  sm5w2
join:2004-10-13
St Thomas, ON | So maybe I should keep my legacy uncapped sympatico service? I guess the $65/month I pay for my 7-meg sympatico HSE legacy un-capped service will be a real deal once the independents have their new retail rate structures ironed out? | |
|
 | | | Re: So maybe I should keep my legacy uncapped sympatico service? This is like Bank of America saying they now need to charge $5/month on their debit cards to make up for all of those government regulations. | |
|
| |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: So maybe I should keep my legacy uncapped sympatico service? Pretty much. They need to make up their record profits because the big, bad government is now making them have remotely-consumer-friendly rules! Oh no! | |
|
| | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: So maybe I should keep my legacy uncapped sympatico service? said by Van:Pretty much. They need to make up their record profits because the big, bad government is now making them have remotely-consumer-friendly rules! Oh no!
When the gov't gets in to the rate setting business, you take the bad with the good. The independent ISPs got what they wanted - no UBB. But they got rates they don't like. Too bad. They wanted the gov't to force the incumbents to sell them wholesale access at a loss. They didn't pull that little feat off.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml
| |
|
| | | |  The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | Re: So maybe I should keep my legacy uncapped sympatico service? You have been following these events in Canada right? Because this comment really shows your ignorance. Sorry, but I can't agree with you this time. These IISP's did not go to the CRTC because they wanted Bell sell wholesale access at a loss; it was because Bell was trying to price gouge. Have you even read any of the submissions by Bell? I mean, what about following the Teksavvy forums? Please don't make comments about something that you haven't obviously followed or kept tabs on. Sigh.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: So maybe I should keep my legacy uncapped sympatico service? Tails, you can see that T_Jefferson is very right wing. In T_Jefferson's world, the only thing the government can do that would make him happy is to let businesses rule the world, and privatize all government functions. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON | Who says they were selling at loss before? They in fact are making a good profit with the CURRENT rates. Bell says it will charge over $2000 per 100Mbit whereas Rogers says a bit over $1000 for the same thing.... who's scamming who? It can't really cost Bell 2x as much to provide transit over their network compared to Rogers. Even Rogers is way too high as a big ISP in Manitoba stated around $240 I believe per 100Mbit.
Fact is the incumbents were allowed to come up with any number without any audit to deem it fair | |
|
| | | | Jurjen
join:2010-08-18
Montreal, QC Reviews:
 ·Acanac
 ·Bell Fibe
| Excuse me? The IISPs prefered to keep the current deal, just Bell didn't want to, because it costed them to much costumers.
So the loop fee went down a bit, but the access fees were risen 1300%!!!! How can a telco defend such fees? And how can a government organization allow such a rise? | |
|
| | | | | | Your ignorance is showing. | |
|
| | | No matter what you have to get rid of your grandfathered account with sympatico. Like i said before they put you on the slow line on purpose. Go with Teksavvy or use the 8/1 business package with Rogers. | |
|
| Jurjen
join:2010-08-18
Montreal, QC | You'll still be able to get a 6Mbit package for almost half that price, uncapped. | |
|
| | Much higher rates It will put some of the third party isp's out of business that or they'll oversubcribe their lines to the point where everyone will quit because of slow speeds packet loss and sky high pings. | |
|
| | No surprise..... Hey, you want to be able to pay one price to fill up your car an unlimited amount every month? Better expect to pay more for that privilege. | |
|
| | | Re: No surprise..... You show a fundamental misunderstanding of how much a gigabyte costs to deliver. Oil is a scarce resource whose price is set by wholesalers on a world market.
It costs less than 1 cent for a gig to be delivered to a customer.
Do your research next time please. | |
|
| | | | Re: No surprise..... Look I know bits does not equal gasoline, but that doesn't get around the fundamental infrastructure costs with delivering more bits. Kind of like filling stations having to install more pumps to meet unlimited demand. | |
|
| | | | | Re: No surprise..... You are attempting to state that there is a bandwidth crisis and thus they wont be able to serve the customer's needs and thus will have to install more equipment to meet those needs.
