O Canada! > Canadian > Canadian Broadband > CNOC R&V of CRTC 2011-703 and CRTC 2011-704

CNOC R&V of CRTC 2011-703 and CRTC 2011-704

CNOC R and V···0203.zip 1,209,039 bytes

For those who are .zip impaired:

Letter to Jo···inal.pdf 19876 bytes
Letter to John Traversy

Part I R&V ···inal.pdf 149851 bytes
AGI report

CNOC Nordici···inal.pdf 1137080 bytes
Part 1 R&V Application

CNOC AGI Rep···inal.pdf 84077 bytes
Nordicity Report

reply to Telnet_Bill

Re: CNOC R&V of CRTC 2011-703 and CRTC 2011-704

reply to Telnet_Bill
I am sorry but, what are thoses? A little bit of context pls

reply to jfmezei
Wonder what the deal is with CNOC and NON-aggregated POIs... they want more time for ISPs to build non-aggregated capacity even though non-aggregated is scheduled for termination and the logical course of action would be to ditch non-aggregated rather than continue building upon it.

reply to Telnet_Bill
I'm wondering if the incumbents hadn't decided to get greedy, if CNOC would have said anything?

Sorry about the order, DSLr messed up the captions (I had to delete the R&V and re-upload it because the file name was too long for DSLR).

With regards to grandfathering of rates, this is also puzzling to me. In the case of videotron, the new rates are so much better that there is no reason to grandfarher. But in the case of rogers, I guess teksavvy must prefer the unlimited rates it had with no capacity charges compared to the new rates.

reply to Telnet_Bill
Shaw must be feeling so left out... CNOC didn't mention them even once. They are trying so hard to be a bad boy but won't take the same route as the other bad boys and ask for capacity billing.

Shaw has got its own R&V on the matter. Don't feel so bad for them.

I'm the only one without an R&V. Sniff ! Sniff ! I fell so left out !

You still have 2 hours and 17 minutes left to file...HURRY !!!!

quote:

---

13. In this Application, CNOC is seeking an order from the Commission:
(a) Reducing the Capacity Rates established in TRP 2011-703 for Bell, Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron and the TRP 2011-704 BWHSAS Access Rates for Bell and Telus following a more transparent tariff review process in which counsel and experts for parties have full access to the information filed in confidence by these Incumbents in support of their filings;

---

reply to jfmezei
OK. later on, CNOC point to CITT measures that allow participants access to confidential info.

There are issues with allowing everyone access to the info with a NDA. Bell won't allow a competitor access to that info even if the NDA is signed in the competitor's own blood and the competitor puts up one of his lungs as "bail" to garantee confidentiality.

BUT, neutral parties that are not competitors to the incumbent could be allowed NDA access to the numbers.

However, I am not sure that the CRTC will accept that an R&V of 703 tackle a change in CRTC Rules and Procedures.

Based on how the CRTC has already rejected some filings from incumbents this year, they could rejet this filing and require CNOC to file it as 2 separate filings, one to change CRTC rules and procedures and one for the actual R&V.

reply to Telnet_Bill
ok so I'm reading some of this stuff (the initial nose bleeds and convulsions subsided upon first review).

So this Nordcity study, I guess by a bunch of pencil necked pocket protector wearing Actuarial science majors, says (and correct me if i'm wrong here):
-They were able to figure out Bells costs via their 10-million dollar deferral account submissions (where Bell got all our money for nothing) are super inflated.

Matter of fact, they are so inflated that when these pocket-protector wearing actuarial science majors even applied figures that heavily weighed in bells pocket-book favour, Bells actual numbers, that we are paying now with the new tariff, are still way above theirs even with an added bonus of about a 25% mark-up in bells favour.

Did I get this right so far?

These actuarial science majors then state that the costs for bringing FTTN to 112 communities (~61K houses, businesses or multi-dwelling units) using bells submitted numbers, is: $277M

The cost, based on real life costs, per these actuarial science majors, is: $62M.

In other words, Bell has inflated it's costs by a factor of 4.5.

When they go on to calculate the cost of B/W, which the CRTC allowed to be at $2213/100Mbps/month, they come to the conclusion that the price should be $493/100Mbps/month.

The same inflated 4.5x (4.48x) real life value.

Even if these actuarial science majors double the real life upfront costs to $120M, the cost /100Mbps/month is around 900$ (still more than 2x less than Bells).

In other words, how can Bell roll out broadband plans (used from the deferral account money based on Bells own submissions) work? Did they lie to the CRTC just to get money yet can't actually provide?

Or, is Bell lying now with these inflated prices?

heh. It's one or the other.

Also, why has the CRTC not seen these discrepancies? After-all, the CRTC accepted Bell numbers in order to get that deferral account money. And now the CRTC accepted these numbers for a lesser roll-out at 4.48x the actual cost.

I find this makes the CRTC look like sh*t and part of some corporate conspiracy to dupe the public of money.

Wonderful!

But, hey, correct me if I read that wrong....

reply to jfmezei

reply to jfmezei

I made an error.

In a couple of posts above I stated the deferral account was 10-million.

Silly me. That should read 10-billion dollars, of which Bell got the lions share. Not 10-million.

Sorry for the error.