Go Back   Hardware Canucks > SOFTWARE > Networking

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old January 11, 2011, 08:46 PM
Banned
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: mtl
Posts: 12,694
Default

spoke with teksavvy the other day, guy said something about march if it doesn't get pushed to a later date...looking for a new isp in the meantime..greedy bastuges
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old January 11, 2011, 10:20 PM
LionRed's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dargaville, New Zealand
Posts: 469
Default

They are pushing this UBB because these companies see exactly where the future of media is going to provided from. They are setting it up/manipulating it to UBB to take full advantage of this.... milk, overcharge and suck the most amount of cash out of the end user they can (all while killing off any competitors). The government can't help but look forward to all windfall taxes to be made from the end users paying for it.

Simple as that!

And please don't feed me the ...it is all to cover the costs...the infrastructure. These ISP's are the same companies that charge a %3000 - %5000 markup on txt'n. These companies do not care about the customers...they care about the money. And I wouldn't be surprised if they did not have some kinda mutely agreement to stay out of price/data cap war.
__________________
Choo Choo bitches, progress coming through.

They say you can tell how rich a man's life has been, by how many dogs he has had in it.

RIP Kiwi - Oct 19th/05 - April 18th/11, you will always be our puppy
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old January 12, 2011, 03:47 PM
geokilla's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,625

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _dangtx_ View Post
spoke with teksavvy the other day, guy said something about march if it doesn't get pushed to a later date...looking for a new isp in the meantime..greedy bastuges
What do you mean?

It seems that UBB is headed for cable users as well come July 2011.

Btw, UBB seems to be making the news more and more now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old January 12, 2011, 03:50 PM
Fudd Rucker's Avatar
Allstar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SSM Ont
Posts: 950

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geokilla View Post
What do you mean?

It seems that UBB is headed for cable users as well come July 2011.

Btw, UBB seems to be making the news more and more now.
It should be on the news so the people know whats happening. Thankfully the municiple gov of Vancouver is behind the people on this and spearheading the intiative to repeal this criminal act. The CRTC is acting the best interests of those with lobby money, not the consumer.
__________________
I couldnt think of something snarky or interesting to put here this time around.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old January 12, 2011, 05:50 PM
Banned
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: mtl
Posts: 12,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geokilla View Post
What do you mean?

It seems that UBB is headed for cable users as well come July 2011.

Btw, UBB seems to be making the news more and more now.

what i wrote :)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fudd Rucker View Post
It should be on the news so the people know whats happening. Thankfully the municiple gov of Vancouver is behind the people on this and spearheading the intiative to repeal this criminal act. The CRTC is acting the best interests of those with lobby money, not the consumer.
of course. hats off to the people standing up against this
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old January 13, 2011, 01:42 PM
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,411

My System Specs

Default

If you want a good read, go through the 90 page objection filed recently by CNOC. Here's a 2 page copy of one of their key points - haven't finished reading the article. This excerpt demonstrates exactly why UBB is a load of shit.


