how-to block ads
|
freejazz_RdJ
join:2009-03-10
1 edit | reply to globus999
Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC
If people want a capable network for the future where they aren't dependent on a third party, we need a new pipe to every home, run by a neutral corporation.
We don't have that today because the infrastructure is in private hands with shareholders. I'm saying that you don't encourage a private business to develop new capabilties and you don't get the best product available if you ask a private business whose best interests are not in wholesale to offer a wholesale product for all eternity.
And on this "Punished? Well, if it is NOT your capital that enabled your company to be in a position to have an "absence of facility bases competitors" then, basically, forever. This means, for as long as you are making $$$ out of it. If not, then please fork back ALL the subsidies, unpaid rights of way, tax breaks, etc. your company received since the beginning to implement this infrastructure. You don't like it? Well, then you shouldn't have accepted the money in the first place."
I say whose capital is it other than the shareholders? Sure, they had a rate of return monopoly, but their network wasn't build with government money, despite some supplementary funding for which there were competitive bids to build broadband under some OMAFRA and Industry Canada programs.
People claim that there are all these subsidies of the major telcos, but every competitor has the right to these same subsidies should they exist. Everybody pays the same fees to the municipality, to the hydro company for poles, etc.
The arguments that support perpetual wholesale only strengthen Bell's grip on the network because it keeps them as 1 of 2 suppliers to your house. We need a 3rd infrastructure owner, but we won't get it until the existing ones are sufficiently unattractive, ie. higher price or a fixed expiry on mandated wholesale access. | |
freejazz_RdJ
join:2009-03-10
| Another point: if an incumbent builds a new FTTH network, would they have to share seeing as it wasn't built under monopoly and without subsidy? Where would that leave wholesale seeing that they're dependent on Bell? For how long would it be reasonable to share this new network with wholesalers?
The purpose of the mandated wholesale isn't to provide price controls for consumers, but a leg up for new facilities based competition. If people want regulated prices for things, they shouldn't be advocating wholesale, but retail price controls or a state owned provider that provides universal service at little to no profit. | |
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
 ·Colbanet
| Step 1: Build national copper network using subsidies and government-induced monopoly
Step 2: Use said monopoly to generate tons of profit
Step 3: Use said profit to build a new FTTH network
Step 4: ????
Step 5: Profit!
I don't think so. That FTTH network *WAS* derived from the monopoly/subsidies, regardless of the direct source of funding. | |
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to freejazz_RdJ
What is wrong with sharing your network ?
Because Wall Street Casino Analysts have decided that ARPU is important, companies like Bell are focused on raising ARPU instead of being focused on profitability. Wholesale doesn't raise ARPU even *if* it were more profitable than retail.
What if it was actually more profitable for Bell to simply wholesale its infrastructure and not have to bother with retail ? It ARPU might drop to 0, but shareholders would get more money.
What is bad for shareholders is deploying some fancy network and paying big bucks for it, and having policies that prevent full leveraging of revenues on that network because you prevent wholesalers from access it.
This is why it is important that Bell Canada be forced to spin off Sympatico and ExpressVue (or whatever they will call their IPTV service). This way, it can concentrate of full leverage of its infrastructure, and making its CO's competitive for co-location instead of purposefully making it hard for people to co-locate there because Bell doesn't want to help competitors.
If you have an infrastructure company, its goal is to help anyone and everyone use its facilities to maximize revenues on that infrastructure.
Consider the fibre bundles along the tracks between 151 Front and either Detroit or Buffalo. My guess is that there are probably 2 or 3 carriers who actually own the bundles. Do they make it hard for their competitors to buy capacity (either dark or lighted) on those bundles ? No. They want to sell as much capacity on those cables as they can to maximise revenues on that stretch of physical cable. If they don't sell to their competitors, they will end up with underutlised cables and revenues that are too low to have cost justified laying that physical cable in the first place.
And this is why good ISPs find out who actually owns the fibre cable used by their transit providers. If you have transit with 3 providers who happen to all get dark fibre on the same physical cable, then one terrorist (or city worker) with a backhoe will cut you off from the internet. | |
freejazz_RdJ
join:2009-03-10
| reply to Guspaz
If the argument is to be once a monopoly, always treated as a monopoly, why allow competition at all? Simply go back to rate of return. You'll get better economies of scale and a universal service obligation. It's not competition to make one company the host for every other provider by force. Competition implies an ebb and flow of forces that instill risk taking, innovation and such. But fake competition created by mandated wholesale isn't a good solution. No other competitive telecom market adopts resale only, but rather encourages facility ownership.