The above is not true and if it was, it can be accomplished through regular updates at the current price points (or even less) considering that 1.) Prices for equipment / capacity are constantly falling 2.) They were able to do it after the last upgrade which probably cost a lot more and has probably already pretty much been fully depreciated or seen 100+% return on investment. | |
|
| | | Uh, right. Because data is just like gasoline. | |
|
| |  jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | Re: No surprise..... both are pretty much a commodity but one has a more efficient marketplace. | |
|
| | | | | Re: No surprise..... Data is free. A gallon of gas is an actual thing. Gas has a more efficient marketplace because there's competition.
In both cases the consumer pays the distribution cost.
Cost of gasoline in my tank: (price of unit * quantity) + (distribution cost per unit * quantity)
Cost of data to my house: (distribution cost per unit * quantity)
It's people who equate data with an actual thing that are dangerous. They're the ones that say, "Well, Netflix is PREMIUM unleaded so you pay more". | |
|
| | | | | | Re: No surprise..... said by nothing00:Data is free. A gallon of gas is an actual thing. Gas has a more efficient marketplace because there's competition.
In both cases the consumer pays the distribution cost.
Cost of gasoline in my tank: (price of unit * quantity) + (distribution cost per unit * quantity)
Cost of data to my house: (distribution cost per unit * quantity)
It's people who equate data with an actual thing that are dangerous. They're the ones that say, "Well, Netflix is PREMIUM unleaded so you pay more".
but if data is free, then why are you paying for it? oh right, it's not free | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: No surprise..... Either your an idiot or you fully understand his point and are just trolling.
Which is it? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: No surprise..... said by Skippy25:Either your an idiot or you fully understand his point and are just trolling.
Which is it?
he's arguing it's not like gas because it's not limited.... that simply doesn't make it free...... similarly, the price of gas isn't based solely on the cost of crude oil.
@ your other point, there may not be a crisis per say, but it's been shown time and time again that the current equipment is starting to fall behind and hence upgrades are needed. That's not even arguable.
the 2nd part of your argument is that the equipment based on price/capacity is falling. That may be true, but that's an invalid metric.
I still have to pay $70 for a docsis 3 modem whether i get 100 mbps down or 50 mbps down. My capital outlay does not vary based on the speeds pertaining to the equipment. However, the equipment cannot support all users @ 100mpbs. Combine that with more households using the system than the last time and more infrastructure costs (more head ends (dslams or cmts) to feed the customers (installation, maintiance, etc). Combine that again with the fact that the equipment cannot keep up with demand as long as the last set did, therefore it has to be amortized over a shorter life span increasing costs.
Any idea what a commercial grade 24 port DSLAM costs? $10,000. Assuming a 5 year life span, that's $8 per month per customer solely for the dslam. factor in bandwidth costs, peering costs, support staff, maintenance staff, accounting staff, outside plant, modems,
CMTS can easily be $100,000 + plus the rest of that although they can handle more users. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: No surprise..... Part of the fees you pay each month are supposed to go to the upgrade of the infrastructure like in the rest of the world. Unfortunately in Canada they go into people's pocket for brand new cars, trips and vacations instead. | |
|
| | | | | | | tyciol
join:2007-01-29
Richmond Hill, ON | Prairie, data is something inherently free unless it is limited by the people who create it.
The data on YouTube, for example, is provided free to us by Google.
Rogers is not selling us YouTube, they do not own it. They are being paid to transport the data, that is all.
Some people do charge for data. For example, the software updates we get from antivirus programs that come packaged with Rogers, that's actual data they sell us. Netflix charges for data, as does Crunchyroll, as to people who sell E-books.
Rogers is a conveyance service, they are being paid to link us up with other web sites, to upload and download from them. So no, they are not selling the data, they are selling the usage of their hardware to convey that data. Except for the data they own (or have agreements to distribute, aka our Antivirus) they are not charging for the actual data content because they can't.
The problem here is that they're charging based on the size of the data as opposed to the amount it actually costs to send it.
If they were gauging us in a competetive marketplace, people could compete and charge more realistic rates. But since they are anti-competetive, they can't. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No surprise..... said by tyciol:Prairie, data is something inherently free unless it is limited by the people who create it.
The data on YouTube, for example, is provided free to us by Google.
Rogers is not selling us YouTube, they do not own it. They are being paid to transport the data, that is all.
Some people do charge for data. For example, the software updates we get from antivirus programs that come packaged with Rogers, that's actual data they sell us. Netflix charges for data, as does Crunchyroll, as to people who sell E-books.
