megabits to 512 kbits on Teksavvy, saving $5/month in the process. I don't do P2P. Here's a dirty little secret. I find the half-meg speeds perfectly sufficient *FOR MY NEEDS*. YMMV. With the exception of a few really graphics-heavy sites, webpages load just as fast as at 5 megs. The usual roadblock is an overloaded ad-server on the other side of the planet. Even 128-kbit radio streams on Live365 come in fine, thank you.
Here's what I think happened. Bell is like a Detoit auto company, which lures in customers with basic cars, but generates its biggest profit margins by bait-n-switching buyers to more expensive models. With the recent upgrade of the "Lite" profile to 512 kbits SDSL, I believe that many people have come to the same conclusion as me, i.e. 512 kbits is perfectly sufficient. The result is that many new signups are going for 512K, rather than 5 or 6 megabits, and quite a few people are downgrading their 5 or 6 megabit connections to 512 kbits. This will result in reduced profits, and more importantly, reduced bonuses for the Board of Directors.
The usual reaction would be to cripple Sympatico's "Lite" service to the point of uselessness, to drive subscribers to Sympatico's more expensive options. Sympatico was probably telling the truth that the average user uses 10 gigs/month or less. Therefore, the bandwidth had to be reduced to something utterly ridiculous, like 2 gigs. However, the marketeers remembered that last time they tried such a stunt, people left in droves for Sympatico's competitors, which hadn't made followed Sympatico's footsteps. Sympatico realized that they would have make their competitors' Lite offering just as unattractive as Sympatico's. Hence the limits on reseller users' bandwidth. | |
| | | |
|
·