There isn't anything wrong with sharing, but the belief that it produces the most efficient result hasn't been borne out by the experience in other countries. It leaves most of the control in terms of what is offered in the control of a 3rd party and it doesn't address most of the complaints people have. If you read in the TSI forum, most technical issues are blamed on Bell, yet everyone is eager to continue the use of their infrastructure. Not to mention their policy sucks. | |
freejazz_RdJ
join:2009-03-10
| reply to jfmezei
Bell's profitability and share price have a direct impact on their ability to obtain capital to invest back into their network. It's the same with any other business.
I doubt it would be as profitable to be wholesale only, since you're essentially selling your infrastructure at a discount to allow another corporation to make a further profit on it. Furthermore, if the goal is maximum service and the lowest cost with a constraint on profits, go back to rate of return. A cap on profit, universal service and everyone's happy, except the existing competitors.
If you're going to contrain the telco by making them a wholesale only entity, you'd have to do the same to all infrastructure owners, including cable. Otherwise there will be some degree of capital flight and investors will lose a lot of money as the prospects of growth and increasing profitability disappears for BCE. | |
MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
| reply to freejazz_RdJ
said by freejazz_RdJ  :Absolutely TBBPM. Cost plus for several elements is a necessity. As I've said before to those who use the excuse "But Bell always applies to have unbundled loops removed from mandated wholesale so we won't build a product on it", it won't happen that way. The local loop is the single most costly portion of the network and the hardest to duplicate. But I still disagree that every figure, even for loops, should be thrown out in public, because some of those elements, mostly surrounding labour and contract costs may be sensitive. But that's open for debate, and I'd be 100% for it if competitors could hire a 3rd party to review them in confidence on their behalf with a prohibition on disclosing the details while being allowed to challenge certain aspects. No need for a 3rd party study if *all* ILECS were required to make costs public. It would advantage/disadvantage equally.
And if you aren't an ILEC today but you become one through acquisition or your own build-out then you get to report too. | |
MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
| reply to freejazz_RdJ
said by freejazz_RdJ :If people want a capable network for the future where they aren't dependent on a third party, we need a new pipe to every home, run by a neutral corporation. We don't have that today because the infrastructure is in private hands with shareholders. I'm saying that you don't encourage a private business to develop new capabilties and you don't get the best product available if you ask a private business whose best interests are not in wholesale to offer a wholesale product for all eternity. And on this "Punished? Well, if it is NOT your capital that enabled your company to be in a position to have an "absence of facility bases competitors" then, basically, forever. This means, for as long as you are making $$$ out of it. If not, then please fork back ALL the subsidies, unpaid rights of way, tax breaks, etc. your company received since the beginning to implement this infrastructure. You don't like it? Well, then you shouldn't have accepted the money in the first place." I say whose capital is it other than the shareholders? Sure, they had a rate of return monopoly, but their network wasn't build with government money, despite some supplementary funding for which there were competitive bids to build broadband under some OMAFRA and Industry Canada programs. People claim that there are all these subsidies of the major telcos, but every competitor has the right to these same subsidies should they exist. Everybody pays the same fees to the municipality, to the hydro company for poles, etc. The arguments that support perpetual wholesale only strengthen Bell's grip on the network because it keeps them as 1 of 2 suppliers to your house. We need a 3rd infrastructure owner, but we won't get it until the existing ones are sufficiently unattractive, ie. higher price or a fixed expiry on mandated wholesale access. Ask just about any shareholder of Bell/Rogers whether they'd want the company split in two - a guaranteed rate-of-return portion owning the outside wiring/fiber (widows & orphans bond - like the old Canadian Pacific 4% perpetuals - maybe set as a floater at CPI +3%) and a stock portion encompassing IPTV, wireless, dialtone based service, and the answer would be a resounding yes. Even the Bay Street boys would think it a good idea - two pure plays - one infrastructure, one Wild West. | |
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03
·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·Videotron
| reply to freejazz_RdJ
said by freejazz_RdJ :Regarding monopoly, the technically don't have a monopoly, but simply an absence of facilities based competitors. Microsoft isn't an absolute monopoly either but it has a ~90% market share which makes it a monopoly for all practical trading purposes. Same goes with Bell and DSL.
said by freejazz_RdJ :Lastly, for all the claims that FTTN is necessary, most users don't want to pay a premium for FTTN speeds Many GAS subscribers would be willing to pay premiums just to be Bell-free without any speed upgrades and throttle-free without having to use work-arounds.
