| |
aaah to aaah
Anon
2012-Nov-13 12:11 pm
to aaah
Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against RogersIn case anyone is trying to find what Rogers submitted to the CRTC that got this going, it can be found here: » www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/ ··· /r28.htm(#'s 28, 29, & 30) |
|
|
 Teddy Boomk kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
3 edits |
Here are the proposed prices from 28: End-User charge per modem – 0.5 Mbps Service**
End-User charge per modem – 0.5 Mbps Service** $11.97
End-User charge per modem – 3 Mbps Service** $12.31
End-User charge per modem – 6 Mbps Service $12.31
End-User charge per modem – 18 Mbps Service $14.25
End-User charge per modem – 25 Mbps Service $21.00
End-User charge per modem – 28 Mbps Service $19.06
End-User charge per modem – 32 Mbps Service $21.00
End-User charge per modem – 35 Mbps Service $21.68
End-User charge per modem – 45 Mbps Service $22.35
End-User charge per modem – 75 Mbps Service $22.69
End-User charge per modem – 150 Mbps Service $22.69 Strange.... Aha, their "rationale" for it: With regard to monthly access rates (without usage), Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-703 (TRP 2011-703) approved a rate of $21.00 for monthly access for 25 Mbps speed. However, rates for 35, 45 and 150 Mbps speeds were not set in that Decision. That's almost funny. They are saying that because Express is as good as Extreme used to be, now TPIAs should pay the Extreme price for everything. |
|
| |
bt
Member
2012-Nov-13 1:17 pm
said by Teddy Boom:Aha, their "rationale" for it: With regard to monthly access rates (without usage), Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-703 (TRP 2011-703) approved a rate of $21.00 for monthly access for 25 Mbps speed. However, rates for 35, 45 and 150 Mbps speeds were not set in that Decision. That's almost funny.. Nor were there rates set for speeds of 6, 18, 28, 32, 75 or 150. But those respectively match the pricing for 3, 10, 15, 25 and 50. And I was pretty much right in my speculation that Rogers is trying to pass these off as new tiers on the wholesale side, as compared to upgrades to existing tiers on the retail side. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-13 4:37 pm
Dunno if this is good or not, but CRTC just issued a new letter (per JF):
#CRTC issues a letter about Rogers new tariffs: comments limited to pricing for new speeds due Nov 20th. Alleged previous letter not seen. |
|
| |
Lol what? Why does jf hate DSLR? Is there some drama I missed? |
|
 elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
said by geokilla:Lol what? Why does jf hate DSLR? Is there some drama I missed?
He claims they were blocking his IP so he didn't come back after the crash. He still lurks here. |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca |
to resa1983
said by resa1983:#CRTC issues a letter about Rogers new tariffs
I don't do the twitter. Mind asking him if he can upload it or forward you a copy, please. said by resa1983:comments limited to pricing for new speeds due Nov 20th.
Limit to price? That makes it easy... Free. Just like Rogers own customers. However, if I'm not mistaken (I only gave it the fast once over) 2010-632, which I linked to on page 1 of this topic, appears to give the cable-co's wiggle room as opposed to the ilecs (dsl). Would have to re-read it (which doesn't really interest me), but something about substantially more investment required on the cable-co's end versus the telco's. So Maybe Rogers does have a point. And maybe this is why CNOC chose to ignore this policy in their filing. Dunno... But this does give Rogers undue preference. |
|
|
Teddy Boomk kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON |
to resa1983
said by resa1983:#CRTC issues a letter about Rogers new tariffs: comments limited to pricing for new speeds due Nov 20th. Alleged previous letter not seen. I have no idea what that means. Alleged previous letter? Only talk about pricing, but not availability? |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
to hm
I asked jf for the latest filing.
