Fwd: We need your help -- CRTC Ruling would challenge telecom competition

[Martin Cleaver]

All - I think this is important for innovation in Canada. Please decide for your support and help if you agree.

Best, M.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: TekSavvy Solutions Inc <sup...@teksavvy.com>

Hello,

We need your help -- we need you to lend us your voice and state your opinion on a recent CRTC decision that could allow the incumbent phone companies (such as Bell and Telus) to discontinue offering services (Internet and phone) to wholesale providers which in effect would eliminate competition in Canada.

With no competition to help fuel the market; Internet innovation could come to stand still and prices for broadband access could skyrocket out of control.  The incumbents would also be free to do with the lines as they please.  This would open up future privacy invading Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technologies and direct marketing/advertising based on *you* and *your families* internet activities and habits.

They could also use this same technology to turn the Internet into a pay-per-website service the same way that TV is a pay-per-channel service. Can you imagine a world where you have to pay to use the Google website to search for information?  Then, if you find what you are looking for you may be restricted to the content because your ISP doesn't have a "peering" agreement with said company.

Please help us stop this major potential catastrophe.

All concerned consumers please visit:
http://www.competitivebroadband.com/consumer/

All concerned businesses please visit:
http://www.competitivebroadband.com

Read the information presented and decide for yourself.

Once you've decided what you think is right, you can click the "Make a Difference" link, fill out the form with your details and send a pre-written message to Minister of Industry Tony Clement, Prime Minister Harper, the Opposition Leader, and your local MP or choose to write your own.

Together we can make a difference.
Thank you,
TekSavvy Solutions, Inc.

[Rohan Jayasekera]

The following request from TekSavvy is self-serving and misleading.  TekSavvy is a reseller, not "competition".

[Nicholas Van Weerdenburg]

Um, isn't that what they said? Bell getting out of the wholesale business to what are effectively resellers? My understanding is that the regulations set a wholesale price to enable competition at the retail level as it is impossible for "competition" to lay there own lines locally in a cost effective manner. While an odd business model it did seem to lower prices.

That said, I'm not sure about the paranoia tie-in. Having 2 or 3 providers should provide competitive pressures and government regulation should also provide privacy protection.

[Mar...@cleaver.org]

 

Having 2 or 3 providers should provide competitive pressures and government regulation should also provide privacy protection.

You'd think so, but

An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). The word is derived, by analogy with "monopoly", from the Greek oligoi 'few' and poleein 'to sell'. Because there are few sellers, each oligopolist is likely to be aware of the actions of the others. The decisions of one firm influence, and are influenced by, the decisions of other firms. Strategic planning by oligopolists needs to take into account the likely responses of the other market participants. This causes oligopolistic markets and industries to be a high risk for collusion.

(Wikipedia)

--
Mar...@Cleaver.org
http://twitter.com/mrjcleaver
+1 416-786-6752 (GMT-5)

[Rohan Jayasekera]

Yes, this is precisely the problem.  There will be a truly competitive market only if there are enough infrastructure providers (not mere resellers).  I believe this is on its way.  The current fixation on phone and cable networks is short-sighted, as there are alternatives for the "last mile".  Satellite is unfortunately not a good one because of the lag; it's suitable only for rural areas where it's the only way to get broadband.  And the (pre)WiMax Inukshuk Network was promising, but it ended up being owned 50-50 by Bell and Rogers.  However, WiMax is now reaching the level of commercial maturity that others can create WiMax networks -- it's one of the two main 4G technologies.  And let's not forget the other wireless technology, the mobile networks.  My EV-DO service is pretty good and LTE is coming.  Which is important in Canada because several new mobile carriers are busy getting ready to launch and wireless prices will plummet.

[Neil Lee]

Le 24-09-09 à 12:51, Rohan Jayasekera a écrit :

> The following request from TekSavvy is self-serving and misleading.
> TekSavvy is a reseller, not "competition".

That's not accurate, actually - if I recall correctly, Teksavvy relies
on Bell copper to get to the customer's demarcation point, as does
*everyone else* that offers DSL in Bell-serviced / wired areas.
Everything else runs over Teksavvy's own network; they don't resell
Bell's products.

Unless something has changed, and I highly doubt it has, that still is
the case, unless Rohan knows something I don't.

