|
UBB decision was rendered this morning - http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-44.htm There goes the Canadian internet!
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
The "official" pricing (the one that all mentioned wholesale discounts are applied against) has not been released. Bell et al have until March 1st to file that with the CRTC - the day UBB comes into effect. What pricing you see now is just earlier documents. Note that there's no debate on that filing, it's just the reference. UBB pricing has nothing to do with the direct actual cost of shoveling bits, but is called an ITMP "Internet Traffic Management Practice" - much like traffic shaping was. If circuit utilization is too high, they just raise the rates, and people will use less. Period. That's how UBB made it through. Traffic shaping failed as everything went encrypted, and it started to interfere with the "golden service" - telephony. In the eyes of the CRTC - the co-incidental items that Bell will make buckets of cash and damage their competitors is moot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
The prices you posted are the website prices, those prices are not the ones used in the wholesale rate calculations as they can be changed due to promotions on a daily basis. "Official" retail rates are filed with the CRTC. Everyone: expect notifications from alternative providers today/tomorrow about new pricing! (Normal contracts have 30 day notification clauses for prices changes)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
Rough calculation chart:pre: Base Overage Excessive
Rate (base to 300G) (300G above)
BW Rate: 25Gig* 1Gig 1Gig
Cost: $x $y $z
Cost formula: $x + ($y*Overage) + ($z*Excessive) = $Total
Where: ($y*Overage) maxes out at $60.
Notes:
- Bandwidth is calculated as the sum of Inbound + Outbound.
- there's two usage rates:
- "overage" which is usage from your base level to 300Gigs
- "excessive" for bandwidth above 300Gigs.
- Base rate can be modified with prebuying "usage insurance" blocks of 40 Gigs (max 3).
unknown fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jan 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:Two things jump out here. First, the CRTC is, apparently, NOT allowed to regulate retail UBB rates. So even if they think that the rates are too high for their intended purpose as a traffic management tool, they believe that they are prevented from acting upon that decision by Government policy. Well, that's simple enough to fix. Change the Government, change the policy. Tell the CRTC that they're free and clear to regulate UBB rates in cases where competition isn't doing the job, and you may see them bring down UBB rates to sane levels. You are correct - in the eyes of the CRTC - the UBB is a ITMP (internet traffic management policy), so whatever price that Bell sets has no correlation to actual costs, it's literally there to make it more painful for the "worst" offenders and allow Granny Smith to surf her knitting sites without an issue. All secondary effects (death of Netflix, extra income, etc) are moot in the CRTC's eyes - but obviously not in the real world. The only recourse at this time is to get the government to overturn the ruling - and for that you need to contact the Minister of Industry, Tony Clements, whose portfolio includes the internet. He obviously cares if the internet based industry goes tits up in 2011 because of the ruling, and that's where the fight has to focus on. His contact info: http://www.tonyclement.ca/EN/contact_tony/ or http://ic.gc.ca/ Also remember that the CRTC must take the view that all Canadians have to be treated equally - so if people want internet with 500gig base internet caps, the network would have to have been built for that (which is wasn't), and base pricing would have been much higher. On average, people (include Granny Smith and her legion of knitters here) don't want more than 25gig caps, and therefore don't want the extra cost. One of the problems right now (in a very simplified format) is that there are two classes of users - ones that uses nothing, and another that uses a lot. But there's only one infrastructure - (controlled by Bell/CRTC), so it needs to work for both classes, and lowest common denominator wins out. Eventually we'll see the creation of a second infrastructure network, but that takes a huge amount of time and money upfront that not many companies can handle.