dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to Davesnothere

Re: Comments about the Rogers R&V

said by Davesnothere:

But regardless of that, we are looking at the proverbial 'thin edge of the wedge' of a dangerous precedent, if ANY provider convinces CRTC to allow THAT to happen, no matter what the alleged justification for doing so.

Well, unlike xDSL where first-mile downstream and upstream functions of each port are dedicated to a single line regardless of what the speeds are, provisioning of upstream and downstream capacity on cable nodes are almost completely independent activities so on cable, there certainly is a potential to prove the need for differentiated billing between upstream and downstream due to the fundamental technical difference between cable and DSL in that regard.


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

said by InvalidError:

....there certainly is a potential to prove the need for differentiated billing between upstream and downstream, due to the fundamental technical difference between cable and DSL in that regard.

 
I see.

So it's unique to Cable Topology.

Still, Bell has never been bashful, nor lacking in resourcefulness at conjuring up new ways to soak us for SOMETHING, any chance that they get.

The one thing which I could safely say that I would 'trust' Bell to do would be THAT.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by Davesnothere:

The one thing which I could safely say that I would 'trust' Bell to do would be THAT.

At the very least, I would "trust" Bell to argue that they should get to bill both ways separately just because cablecos might get to do so... all in the name of regulatory symmetry!

If things get there, it will be important to remind the CRTC that some exceptions to symmetry are required due to some fundamental technical difference that may justify them... perfect symmetry between fundamentally dissimilar technologies is impossible.

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

It doesn't cost the cable companies more to carry upload on the coax. It is just more rationed via the low upload speeds.

And from the CMTS to the ISP, the networks would be symmetrical, and provisioned to handle the far greater download traffic , so the upload fits very comfortably in existing capacity.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia

said by jfmezei:

It doesn't cost the cable companies more to carry upload on the coax. It is just more rationed via the low upload speeds.

And from the CMTS to the ISP, the networks would be symmetrical, and provisioned to handle the far greater download traffic , so the upload fits very comfortably in existing capacity.

Of course it does, Rogers said so, they wouldn't lie would they?
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to jfmezei

said by jfmezei:

It doesn't cost the cable companies more to carry upload on the coax. It is just more rationed via the low upload speeds.

More upload capacity requires more upstream line cards in the CMTS and more upstream line cards per CMTS means fewer downstream line cards per CMTS and fewer subscribers served per CMTS... it is a double-whammy cost.

There is no such upstream vs downstream balancing act on xDSL where each port has dedicated upstream + downstream facilities for each line.

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

Surely, with DOCSIS3 line bonding, Cisco would be offering upstream line cards that can handle more capacity instead of getting cable companies to fill their CMTS cabinet with upstream line cards capable of only 10mbps total throughput ?


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by jfmezei:

Surely, with DOCSIS3 line bonding, Cisco would be offering upstream line cards that can handle more capacity instead of getting cable companies to fill their CMTS cabinet with upstream line cards capable of only 10mbps total throughput ?

Motorola CMTS have line cards with either 32 downstream channels or 32 upstream channels... at 10Mbps per upstream QAM, that would be 320Mbps/card. How many of each type of line card (32D and 32U) cablecos cram in each CMTS depends on their ratio of downstream vs upstream peak traffic on each CMTS.

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

But this is part of the last mile and would be "charged" to the last mile access rate. Not the capacity rate.


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by jfmezei:

But this is part of the last mile and would be "charged" to the last mile access rate. Not the capacity rate.

The number of CMTS and CMTS line cards you need to terminate a given amount of subscribers scales predominantly with capacity, not with access. The cablecos' node-splitting is driven by capacity, not access: the nodes used to support thousands of subscribers each access-wise in DOC1 days but are now typically smaller than 300 subscribers on DOC3 to enable much higher peak capacity.

I haven't seen the cablecos' sheets about what is billed as access and what is billed as capacity but everything related to node splits and CMTS is definitely capacity-driven.

