MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
2 edits | reply to freejazz_RdJ
Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC
said by freejazz_RdJ  :Ideally, the most efficient way of getting everybody better broadband is to offer either a passive or an active wholesaler entity that allows access to cable, telco and indie providers on equal terms, but that wouldn't work so well. It would duplicate many features already provided by existing networks, incumbent (Rogers, Bell, Telus, Shaw) and competitive (Atria and the incumbents out-of-territory CLEC operations) likely at a high cost to taxpayers or consumers, depending on how it's built and run. Plus if the telcos and cablecos resist using it, the cost per subscriber to would skyrocket if less than 25-40% of households buy in. And the seizure of the incumbent telco and cable networks won't happen... the chilling effect on investment and the losses incurred by investors (market cap of telco/cable in Canada is probably what, $80B?) would not be politically or economically sound. There is plenty of precedent for *forced* mergers, albeit under slightly different circumstances.
Healthy banks are pressured by governments, in North America and elsewhere, to takeover unhealthy banks for the stability of the banking system and the alleged ultimate benefit to all the populace (lest the failure lead to net public detriment).
One could argue that the current state of the monopolistic/oligopolistic operations of the outside wiring for telecommunications is a net public detriment.
Strictly from a shareholder valuation perspective, the division of the telco/cableco's into one merged utility and numerous service providers would, in my view, be a net positive for shareholders. Since corporations, by definition and numerous court rulings, are to be operated to maximize the benefit for shareholders (not customers), it only makes sense to push down this path. It may also provide governments with the smokescreen they require to pressure and/or legislate.
Now if each Teksavvy customer were required to purchase one common share of Bell, registered in their own name, and attend the Bell annual meeting to force just such a split-up......... |
|
An_Onymous
@teksavvy.com
| reply to jfmezei
>In 484, they wrote that Bell complied with matching speeds and that its decision was in line with policy directives on competition etc. They wrote that because they had to, but they knew full well that both were false.
Is that going to be useful in the appeal court showing that CRTC did not do their fact finding and rushing to a decision?
Something like this helps to discredit the CRTC and show they didn't do their homework.
Should add a hard copy of ad of Bell's internet offering to the evidence. |
|
ClickMonster
join:2009-06-15
Senneville, QC
| reply to jfmezei
Thanks for posting this jfm.
As mentioned before, as most of this is redacted, it is of little use. However, a couple of things caught my eye ..
page 10: Bell refused to answer the question regarding whether or not service charges had been taken into account ... INAL but seems to me this would have provided evidence to substantiate or refute the "double dipping" allegation.
page 22: Bell seem to state that one of the aims/effects of UBB is to reduce competition.
Regarding uncorrelated usage: If Bell know the number that the session originates from; they know the domain name the session is asking to connect to and they know which domain name should be associated with that number ... why can't they just disallow non-valid combinations of phone number / domain name?
Hey Presto! No uncorrelated usage??? |
|
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·Videotron
| said by ClickMonster :Regarding uncorrelated usage: If Bell know the number that the session originates from; they know the domain name the session is asking to connect to and they know which domain name should be associated with that number ... why can't they just disallow non-valid combinations of phone number / domain name? Hey Presto! No uncorrelated usage??? Bell included that scenario in the document, pretty much saying "there is no point in going through the trouble of doing this is ISPs simply didn't authenticate sessions they should not be authenticating"
One thing I am wondering about here: do ISPs even get the circuit number information during authentication requests to actually match it with install-time circuit number? |
|
Dunno
@videotron.ca
| reply to ClickMonster
said by ClickMonster :Regarding uncorrelated usage: If Bell know the number that the session originates from; they know the domain name the session is asking to connect to and they know which domain name should be associated with that number ... why can't they just disallow non-valid combinations of phone number / domain name? Hey Presto! No uncorrelated usage??? So in other words you are saying Bell should apply its' own privacy policies unto the wholesalers and unto end-users who are not their own customers in order to track them.
I am surprised Bell has not come out and said their privacy policies are forced on the wholesalers and the end-users of the wholesalers (though I wouldn't be surprised if they are).
Bell already stated their Bell AUP is forced unto the wholesalers and their end-users, see: »Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC
So not only are the things in the link above deemed reason enough to disconnect or "punish" a wholesaler and it's end-users, via their forced AUP the following is also true (as an example):
If JF brings his modem over to Rocky's house and they have some sort of WAN/Lan party, and if JF connects to his provider from Rocky's place, The AUP also states this is reason to punish a user/wholesaler.
Check out the AUP.
But, what right does Bell have to monitor the comings and goings from Rocky's private communications? What right do they have to spot that JF connected to his provider from Rocky's house with his own modem (or even his login credentials)?
To me, this goes beyond an AUP and crosses into someones right to privacy and not be policed by Bell Canada.
To me, that AUP that is forced on all wholesalers and their end-users crosses a line into ones privacy.
