 R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | New CRTC filing fresh off the press! :) Enjoy!
It has been a longtime in the making but it is now in....
Rocky |
|
|
|
MissM
join:2007-12-13
Toronto, ON | Its a bit complicated stuff for me to be reading, especially with no sleep, but I trust its an excellent filing and I fully support it.  |
|
R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | It is indeed a little lengthy and a little complicated as it deals in a variety of policy, legal and technical issues, but this is directed right at the heart of what has been happening over the last year. |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to R0CKY
Way to go Rocky and CAIP! I especially like this part:
However, the fact that Bell looks at Layer 7 information in order to determine the application software running on the CPE misses a more fundamental point that relates to GAS specifically. GAS is a PPPoE or Layer 2 (Data Layer) service according to Bell GT Item 5410. As such, anything above Layer 2 (Layers 3‐7) constitutes the PPPoE “payload” under GAS. While Bell must possess PPPoE header information in order to provide GAS, there is no need for Bell to examine even the source and destination IP address information of GAS traffic in order to deliver the tariffed service.
You hit them on several good points but that one I think is especially valid. |
|
Robrr
join:2008-04-19
Mississauga, ON | Agreed mlerner.
That is a very strong point that was brought up. |
|
Robrr
join:2008-04-19
Mississauga, ON Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
1 edit | reply to R0CKY
This is a very detailed and complicated read but they did an excellent job of hammering their point home.
edit: I just wanted to add that this is the kind of tear Bell's claims to shreds legal documentation that CAIP's submissions needed last year when this was originally being looked at by the CRTC. We probably wouldn't all be throttled if this was submitted back then. |
|
 andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 | reply to R0CKY
Very intersting read Rocky.Good stuff. |
|
ChampUz
join:2009-02-13
Mississauga, ON | What this means? |
|
1 edit | I was going to ask the same thing. It's really buried in those 66 pages. I was going to print it out but I'd have no ink left. |
|
R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
1 edit | reply to R0CKY
It is saying the CRTC decision on the Throttling case was wrong and needs to be reviewed and changed. |
|
| said by R0CKY:It is saying the CRTC decision on the Throttling case was wrong and needs to be reviewed and changed. So it just says that the CRTC recognizes that it was wrong but hasn't done anything about it? |
|
Robrr
join:2008-04-19
Mississauga, ON | That is not the CRTC saying their decision was wrong, that is the Consumers’ Association of Canada
and Canada Without Poverty saying the CRTC was wrong and asking them to review the decision |
|
R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | said by Robrr:That is not the CRTC saying their decision was wrong, that is the Consumers’ Association of Canada and Canada Without Poverty saying the CRTC was wrong and asking them to review the decision Actually... it's all the groups that are on the cover page saying the CRTC was wrong.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
|
|
| So it's nothing really new as that was stated a long time ago. It's just on paper now. Right? |
|
R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | said by ModdTaco:So it's nothing really new as that was stated a long time ago. It's just on paper now. Right? With all the new stuff that has been going on as well as new and old evidence this has been filed so yes, but no to your question.
There have been many bad things happening for the consumers and the industry over the last little year or so (more than usual), so it needed to be challenged.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
|
|
| reply to R0CKY
Cool. |
|
 AngeloThe Network GuyPremium
join:2002-06-18
·Caneris
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to R0CKY
said by R0CKY:said by ModdTaco:So it's nothing really new as that was stated a long time ago. It's just on paper now. Right? With all the new stuff that has been going on as well as new and old evidence this has been filed so yes, but no to your question. There have been many bad things happening for the consumers and the industry over the last little year or so (more than usual), so it needed to be challenged. change doesn't come easily  |
|
| reply to R0CKY
Of course it will take them 3 years to figure out what half of what the document means...but at least something made it out.
Ian |
|
| reply to R0CKY
Just a quibble....
"66. However, this is no longer the case."
It wasn't the case at the time, nor is it the case now.
As mentioned in Para. 51 & 61, both Bell & the CRTC knew that there were other options available to Bell other than throttling of GAS prior to November 2007.
---
I hope that if the CRTC denies your submission, that the Submitters will pursue this in court. |
|
| reply to R0CKY
Very nice!
Phil |
|