2010-08-30 - #: 8638-C12-201016882 - Follow-up to Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-632 - Wholesale high-speed access services proceeding (cost studies - ILEC)
Taken from the 3rd page of the article, or the 8t page in the PDF
End-user-based Usage Caps and Charges
• End-user-based usage caps and charges, as proposed by the Companies and Rogers in this proceeding,
are anti-competitive and should be rejected.
• The application of the same economic usage-based-billing (“UBB”) regime to both dominant carrier
retail Internet access services and wholesale high-speed access services on an end-user basis stifles
service differentiation and innovation its retail Internet services. Wholesale customers end up being
forced to charge the same retail UBB rates as the incumbents.
• A UBB regime just adds to the disadvantages already faced by wholesale customers of the dominant
carriers, such as the application of technical ITMPs to wholesale traffic.
• The incumbents are not required to apply UBB to their telephony, video (e.g., IPTV or cable) and
other broadband services, whereas, the wholesale high-speed access services that competitors require for
providing competing retail telephony, video and other services are subject to ITMPs, such as UBB. This
is unduly discriminatory. Competitors are prevented from offering a wide variety of differentiated
broadband services and service bundles, including but not limited to retail Internet access service,
telephony and video triple-play bundles.
• Wholesale high-speed access services customers also incur additional transportation costs and other
costs to provide end-user services, in addition to paying for wholesale high-speed access services
customers, to carry retail Internet service traffic between the networks of the dominant carriers and the
Internet.
- 4 -
• UBB is also costly to implement. Under a flat-rate structure, wholesale high-speed access services
customers typically charge for services provided to their end-users on a pre-paid basis, which
significantly reduces financial risk. When a wholesale high-speed access services customer is billed on a
UBB basis by a dominant carrier, that customer must pay the dominant carrier for all usage incurred, but
the wholesale high-speed access services customer has to bill its end-customers on a post-paid basis to
recover those charges, since they cannot be known in advance. Wholesale high-speed access services
customers’ financial risk increases dramatically as they become de facto collection agencies for the
dominant providers that provide wholesale high-speed access services charged on a UBB basis.
Wholesale high-speed access services customers must pay for the usage billed by the dominant carriers,
but then assume the full credit risk of getting that money back from their end-users.
• UBB revenues amount to anti-competitive cross subsidies from wholesale high-speed access services
customers to the dominant carriers arising from the fact that wholesale UBB rates are not cost-based and
constitute almost pure profit that the already financially strong incumbents can use to cross-subsidize their
competitive activities.
• Under TRP 2009-657, the point of an economic ITMP such as a UBB regime is to curb peak usage
that causes network congestion, especially among the heaviest users. If that is its sole purpose, why are
technical ITMPs such as traffic shaping employed by the dominant carriers concurrently with UBB
regimes?
• The objective of employing a UBB regime as an economic ITMP is not advanced necessarily achieved
in an efficient manner by the UBB regime selected by a dominant carrier. In the case of the UBB regime
approved for Videotron and the Companies, different UBB rates apply to different tiers of usage, and in
some cases, no UBB charges apply over large ranges of consumption, above (and in the case of the
Companies UBB regime below) which UBB rates apply.
• The use of an end-user-based wholesale UBB regime with all of the anti-competitive consequences
just described does not constitute regulation that is efficient and proportionate to its purpose, is minimally
intrusive and maximizes reliance on market forces as required by the Policy Direction.
• CNOC does not object to a requirement for wholesale customers (e.g., ISPs) that also compete with
the incumbents to pay for the network resources of the incumbents that the ISPs require to provide their
retail services. However, the present UBB regime that conceptually treats wholesale services provided to
ISPs the same as the incumbents treat their own retail Internet services is unworkable and interferes
unduly with the operation of market forces.
• The net effect of the present UBB regime is to encourage incumbents to constrain capacity, defer
investing in their networks and increase the price of broadband services, with the consequence that
Canada’s productivity and international competitiveness will suffer in the global digital economy.
• To date the damage caused by and end-user-based wholesale UBB regime is limited. Only Videotron
has employed such a regime and Videotron’s wholesale TPIA customer base is relatively limited. If other
carriers such as the Companies, Rogers and others are allowed to implement similar UBB regimes, the
anti-competitive impact will be much swifter and more severe.
• The Companies are poised to introduce a UBB regime for residential GAS as early as 1 March 2011.
The Companies and Rogers are also seeking approval of UBB rates in these proceeding. The Commission
has a unique opportunity to contain and reverse the damage by not approving any UBB rates in this
proceeding. In fact, CNOC would go further and recommend that the Commission, also institute a
- 5 -
proceeding as soon as possible to revisit the approvals for UBB regimes already granted and to consider
other options for charging wholesale customers for usage sensitive network resources that are
competitively fair and will create a proper incentive for wholesale customers to manage the bandwidth
that they buy appropriately when providing service to their own end-users.
• This task is well within the capability of the Commission with the aid of the industry.
• As Commissioner Molnar noted in her dissent in Decision 2010-255:
“I would note that I am not convinced that the Bell companies’ proposal to apply UBB charges
based upon end-customer usage is the most effective Internet traffic management practice (ITMP)
approach. Nor am I persuaded at this time that an aggregated usage model, if properly structured,
would nullify the potential effectiveness of UBB as a means of managing network usage. Certainly,
an aggregated usage model would have provided ISPs that subscribe to the Bell companies’ GAS
(GAS ISPs) with greater flexibility to manage end-user pricing/service solutions. (Emphasis
added.)
• CNOC urges the Commission to heed Commissioner Molnar and explore devising an aggregated
usage model that compensates incumbents appropriately for the use of traffic sensitive network resources,
serves a suitable economic ITMP and provides wholesale customers greater flexibility to manage enduser
pricing/service solutions. Such a regime should not result in any increases in the flat-rate components
of wholesale high-speed access services.
Adjusting the Rates, Terms and Conditions Proposed by Incumbents
• CNOC urges the Commission to apply the rating principles described herein and to make the specific
adjustments to the rates, terms and conditions proposed by incumbents when considering the tariff
proposals of the ILECs and cable carriers being considered in these proceedings.
• In order to ensure that wholesale customers have enough time to make alternate arrangements for its
end-users, or bring an application to the Commission for wholesale access where an ILEC intends to
deploy FTTH facilities, CNOC requests that the ILECs be required to give its GAS-FTTN and HSAFTTN
customers one (1) year advance notice of any intention to convert FTTN facilities to FTTH in a
particular exchange, or of any move that would eliminate metallic continuity in an end-user’s local loop.
• CNOC also seeks assurances that ILECs and cable carriers will be required to treat wholesale
customers in an equivalent manner when it comes to the availability of higher-speed services.
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old January 16, 2011, 12:44 PM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,039