As for paying premiums for "FTTN speeds", may I remind you that some people are paying over $100/month to get 10+Mbps multi-line MLPPP... that's a pretty beefy premium. | |
hmm
@videotron.ca
| said by InvalidError :said by freejazz_RdJ :Lastly, for all the claims that FTTN is necessary, most users don't want to pay a premium for FTTN speeds Many GAS subscribers would be willing to pay premiums just to be Bell-free without any speed upgrades and throttle-free without having to use work-arounds. As for paying premiums for "FTTN speeds", may I remind you that some people are paying over $100/month to get 10+Mbps multi-line MLPPP... that's a pretty beefy premium. I think the operative words you left out is this:
"may I remind you that some people are paying over $100/month to get 10+Mbps unthrottled with higher usage limits multi-line MLPPP"
No one wants to pay a premium for something crippled to the extent that Rogers and Bell are crippled with such low B/W usage.
As is, many people have stated if UBB comes in they are jumping ship. Would you pay 100$ for 60-gigs per line? Even being unthrottled people are going to jump just based on B/W limits, throttle aside.
So it's not just the willingness to pay a premium, as you stated.
It's people trying to get faster speeds w/o have to pay more than $100+ as they would with Bell & Rogers based on B/W usage while being throttled on Bell & Rogers. | |
freejazz_RdJ
join:2009-03-10
| reply to jfmezei
I agree, a split infrastructure company could make sense in some cases, separating the risky venture side of business from the lower risk infrastructure business, but I believe Bell, Rogers, Telus, etc. have most of their value in their networks. The remaining company would have little left, and also lose the tight integration with their other divisions. For example, the fiber that wraps halfway around the world for the new HSPA is probably provided and managed by Bell wireline. Bell TV probably leverages transport from Bell Wireline, while IPTV leveraes Bell TV. This separation is difficult with this diagonal integration.
Separating active and passive infrastructure seems kind of pointless given that few companies have shown interest in the moving up the facility ownership chain, especially given the cost of such a separation. Functional separation has worked elsewhere, but only where the impediment to competition was lackluster unbundled loop provisioning, pricing or maintenance by the incumbent.
Ideally, the most efficient way of getting everybody better broadband is to offer either a passive or an active wholesaler entity that allows access to cable, telco and indie providers on equal terms, but that wouldn't work so well. It would duplicate many features already provided by existing networks, incumbent (Rogers, Bell, Telus, Shaw) and competitive (Atria and the incumbents out-of-territory CLEC operations) likely at a high cost to taxpayers or consumers, depending on how it's built and run. Plus if the telcos and cablecos resist using it, the cost per subscriber to would skyrocket if less than 25-40% of households buy in. And the seizure of the incumbent telco and cable networks won't happen... the chilling effect on investment and the losses incurred by investors (market cap of telco/cable in Canada is probably what, $80B?) would not be politically or economically sound.
But what most people propose seems to be competition, but with anyone other than the incumbents allowed freedom, while still demanding things from said incumbents. The regulatory takings encourage providers to funnel their investments into areas that are more lucrative than those subject to mandated wholesale. These would be TV, MDU broadband, metro ethernet for business (if 2008-17 stands), toll, VPLS/MPLS and other business services, VoIP, Wireless, professional services and foreign investments.
Many people paint me as a shill, a rampant capitalist, etc. but what I really want is a diversity of providers able to make choices about the products they offer, not just the 1 or 2 infrastructure owners deciding what works for them and grudgingly offering it wholesale at some later date should they be able to satisfy the regulatory tests for a service to be offered wholesale, which may or may not happen. That isn't agile competition, it's an ugly bastard child of regulator imposed facility resale of many replicable facilities that produces weak offspring that don't survive long once they leave the protective nest of the regulator. I don't want a tweaked Sympatico from 3 years ago with better support and a slightly lower pricetag, I want something that has a competitive value proposition of price, features, support and functionality. | |
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to jfmezei
Don't underestimate the value of having 2 million customers, which produce the revenue to drive heavy advertising.