Neil

[Rohan Jayasekera]

This just goes to show how successful TekSavvy has been with its misleading
PR. TekSavvy is in fact a reseller of Bell's "Nexxia" network, but likes to
pretend that it is a competitor. Nexxia now throttles BitTorrent usage,
thus all the squawking from TekSavvy and its customers. TekSavvy could
prevent throttling by doing exactly what you describe, and that would be
awesome, but that would cost them considerable money. "Talk is cheap": hot
air is cheaper than infrastructure.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Lee" <ne...@hushboom.com>
To: <tor...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: We need your help -- CRTC Ruling would challenge telecom
competition

Le 24-09-09 ą 12:51, Rohan Jayasekera a écrit :

[Mark Kuznicki]

I think Neil has the most accurate description of the current state.
TekSavvy and other 3rd party DSL providers are not reselling a Bell
service (i.e. all of Bell's stuff with a different brand face on it),
they are leasing wholesale access to the local copper network in order
to connect TekSavvy's network to the retail customer. The backhaul and
customer service capacity belongs to the 3rd party provider.

Can anyone add further detail on the current state?

What is the start-point of the Bell network that 3rd party DSL
providers like TekSavvy use to provide Internet access to retail
customers?

Let's be clear about what we're talking about.

mk

[Rohan Jayasekera]

Mark, you presumably haven't yet seen my last email, which I hope helps to
answer the questions you ask. Frankly I am appalled at how otherwise
intelligent people have, in their zeal to "stick it to the Man" and to
demand unlimited services for free, been all too willing pawns of an
underhanded company. -Rohan

[Neil Lee]

Le 24-09-09 à 14:09, Rohan Jayasekera a écrit :

> TekSavvy is in fact a reseller of Bell's "Nexxia" network, but likes
> to
> pretend that it is a competitor.

That's news to me - the last time I used them, bandwidth was provided
by Peer1 and Cogent.

Neil

[Neil Lee]

Le 24-09-09 à 14:19, Rohan Jayasekera a écrit :

Rohan, chill a little, okay? I'm not a "willing pawn" trying to "stick
it to the man", I'm just trying to clarify some smaller points of a
very complex issue. You might have some compelling points to make but
they're hard to find with the bewilderingly aggressive tone you've
decided to use.

Neil

[Simon Ditner]

I don't doubt they put their own spin on the story -- however I
believe Mark and Neil
are correct about their infrastructure. Teksavvy and providers like
them are only using
Bell for the last mile. They back-haul the network traffic from the
aggregation points
right behind the DSLAM's at each wire centre over ATM to their own network.

My understanding is that Bell has pushed their traffic shaping
hardware right to the
edge of the network, and are not willing to give them direct access to
their customers
anymore. This should only be a matter of updating the policy rules in
the DSLAM for
Teksavvy's customers, but then they'd have to offer it to eeeveryone ;-)

It's probably related to Bell's effort to get their DSLAM's out of the
wire centre, and
closer to the curb (I think they call them CSLAM's), which then runs over fibre
to the local wire centre. Being that close, they could start offering
video over DSL.

Cheers,
spd

2009/9/24 Mark Kuznicki <mark.k...@gmail.com>:

[Rohan Jayasekera]

TekSavvy's Peer1/Cogent bandwidth is for the connection to the wider
Internet. To be a true competitor, TekSavvy could connect to Peer1 and
Cogent at one end, and to the customer's phone line at the other end (at
Bell's central office). But that would cost them a lot more, and might
require a major fight with Bell for access.

As for chilling, I apologize for getting heated on this -- I certainly don't
want to disrupt in any way the efforts of you and others to get
clarification on this issue. What caused me to get so upset was that this
group seemed to be getting pwed again by a particular company trying to
advance its own interests while claiming other motives.

[mkuplens]

Despite being a Teksavvy customer, I have to confess a certain degree
of sympathy for your position, Rohan. True competition in this space
does require a greater degree of infrastructure than the current
wholesale/reseller configurations boast.

On the other hand, price ceilings on wholesale access to Bell's
infrastructure (with the proviso that the reseller provide their own
primary network for internet traffic) does provide a high degree of
price, if not product, competition that ensures the cost-to-consumer
of DSL-type internet connectivity approaches a reasonable level.

This price competition has been tremendously effective. After what,
two, maybe three years of fairly relentless migration from Sympatico
(and Rogers) to wholesale/resellers such as Teksavvy, the cost of
comparable service is close to comparable. A 6/1 [cap 25GB] DSL
service from Bell is $29.95, a 5/.8 [cap 200GB] service from Teksavvy
is also $29.95. The only real difference (ignoring difference in
hypothetical peak rate which is unlikely to be achieved) is how much
of their monthly transfer allotment they're willing to share with you.

