Bell's Proposed Replacement for UBB - Page 3 - ehMac.ca
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Advertise


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Mar 29th, 2011, 09:09 PM   #21
bgw
Full Citizen
 
bgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 853
New links. From CTV, and Boing Boing.
__________________
24" iMac, 2.8 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HD
eMac, 700Mz, 640 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Mac Classic

iPod mini
bgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old Mar 29th, 2011, 09:43 PM   #22
krs
Honourable Citizen
 
krs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario and Quebec
Posts: 9,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by mguertin View Post
I still suspect that you're secretly a Bell or Rogers employee or worse, a stock holder :P
None of the above, I can assure you.
I have two internet accounts, one in Quebec and one in Ontario.
The Quebec one is with Bell the Ontario one with a small independent ISP but on DSL, so that ISP has to deal with Bell.

As far as the cost is concerned - what everyone is ignoring including your 'credible' sources is that this portion of the Bell business is regulated.
With a regulated business, Bell just can't have this huge profit margin everyone is claiming they have.
Bell is also a publicly traded company so their revenues, expenditures, profits etc. are allopen to public scrutiny.
Are people seriously suggesting Bell is somehow socking away millions or billions of profit under the table?
I remember someone here on ehMac linking to an article how Bell's profit increased by some huge amount of 80% or so, but what the article failed to mention was that this was an increase from a very poor year and bell was just getting back to their normal profit level.

I'm just trying to look at this in a rational manner, not get carried away in the emotional chit chat like on the dsl reports forum.
krs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29th, 2011, 09:51 PM   #23
krs
Honourable Citizen
 
krs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario and Quebec
Posts: 9,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by mguertin View Post
The big issue is exactly this ... Bell is selling wholesale bandwidth ... not "wholesale bandwidth that is arbitrarily limited by the amount of DSL subscribers your company has" ... If they are in the truly in the business of selling bandwidth as they claim it should be just that. X amount of bandwidth == X amount of $$, end of story. What the ISP does with the bandwidth shouldn't matter at all as long as they have paid for it.
I thought that's exactly what they are now proposing, maybe not quite as simplistic the way you put it.
The ISP pays an access fee per subscriber which includes 41GB of bandwidth which the ISP can allocate any way they wish and then the ISP has the option of buying additional chunks of bandwidth.
So "X amount of bandwidth == X amount of $$, end of story."

Quote:
Said bandwidth should also NOT be throttled, rate limited, traffic shaped, packed inspected, or otherwise tampered with unless required by law.
Is Bell proposing any of that? Didn't see that in the article.
krs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29th, 2011, 09:59 PM   #24
krs
Honourable Citizen
 
krs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario and Quebec
Posts: 9,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgw View Post
New links. From CTV, and Boing Boing.
Thanks for the links.

I have now seen this twice:

In order to be effective as an economic ITMP, the usage based price component needs to be established so as to discourage use above the set limit. The price should incent use in excess of the limit only to the extent that the consumer would gain significant value from that usage. If the price is set substantially below the consumerís value, it will have little influence on usage. It follows that the price does not necessarily reflect the cost of supplying the network capacity.

But where does that actually come from?
Who said it and in what context?

Geist writes: "According to the cable companies" but gives no specific reference at all.
krs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29th, 2011, 10:11 PM   #25
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by krs View Post
Is Bell proposing any of that? Didn't see that in the article.
they already do it.
i-rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29th, 2011, 10:12 PM   #26
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by krs View Post
I thought that's exactly what they are now proposing, maybe not quite as simplistic the way you put it.
The ISP pays an access fee per subscriber which includes 41GB of bandwidth which the ISP can allocate any way they wish and then the ISP has the option of buying additional chunks of bandwidth.
So "X amount of bandwidth == X amount of $$, end of story."


Is Bell proposing any of that? Didn't see that in the article.
The issue is the ISPs are already buying the bandwidth, or pipes if you will - they pay for a flat-rate 1Gbps connection (AGAS). Adding UBB to that just makes it double charging for the same service.

As to the last part - they're already throttling and inspecting packets for all non-HSA DSL users. They've been doing it for years.

As usual, you're ignoring the facts laid out before you.
John Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29th, 2011, 10:15 PM   #27
Archetype
 
fellfromtree's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: far from the tree
Posts: 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by krs View Post
Thanks for the links.

I have now seen this twice:
But where does that actually come from?
Who said it and in what context?

Geist writes: "According to the cable companies" but gives no specific reference at all.
Geist quotes the Cable Companies from their own submission document. You obviously didn't read. He posted the link to the document in blue type in his blog post. You just quoted the Cablco's own document and then asked who said it. Page 8 #42
Cable Carriers Joint Comments TNC 2011-77 Mar28-11
__________________
MacBook 2.26

Last edited by fellfromtree; Mar 29th, 2011 at 10:39 PM.
fellfromtree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29th, 2011, 10:59 PM   #28
mguertin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by krs View Post
I thought that's exactly what they are now proposing, maybe not quite as simplistic the way you put it.
The ISP pays an access fee per subscriber which includes 41GB of bandwidth which the ISP can allocate any way they wish and then the ISP has the option of buying additional chunks of bandwidth.
So "X amount of bandwidth == X amount of $$, end of story."


Is Bell proposing any of that? Didn't see that in the article.
Umm, re read that all again would you? It goes off the rails right where you say that the ISP pays an access fee per subscriber. Do you actually read this stuff?
  Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31st, 2011, 11:33 PM   #29
bgw
Full Citizen
 
bgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 853
In the U.K. their regulator is forcing prices down! Check this article in the Telegraph and this article in The Register. Shouldn't the CRTC be doing the same thing. After all, Bell's current proposal will likely more then double my internet costs!
__________________
24" iMac, 2.8 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HD
eMac, 700Mz, 640 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Mac Classic

iPod mini
bgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bell, isp, rates

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lost my iPad's mobile connection: Bell's MiFi sedawk All iOS - iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV & iTunes 9 May 5th, 2010 04:10 PM
Applecare 'replacement' in-store or through the phone? J-Money Anything Mac 11 Apr 17th, 2010 11:37 PM
iPad: Whole Unit Replacement - Battery or Repair(s) monokitty All iOS - iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV & iTunes 7 Mar 21st, 2010 09:27 PM
Excellent (so far) replacement story. Kiddo All iOS - iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV & iTunes 3 Oct 17th, 2008 11:18 PM
Christmas Carols For The Disturbed MACSPECTRUM Everything Else, eh! 0 Dec 16th, 2006 01:53 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:24 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 1999 - 2012, ehMac.ca All rights reserved. ehMac is not affiliated with Apple Inc. Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, Apple TV are trademarks of Apple Inc. Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

Tribe.ca: Urban living in Toronto!