If TekSavvy, as a GAS customer, had 2 million customers (impossible, but let's pretend), they'd have enough money to bankroll some serious infrastructure investment. They'd have enough money to transition a significant portion of their customer base off GAS if in a relatively short amount of time.
Even if Bell lost their biggest financial asset (their network), they still have the marketshare, and more importantly, the mindshare. | |
pnjunction
Teksavvy Premium
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to jfmezei
I too noticed that they failed to mention their $5/40GB usage insurance plans in the retail/wholesale comparison.
Also I notice that the CRTC asks questions like "confirm that information to justify X was included in Y" and Bell just says yes it was included. What a joke.
And of course we have the neglect to justify why higher speeds are inaccessible even though they go over the same monopoly-funded copper as the old speeds. | |
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| As far as the CRTC is concerned, it is written black on white that Bell Canada has complied with requirement to provide matching speeds.
Bell was able to interpret the ruling as "provide matching speeds for users on legacy ATM network". So Bell has provided matching speeds on that legacy ATM network (whatever that means).
The CRTC cannot be that gullible. In 484, they wrote that Bell complied with matching speeds and that its decision was in line with policy directives on competition etc. They wrote that because they had to, but they knew full well that both were false.
Was the CRTC really influenced by the need to say "YES" to Bell and just copied some decision text that Bell had prepared to help the CRTC ?
Or did the CRTC knowingly write these errors in fact/law to facilitate an R&V of this interim decision to stall the process until after Cabinet has made a decision on the Bell Canada appeal (expected Dec 10th). | |
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Update:
The CRTC TN-7181 page at:
»crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2009/b2_7181.htm
now contains the original Bell Canada answers to the interrogatory. A .ZIP file with many .DOC and an .XLS file in there too. | |
Forced Rules
@videotron.ca
| reply to jfmezei
What I find both interesting and funny is that Bell says in their filing that their AUP is, and always has been, part of the wholesalers end-users terms of service. Yet, none of the wholesalers, that I noticed, reference this in their own terms of service/AUP that their customers are bound to Bell's TOS/AUP.
One part of Bell's AUP that they say all wholesalers are bound to, is this part (Doc 3):
you are prohibited from using the Service for activities that include, but are not limited to:
• Running and/or hosting server applications including but not limited to HTTP, FTP, POP, SMTP, Proxy/SOCKS, and NNTP.
I don't see this in the double-standard brothers terms of service (that I noticed), yet they and all their customers are bound to it.
Another example would be Acanacs VPS service, this breaks a few things in the Bell AUP.
Raises an eyebrow, even if trivial. I've asked this a few times and was told Bell's AUP is not part of the wholesalers AUP. This says otherwise.
This now raises the questions of other Bell policies that wholesale customers/users may be bound to, yet their wholesale ISP doesn't inform their customers (as is the case with the Bell AUP). | |
globus999
join:2008-05-15
| reply to freejazz_RdJ
said by freejazz_RdJ :I say whose capital is it other than the shareholders? Sure, they had a rate of return monopoly, but their network wasn't build with government money, despite some supplementary funding for which there were competitive bids to build broadband under some OMAFRA and Industry Canada programs. People claim that there are all these subsidies of the major telcos, but every competitor has the right to these same subsidies should they exist. Everybody pays the same fees to the municipality, to the hydro company for poles, etc. Whose capital? OURS, WE, paid it with OUR TAXES. So, yes, it is an extension of OUR capital.
"Supplementary funding" that's a good one! You make it sound like they were given chum chnage. WAKE UP BUDDY!!!! They were given TENS OF BILLIONS!!!! There was SO much money given to to Bell that it is pretty much impossible to count. It is NOT only the DIRECT subsidies that count, but is is also all the INDIRECT ones, all the laws and regulations, government support, government siding in legal issues, etc, etc, etc, ALL that money DID NOT came from Bell's pockets but from OURS. THAT is precisely the entry barrier that competitors are facing today. It is NOT only the direct subsidies, is all the "other" expenses that are required.