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

The final replies from incumbents on their respective R&Vs are starting to come in.

This is Bell Canada's response.

(converted to PDF for your convenience)

downloadBell RV TRP ···ents.pdf 860617 bytes


n3k0

@teksavvy.com

Corrupted?

I can't view it



n3k0

@teksavvy.com

Scratch that. It works now. Sorry, JF.


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

Am reading Bell's submission.

This is one of the better Bell submissions in a long time. They really had to dig up stuff to counter the arguments that MTS and I made.

(I have to wonder how many "lateral taps" really exist in areas that were upgraded to FTTN since copper lengths were reduced and many such taps would no longer exist because they would have been further from homes than the new JWI.


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by jfmezei:

(I have to wonder how many "lateral taps" really exist in areas that were upgraded to FTTN since copper lengths were reduced and many such taps would no longer exist because they would have been further from homes than the new JWI.

In (sub)urban areas with boulevards and perpendicular streets, a trunk cable along a boulevard can cross quite a few city blocks/streets within the ~800m budget for Fibe25 and each street crossed is one more potential lateral bridge tap.


Ott_Cable

@teksavvy.com
reply to jfmezei

When they strap on more and more remotes on the JWI closer to the end users, wouldn't at some point in time the JWI is the only thing that is upstream to the line for the majority of cases and the whole "lateral taps" issue becomes moot?

The "Manual" that "The Company" constantly refered to reminds me of Dilbert: »dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-10-04/

Customer: Your product looks good, but you can't be out supplier unless your company is ISO 9000 certified.
PHB: So... You don't care how bad out internal processes are, as long as they's well documented and used consistently?
Customer: That's right.
PHB: Our documented process says I must now laugh in your face and double our price.

May be time to RTFM if it is available for future rebuttals?



LiesALLlies

@videotron.ca
reply to jfmezei

said by jfmezei:

Am reading Bell's submission.

This is one of the better Bell submissions in a long time. They really had to dig up stuff to counter the arguments that MTS and I made.

(I have to wonder how many "lateral taps" really exist in areas that were upgraded to FTTN since copper lengths were reduced and many such taps would no longer exist because they would have been further from homes than the new JWI.


Just reading it now.

I find it funny that Bell has to directly address you, while also saying what you submitted should be completely disregarded.

1A. First, the vast majority of the Companies' current access network consists of copper facilities that were deployed over the past 30 plus years with both lateral and end bridge taps to maximize the usage of copper cable pairs to provide voice services. Contrary to
Vaxination's claim, the removal of bridge taps did not start with the deployment of ADSL1 technology since it was unnecessary to remove bridge taps in order to provide the lower speed DSL services


This is 100% false. Bell even removed the bridge tap on me when I had Bell in the 90's. Although Bell is correct that they did "not remove them for legacy DSL" (that is to say as a standard procedure), they sure as hell removed them when people complained of substandard service.

When Bell had their own forum, this was quite visible. Even on this DSLr forum we've seen it done.

1B. Until recently,15 the Companies never had a practice in place to remove bridge taps and therefore, these bridge taps remained in the Companies' networks even as DSL services were provisioned. However, in order to provide increasingly higher and stable DSL speeds, it became necessary to remove bridge taps from the Companies' access facilities and thus a network conditioning program was launched in 2010.

Total Bullshit. Again, if one could get their hands on Bell's own forum from 2006-2008 you would see this isn't true. Even on this forum.

While it may not have been standard practice or part of the standard service, Bell sure as heck did this if people complained.

Summary:
-Bell's claim: Contrary to Vaxination's claim, the removal of bridge taps did not start with the deployment of ADSL1 technology since it was unnecessary to remove bridge taps in order to provide the lower speed DSL services.
True for the 1-meg service.
Untrue when they got into 3-meg and 5-meg services.