My System Specs

Default

Adding one dollar to everyone's bill is likely to generate more income than UBB ever would.
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old January 17, 2011, 01:20 PM
LaughingCrow's Avatar
MVP
F@H
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 389
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
Agreed. Bell has every right to impose whatever they want on their resellers. It IS Bell's network which they have spent billions developing.

If TekSavvy et all want to bitch and whine, let them develop their own network. Oh wait, too expensive? TOO BAD!

Welcome to a free market economy.
I'm pretty certain when the Internet was first starting to gain popularity, the Canadian government funded a lot of the infrastructure development costs - i.e. Bell got taxpayer money. They are still getting grants, just like the oil companies keep getting 'grants'.

It is the users that have 'paid' for the network - Bell never gave anything away free to customers.

I'm still waiting for the 'free' market to actually 'compete' to bring down prices. I don't know of anyplace in Ontario where more than 1 cable company services an area, hence no competition. I'm still waiting for the oil companies to compete as well

I remember when I used to pay Bell for a service. Now, I just pay Bell. The smaller outfits provide better service at a better cost than Bell can do. Why?
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old January 17, 2011, 01:55 PM
sswilson's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 14,535

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaughingCrow View Post
I'm pretty certain when the Internet was first starting to gain popularity, the Canadian government funded a lot of the infrastructure development costs - i.e. Bell got taxpayer money. They are still getting grants, just like the oil companies keep getting 'grants'.

It is the users that have 'paid' for the network - Bell never gave anything away free to customers.

I'm still waiting for the 'free' market to actually 'compete' to bring down prices. I don't know of anyplace in Ontario where more than 1 cable company services an area, hence no competition. I'm still waiting for the oil companies to compete as well

I remember when I used to pay Bell for a service. Now, I just pay Bell. The smaller outfits provide better service at a better cost than Bell can do. Why?
Because they cherrypick the highly profitable areas and have no mandate to keep service up in lower population density areas.
__________________
MSI Z87I Gaming AC / i5 4670K / 2X 4G Gskill 1866 DDR3 / XFX XTR 750 / EVGA GTX 680 SC+ 2GB / Intel DC S3700 200G / random 160G Sata HDD
Inwin 904 / Swiftech MCP655-b / Alphacool NexXxos XT45 120 Rad / 2X Scythe GT AP-15 / EK Supreme HF / Dell UltraSharp U2412M

Asrock AM1H-ITX / AM1 Athlon 5350 / 2X4G Gskill PC3-14900 / Intel 6235 Wi-Fi / 90W Targus Power Brick / 320G Seagate Momentus / Mini-Box M350 / 1X 22" Dell IPS / 1X 22" HP
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 08:10 AM
geokilla's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,625

My System Specs

Default

Major newspapers such as Globe&Mail, Vancouver Suns, etc. are reporting more and more about how unfair UBB is for Canadians. Keep up the fight! Sign the petitions! Send CRTC an e-mail!

Canadian Broadband forum | DSLReports.com, ISP Information
http://www.dslreports.com/r0/downloa...n-Petition.pdf
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Petition against Modern Warfare 2 for PC Polygon Gaming 59 October 22, 2009 05:09 PM