Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,894 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-484.htm Read it and weep. Bell gets to charge resellers UBB. This evening I ordered a USRobotics USR5637 56K USB Faxmodem (hardware modem is linux compatable) from Tigerdirect. How many Canadians are going to revert to dialup as well as OTA? Actually, I plan to split my usage. Email and updates and other non-interactive stuff will run on dialup. Live365.com internet radio will run on the DSL connection. By playing around with the routing, I can get BOTH running at the same time :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
From what I understand, UBB will only apply over 300GB. That will not affect very many people. Excessive downloaders and businesses will likely be affected. My concern is that Bell may apply to have the limit lowered with further applications. I suspect that this is the thin edge Bell is looking for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
387 Posts
And knowing the CRTC, every application will be blindly accepted... as usual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
945 Posts
Theres much longer threads elsewhere, and not going to rehash it, but its 60gb. Anything over will 60gb Bell will charge the ISP.

Basically, fees remain the same from 0 to 60 gigs.
From 60 to 80 gigs, are you billed $1.125
At 80 gigs, this represents a surchange of $22.50

From 80 to 300 gigs, the surcharge remains at $22.50

Above 300 gigs, Bell reserves the right to charge $0.75 per gig, but will initially not do it.


Deathknell of dsl resellers in Canada? :confused:
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
I think in the next few years, we will get away from buying HSI based on download speeds and more on bandwidth.

I would suggest that independents will work out new deals with Bell that include speed and bandwidth guidelines and they the resellers can price accordingly.

I am really surprised that companies like Apple have not got involved in this debate. Longer term, low bandwidth caps could really impact their business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Whats real funny(NOT) about this, is the Government makes the big Telcos allow space on their lines for the re-sellers.
The Telcos have long complained that the re-sellers make a profitable business out of a free ride on expensive infrastructure.
So now the Government is making sure that the re-sellers can not afford to do business(or not so generous bandwidths and speeds), via a Government(CRTC) mandated rule.

Another great example of just how much open competition hurts the end users in Canada, so no more competition for you. :rolleyes:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9 Posts
Wow this is really sad. :(

The CRTC continues to amaze me with their decisions in favour of the big telcos.

I am currently using Bell's basic DSL service and I was seriously thinking of switching to Teksavvy. But now I don't know what to do. If Bell keeps getting their way with putting up limits and barriers for the smaller independent ISPs then our choices for internet service are going to be very limited.

It seems to me Bell's goal here is to drive the independents out of business, or failing that, cut off the services they can offer by as much as possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,602 Posts
The decision is just absurd. Working for a competitor to Bell and the Bell wholesalers, though, I have to admit that I love it :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
although I am with Rogers for internet service. I was thinking about switching to teksavy, And this might effect my move over to dual mlppp link, Because I wanted more upstream and a static IP since I can not get it with Rogers. Was this decision approval for last mile wiring or was this the connect at the CO ? I was thinking about using Teksavy with dual mlppp & Peer1 connection.


[--rant--]
this decision actual pisses me off, I have zero trust in the CRTC, they have failed Canadian consumers time in and time out and waiting my complaint that I filed yesterday stated they have no balls to stand up the monopolies in Canada
[--/rant--]

( I really need to rant, is there a thread called I hate the CRTC ? )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
I can't believe this went through. This is double dipping any way you look at it. I'm sure that the resellers gave up concessions in price negotiations, with the understanding that they were purchasing bandwidth without user caps.

But I also wonder how many end-users this will actually effect? Personally, I can't imagine using 300GB/month.

The Telcos have long complained that the re-sellers make a profitable business out of a free ride on expensive infrastructure.
Who paid for the infrastructure initially? Canadian taxpayers. Bell and Co. got a (almost) "free" ride for years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,818 Posts
Whats real funny(NOT) about this, is the Government makes the big Telcos allow space on their lines for the re-sellers.
The Telcos have long complained that the re-sellers make a profitable business out of a free ride on expensive infrastructure.
So now the Government is making sure that the re-sellers can not afford to do business(or not so generous bandwidths and speeds), via a Government(CRTC) mandated rule.

Another great example of just how much open competition hurts the end users in Canada, so no more competition for you. :rolleyes:
Free Ride?
They pay an arm and a leg every month to just connect their customers using Bell's lines (~$22) and all bell has to do is make sure the lines connected. (e.g. in the rare instance a tree knocks over a pole, fix it.) Most of the time they're just raking in the dough.
On top of that, they charge to have the ISP's bandwidth linked to the CO's/DSLAMs/etc.
So an ISP is paying for their bandwidth from outside sources like cogent, as well as paying to bell to get it to the people.
That's the whole crux of this argument. Bell is selling 1gbps to connect the ISP to the people and then throttles it. I don't go around and sell you tanker of gasoline, then tell you to come back later when it's not busy and i'll give you a little bit.
Now they want to limit every customer regardless, and charge exuberant rates on "bandwidth" overages (I think they should really get a dictionary and bandwidth is not measured in bits, bytes, megabits, megabytes, or anything they say it is. Bandwidth is your SPEED, not how much data you transfer.)
If bell had just matched these ISPs instead of doing all this BS with the CRTC in their pocket, they could've still had a ton of money, as they're lines are essentially free. (most of them have been around forever, and are paid off. Maintenance isn't too much either. I don't think I've ever seen a bell truck fixing lines except for accidents like trees)