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:What's bizarre and enraging about that is that low-traffic users pay a fuckton more per gigabyte. Not only do they pay higher overages, but their flat-rate cost per gig is far higher if you work it out. That's always the case - there's a huge upfront cost regardless of the future usage. Nomenklatura posted:If Bell was charging a flat rate per gig, it'd be different. (Though not that much more so.) But instead they're clearly exploiting this to gouge the living hell out of the very group that this poo poo is supposed to benefit. Of course they're exploiting the poo poo out of it - I'm just giving people the argument they used (successfully) with the CRTC. Ranting and raving at the government won't have much effect when people don't know how they got hosed. Nomenklatura posted:Edit: That said, how the hell do we know that the network can't handle 500 gigs a month at current costs/capacity? We have no reason whatsoever to take what the telcos say seriously. Certainly it isn't last mile problems; as far as I've read, DOCSIS 3 and the various fibre-to-the-home solutions can handle that without breaking a metaphorical sweat, and I doubt it'd be necessarily terribly onerous for a lot of DSL setups. It can't with _currently deployed_ gear. Look at what was readily available 3-4 years ago for the technology level at the volume/density they deal with. *IIRC/VERY ROUGH*: You have 1x GigE (actually 2, in 1/1 failover) per remote DSLAM (brown box on the street). That's shared among Internet (low priority) and Bell's own IPtv offering (high priority) supplying 5-25mbps each to 96 (iirc) circuits. Backhaul the 10,000+ remotes (across ont/que) into a central distribution network, you're talking about a huge amount of bandwidth (100s of Gpbs). Works fine at low or bursty usage (web usage), but collapses at high sustained usage (P2P). Nomenklatura posted:Re-Edit: Don't necessarily buy that "using nothing" line, either. It's not 2004 anymore, regular users can easily suck down a SHITTON of bandwidth using streaming services. That includes Gramma looking at funny cat videos. You're incorrect in that - a significant portion of users on average use less than 5 gigs per month combined up+down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
univbee posted:Not only is this no longer the case (isn't it closer to like 35 gigs now?), that's per user. What if you're a family with 3 kids? Or college roommates? Or just happened to get a certain digital download PC game for yourself (or even as a gift)? It's also an average, meaning 50% of people use more. Appealing to the status quo/lowest common denominator has resulted in fantastic policies like No Child Left Behind and is in no way something to strive for. Nope - I've got access to raw usage data, and I'm just letting people know that not everyone uses 50+gigs of data. You'd be surprised how many people don't use anywhere near their cap max. There are lots of people that just get emails and surf a little bit. It's not 50%, but it's not 1% either - and no, I can't release the data. The CRTC is all about base service level equality among _everyone_. Parachute Underwear posted:Maybe, but why is the lowest-priced Bell plan a 2 gig affair? When my family first got a computer in late 2000 we signed up with Videotron and had a 2 gig plan for $40. Eleven years ago. Bell is seriously bringing out a plan reminiscent of what we had literally a decade ago. The 2 gig data plan is really for those people forced to have crappy (think 512kpbs or worse) lines and/or need the cheapest possible connection. Good for email and that's about it - it does get used for cheap things like alarm systems and the like that only use a small amount of data and don't require much bandwidth. Business accounts are generally based upon the zoning of your building. So don't always expect to be able to get one. But if you can get a business POTS line, you can then order a business DSL on it which is 6mpbs instead of 5mbps, and unencumbered by UBB. (You'll pay more for the business POTS line and probably the business rate DSL).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
(Sorry, been busy) Okay, since the numbers got leaked (it's buried on Geist's site/blog): The average end-user of a CNOC ISP uses approximately 30GB per month. Bell has acknowledged in the past that only 10% of their users go past their bandwidth caps. And something to note is that chances are a high usage Bell customer left them for someone like TekSavvy in the past, skewing the distributions a bit. Makes you wonder how many low bandwidth users there are out there to balance out the 100+Gig transfers some people do...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Kreez posted:Browsing through Facebook, I see that a ton of people I went to school with or whatever have joined anti-UBB groups. I know the vast majority of these people have a cheap Bell account. Overturning UBB has nothing at all to do with Bell's rates, it's just their applying their lovely rates onto 3rd party ISPs, right? Correct - The UBB ruling was all about Bell enforcing their own usage rates and prices onto the 3rd party wholesalers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
asmallrabbit posted:Would is be possible for someone to give a proper rundown on all the terms that are getting thrown around during this whole issue? Like I keep hearing different comparisons of bandwith and caps and usage and congestion used in different ways that really stands out when you start seeing news articles and people for/against it that don't really seem to understand it or use it in conflicting arguments. I'll try a quick breakdown - one problem is that there's multiple usages of the same word.
