[99gecko]

On 03 April 2008, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) filed an application with the CRTC in an attempt to force Bell to cease and desist with throttling 3rd party ASDL services using Bell's last mile:

2008-04-03 - #: 8622-C51-200805153 - Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) - Application requesting certain orders directing Bell Canada to cease and desist from "throttling" its wholesale ADSL Access Services

My understanding (rumour) is that Bell had until yesterday to respond, and did not. Can anyone confirm or deny that this is the case??

 

[technut]

Bell's response has been posted now, at the CRTC site.

 

[kanechart]

English please

 

[technut]

"We can do whatever we want."

 

[Toolatecrew]

"We can do whatever we want."

I think from this paragraph the answer is more:

If you don't like what we are doing buy someonewhere else.

Furthermore, the Company notes that the regulatory framework has already provided numerous competitive choices in the market. Internet service providers (ISPs) have other options than purchasing access under Bell's GAS Tariff. They are free to lease unbundled local loops, to invest in co-location and Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs), to subscribe to wholesale Internet high speed access service from cable carriers through third party Internet access (TPIA) or to build their own networks. All of these options would avoid any traffic management activity by Bell. They can also purchase High Speed Access (HSA) which is not subject to traffic management.

 

[alwzn4vr]

1. Alternatives GAS are besides the point IMHO.
2. These alternatives aren't cost effective for ISPs trying to compete with Bell.

Anyone interested in the details should read the entire 40 page response from CAIP.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153/895702.pdf

Make up your own mind.

 

[Nemnoch]

1. Alternatives GAS are besides the point IMHO.
2. These alternatives aren't cost effective for ISPs trying to compete with Bell.

As stated above 'the regulatory framework has already provided numerous competitive choices in the market'

Thre are certainly other providers available to these ISP's. That fact that it will cut into their profits if they have to switch, is not even relevant to the case.

Nem, who says that supply and demand is a fundamental and basic business idea

 

[I_Want_My_HDTV]

I don't think profits are the issue. Some of the independent ISPs operate on a slim margin so it will raise consumer prices instead. If any investigation into profits needs to be done, maybe they should look at why Bell Sympatico charges $47 for the same service that other companies can provide for $30.

 

[technut]

As stated above 'the regulatory framework has already provided numerous competitive choices in the market'

But look who you're quoting... that's according to Bell!

According to the CRTC, and confirmed in a decision as recently as March 2008, that is simply not true.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2008/dt2008-17.htm

76.
The Commission considers that, similar to the situation with respect to ULLs, there are not sufficient wholesale alternatives to the ILECs' ADSL access services. The Commission also considers that in the absence of wholesale alternatives, withdrawing mandated access to the ILECs' ADSL access services would likely result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the retail high-speed Internet access services market, and that this would be inconsistent with the policy objectives and the Policy Direction. The Commission further considers that, at a point in the future, technological advances and industry evolution may provide a wholesale alternative to the ILECs' ADSL access services.

85.
The Commission considers that in many situations, co-location is not a cost-effective alternative for reasonably efficient competitors at this time. In order for competitors to offer retail high-speed Internet access service, in most instances they have no option other than to buy the wholesale aggregated ADSL access or TPIA services. To withdraw mandated access to aggregated ADSL access service – that is, access and transport – at this time would likely result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in retail high-speed Internet access services. The Commission therefore finds that aggregated ADSL access service must be mandated, given that it is the only cost-effective means to provide transport to, and access from, an ILEC's central office to the competitor's customer. In order to apply the principle of technological neutrality, the Commission considers that under these circumstances TPIA services should also continue to be mandated.

 

[Deckster]

If any investigation into profits needs to be done, maybe they should look at why Bell Sympatico charges $47 for the same service that other companies can provide for $30.

Nobody is forcing Bell's customers to pay $47, they are free to make a decision to pay that or get the service from somebody else for $30.

Maybe Bell uses a good portion of that extra $17 to help the communities they service. I know Bell gives a lot of money to the Sick Kids Foundation, and to Kids Help Phone. My fiancee used to work in a group home for troubled teens and one day someone from Bell stopped by to drop off a cheque for several thousand dollars. They donated the money without having to be asked, and it wasn't about public relations because there wasn't even a photographer present.

I will gladly pay an extra $17/month because I know what Bell does for my community.

 

[alwzn4vr]

As stated above 'the regulatory framework has already provided numerous competitive choices in the market'

Thre are certainly other providers available to these ISP's. That fact that it will cut into their profits if they have to switch, is not even relevant to the case.

Nem, who says that supply and demand is a fundamental and basic business idea

What other providers are there for these ISPs to get ADSL customers? As I understand it Bell owns 'last mile' copper line and under the CRTC ruling must 'share' that access with its competitors. Bell is also obliged to not interfere with the content of this access it provides to competitors and to give them advance noticed of changes to allow for mutual testing of those changes.
What Bell did is plain and simply dead wrong. They broke a crapload of regulations including some that they explicitly stated to CAIP that they would not break.

 

[I_Want_My_HDTV]

I will gladly pay an extra $17/month because I know what Bell does for my community.

This is off topic but... I wonder how that compares to the amount of money Bell takes out of the community with high rates? I'll bet it is trivial in comparison. Many philanthropists are motivated by the need to compensate for past or current inequities, poor public relations in other areas or even crimes.

 

[technut]

New submissions have been published by the CRTC this week, from:

Google Inc.
Document: 923481.pdf - 16KB

TELUS Communications Company
Document: 923480.pdf - 26KB

Rogers Communications Inc.
Document: 923478.pdf - 59KB

Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc.
Document: 923467.pdf - 119KB

Acanac Inc.
Document: 923489.pdf - 49KB

Distributel Communications Limited
Document: 923482.doc - 46KB

Coalition of Internet Service Providers Inc. (CISP)
Document: 923496.doc - 64KB

Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) for Consumer Group
Document: 923474.zip - 104KB

Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance (CATA)
Document: 923350.pdf - 43KB

and from others last month (eg. Skype, Cisco), also at the CRTC link.