Don't you think? I do.
This is internet we are speaking of, not the Bell Canada state police force which Bell is claiming that they are. |
|
Oinktastic
join:2005-08-24
Scarborough
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·3 Web
| reply to jfmezei
That thing about bringing your modem from one house to another... it's fine if you're both connected to the same CO, because then your traffic just goes through a different port on Bell's router and goes through the same AHSSPI link to your ISP.
However, if you're going from one city to another, you'll be moving traffic around from one CO to another, which is a bit 'iffy'.
Now obviously on a decent network, this would make no difference, but because Bhell is *cough* *cough* suffering from *hack* congestion *pitouey!* ('scuse me)... already, they need users to stay put in order to not overload one area of the network.
Wait, which side am I trying to argue? |
|
AlexandreG
join:2009-08-06
| "That thing about bringing your modem from one house to another... it's fine if you're both connected to the same CO, because then your traffic just goes through a different port on Bell's router and goes through the same AHSSPI link to your ISP."
Are you sure about what you say?? Because, exept for the pppoe stuff, that is manages by the ISP... all the modems are set in the same way to access the bell's network... So how can the DSLAM know that it is you connecting from your friend house?
I always thought that it was a physical connection to the dslam and that a specific port on it was connected to a specific ISP (to put it simple)
But, anyways... I was tired of Videotron... And I was just about to go with Teksavvy... but...reading all this... honnestly, I wonder if I should now... |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
1 edit | First, considering recent events, it is very unlikely that I would ever go to Rocky's house...
One need not bring the modem over. Say I were to be invited to Bibic's mansion for wine and cheese. He has his little PC setup with 10mbps link. I could show him how good Electronic Box is by just setting up his router to connect to my account at ebox.
PPPoE has many performance and other drawbacks, but it does have some advantages with regards to flexibility. It is, after all, just like dial-up.
An ISP pays for the fixed link between the end user's modem and the BAS. And then an ISP pays for capacity between the BAS and itself. (this is pre-UBB).
So, if ISP-1 pays $20 for my ADSL link, and I login to ISP-2 account, that new session will not use any of ISP-1's capacity since, at the BAS, the packets will use the links to ISP-2 and thus use up ISP2's capacity.
So there is no "cheating" involved.
In a UBB context, it gets a bit more complicated.
Say I have logins with both ISP-1 (main) and ISP-2 (login only).
Scenario 1: I've used up 60gigs while logged into to ISP-1. The next byte I am about to download should normally result in ISP-1 getting billed UBB rates for it.
BUT, I disconnect and login to ISP-2. I've downloaded 0 bytes from ISP-2. But from Bell's perspective, I have already downloaded 60gigs and it will want to bill ISP-2 for every byte I download. No need to have a different rate though.
Scenario 2: I've downloaded only 30 gigs from ISP-1, and login to ISP-2. Normally, I should be allowed to download some 30 gigs from ISP-2 before UBB charges kick in. But this gets more difficult to implement.
Scenario 3: I download 30 gigs from ISP-1. Login to ISP-2, download 30 gigs. Then I log back to ISP-1 and download 10 gigs.
From ISP 1's point of view, I've downloaded 40 gigs. No need for UIBB charges. But from Bell's point of view, I've downloaded 70 gigs and Bell wil charge ISP-1 with 10 gigs from the second session.
OR:
bell charges uncorrelated charges for any/all traffic to a different ISP. In scenario 3, first 30 gigs are free. second 30 gigs attract the charges, and the last 10 gigs, back at ISP-1 are free, and you still have 20 gigs to spare with ISP1.
UBB on HSA would be very easy to implement since your connection is fixed to your ISP. But Bell's UBB plan is ill suited for PPPoE. |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| said by jfmezei :First, considering recent events, it is very unlikely that I would go to Rocky's house... LOL.... I've never refused having a beer with you to date! Hmmmmm.... beer.....  |
|
Uncorrelated
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei :bell charges uncorrelated charges for any/all traffic to a different ISP. If the wholesale ISPs don't prevent uncorrelated or force Bell to implement the uncorrelated login prevention, then we could do the following senario to bankcrupt all the wholesale ISPs...
I have Acanac ISP...
My friend has TekSavvy ISP...
When UBB kick in and allow only 60GB...
I use my friend TekSavvy account to download 60GB ==> Bell will charge 60GB uncorrelated to TekSavvy...
My friend use my Acanac account to download 60GB ==> Bell will charge 60GB uncorrelated to Acanac...
We both used 60GB... so no extra charge to us...