Of course Canadians don't *need* companies that resell other peoples'
services. It's never been about that; if Canada was a little smaller
and providers could actually wire it without requiring vast government
investment, it wouldn't be an issue. And I, as a Canadian citizen,
certainly don't want to see the government spending 5x the money that
is required for core infrastructure.

After all, if Bell's last-mile copper is built and managed by one
division (or group company) that leases its services to Bell's
consumer & business internet divisions (or group companies) as seems
to be the case, then what is the harm in ensuring that *all* companies
that wish to provide consumers with DSL-type internet connections and
services be permitted to lease access to said last-mile copper at the
same or substantially same rate?

What we do need is whatever form of competition we can get. Handled
fairly. There should be space for providers who wish to sell customers
services in a pint glass, and others who want to sell it through a
seriously-wide-mouthed shot glass. And just because the shot-glass
seller owns the bar, doesn't mean the pint glass shouldn't be able to
sit on the same shelf (and in a related subject, shouldn't be forced
to place a martini strainer over its opening). If you know what I
mean.

Anywho, it seems to me that one of our infrastructure/subsidy geniuses
could do with digging out some numbers on what percentage and portion
of telco infrastructure in Canada was paid for by gov't subsidy. Might
be enlightening, but I haven't the foggiest where to track it down.

Cheers,

-m

[Rohan Jayasekera]

Martin, I agree with you 100% that while we benefit most from competing
infrastructures, the existence of resellers is much better than nothing. As
you put it, we need whatever form of competition we can get.

I see Canada's future more optimistically, though. The vast majority of us
live in urban areas that are amenable to broadband service delivered via
WiMax or LTE. While for truly rural people the best broadband that can be
done is via satellite (where major lag is unavoidable -- as Louis CK put it,
"would you give it a second? to get back from space?"), for semi-rural
people there is increasingly the option of fixed wireless from providers
such as Xplornet. In fixed wireless, users have a line-of-sight wireless
connection to a tower in a nearby town.

Not one of those approaches requires laying cable or copper. They're
certainly more expensive than piggybacking on existing cable TV / telephone
infrastructure that was likely paid for long ago, but surveys show that
Canadians now tend to view high-speed Internet access as an essential
expense, sort of like food and shelter, and will pay a reasonable amount for
it. For those who can't afford it, I can imagine future governments
factoring the cost into income supplements, or for the voucher-oriented
(like US food stamps), distributing vouchers that can be used only to pay
for Internet service. While traditionally governments have sent their
subsidies to the providers instead of the users, that is far less practical
in an environment where there are multiple competing infrastructures --
which in my opinion is a good thing; I'd rather see subsidies given to users
who need them, instead of governments' interfering with markets. I look
forward to a truly competitive future.

[SmartPatterns]

Impressed that individuals where able to separate content from tone
and not discount the content because of tone. Great
conversation...thought provoking.

[Xphox]

Hello everyone,

I'm only posting here because one of my good friends is a TekSavvy
customers and asked for my professional opinion on this issue. He
linked me to a this thread and asked confirm what is true/false.

So in a nutshell I have to feel for the little guy (TekSavvy) and less
for Bell. Why? Well while I agree that Bell has been around for
years and years and has put in a solid foundation for a country wide
copper/fiber network which many of us use we must remember that a lot
of our tax dollars went to assist with this funding. Now my issue is
that if Bell, MTS, Telus, and the Aliants of this country are going to
be the major players they should be expanding everywhere and not just
in major city areas. The problem is they tend to focus only where
they can maximize their profits and forget about the rural areas.
Okay I'm getting a little off topic... <end rant>

As previously stated, the issue is with the last mile. Currently
there are very few solutions available to date which are copper (phone
system), copper (cable system), and wireless. Internet over power is
still far away unless some external company comes in from oversea to
invest. The problem with wireless is that it's a unsecured and you
have to deal with rogue wireless interference as not everyone has a
private wireless spectrum and most use 802.11 which is open to the
public for anyone to use.

Now if your a little guy like TekSavvy there is simply no way that you
can afford to lay thousands of kilometers of copper into the ground.
It's simply too costly both for the copper and the labour/permits.
Also fat chance digging up existing cities to lay copper in parallel
to Bell's for the last mile (that's just stupid).