Rogers is a conveyance service, they are being paid to link us up with other web sites, to upload and download from them. So no, they are not selling the data, they are selling the usage of their hardware to convey that data. Except for the data they own (or have agreements to distribute, aka our Antivirus) they are not charging for the actual data content because they can't.
The problem here is that they're charging based on the size of the data as opposed to the amount it actually costs to send it.
If they were gauging us in a competetive marketplace, people could compete and charge more realistic rates. But since they are anti-competetive, they can't.
free to the end user does not make it free! major misconception.
data has a cost. The only reason youtube is free to the end user is because someone else is paying for the bandwidth, servers, electricity, staff. b) computer data does not exist without a server. Someone has to create and maintain that server. It costs money to do so. allowing people to access it at no charge does not make it inherently free.
You are 100% correct in that it's a convince service. They are providing a product that you would like to purchase in the location you would like to use it. They just happen to have the equipment to make it do so. Maintaining that equipment isn't free.
where you make your mistake is that you assume that no matter how much data they transfer to and from their network, their costs are the same. They are not | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| said by nothing00:Data is free. A gallon of gas is an actual thing. Gas has a more efficient marketplace because there's competition.
In both cases the consumer pays the distribution cost.
Cost of gasoline in my tank: (price of unit * quantity) + (distribution cost per unit * quantity)
Cost of data to my house: (distribution cost per unit * quantity)
It's people who equate data with an actual thing that are dangerous. They're the ones that say, "Well, Netflix is PREMIUM unleaded so you pay more".
actually data ISN'T free. You have the cost of the electricity to generate that packet. There's the costs for each routers electricity to transit that hop and then the power required to get that data packet through your isp network back to you. There's people required to maintain all of this. Data most assuredly is NOT free by any means at all. I'm not even getting into the costs of procurement and maintenance of the infrastructure that generates and transits that packet.
--
Carpe Ductum - "Grab the Tape"
www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: No surprise..... it costs them 1 cent to deliver a gig of bandwidth. that's the facts. | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: No surprise..... said by phphreak:it costs them 1 cent to deliver a gig of bandwidth. that's the facts.
care to show a copy of those facts? It most assuredly costs more than 1 cent to power a crs-1 which is what class of routers many large isps have at their cores. That doesn't include the related infrastructure costs. It's simply a matter of logic that while packets aren't expensive..they most assuredly aren't free. it is simply ignorance or willfull stupidity to suggest otherwise. I've worked at a couple of isp's. packets most assuredly aren't free...if i can figure this out working for a local isp...it's isn't hard to figure out the costs for a much larger place.
--
Carpe Ductum - "Grab the Tape"
www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: No surprise..... I'm sure your google search validated these facts....what?... you didn't do one yet....why not?
"Wired ISPs have large fixed costs of building and maintaining their last mile network of residential cable and fiber. The ISPs’ costs, however, to deliver a marginal gigabyte, which is about an hour of viewing, from one of our regional interchange points over their last mile wired network to the consumer is less than a penny, and falling, so there is no reason that pay-per-gigabyte is economically necessary. Moreover, at $1 per gigabyte over wired networks, it would be grossly overpriced."
Do you honestly believe that this is about costs spiralling out of control due to heavy downloaders? These anti-downloading companies are concerned that they will lose their cable subscriber cash cows to unlimited internet downloading. This is why these companies are doing streaming (capped of course) models via xbox, their own sites, hbo to go, etc.... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Are you suggesting that the infrastructure gets replaced every time a gig is downloaded????? Get real. If Bell installs a router it will sit there until it fails. Perhaps it sits there for 10 years. How many gigs of data can be downloaded in 10 years? Multiply that by the price they charge per gigabyte - which of course will increase on a regular basis for no reason whatsoever other than to make some exec rich. Now subtract the cost of hydro (negligible), maintenence (negligible & decreasing), support (negligible & decreasing) etc. etc. The bottom line is that Bell is going to make a crapstorm of cash for very little initial investment. | |
|
| | |  andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 | Doesnt matter how you slice it 22k for a gigE is just plain idiotic | |
|
| | | | Like how it's very flammable and puts out greenhouse gases, right? | |
|
| | | said by JasonOD :Hey, you want to be able to pay one price to fill up your car an unlimited amount every month? Better expect to pay more for that privilege.