As to "competitive bids" WHO CARES!! Let's say that at the time Bell would have lost and Telecom from Spain would have win. SO WHAT? We would have now a monopoly run by Telecom instead of Bell and STILL be in the same position!!! This argument is NONSENSE!
"every competitor has the right to these same subsidies should they exist. " Oh.. .OK.. Please kindly let Rocky know WHERE he can get the SAME subsidies that Bell received over the last... oh... Idunno... 50 years or so to build FTTH. I mean, is this argument serious or are you pulling a fast one on me? CAMON!!!! I am not THAT stupid!
"Everybody pays the same fees " Yeah... sure... right.... EXCEPT that Bell DID NOT have to negotiate ANYTHING with anybody. ALL was given to Bell BY REGULATION. AND, where there was an objection, then the GOVERNMENT, at GOVERNMENT'S expense, cleared the way!! Yeah... sure... "everybody pays the same" sure... buddy... sure... | |
globus999
join:2008-05-15
| reply to freejazz_RdJ
said by freejazz_RdJ :Another point: if an incumbent builds a new FTTH network, would they have to share seeing as it wasn't built under monopoly and without subsidy? Where would that leave wholesale seeing that they're dependent on Bell? For how long would it be reasonable to share this new network with wholesalers? The purpose of the mandated wholesale isn't to provide price controls for consumers, but a leg up for new facilities based competition. If people want regulated prices for things, they shouldn't be advocating wholesale, but retail price controls or a state owned provider that provides universal service at little to no profit. Pointless, your argument is pointless. OF COURSE NOT. NONE of the other Incumbents that build their networks are forced to wholesale share it. WHATAREYOUTALKINGABOUT? NOBODY is advocating this. I haven't seen A SINGLE POST that would advocate this. WHY are you bringing this up?
As to the purpose of the law, you are now reading legislator's mind, aren't you? WOW!!! your powers are really incredible!
The end game is to have the lowest possible pricing. This can be accomplished by competition or by price-cap. It a brain-dead CRTC and Legislature do not DO ENOUGH NOR RIGHT then YES, MOST DEFINITIVELY, we need to use whatever tools we have left. This is, use the law to keep prices low by capping wholesale and imposing neutrality and non-interference. | |
globus999
join:2008-05-15
| reply to freejazz_RdJ
said by freejazz_RdJ :There isn't anything wrong with sharing, but the belief that it produces the most efficient result hasn't been borne out by the experience in other countries. It leaves most of the control in terms of what is offered in the control of a 3rd party and it doesn't address most of the complaints people have. If you read in the TSI forum, most technical issues are blamed on Bell, yet everyone is eager to continue the use of their infrastructure. Not to mention their policy sucks. Again, WHO is saying that we want to stay on Bell forever???? Why are you twisting the arguments??? What we are saying and were saying all along is that RIGHT NOW we have NO OTHER choice but to stay with Bell.
As to the argument that sharing does not work, well, I beg to disagree. There is a great deal of EU countries with SHARED FTTH infrastructure and it works just fine. In contrast, the US is "pure competition" and it sucks big time. So no. You are mistaken. The truth is that the shared model works in places that MAKE IT work. I believe Canada is such a place. We CAN make it work. However, there is no single company in Canada that can pay for such infrastructure. Canada is just too wide. Government subsidies are necessary for the same reason they were necessary 50 or so years ago to build the phone network. | |
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Videotron
| reply to hmm
said by hmm :
I think the operative words you left out is this:
"may I remind you that some people are paying over $100/month to get 10+Mbps unthrottled with higher usage limits multi-line MLPPP"
No one wants to pay a premium for something crippled to the extent that Rogers and Bell are crippled with such low B/W usage. Prior to the imminent threat of UBB, people were already using SINGLE line MLPPP to evade the throttle and could get UNLIMITED over a single line so the only reason to get multiple bonded lines before UBB kicks in was for the extra speed.
Pre-UBB, there is no need for anyone to get multiple lines other than speed... they can evade the throttle with MLPPP for free (or $4/month with TSI) and get unlimited for $10/month extra on a SINGLE line, no need to pay $40/month for a secondary dry line unless you want the speed. Post-UBB, multiple lines will be cheaper than overage beyond the 380GB/month mark. | |
-
|