Now to be clear, just because you are using Bell's last mile does not
mean you need to be on their Nexxia network. Also the issue here
doesn't seem to be with the last mile, but instead where the customer
gets their DSL signal from.

Resellers will get their ADSL sync from a Bell's Edge Access Network
(Call it what you want: Redback, BAS, DSLAM, etc...)
Competetors will get their ADSL sync from their own CPE (Customer/
Carrier Personal Equipment) ie: Their own DSLAMs.

Let's use an example: Have you ever been asked to connect with
test@test for your username? If so you know that when you do this you
are connecting to Bell's BAS using a test username to verify you have
connectivity to their access network. Once you are inside their
access network they simply pipe you off to your ISP's core network via
tunnel switches which TekSavvy would rent from Bell.

Visual Help:
=========
Reseller: Home -> Bell's Copper To Central Office -> Bell's DSLAM ->
Bell's Tunnel Switched Access TekSavvy -> TekSavvy Core DSL Router ->
TekSavvy Core Transit Router -> Internet
Competitor: Home -> Bell's Copper To Central Office -> Competitor's
DSLAM -> Private Leased Line from Central Office to Competitor's Core
DSL Router -> Competitor's Core Transit Router -> Internet

Where Bell wants to place their DPI and throttle your bandwidth is
right on their DSLAM which provides you sync. This way they can fully
control what traffic you are sending over their Nexxia network and
make sure that you are not being a bad net citizen (torrents!!!).
This way Bell's customers will not suffer from wholesalers bad
policies. The issue is that most ISPs want to control their users and
want an untouched/unthrottled connection right to their core.
Resellers feel if Bell touches their customers traffic before they do
it's unfair.

Ultimately if people could use the internet connections properly and
not have 4 PCs in their home connected to hundreds of remote computers
downloading torrents from around the world we'd have a much happier
life. Bell doesn't feel it should have to upgrade it's core routers
to handle hundreads of thousands of connections trying to max out
their bandwidth 24x7x365. Instead they want to filter it before it
gets to their core and affects their customers. Long gone are the
days of unfiltered Internet connections. The sooner we accept this
the sooner we can all be happy. If people used NNTP (News) / FTP
(News) the internet would be a much happier place.

I think that from 8am-midnight there should be traffic shaping put in
place. Nothing pisses me off more then when I'm trying to surf or
stream video and all of a sudden my connection chopps / lags. Sure I
get pissy when I'm not getting 12Meg from my rapidshare downloads at
3pm in the afternoon, but quite frankly businesses and normal users
need the bandwidth too. I think ISP should adobt a blackout period
when most humans in North America are sleeping and turn off their DPI
(Deep Packet Inspectors) and allow us power users to run havoc. This
would create a happy balance.

Instead Bell is just trying to control everything... So in the end no
Bell should not be able to stop reselling and no Bell should not be
able to throttle your resellers traffic. However if Bell doesn't then
you as an ISP should be playing your part. If your company cannot
fork out the hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement DPIs on
it's own private network, I think they should be forced to subscribe
to Bell's. However if you own your own DPIs you should not have to
deal with Bell's rules.

Now one last thing before I go. Ultimately if we end us loosing our
small TekSavvy's we'll end up loosing a lot of customized services.
Fat chance getting a static IP from Bell on a residential connection,
and if you are a business be prepared to pay an arm and a leg.
Whereas little mom/dad shops offer these solutions for as little as $5
extra per month.

So I fully support the little guy, but I also have to semi side with
why Bell is trying to do what they are trying to do. I just wish they
were going about it a better way.

A long post and I'm sure I forgot to touch on many subjects, but
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about my post
and I will do my best to reply.

Cheers,
Nicholas Diotte

[Rohan Jayasekera]

Nicholas,

Thanks for the info on how things are subdivided around the DSLAM. So why
doesn't TekSavvy use its own DSLAMs? Then their customers wouldn't be
affected by the throttling that Bell applies to all users of its network.
Is it that (a) Bell won't allow it, or (b) TekSavvy doesn't want to spend
the money? I for one would appreciate any light you can shed on that
question. You say that "Bell is trying to control everything" but I'd like
that statement to be backed up: people talk as though Bell makes all the
decisions that affect TekSavvy, but TekSavvy makes its own decisions too,
and I'd really like to know which is which.

Thanks,
Rohan