Now, TekSavvy and Acanac have to pay crazy amount of uncorrelated charges and go bankcrupt... |
|
hmm
@videotron.ca | reply to Oinktastic
Oinktastic, no offence, but, I think you need to review the Bell AUP which does apply to you as a TSI customer, and also re-review the UBB filings. |
|
waitB4
@videotron.ca
| reply to AlexandreG
said by AlexandreG :But, anyways... I was tired of Videotron... And I was just about to go with Teksavvy... but...reading all this... honnestly, I wonder if I should now... Wait. Don't jump ship yet. Or go with videotrons business service which will be less expensive if this UBB stuff passes (review »Colba net is rubbing salt in the wound, UBB on ADSL2+).
I would not jump ship yet, This is the time possible. Next month (or maybe 3 months from now if the ruling is delayed) may cause your Teksavvy price to jump an easy 25$ (or more if they want some profit). This will make videotrons unlimited & unthrottled, full 7.5-meg service less expensive than any of the wholesalers. |
|
U got it
@videotron.ca
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei : But Bell's UBB plan is ill suited for PPPoE. Exactly, and so is the AUP ill suited to their filing (but they are trying to make it fit to suit their very own need).
uncorrelated charges would apply at the wan/lan party as well, but it is very legit.
In addition, this breaks the AUP and you can be kicked off Ebox for visiting rocky (who runs Bell optimax) and having a few brews and showing your most excellent ISP.
In addition to this, Rocky could be kicked off as well via Bells AUP and CRTC filing, leaving him internetless because you guys partied and showed your internets to each other. |
|
globus999
join:2008-05-15
| reply to waitB4
said by waitB4 :
This will make videotrons unlimited & unthrottled, full 7.5-meg service less expensive than any of the wholesalers.
Huh? Videotron has a 7.5 unthrottled / unlimited service? Their website says nothing. What an I missing? Is this a legacy service? |
|
Honest Abe
@videotron.ca
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei :Say I were to be invited to Bibic's mansion for wine and cheese. Lets be honest, Bibic would invite you over for cyanide and arsenic. 
hmm, Since I have bibics Email, I think I'll Email him and ask him to entertain us for an evening to discuss current events. Wonder if he will reply back? Should be fun. Will do it now. |
|
AlexandreG
join:2009-08-06
| reply to jfmezei
oh... really!... I thought that all the pppoe stuff was never seen by bell's equipement (unless they are your ISP)
So basically, the BAS you talk about is a Bell thing that looks at the pppoe packet to route the traffic?
By looking at stuff like this: »www.tschmidt.com/writings/Broadb···e023.jpg
Wel see that the dslam is seperating the traffic and just sending it to the good isp where the pppoe servers are...
I clearly don't understand something... Who's right?... |
|
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Videotron
| reply to globus999
said by globus999 :Huh? Videotron has a 7.5 unthrottled / unlimited service? Their website says nothing. What an I missing? Is this a legacy service? 7.5Mbps BUSINESS internet, $70/month with 12+ months contract, $80/month + $200 install fee otherwise.
About twice the price of TSI's current unlimited on wet line... or about $10 more than TSI's unlimited is likely to cost post-UBB. |
|
An_Onymous
@teksavvy.com
| reply to AlexandreG
>"That thing about bringing your modem from one house to another...
You know to this date there are still some people that believe their line line phones has their phone number hard coded into them!! 
It might not be that far out to believe that they might bring their modems as they have the login info/password stored in the firmware and not having to wipe their friend's modem. |
|
AlexandreG
join:2009-08-06
| reply to jfmezei
yeah but the thing is I don't need 7 or 8 mbit/s ... The 512k package of teksavvy is perfect for me... I could take the intermediate package of videotron... but it is a total of 2go per months... this is really low... I mean.. I don't need 300... but maybe 5-10... And it's videotron... one other big company that is too expensive, charges insane fees when you quit and want to control everything!... |
|
Croaker
join:2009-10-01
Ottawa ON
| said by AlexandreG :yeah but the thing is I don't need 7 or 8 mbit/s ... The 512k package of teksavvy is perfect for me... I could take the intermediate package of videotron... but it is a total of 2go per months... this is really low... I mean.. I don't need 300... but maybe 5-10... And it's videotron... one other big company that is too expensive, charges insane fees when you quit and want to control everything!... Imaging how much easier it would be for everyone if UBB was the only charge. The only thing to regulate would be the markup. The incentive is changed from limiting use to make flat-rate speed/cap revenue models work to one of growth and constantly expanding infrastructure to meet demand.
Say, a 100% mark-up over transit cost. Cost of transit at 5 cents/Gb in my dream world or for the sake of this discussion. You'd be billed at 10 cents/Gb regardless of connection speed. Bell, Telus, Shaw, Rogers, et al would then simply bill by usage to either the retail or wholesale customer. Infrastructure upgrades or now based on usage patterns and not on over subscription. The more you use the more you pay.
UBB is the way to go. Works for water, gas, and hydro. The problem is that Bell would rather simply use UBB as yet another way to charge for the same service and to suppress competitiion. A win-win for them!
Anyhow, I've rambled enough... |
|
