Re: Was unlimited after hours suggested to CRTC for UBB?
accepting currentlty proposed prices sets a precedent that can't be undone.
It is not realistic to expect to be able to fight prices after you accepted them and after the CRTC formally accepted them.
If you accept them, it sets in concrete whatever formula BELL used to concuct those prices and Bell will always use that formula from now on. You can't go back and challenge something you accepted.
If you don't challenge them now, you won't be able to challenge them later.
Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if an organisation that flip flopped on whether it supports BelL's UBB would then start to flip flop on whether it accepts Bell's pricing.
accepting currentlty proposed prices sets a precedent that can't be undone.
It is not realistic to expect to be able to fight prices after you accepted them and after the CRTC formally accepted them.
If you accept them, it sets in concrete whatever formula BELL used to concuct those prices and Bell will always use that formula from now on. You can't go back and challenge something you accepted.
If you don't challenge them now, you won't be able to challenge them later.
+100
Don't kid yourself - Once a precedent is established, even at a wishy-washy organization like the CRTC, it'll take going to the Supreme Court (if an issue of law is involved) or getting the PMO's office involved (if you want a political resolution) to roll it back.
The odds of either happening: 1 in a trillion, but only on days when a life-extinction asteroid is about to strike the Earth. At all other times the odds are worse.
accepting currentlty proposed prices sets a precedent that can't be undone.
It is not realistic to expect to be able to fight prices after you accepted them and after the CRTC formally accepted them.
If you accept them, it sets in concrete whatever formula BELL used to concuct those prices and Bell will always use that formula from now on. You can't go back and challenge something you accepted.
If you don't challenge them now, you won't be able to challenge them later.
Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if an organisation that flip flopped on whether it supports BelL's UBB would then start to flip flop on whether it accepts Bell's pricing.
your professionalism is remarkable. Of course, if it had been from a non-sponsor of DSLR, such a post would have been moderated away quickly.
Look at UBB. Once the interim decision was made in favour of UBB, the long list of challenges has only resulted in prices going up to please Bell.
I have no idea what sort of legal cousel you guys have that is telling you it is easy to reverse a precedent at the CRTC. Looks like you drank the Bell Kool Aid if you really think this.
The time to challenge Bell's costs is NOW. If you accept the rates, how many of your 5mbps unlimited and 200 gig customers in ontario will get a nasty surprise when they have to pay overages after they exceed 25 gigs because they did not wish to pay the $170 install fee to get higher speed ?
Your own customers will switch to Bell to get higher speeds and NOT pay that $170 install fee.
If you don't have time to fight it, then either don't fight it, or ask for an extension. Formally accepting Bell's rates makes you a subsidiary of Bell Canada Enterprises and your forum should be folded into that of Bell Canada.
JF, there's nothing intelligent about what you're saying. why would we have drank the koolaid and deliberately ask for higher rates for ourselves?
I mean come on man. I guess what you're saying is that we actually want to put ourselves out of business? Is that really what you're saying?
If you feel so strongly about it then submit whatever the heck you want. that's the beauty of it. The CRTC will have all available options to do whatever they think will work best. I don't think they want to set themselves up for an other part seven.
You talk like we're endorsing what Bell submitted or something. Are you even reading what we're submitting to the CRTC. It really doesn't seem like you are. Nowhere did it say that we like those rates.
It's a few times now that you suggest that we should just not submit anything. Is that what you'd like for us to do? that would sure be way cheaper, I can tell you that. Are you saying that we'll all be better off by having you submit for everybody and that that will result in a better everything for everybody?
More to the point though, what's your damn hard on man? aren't you submitting your own stuff? why do you care what we're doing, why are you so damned critical about us more then anybody else. you're more critical about us then you are about Bell. what's your problem man? we're doing what we think is best... you do what you think is best... it's no secret that we don't agree on things. you haven't heard me say that I don't agree with the way your going about your stuff. I'm only critical about the things you say about us that I know aren't true and as well that you seem to attack us for no good reason. I seriously don't get it man. what have we done to deserve this?
your professionalism is remarkable. Of course, if it had been from a non-sponsor of DSLR, such a post would have been moderated away quickly.
Look at UBB. Once the interim decision was made in favour of UBB, the long list of challenges has only resulted in prices going up to please Bell.
I have no idea what sort of legal cousel you guys have that is telling you it is easy to reverse a precedent at the CRTC. Looks like you drank the Bell Kool Aid if you really think this.
The time to challenge Bell's costs is NOW. If you accept the rates, how many of your 5mbps unlimited and 200 gig customers in ontario will get a nasty surprise when they have to pay overages after they exceed 25 gigs because they did not wish to pay the $170 install fee to get higher speed ?
Your own customers will switch to Bell to get higher speeds and NOT pay that $170 install fee.
If you don't have time to fight it, then either don't fight it, or ask for an extension. Formally accepting Bell's rates makes you a subsidiary of Bell Canada Enterprises and your forum should be folded into that of Bell Canada.
I was going to reply but I won't bother. I can't understand why any ISP would think that Bell's proposed tariffs would make them more competitive than the current situation.
Now you're just being plain silly now.You must've drank too much holy water at church yesterday,I've actually read the filings of ALL parties including teksavvy's and I've found nothing that says that they (teksavvy) are bending to bell,ubb,etc...You seem to make it look like the battle is a you vs the CRTC & Bell fight and not a ISP's vs CRTC & bell fight.You need to look at the bigger picture here,we are at a checkmate that we are TRYING to avoid (UBB,Bell's Speed Matching tarrifs).There IS reasonable UBB(Yes it does exhist,don't say it doesn't.) we just got to propose it if Bell wants their UBB so bad.Reasonable UBB is ok,Bell's Version of UBB is not,we need to pitch that if ultimitely the CRTC is hamstrung on UBB.That's my two cents
The only reasonable UBB I've ever personally encountered has been TSIs UBB.
If Bell were the indie and TSI were the incumbent, I'd go along with their methods. A multi-month rolling cap with generous usage allowances would've been the sanest thing to petition for.
Since Bell wanted symmetry, they should be forced to mirror TSIs UBB scheme not the other way around.
The only reasonable UBB I've ever personally encountered has been TSIs UBB.
If Bell were the indie and TSI were the incumbent, I'd go along with their methods. A multi-month rolling cap with generous usage allowances would've been the sanest thing to petition for.
Since Bell wanted symmetry, they should be forced to mirror TSI's UBB scheme, not the other way around.
Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if an organisation that flip flopped on whether it supports BelL's UBB would then start to flip flop on whether it accepts Bell's pricing.
I dont think they would decide to drive away all of their income.
·
·
·
·