dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9697
share rss forum feed
« speedWhy not here? »
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · next

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

2 edits

Cable companies' Review and Vary of 2011-703

No, it isn't JF that is doing a review and vary of 2011-703, it is the benevolent Shaw.

Haven't read it yet.

quote:
Dear Mr. Traversy:
Re: Application to Review and Vary Certain Aspects of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-703; Billing practices for wholesale residential high-speed access services (TRP 2011-703)
Pursuant to Section 62 of the Telecommunications Act and section 22 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Rules of Practice and Procedure, Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw) herein files a Part 1 application to review and vary certain aspects of TRP 2011-703.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

Re: Review and vary of 2011-703

quote:
The foregoing adjustments will result in revised rates for Shaw's TPIA Services. Following the Commission’s determination in this Application, Shaw will submit revised TPIA tariffs, with supporting costing studies, to reflect that determination.

Translation: Shaw promises to fudge numbers to support a favourable decision by the CRTC

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Shaw wants the 2011-703 rates to be made interim as of today so that ISPs can be retroactively billed after the CRTC's decision on the matter.


ekster
Hi there
Premium
join:2010-07-16
Lachine, QC
kudos:3
Does Shaw even have any significant TPIA ISPs? I understand if Bell, Videotron or Rogers did it... they have a lot to win. But Shaw has no competition, so why are they doing it?

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Cable companies tend to work together. Shaw may have filed it, but I suspect that it was done with the support of Videotron, Cogeco and Rogers.


alienzzz
Kill Bell

join:2011-02-17
Verdun, QC
Why not simply ask for capacity based billing? That would get them more cash.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
In the case if Videotron and Shaw, I believe that the new cost structure has made TPIA much more interesting. So the cable companies aren't happy with it.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
So, we got a Part 1 on impementation by CNOC, CNOC promised to also challenge rates in a separate proceeding, and now we have Shaw doing an R&V of the decision (instead of a Part 1 of its own tariffs)

The word "clusterfuck" comes to mind.


alienzzz
Kill Bell

join:2011-02-17
Verdun, QC
reply to jfmezei
Again, a company that can't see the forest for the trees. It's saddening. Videotron is gonna make so much money now that they are getting all of Bell's former DSL subscribers. Instead of being happy they are moaning. Bell in the meantime is happy that they are getting rid of them. It's unbelievable how unhealthy this market is.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to jfmezei
I patented that word in another thread.Calling homeland security now

grunze510

join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
kudos:1
reply to alienzzz
So what does this mean for Electronicbox cable? Higher rates in a few months?

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
reply to andyb
I think Shaw would have been better off submitting new capacity based tariffs with supporting cost studies.

In this filing, they basically admitted that costing is fudged because cable companies expected a certain billing paradigm.

The one valid issue worthy of the R&V is the 10% bonus given to Mirko but not to cable.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
reply to grunze510
said by grunze510:

So what does this mean for Electronicbox cable? Higher rates in a few months?

Based solely on this filing and not something which Videotron might file, There is the 10% bonus which might be applied to DOCSIS-3 speeds. (or removed from Bell's FTTN speeds).

However, if Videotron decides to jump in and also wants its rates changed, then all bets are off. But as I read the R&V, it seems focused on Shaw FOR NOW.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to jfmezei
The 10% they should not of got.Was a stupid decision based on fear of "they wont invest anymore"


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

So,

(1) we got a Part 1 on impementation by CNOC
(2) CNOC promised to also challenge rates in a separate proceeding, and now we have
(3) Shaw doing an R&V of the decision (instead of a Part 1 of its own tariffs)

The word "clusterfuck" comes to mind.

 
Besides rodents trying to displace weather forecasters, is this not also the time of year that Vaxination likes to file major documents ?


Could some of the major players simply be smokescreening to distract you from doing so again, by trying filing to cover things you might have wanted to say ? (which CAN be OK, as long as SOMEBODY raises the issues)

CNOC comes to mind here.