So, bits are from ancient forests, trapped fro millions of years underground - very rare and hard to 'mine'? Is that the gist of it?
Idiot. | |
|
 TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine SixPremium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:3
·TekSavvy Cable
1 edit | The Time Has Come Maybe its time for The Canadian Network Operator’s Consortium (CNOC) »www.cnoc.ca/pages/membership_list to look into pooling resources and building a new common carrier infrastructure so that the large greedy incumbent machine RSVTB can be bypassed, directly serving CNOC centric interests and enriching the Canadian broadband fabric nation wide.
It is clear teleco-cableco monopolist control of the last mile is the achielles heel that needs to be worked around. Canadians are tired of having the slowest and most expensive internet services on the entire planet. Change is needed now, today.
If the last mile infrastructure can't be taken away from RSVTB then we ignore them. Then plan and legislate and engineer Canada's own third mile and pull the entire country out of the cesspit of broadband despair. Even if it means doing it one municipality at a time.
Without a doubt RSVTB would seek to block any such movement in an attempt to mire such an endeavour via the courts by imposing restrictions and regulations via their CRTC puppetry much like similar situations in the US where incumbents have also pulled such shenanigans. We can't allow this to continue. This is a war that needs to be fought from the ground up. We are Canadians and We want our internets on our terms, and we want it today. Its time to build our own third mile!
If you can't occupy it, then BUILD A BETTER ONE!
--
You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect.
-Motorola SB6120-1.0.6.1 + Netgear RangeMax WNDR3700v1 + Dupont POI + eXtreme Cable Pr0
| |
|
| MrShag
join:2006-07-09
Hamilton, ON | Re: The Time Has Come +10 Insightful and awesome | |
|
|  EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada
 ·voip.ms
| There are those that argue the initial last mile buildout was on the taxpayers' dime. I know that copper has had free access through my yard for the last 50 years.
Perhaps the last mile does not belong to those corporations that say it's theirs.
--
~ Project Hope ~ | |
|
| Reviews:
·voip.ms
| While I do agree that building a "third option" for last mile access is the best way to undercut the RSVTB monster the costs in doing so, in terms of capital equipment, installation of said equipment and its maintenance is a cost that even CNOC hasn't costed out because none of them have ever undertaken such a large project.
Unfortunately with size comes the ability to lower costs of installation and maintenance of infrastructure by sheer market dominance.
What I would have rather seen is that Bell and Rogers actually be forced to open their books fully to the CRTC to show what those costs actually were. I'm willing to wager that there was (and is) still more than enough gravy in their numbers to drown them in it like the greedy pigs that they are 
NefCanuck | |
|
| | Personal bankruptcies will skyrocket! With Canada slipping back into recession, falling home values and rising unemployment and now this from Bell and Rogers all of this means personal bankruptcies in Canada will go through the roof. | |
|
| | | Re: Personal bankruptcies will skyrocket! WTF are you talking about? Canada is one of the few markets that are actually holding its own. Were no where NEAR a recession. | |
|
| | The size of the pipe just changed to an itsy-bitsy eyedropper. | |
|
Jurjen
join:2010-08-18
Montreal, QC | Un-occupy Bell? So we should start a demonstration like "un-occupy Bell". Start a massive campaign to cancel your Bell subscriptions and jump ship to an indie. | |
|
| | Comedy Gold This is hilarious. You can get a direct 100 mbps fiber to your home for $2000/month, but ISPs have to pay more than that for transit. This is essentially a 1000% markup over reasonable prices. | |
|
| | | Re: Comedy Gold Since the Commission already allowed the ILECs a premium for their FTTN service, and the FTTN service includes everything between the customer's house and the CO, that portion of the access network should be paid for by fully compensatory rates charged on a per user basis.
The $2300/month ($23.00/mbps) per 100 mbps chunk of capacity is is to compensate the ILEC for its metro aggregation and backhaul. The regional transport between cities is less costly than the metro transport, and arguably competitively available.
You can safely assume then that the majority of that $2300/month per 100 mbps chunk is metro.
Bell has a tariff rate at RETAIL for a metro OC3 (155mbps) at $1500.00/month ($9.60/mbps). Surely, metro Ethernet transport is far less costly than metro SONET transport, yet somehow Bell has perverted the cost studies and hoodwinked the CRTC into believing that their shiny new metro Ethernet transport network, with all the efficiencies gained by newer technology costs MORE than their old SONET network.