After that long rant:
I have no problem with the 60gb cap. However, I do have a problem with the charges remaining the same before that 60gb cap AND the massive markup on "bandwidth" charges per gb. It costs $5/mbit of pure bandwidth from cogent. On that 1mbps, you can do a max 313.28GB per month (avg). That's 1.6 cents per gigabyte that's assuming you use the connection to the max. Let's say Bell doesn't. Not sure why, as they claim congestion, but hey, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Let's say they use half their capacity on average, throughout the month. That's 3.2cents per GB. They're charging only 3500% what it costs them. (bell wants to charge $1.125 per GB)

But I also wonder how many end-users this will actually effect? Personally, I can't imagine using 300GB/month.
Every single one who uses over 60gb. Your bill will go from $30 a month up to $52.50 per month for the exact same service you have now (if you have 200g with teksavvy and use 80g)

Edit: and I think there should be a distinction in the first post: this affects WHOLESALERS as well, too. Resellers just sell Bell's service.. to them, tough. It's Bell's service. But wholesalers actually provide their own service and lease lines from bell (for a contractual rate) and bell is changing the contract on them..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
this is really pathetic, i cannot believe it. the CRTC is so close with helping these big telcos its not even funny. whats next? wait, if something as stupid as this can get through, i cannot imagine how globalive's WIND will have any chance in regards to foreign ownership complaints from the big 3

whats even more ridiculous now is 3rd party ISPs will have to pay $1.25/GB when going over 60GB cap. but Bell's new "bandwidth insurance" will allow their retail customers to purchase 40GB extra for $5 - rate of $0.125/GB for overage - 1/10th of the price.

they are basically agreeing that retail Internet customers and wholesale customers should be treated the same and that this would create regulatory symmetry with the cablecos.. Did the CRTC, who's mandate even states "is to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public" just use the words "regulatory symmetry"?

so much for the canadian public and having any real competition when it comes to ISPs.. with DPI/throttling and now UBB, we are truly going backwards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
recneps77 said:
Edit: and I think there should be a distinction in the first post: this affects WHOLESALERS as well, too. Resellers just sell Bell's service.. to them, tough. It's Bell's service. But wholesalers actually provide their own service and lease lines from bell (for a contractual rate) and bell is changing the contract on them..
In my first post (#12), I actually meant wholesalers. But it is possibly a legit argument for reference to resellers as well, so I am adding this note instead of correcting my earlier post.
thx recneps77 for reminding that the terms are not synonymous.

As far as I can tell by reading the Telecom Order, (Question) IV. Should the proposed uncorrelated usage charge for GAS be approved on an interim basis? , is refering to (ahem,... alleged) MLPPP usage by wholesale DSL customers to avoid throttling. Is this correct? So it appears the CRTC, will rule on this part later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
This is just wrong on so many levels. First DPI, now this crap...

I was actually waiting on the decision before jumping from Robbers to TSI, but I guess this kyboshed my hopes of transferring.

Why the hell do ISPs in this country think that 60GB/mo is enough for a consumer when Comcast (USA) has deemed it's soft-capping starts at 250GB/mo, for about the same monthly fee I might add?

The great Kanadian ripoff continues ...perpetuated by the totally inept and incompetent Communist Radio & Telecommunications Controller.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
This is just wrong on so many levels. First DPI, now this crap...

I was actually waiting on the decision before jumping from Robbers to TSI, but I guess this kyboshed my hopes of transferring.

Why the hell do ISPs in this country think that 60GB/mo is enough for a consumer when Comcast (USA) has deemed it's soft-capping starts at 250GB/mo, for about the same monthly fee I might add?

The great Kanadian ripoff continues ...perpetuated by the totally inept and incompetent Communist Radio & Telecommunications Controller.
hahah, should have realized thats what CRTC really stands for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Theres a saying that almost every ISP has an ISP providing it with bandwidth/lines/Internet routers, etc.
It's all in the chain of the Internet. And if one ISP decides to slow down another ISP's traffic through their lines, users get angry. There have been some minor issues in the States to do with that.

Look at the small wireless Internet providers. They tie into the bandwidth of another ISP. Xplornet wireless ties into Hydro One in Ontario. Some Wireless ISP's in BC tie into Telus. Others tie in to BigPipeInc, etc.
Those that do a tracert can see all these routers on the trip through the Internet to the destination. And can also see when there is a major slowdown on some points.


But if Bell or any ISP is going to sell wholesale bandwidth(ISP quality) on their lines, that traffic is private and should be exempt from DPI and throttling.
But then again, the people at CRTC need to be fired. And replaced by 'the people', and not rich people who became rich by stepping on 'the people'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,818 Posts
That's another problem with this whole situation.
Bell is an ISP (formerly sympatico)
Bell Canada (BCE) is the carrier that owns the lines.
These two SHOULD be separate entities, but they're allowed to work as one in the favour of their own ISP. Bell is free to throttle and cap their own customers, that's their choice. But for Bell to do so to the wholesalers is just wrong.
Bell Canada is in charge of the lines. Bell ISP should have zero influence on those DSL cards and that copper wire. The fact that they do says a lot here.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top