Where the controversy comes from can be roughly explained the image I attached that shows the usage for 2 users: Yellow is your average person who comes home, surfs the web for cat videos/porn/netflix, then stops and goes to bed. Orange is someone with a torrent box at home that does a constant amount of transfer throughout the day. Blue is the combination of both users, and represents the maximal combined usage of the clients, and what the ISP has to plan for. Usage level (y axis) can be thought of as the rate (ie: constant user does 2 units of transfer per time period). This is Bell's position: Adding the area up shows that the constant user does 100 units of transfer over the entire period, while the variable user only does 64 units. Constant user uses more, and therefore should pay more. Roughly put, the constant user has 40% higher usage. The other ISP's view: The only number that counts is the maximal transfer, since infrastructure must be purchased for that level of usage (in this case, 10 units per time period). At all other non-maximal times, the gear is sitting idle, with no reduction in costs. Also, in this case, the variable user does 400% more than the constant user. Congestion would kick in when the gear purchased can only do 8 units of transfer per period. At that point someone needs to reduce their usage - who should it be? Do you tell the variable user, who purchased a 8 unit/period connection and uses it fully on occasion that they can't actually use it all - or do you harass the constant person, who also purchased a 8 unit/period connection, but is transferring a higher total amount of data? Now expand that 2 user issue to roughly 10 million users, with about a 10:1 ratio of variable:constant user types. Of course, this is very simplistic breakdown of the congestion problem. What I didn't get into is things like: the network's capacity is in fact variable due to other services being sold (eg: iptv). There are multiple ISPs using the same service with different billing methods. The transfers in my pretty picture are in fact combined up and down usage - you actually need to split the graph for each direction. unknown fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
CRTC's official statement: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2011/r110208.htm CRTC posted:CRTC to review billing practices for wholesale Internet services
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:Why did they write, "of its own initiative"? When it clearly was not their own initiative. The government didn't actually do anything - they just threatened to do something. So technically the CRTC decided to do the review on it's own initiative. Kind of like how someone can point a gun at your head and say they'll shoot you if you don't do what they say. It's still your choice whether or not to do the task (you just might not like the consequences of not doing the task).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
Streams are up now. http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=7272 There is no video - it's an audio only event.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:If I may don my tinfoil hat there....until a few months ago, bell was not throttling teksavvy traffic. Then suddenly around the 1st of the year they were. I just wonder if they turned the throttling off to get stats to show the CRTC. Then, once they had collected enough data, turned throttling on again. The stats that Bell showed to the CRTC are from mid-2009. They haven't submitted data since then. The changes to throttling that you've seen/not-seen are co-incidentally around the same time that Bell has been implementing their internal UBB infrastructure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Bell will be in the second panel on Thursday (approx 4:30pm - 5:30pm), also that's the last panel. Bell's IPTV offering runs over the same Dslam backhaul to the distribution network, just at a higher priority so won't be affected by any congestion issues. It's also not subject to UBB. Everyone else's IPTV offering must run "over the internet" and is subjected to congestion and UBB.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
DropDeadRed posted:There is actually no way for Bell to meter your traffic accurately if you are a Teksavvy DSL customer. If Teksavvy is dropping bytes due to traffic overload on their final upstream connection to the internet then you'd be retransmitting from your end. If there is any further traffic management even farther upstream then even Teksavvy would be double counting your reattempts. Accurate measurement is highly architecture dependent. Metering can only measure the flow at 1 spot: Where the meter is (IIRC, in the case of UBB it's the local BAS unit). How it's done: Counting PPPoE packets (+size) for correctly authenticated sessions from a specific dslam port that's attributed to the POTS number. Roughly: [ISP -> Bas -> traffic mgmt -> dslam -> you] It's then billed to the ISP that 'owns' the port a 4-5 weeks after the end of the month. (eg: We get Jan's usage in the beginning of March, in time for your April invoice) Nice traffic management is doable with some protocols (in tcp: MSS munging, window size, etc). But really the only spot that can do rate limiting properly is the sending side of the connection. A major problem is that the sender has no idea what the conditions on the network are, so must always guess. (read: transmit as fast as possible and if there's packetloss detected, slow down).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
Bell is in the 2nd panel (along with Shaw) - starting approx 4:45pm EST. So far, it looks like the only serious people are Bill Saniford (CNOC), Anthony Hémond (Union des consommateurs), and Teresa Griffin-Muir (MTS Allstream).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:Bell is now charging TekSavvy customers opening tickets to have lines tested. Acording to what has been posted in that thread, Bell bills EVERY customer that TS requests work on. TS then looks at each case individually and disputes them with Bell. However, if a Bell tech does not specify the work done on the ticket, Bell rules in favor of themselves leaving TS no choice but to bill the customer. That's been the case for months. When the ISP opens a ticket with Bell, and there's a truck roll, and the Bell tech claims it's inside wiring or the modem at fault, we get billed a DMC charge of $87.70. And often the Bell tech doesn't fix the issue and just marks it "ISP problem" and leaves. Since it's wholesale, Bell is responsible up to the demarc point so we should've done our own truck roll first, hence the DMC charge. Of course we don't have access to the same tools they do. Fighting a DMC is a royal PITA - Bell techs very often mark something as an ISP problem when in fact it's a Bell issue, and they're billing department is horrendously understaffed. Basically someone has to pull the entire Bell ticket and verify all the work done before a credit is issued (~1 hour work per ticket) - this all 2+ months after the outage. Bell has no incentive to actually staff the department because it's mandate is to basically hand out money to the ISPs. Edit: Correct the DMC rate. Edit2: Here's a favourite DMC reason: "BH=00.00;WS;/Found OK out OTHER-UNKNOWN, FIRE, RODENTS OR INSECTS" - actual reason: Tech forgot to hook up the dslam to the line. unknown fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Feb 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:I just moved and was barely getting 1mbps so I emailed TekSavvy and they saw that my profile was wrong and got Bell to fix it. Profile fixes don't require an on-site (and therefore a DMC). In fact the work was probably done by an automated process and had no human intervention at all. How you got a 1meg profile speaks volumes about Bell's QA process (the port should've been cleared/reset to 5mb when assigned). I'd put it at around 50% of all DMC are false, and are in 'dispute' with Bell. The late payment fees start stacking up only to be dealt with when BCE is subject to a takeover bid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
http://openmedia.ca/news/crtc-open-controversial-closed-door-meeting OpenMedia.ca Receives Invitation to Internet Governance Meeting, Pushes for Further Transparency March 14, 2011 – Pro-Internet group OpenMedia.ca received a call from the CRTC on Friday in response to their criticism of an upcoming closed-door meeting, which will play a role in shaping the future of broadcast and Internet regulation. The public engagement organization is lauding the CRTC’s efforts to broaden representation at the meeting. OpenMedia.ca’s initial concerns about the meeting, that takes place March 23rd and 24th, were reflected in a letter to supporters, wherein they expressed that without the watchful eye of the public, these invitation-only meetings would likely become “yet another big telecom lobbying bonanza.” The CBC later followed up and put these concerns to the CRTC. On behalf of the public, OpenMedia.ca has now also asked the CRTC for the full list of invitees, reasoning that this will help ensure Canadians and innovators are adequately represented. OpenMedia.ca is also asking that the meeting minutes be published and for the meeting itself to be recorded and made publicly available through live online video and audio stream. So far, it has been confirmed that the CRTC will disclose the list of participants. In so doing, the commission will promote a balance between representatives of Big Telecom, broadcasters, digital creators, and people working for Canadians’ interests. OpenMedia.ca executive director Steve Anderson believes that these requests are very reasonable, especially in light of increasing public concern over CRTC dealings. “It’s time to get away from industry groupthink,” said Anderson. “The CRTC has been insulated from public sentiment, especially evident in their treatment of the usage-based billing issue, but it can now take steps to fix that problem by opening their processes." “This meeting is part of a larger endeavour that will shape the future of our nation’s communications policy. It is incredibly important that the CRTC take into account the fact that industry groups are not the biggest and most important stakeholders -- ordinary Canadians are. In the 21st century, citizens want to play an active role in governance.” The CRTC is set to respond to OpenMedia.ca in the coming week with further information about their public engagement strategy for the meeting. A representative from OpenMedia.ca will attend the meeting on behalf of Canadians.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
Migishu posted:Apparently upgrading my line from 16mb to 25mb will require me to pay the $100 startup fee again. Actually true - they're switching your circuit from adsl to vdsl - different gear. The 2 technicians thing is also true (bureaucratic mess - 1 tech could do it all). But in the end it just sucks balls, but you'll have a better upload at least!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Migishu posted:Yeah the Bell tech explained that to me. He was also quite confused when I said that the first tech didn't come out, even more so when all he had to do was get the bandrate updated to 16/1 profile and it all worked straight away. Yeah, tech #1 (true-union Bell tech) does the dslam work and makes sure that it's working to your demark point on your building. In reality he just punches down the specific cable pair to a dslam port and never comes near your building since it's a point-to-point cable to your building demark. Tech #2 (a 3rd party contractor that is hired by bell but claims to be from your ISP) does the work from the demark to wherever you want it and does the required filtering and cabling. On the other hand, if you order from Bell directly (sympatico), tech #1 can do it all. This stupid arrangement is brought to you because the Bell techs would come on site and then attempt to sell sympatico services to the end customer (classic "oh, you're getting ripped off by XYZ, you should go with Bell since it's our gear anyways" reasoning). Also the inside wiring/filtering was being done very cheaply/badly by some ISPs causing huge amount of onsite support calls ($$).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Bets on packet loss for an internal link at teksavvy that's hit capacity unexpectedly due to their transit routing changes over the past while. Side note: capacity can be mean a few different things - actual max usage, interface buffer issues, hash table lookups failing, etc. There's lots of fun things when dealing with the 10s of gigs of true distributed Internet traffic that they do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
slidebite posted:If it's an ISP issue, any idea why streaming through the US DNS would work fine? Doesn't it still have to go through the same pipes to my house? Or do I misunderstand how it works? You've got it right, just the problem isn't at your house/neighborhood. The isp has multiple upstream providers (ie not same path in their network). Just when you're talking so much actual bandwidth being used in their case (the 10s of gigs comment I made), weird issues can crop up at capacity points and it's a lot harder to fix than just add another circuit/cable to fix it due to cost. I use teksavvy myself and do a lot of audio streaming, and it's been sucking due to packet loss at their high usage times of day lately.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:Didn't the majors (telus especially) inherit the vast majority of their original infrastructure from crown corporations? E.g. shouldn't they be paying us back? That's the only reason why you've got resellers like teksavvy and the like. It's also the reason why the Telcos are installing fibre since it doesn't have the same limitations/ownership issues. And a side point, they didn't inherit the cabling - they are the same company(ies) as back then.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
37th Chamber posted:I believe Teksavvy is actually losing money with the $5 dry-loop fee, the band charges range from $6 all the way up to $20. $4.25 - $22.10, Although DSL realistically tops out at rate band C, so you're talking $4.25 - $7.22 (source: pg 11 of the tariff: http://www.bce.ca/aboutbce/regulatory/tariffs/bellcanada/details/tariff/GT/___5______/_5410_____ )
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Eej posted:I just checked and they're not available. The condo I'm moving into was finished in December and the only lines I could find going into it are Bell Fibe and Rogers (+ Teksavvy cable somehow). I'm assuming they signed a sweet deal for exclusivity since it's a 74 storey tower. Your "Fibe" isn't DSL (note the 25 upload), so there's no TPIA access to it. (Cable on the other hand does have TPIA).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Mantle posted:I may have the chance to be part of a committee with the mayor of Victoria to raise issues affecting the tech industry here. Municipally-owned internet infrastructure is one idea I'd like to investigate but I am not super clear on how it's been successfully deployed and the kind of outcomes that have resulted. While I don't have any resources on hand, the only successful system that I've heard of working (when the government is involved) in a larger city environment, is a wholesale model for (dark) fiber infrastructure. Reasoning was that having 5+ conduits under the street all for telecom was becoming a hassle to manage. But even then, you'll find management is generally outsourced to someone else (like bell/hydro/etc), so in reality, there's nothing to be gained by the government doing it other than giving money to a company. Small towns are generally where you'll find government provided internet being "successful" due to the low number of end customers. (Low number = no reason for a company to do it since they'll lose money). The local govt is willing to lose $1k per customer just to give a reason for kids to stay in the town and make sure the town doesn't die. Look into the regulations regarding conduit trenching and common pole access in your area, and learn why those regulations are like that. Many people don't understand why things are done the way they are at the government level. An interesting exercise would be to figure out how to get services from building X to building Y down the street assuming there's no existing infrastructure in place that you can use (but lots of stuff like water, sewage and power to get in the way). Why does a build cost $30k, and did you really get permission from every building owner, what happens if you gently caress up the road and break it, etc. Don't forget that if you give someone any reason to sue the government, they've got no issues doing it. Also, the larger the community, the less likely people are willing to work as a whole when it comes to deploying services. (Think "why does bob across the city get 1gbps FTTH, and I have to wait 10 years?, gently caress spending my tax bucks on that! I'm voting my Councillor our of office!") Conceptually community/government internet is awesome, realistically it's a whole lot harder to do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Or you live in Olds, AB http://o-net.ca/ Hahahahahaha. Not a chance in major markets. They've barely paid off the investment in the FTTN gear at the moment, and haven't even leveraged it to profit properly. Amortization schedules in the telco/cable world are measured in decades, and only just starting to be reduced down (wonder why prices are going up? - that's a fundamental reason). In 10 years you'll start seeing momentum building, 20 for general deployment. Basically the cost of true FTTH is so high that they won't replace gear unless they absolutely have to. Will there be new developments with it? Sure, because it's easy/cheap and you don't have legacy issues. Existing ones? Probably not for a long time until there's a market reason to. Note that 100mbps internet isn't it - market share loss is though (and that can be 'solved' by buying out the competitor and closing them - see FCI broadband/Futureway and Rogers 10 years ago) Anyways, cost of installation is only the first thing (gear+cables). Imagine the cost of training every one of those repair guys to do fiber splicing in your unique house layout when you want to make a change... Some of them can barely handle doing bix punch downs and coax termination - and copper (be it twisted pair or coax) is much more forgiving than fiber.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Specifically for BC... Small communities will always be first. They get the most subsidies, have the smallest workforce to be trained, easiest to manage PR, and in general have the most cooperative municipal governments. (Note, I'm Toronto based) Much of the dealings I've had with Bell recently basically comes down to "We've spent a fuckton on the major cities, and we need to make money again since our shareholders are demanding it". (shareholders = pension funds, etc) Telcos are taking a beating on all sides/businesses arms, and already people are seeing the effects of that (take Shaw's 50+% effective price increase, cell phone costs rising). They're in the mode of making sure they make money from the items they've got now, and only do the absolute minimum required/demanded for expenditures unless they make a good profit. In BC, Telus got handed buckets of money through programs like Network BC (agreement) and got exclusive rights to do the work and even gets to own the infrastructure outright at the end of the agreement. Because of that, there will never be competition in the areas (most important part = regional interlinking), but at least it's possible to order up to burstable 100mb (half-duplex only!) (cir of upto 50mb) circuits during the agreement (until ~2020). Major cities will be the last to get upgrades, and I'll stand by my saying of 10 years of talking, 20 to widespread implementation of FTTH in them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
As long as the speed stays the same, it's just an accounting/record change on their side, no tech needed anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
And Bell Canada officially announces their Gigabit Fibe/FTTH offering is starting roll out in the fall. http://www.stockhouse.com/news/press-releases/2015/06/25/bell-gigabit-fibe-bringing-the-fastest-internet-to-toronto-residents-with-a quote:Bell Gigabit Fibe bringing the fastest Internet to Toronto residents with a billion-dollar+ network investment, creation of 2,400 direct jobs
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
bigmandan posted:Anyways, I wonder how they will be deploying this. If it's GPON, an endpoint could technically get gigabit on it, but it is a shared circuit (16, 32 or 64 split). It really depends on the optics though. Since they claim a 940mbps limit, that basically means it's EPON (due to it's like 30% overhead on 1.25gbps).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
It'll be interesting to see how the disaggregation actually ends up - ahsspi port in each CO, or something like a regional datacentre linking the area COs. And then the CBB billing on top of that. I'm not even sure if Bell knows how it'll be done internally. But you know they'll offer a MPLS service linking them together, so it looks exactly the same as before, just costing another 200% than before. UNE is really just moot now days, while it was being used in v high density situations (downtown TO), there were lots of problems with it - mostly related to servicing the circuits and gear. The advent of remotes killed that business a long time ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
zergstain posted:On the topic of Canadian internet, is there a map or any data out there about gigabit Fibe? I was wondering how widely deployed it is currently. Nothing good/concrete. Sites that have GigaFibe are generally new developments and condos (ie: where there's no preexisting copper/POTS lines to migrate). Since Bell is using Hydro's poles now for it in most areas, you can tell if the neighbourhood is even going to be capable by seeing if the new extra high power poles are installed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:Bell is actively targeting wealthy neighborhoods as well, even creating checkerboard patterns where they don't offer services to areas completely surrounded by areas getting service, with no geography that would prevent deployment. Now days anybody can get RoW access on public lands, it just costs a huge amount of money upfront (bonds, contracts, gear and staffing), so newcomers aren't likely to do it in existing areas. Sometimes it's just easier/cheaper to do it via a 3rd party, which even is what Bell is doing in this case (using Hydro poles). Basically municipalities have woken up to the clusterfuck it used to be for RoW access and the new income stream and now are charging huge $ and are making sure you've got the capability to fix the gently caress ups. (ie: storm damage and the like causing your cable/pole/hole/etc to close a street). On a related note, there was someone advertising jobs on craigslist for students/etc to go around to neighbourhoods and get private RoW access (via backlane/etc) so they could provide access to companies. Business idea: Play the long game and sign up your entire neighbourhood and then lease the package to someone else for a lifetime pay cheque. The real killer for 3rd party access to the GigaFibe network is going to be the backhaul cross connects. Instead of a single connection to Bell for all of Ont/Que (right now), the provider will have to get connections to each regional node (ie: CO - although that's not set yet) with 10G+. Basically Bell is offloading the backhaul costs to the providers which at that speed/distance is very expensive. Hopefully that'll get dealt with at the CRTC. This is what will be the doom of the independent ISP. So now you'll have things like the 3rd party only light up a small region and go intensive there and skip everywhere else until economics say otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
CRTC starts baring it's teeth. Executes it's first ever warrant on a call centre.http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/11/27/crtc-executes-first-ever-warrant-on-brampton-telemarketer.html posted:Sunny Freeman Business Reporter, Published on Fri Nov 27 2015
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
bigmandan posted:So I've been hearing some rumors that Primus has entered (or will be entering) creditor protection for 30 days and there is a buyout planed. Potentially Comwave. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/primus-in-court-creditor-protection-as-it-seeks-to-revamp-mission/article28297128/ posted:Facing steep debt obligations and steadily declining revenue, telecom reseller Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. has won court protection from its creditors and is seeking approval of a plan to sell its business to U.S. telecom provider Birch Communications Inc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
And in case people missed this - another voip company went is having problems and had all their Canadian DIDs pulled yesterday.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/telecom-spat-leaves-thousands-of-canadians-without-full-phone-service/article28276391/ posted:Telecom spat leaves thousands of Canadians without full phone service
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Rukus posted:Anyone familiar with how TPIAs buy their throughput/bandwidth from the incumbents? Is it fixed to matching download & upload blocks, or can it be asymmetrical? When looking at the ETA for my backups to get to ACD I was just pondering how well a TPIA provider would do that had higher uploads and lower(ish) downloads. This would appeal to those that need it for cloud-based applications (like photo editors) you hear about in the news when they talk about our third-world infrastructure. TPIAs purchase a physical access circuits (n*1/10/40/100gbps) and then purchase symmetrical bandwidth in (generally) 100mbps blocks that flow across those access circuits. Downstream (to end user) bandwidth utilisation is massively higher than upstream. Pretty well all broadband access tech (cable/dsl/gpon) is limited in upload capabilities in some way to reduce costs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 19:55
|
|