-Bells claim: Until recently,15 the Companies never had a practice in place to remove bridge taps and therefore, these bridge taps remained in the Companies' networks even as DSL services were provisioned.
True for 1-meg service. Even then back in about 1999 (+/-1 or 2 years) when DSL first became available and I complained, a guy climbed a pole to fix the bridge tap! And I saw this again around 2007.

So while they claim they have "no procedure" in place when provisioning legacy DSL, they sure as hell did it anyways. They had no choice in many areas. It was all party line remnants!

2. Although, in some neighborhoods the network can become damaged beyond repair and must be completely replaced (using a new design without bridge taps), this situation occurs rarely in the entire network.
Rarely? In my area something did happen to the cable that feeds the entire neighborhood. Bell had to do splices and soldering jobs on the cable. The VP I was in contact with then said the cable is beyond repair. Not much we can do, it all has to be replaced. So what did they do? They only removed bridge taps and performed what they called "cut dead ahead" on the squeaky wheels who complained.

Now, Bell used to have to report statistics to the CRTC on these failures up till about 2-3 years ago when Bell asked that it be stopped. The statistics had to show the people who called in for failures and how long it took Bell to repair the failures.

These stats used to also be available on BCE's corporate site. So when I looked up the month of the failure on my street while I was on the phone with the VP for the situation described above. It showed all was good. No failures and if there was a failure it was addressed within 2 working days.

I took offense to this lie so I brought it to the attention of the VP We chit-chatted a bit and he tells me, well, we don't report everything, Lets call your situation of a failed cable in your neighbourhood a statistical outlier thus not included in the Quality reports. I was floored.

So what Bell is stating here it pure BS.

Summery:
-It does not occur rarely.
-Bell petitioned the CRTC to remove Quality of Service reports (this can be found the the CRTC website).
-The CRTC approved to no longer require QoS reports and stats showing these failures and response time.
-Bell will leave a neighbourhood in disrepair, not address the issue, and remove bridge taps and "cut dead ahead" for only those who complain.
-The only thing "Rare" is Bell actually addressing the failures they describe in that paragraph they submitted.

Maybe JF would like to question why the CRTC has allowed these failures to no longer be reported? Maybe because they were made with faked data anyhow?

3. In regards to the picture Bell puts up with respect to JF's comments. This is true. But again, I have had this done for me twice. Plus we have seen in in Bell's forum pre-2010 and in the forums here.

In addition Bell states in this paragraph: network conditioning benefits existing customers as well as new customers. Network conditioning will also enable further speed upgrades which the Companies expect DSL technology will deliver in the years to come.

In plain english this means: yeah, ok. If we "condition" one person likely 3 or 4 streets will be conditioned (maybe 100 or more people in housing area. More in a condo area). But we will charge each and every person anyhow even though there are no bridge taps. We will just keep the money for future use.

If the CRTC gives them this, there should be a revolt by everyone directed squarely at the CRTC.

What they just said here is, "give us money for nothing".

So this is where I have left off... I'll read the rest once my blood pressure has come down.

JF, there are some things here you can, and should, throw right in the CRTC's face.

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

At the moment, the Bell R&V's record is closed. Should the Commission start an interrogatory, then there would be a way to place comments. Otherwise, there is no official way to pass comments back to the CRTC.


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 edit

said by jfmezei:

At the moment, the Bell R&V's record is closed. Should the Commission start an interrogatory, then there would be a way to place comments. Otherwise, there is no official way to pass comments back to the CRTC.

In other words - lying to an Administrative tribunal is ok when you have the last word.

A full page ad in the Globe R.O.B., entitled "Bell Lies" is a good unofficial way to get the issue in the CRTC's face.

Or maybe you can get Kady O'Malley to interview you for "The National"?


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia

said by MaynardKrebs:

In other words - lying to an Administrative tribunal is ok when you have the last word.

If caught, they simply "Misspoke", or they'll blame it on a low level staffer who made a mistake when writing the document.