This doesn't pass the smell test. Bell's own IPTV offering has a minimum of a 6mbps stream 7x24 to each household (who ever shuts off their set top box?). By their pricing, this should be costing them just $132.00/month in transport. Yes, I realize that IPTV is multicast, but in a 500 channel universe with VoD, how much will that really matter as time goes on.
I'm happy to build out fiber to each CO in my city and pick up the DSL traffic there if Bell and the CRTC thinks that $2300 per 100 mbps of traffic is a reasonable cost.
Unfortunately, they won't hand me the traffic at the CO, because they want to keep their excuse for charging $2300 per 100 mbps chunk - they know how profitable THAT is.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net | |
|
| | jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Re: Comedy Gold Mr Spnning, you are making an assumption on what that $2213 covers.
From what I have been told, it covers transport from the DSLAM to the "AHSSPI port". (Remember that Bell had argued that increased usage also forces it to attach more fibre between DSLAM and CO)
So this isn't as simple as a point to point ethernet link, it is a one to many service, where the "many" reaches millions of people.
However, no matter how widespread Bell's equipment is, at the end of the day, what counts is how much equipment stands between he POI and any one DSLAM (switches, routers etc).
Someone needs to remove the "#" key from bell Canada's keyboards so that we can judge those costs. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Comedy Gold I think if the # was removed, we'd know exactly how they're playing their game.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net | |
|
| | Lowest price should have been used The CRTC made a grave error.
Circuit pricing should have been set at the lowest price reported by any incumbent for a 1GigE.
If Bell can make money selling a 1GigE standalone to anyone (a bank, an insurance company, a post-editing shop, etc...) for $1400/month, then they sure as hell can still make money selling a 1GigE to an indie ISP.
The price of the circuit should NOT depend on who is using it or for what purpose.
Furthermore, the $1400 (or whatever the floor price was) should have been uniformly applied to all incumbents.
The CRTC's mandate is not as a cheerleading squad for incumbents, though it usually seems that it is. | |
|
| | | Re: Lowest price should have been used >Furthermore, the $1400 (or whatever the floor price was) should have been uniformly applied to all incumbents.
Those cost studies should have been treated for RFQ. 
CRTC should say guys, company X can provide such a service for $Y. If you can't provide a link cheaper than that, why don't you ask company X to do that for you.
Problem solved. | |
|
| | | | Re: Lowest price should have been used Exactly!! | |
|
TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine SixPremium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:3 | If you can't occupy it, then build a better one. The Goose needs to lay the golden mile.
 | |
|
| | internet rogers and bell MUST go. we are all fed up with these two greedy pigs gouging us. we pay enough for rent and food and other necessities. the internet SHOULD be free. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !! ROGERS AND BELL MUST GO !!!!! | |
|
sm5w2
join:2004-10-13
St Thomas, ON | Spin off GAS into it's own monopoly-regulated company The answer is simple.
Spin off Bell's monopoly GAS into a CRTC-regulated monopoly company where it's transit tariffs and rates are set and equal for all providers. Why has this never been proposed to the CRTC? | |
|
| | | Re: Spin off GAS into it's own monopoly-regulated company Because the CRTC is out for Bell and Rogers' best interests not the consumer's. | |
|
| | | | Re: Spin off GAS into it's own monopoly-regulated company said by ChucksTruck :Because the CRTC is out for Bell and Rogers' best interests not the consumer's.
But, his 'idea' is just more regulation.
I think a previous idea or concept of 'freeing up ownership of the infrastructure' is way better. End the monopoly. Either have all the providers share in the infrastructure or introduce a new one.
Disband the CRTC and acknowledge how it was serving the monopoly's interest.
Canadians have been complacent and weak and the Government, Rogers, Bell et al. must be laughing their heads off.
What does 'RSVTB' mean? I know TPTB means the powers that be but I think talking about how Canadians are so tolerant of being gouged and controlled by these monopoly companies and the Government enabling this should be the issue. THERE IS NO COMPETITION and people seem willing to just allow it. End the status quo of the infrastructure being controlled by just the few. There is no reason for it anymore. | |
|
|
|
·