I assume crtc is attempting to separate tariff notice price issues from speed enforcement issues, but that doesn't work due to rogers thinking they can upgrade speeds and call it a new tier and request more money for it. This entire speed matching issue is because of the 'new tiers' bullshit rogers is pulling. |
|
| |
to Teddy Boom
said by Teddy Boom:Aha, their "rationale" for it: With regard to monthly access rates (without usage), Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-703 (TRP 2011-703) approved a rate of $21.00 for monthly access for 25 Mbps speed. However, rates for 35, 45 and 150 Mbps speeds were not set in that Decision. That's almost funny. They are saying that because Express is as good as Extreme used to be, now TPIAs should pay the Extreme price for everything. Yup. The other week we touched on upcoming events at the CRTC. See: » Re: The end of ####?That's why here I stated they are playing a game: » Re: CNOC Files w/ CRTC Against RogersThis very regulatory policy, 2011-703, is up for review starting some time this year and into 2013. The whole thing should be trashed by the CRTC since Rogers is gaming the system and this will leave the resellers in limbo till who knows when (sometime in 2013). So Rogers is saying: A) Accept it, pay, and you have less than a month to move everything to aggregated. Oh and BTW, looks like you will have to send a notice out to all your customers that their modems may no longer be any good along with a price hike. B) Do nothing, and... well, you know, your customers will leave you since we will offer double the speed for less cost. Meanwhile the CRTC & Rogers already knows 2011-703 is going to be dealt with and costing is going to be revealed and likely lowered (CRTC chair even stated costing will be challenged). What JF wrote is bang on. For someone just jumping into it now it's a learning curve to follow. Even for people who followed all this like some of us here, it takes you for a loop. This is nothing less than Rogers gaming the system and maybe trying to get a foot hold for the Xmas rush (if that exists with internet). It's pretty evil. |
|
 dillyhammerSTART me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON |
said by aaah :It's pretty evil.
Extremely so. But it's not Rogers that's the problem. They're just doing whatever any evil empire would do - the fuckers. The problem is the CRTC has spent the last decade and more pandering to the evil, encouraging it, turning a blind eye to it, aiding and abetting the camp as it were and whoring themselves out at the expense of consumers. The regulatory environment is such that Rogers acts like it does fully expecting to get away with it. It is nice to see CNOC finally growing a pair. CNOC needs to grow some horns and be a little evil themselves. Frankly, I think they should have both Rogers and Bell on the carpet every time someone wearing blue or red sneezes. Mike |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
to aaah
So, trying to figure out timeline here, still haven't heard back from JF
Nov 2: Teksavvy submitted inquiry as to when they'll get the new speeds.
Nov 7: Rogers files tariffs
Nov 8: Rogers responds stating agg POI ISPs can have speed increases for a higher price, and non-agg ISPs are out of luck for faster speeds.
Nov 8: CNOC files request to enforce speedmatching.
Nov 9: CRTC responds with file-by dates for speedmatching enforcement
Nov 16: Rogers must respond to speedmatching enforcement request; all other comments must be in as well
Nov 20?: Response by CNOC/Consumers to Rogers's tariff notice on PRICING ONLY
Nov 23: CNOC response to Rogers/other comments must be in on the speedmatching
Looks like Tariff info will be in before the speedmatching decision, so they'll use that to figure out speedmatching nonsense.. Is that right, or am I screwing up dates?
EDIT: Fixing from a comment tumble made in IRC. |
|
 roccaStart.ca
Premium Member
join:2008-11-16
London, ON |
to dillyhammer
said by dillyhammer:CNOC needs to grow some horns and be a little evil themselves Horns, yes - the transparency proceeding showed the success of that and there is plenty more to come. Evil, no - the reason that CNOC has earned credibility with the Commission is because it is a straight-shooter. If we started playing evil that would disappear quickly. |
|
| |
to dillyhammer
said by dillyhammer:The problem is the CRTC has spent the last decade and more pandering to the evil, encouraging it, turning a blind eye to it, aiding and abetting the camp as it were and whoring themselves out at the expense of consumers. The regulatory environment is such that Rogers acts like it does fully expecting to get away with it.
The CRTC is still whoring themselves out like cheap prostitutes on the take. It never stopped. They could make the Charbonneau commission blush. » All expenses paid for hockey night to CRTC guy by BellNothing has changed. So far I only see some lip service from some chair who smiles a lot and the odd thing here n there to say hey "We are pro consumer/citizen like our mandate says we are". I don't fall for all this BS marketing hype Geist and others are stating about how it a new and different CRTC. Nor should you. said by BACONATOR26:said by HiVolt:I'm surprised JF is still doing this...
He apparently got nothing else to do except attend ISP and regulatory events or ride his bike to Timbuktu. @mlerner, is this the rag on JF topic? Why don't you and the very few others create an, "I'm jealous of JF" topic and be done with it? Some of you sound like little jilted girlfriends. No offense intended, but he is still speaking for many people, does a great job, and steps up to the job. Matter of fact I'll create the topic for you people (if the mod allows it to show) and you can all whine in there. k? |
|