Note that the CNOC has been quicker to the draw lately, and rumour was that they had planned to file something of their own around a year ago, something which might have either been deflected or made redundant by that famous/notorious petition which you submitted.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to jfmezei
 
BTW, what character does Shaw use for abridgement, instead of Bell's beloved ##### strings ?


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
Same shit as all money grabbers use. the #


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
 
....which in itself is weird, as one would expect that they would have chosen the $ sign.

That's why I rechristened B#ELL to B$ELL a while back.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to jfmezei
This is never going to end. The only way the incumbents are going to be happy,is when all IISP's are gone.

BellSavvy will be the first to fall.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
 
The waters are sure Mirko, er, I mean murky, today !

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
The CRTC file/web site for the Shaw R&V of 2011-703 is at:

»www.crtc.gc.ca/part1/eng/2012/86···1342.htm

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Click for full size
downloadAppendix 2 -···-703.pdf 1,048,500 bytes
Click for full size
downloadRogers ABRID···2012.pdf 142,768 bytes
Lemay Yates report on how Great Rogers is.
Things are unraveling...

Today, Rogers submitted a Review and Vary of 2011-703

(to the moderators, if you could update the thread title to replace "Shaw" with "Cable companies", it would be appreciated)

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
note to moderators: I would appreciate if you could update the threat title from "Shaw's Review and vary of 2011-703" to

"Cable companies' Review and Vary of 2011-703"

(since there are now multiple R&V from different cable companies)


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
I was just going to post the rogers shit.Thought I had a post going for it alrady but I couldnt find it.

Anyway these tariffs bring a whole new aspect to the ballgame.Rogers wants service charges for each 100mb for upload and download so say double the fee.How low are these companies going to go?Every day its another tariff to try and gran more money from some obscure point in the rulling.It's down right degrading to me to be a Canadian and have companies stoop to this level.I cannot wait to win a lottery and get the hell out of this country that seems to be coming more and more communist by the day between the government and stupid decisions


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
Well seems I was reading the other rogers papers filed today.The R&V just showed up in my mail box.

Clusterfuck is to mellow a word for this.I see more hearings coming and a possible intervention from the government soon


Rogers VP

@videotron.ca
so basically what they are saying here is:

Hey CRTC; The money we charge 3rd party internet providers is less than what Bell and Videotron charges. We want our costs to be higher so we can make more money as well and equaly over-charge as all the others. Otherwise it isn't fair.

Best regards,

Rogers VP of Regulatory

Sync

join:2012-01-19
Terrebonne, QC
reply to jfmezei

Re: Cable companies' Review and Vary of 2011-703

It's not a "clusterfuck" it's a "perpetual clusterfuck"

the clusterfuck that never ends


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to andyb

Re: Review and vary of 2011-703

said by andyb:

Well seems I was reading the other rogers papers filed today.The R&V just showed up in my mail box.

Clusterfuck is to mellow a word for this.I see more hearings coming and a possible intervention from the government soon

At some point the CRTC has to say F off, they can't keep changing tariffs and taking all of their time and resources to review them.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
This is just such good submission...

Imagine this, Rogers proactively making upgrades to its network so that end users do not feel any congestion and to remove the need for downstream throttling !

Imagine this, Rogers claiming it replaces its CMTS every 4 years. Yeah. sure. probably the result of a one time upgrade to support DOCSIS3.

Oh, and I like the one about Rogers *often* having to deal with a shortage of IPs funished by TPIA ISPs.

Imagine this, at the hearings last summer, the incumbers all said they don't do 95th percentile, but when it comes to spilling the beans on network management here, they admit to using it extensively.

Oh, and an interesting one at the very end: Rogers wants to maintain interim aggregated POI rates (the ones in effect last summer when Rogers refused new ISPs) until its R&V is done.

So, will Videotron now file one too ?


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
Start your filing against it JF.Dont forget to mention the 5,000 or so ip's rogers requires for each connection point that only holds 2,000.Or the fact brantford as far as I know has never replaced any CMTS's.And for sure mention the we dont do 95th but..
« speedWhy not here? »
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · next