MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
| reply to mlerner
Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC
said by mlerner  :What's this? The CRTC is growing a pair of balls!? No. Just pseudo-testes. |
|
Jazdi
join:2009-07-06
Ottawa, ON | reply to jfmezei
Just a reminder, Bell's unredacted interrogatories are due tonight.
(paging JF!) |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
2 edits | Ok, I give up on assembling multiple Bell documents into on, just converting them to .PDFs |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
1 edit | reply to jfmezei
Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC
These are the supplemental responses from Bell:
It appears I finally have all of the 12 XLS sheets on that last .PDF but some printed on 2 pages (second page blank for some reason). |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to jfmezei
Here is MTS's submission |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to jfmezei
Here is MNSi's reponse. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to jfmezei
Here is Acanac's filing |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
1 edit | reply to jfmezei
Here is the submission from Teksavvy Solutions Inc. (hopefully I got the right version, multiple ones were sent). And I was lucky thart I got it, I suspect many servers will have rejected it as spam.
»www.openspf.org/Why?show-form=1&···t=Submit
(It was sent from a "perfora.net" SMTP server which is not listed in the teksavvy SPF records as being authorized to send emails signed by teklsavvy accounts). |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to jfmezei
Here is CISP's filing. |
|
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03
·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·Videotron
| reply to jfmezei
said by Supp-1 :
"As illustrated in Table 7 below, the proposed changes to GAS service will align
the Companies' retail and wholesale Internet offerings." Urgh, they're not supposed to be "aligned", GAS is supposed to be priced to enable wholesalers to compete... not resell "aligned" services so-called "competitors" cannot compete with in any significant manner... and for good measure, Bell also throws in TPIA as a reference a few paragraphs down from there, a crooked analogy for the same reasons.
But the CRTC will probably buy this argument hook, line and sinker until GAS/TPIA get elevated to essential service status.
I hope the following tidbit will raise many eyebrows within the CRTC:
said by Supp-1 :
"Further, in the case of 512 Kbps GAS, the charge for usage beyond the 2 GB
monthly usage allowance up to 300 GB is $22.50 for 298 GB, or $0.0755 per GB.
For 2 Mbps GAS, the charge for usage after the 20 GB monthly usage allowance
up to 300 GB is $22.50 for 280 GB, or $0.0804 per GB. For 5 Mbps GAS, the
charge for usage after the 60 GB monthly usage allowance up to 300 GB is
$22.50 for 240 GB, or $0.0938 per GB. Thus, the proposed per GB usage
charges for 512 kbps, 2 Mbps and 5 Mbps GAS are $0.0755 per GB, $0.0804
per GB and $0.0938 per GB respectively." A stark contrast with Bell's proposed $0.75+/GB. It's not @cost but at least rates scale more reasonably... we should be able to get at least this much out of the currently proposed UBB rates.
Too tired to look into the rest... but I expect most of the rest to be similar rubbish. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| There is SO much that is wrong with UBB on a wholesale PPPoE service, it is hard to know where to begin to battle Bell's propaganda.
The CRTC has made it clear that it wants GAS to be a "resell" instead of "wholesale" service. It wants parity between GAS and retail services. So one wonders is there is any point in debating this at all.
Looking back at last year's Bell "reseller" rethoric, it seems that Bell Canada was succesfull in convincing the CRTC that GAS was merely a "resell" service that is flat rated. Until this is changed, debating throttling or UBB is pointless because in a resale service, Bell gets to dictate all service levels. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to jfmezei
Execulink has also made a filing |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to jfmezei
Distributel has also just submitted its responses. |
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError :I hope the following tidbit will raise many eyebrows within the CRTC: said by Supp-1 :
"Further, in the case of 512 Kbps GAS, the charge for usage beyond the 2 GB
monthly usage allowance up to 300 GB is $22.50 for 298 GB, or $0.0755 per GB.
For 2 Mbps GAS, the charge for usage after the 20 GB monthly usage allowance
up to 300 GB is $22.50 for 280 GB, or $0.0804 per GB. For 5 Mbps GAS, the
charge for usage after the 60 GB monthly usage allowance up to 300 GB is
$22.50 for 240 GB, or $0.0938 per GB. Thus, the proposed per GB usage
charges for 512 kbps, 2 Mbps and 5 Mbps GAS are $0.0755 per GB, $0.0804
per GB and $0.0938 per GB respectively." A stark contrast with Bell's proposed $0.75+/GB. It's not @cost but at least rates scale more reasonably... we should be able to get at least this much out of the currently proposed UBB rates. Too tired to look into the rest... but I expect most of the rest to be similar rubbish. That's still pretty crappy. They've got to be out of their freakin minds. |
|
MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
1 edit | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError :I hope the following tidbit will raise many eyebrows within the CRTC: said by Supp-1 :
"Further, in the case of 512 Kbps GAS, the charge for usage beyond the 2 GB
monthly usage allowance up to 300 GB is $22.50 for 298 GB, or $0.0755 per GB.
For 2 Mbps GAS, the charge for usage after the 20 GB monthly usage allowance
up to 300 GB is $22.50 for 280 GB, or $0.0804 per GB. For 5 Mbps GAS, the
charge for usage after the 60 GB monthly usage allowance up to 300 GB is
$22.50 for 240 GB, or $0.0938 per GB. Thus, the proposed per GB usage
charges for 512 kbps, 2 Mbps and 5 Mbps GAS are $0.0755 per GB, $0.0804
per GB and $0.0938 per GB respectively." A stark contrast with Bell's proposed $0.75+/GB. It's not @cost but at least rates scale more reasonably... we should be able to get at least this much out of the currently proposed UBB rates. It's worse than rubbish.
The per GB rates quoted by Bell presuppose that a user will consume ALL of the excess GB's in the rate band. That's what makes the rates appear to be low.
In reality most users will NOT consume anywhere close to the full amount of what the $22.50 would allow you to consume.
Think of a normal distribution curve. I would bet that the 60Gb limit was specifically chosen to ensure that the largest number of people would fall into the 60-70GB/month range, thereby making their 'quantum' charge per 'excess' GB to be in the range of $22.50 - $2.50 per GB consumed. I believe that one can safely make this assumption due to the large numbers of customers involved.
What Bell is doing is ensuring that independent ISP customers, on average, pay more than Sympatico customers for the same amount of data. At the same time the independent ISP's pay all their own transit and hardware costs for their own infrastructure, thereby making them financially weaker and less able to challenge Bell in the future. |
|
GNca George
GorillaNET
Premium
join:2008-07-12
Minden, ON
1 edit | said by MaynardKrebs :Think of a normal distribution curve. I would bet that the 60Gb limit was specifically chosen to ensure that the largest number of people would fall into the 60-70GB/month range, thereby making their 'quantum' charge per 'excess' GB to be in the range of $22.50 - $2.50 per GB consumed. I believe that one can safely make this assumption due to the large numbers of customers involved. Not a chance. The largest group, by far, is going to fall into 0-15 GB/mo taken over the entire DSL population and will never encounter UBB excess charges with the proposed rate schedule.
That usage number will be higher for some of the specialty ISPs like Teksavvy of course.
I expect 60GB is at least 90th percentile, if not 95th percentile taken over the DSL network as a whole.
edit: If you mean specifically the group that will encounter overage charges, then yes its reasonable to assume that the bottom end of usage is going to have more people than the top end.
There is no doubt that UBB as proposed is punitive, but that's also supposed to be the point. A traffic control measure is likely to be punitive by its nature.
--
Tough Broadband for a Tough Crowd!
GorillaNET.ca - 10Mbits to your desk, coming soon. |
|
MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
| 
Probability Distribution Function | | 
Cumulative Distribution Function | |
said by GNca George :said by MaynardKrebs :Think of a normal distribution curve. I would bet that the 60Gb limit was specifically chosen to ensure that the largest number of people would fall into the 60-70GB/month range, thereby making their 'quantum' charge per 'excess' GB to be in the range of $22.50 - $2.50 per GB consumed. I believe that one can safely make this assumption due to the large numbers of customers involved. Not a chance. The largest group, by far, is going to fall into 0-15 GB/mo taken over the entire DSL population and will never encounter UBB excess charges with the proposed rate schedule. That usage number will be higher for some of the specialty ISPs like Teksavvy of course. I expect 60GB is at least 90th percentile, if not 95th percentile taken over the DSL network as a whole. edit: If you mean specifically the group that will encounter overage charges, then yes its reasonable to assume that the bottom end of usage is going to have more people than the top end. There is no doubt that UBB as proposed is punitive, but that's also supposed to be the point. A traffic control measure is likely to be punitive by its nature. So looking at the Probablilty Distribution graph (and ignoring the units), I think it's safe to assume that the green curve represents the overall population and its consumption of GB/month per person - skewed towards the low end of consumption.
I suspect that the 'heavy' users alone (defined by Bell as >60GB/month), consumption distribution falls along the blue curve, with probably 50%+ falling in the 60-70 GB/month range, though perhaps the red curve is more indicative.
It would be interesting if all CAIP members pooled their user data and came up with similar graphs for their user community as a whole and then compared their own users consumption vs. the CAIP averages.
It's also instructive to look at a cumulative distribution graph just to have an overall sense of where the consumption really lies. Again, these are just example mathematical curves based on large numbers of observations (but not of DSL consumption). |
|
Croaker
join:2009-10-01
Ottawa ON
| reply to GNca George
said by GNca George :[...]The largest group, by far, is going to fall into 0-15 GB/mo taken over the entire DSL population and will never encounter UBB excess charges with the proposed rate schedule. Is it your belief that $22.50 is excessive given your statement? I'd rather have grandma pay $5 for her 0-15GB of usage. |
|
An_Onymous
join:2009-10-24
Canada
| reply to jfmezei
Above table appears in Bell's submission: »/r0/download/1···Supp.pdf page 3
At the projected grow rate of ~15% per year suggested by their study, in 5 years from now (2014) average usage of Basic Residence would already reach into the UBB range: 65GB. That violates the premise that the average household uses less than the UBB amount.
Without an automatic increase in the quotas and depreciation for the UBB charges, there are no reasons for them to grow the capacities. |
|
