I never said 'last mile' I described both the last mile and getting the data to the NOC. All of those rental fees are paid for at cost + 15%
Even if those 3rd party aggregration links are fully saturated it makes no difference. If it did, then Bell didn't do their homework on submitting their costs for these tarrifs. If that's the case they should apply for updated GAS tarrifs instead of trying to both double dip and set retail rates for their competitors via UBB.
You're lacking full knowledge of how Bell's GAS access works apparently.
This isn't about what's reasonable. This is about Bell imposing additional retail based costs when 3rd party ISP have already paid for their bandwidth.
1. They pay Bell a fee per subscriber and this fee has been deemed by the CRTC to be 'fair and just' as per tarrif.
2. They pay a fee for each 1 Gb/s aggregration link to their NOC, again as per tarrif.
Now that the packets are in the hands of the ISP, so to speak, they should be able to decide how to manage that traffic. This includes paying for the upstream transit, their own routing gear, etc.
So why does Bell get to double dip and tack on an additional cost for something that the ISP delivers. Is Bell going to pay the upstream transit?
If anyone is looking for a free lunch here it's Bell.
I think a class action lawsuit demanding our money back for all who've seen this movie is more appropriate. That's a couple of hours of my life I'll never get back.
"And yet, we hadn't really heard of it actually working anywhere... until now."
Really, you have never heard of what basically amounts to a crude variation of a "salami attack" Mike. I'll leave it to interested readers to find the pertinent examples. This technique has been around for a lot of years in different forms.
This is better referred to as a carpet bombing approach. And given that they're pocketing 50% of the fines, why would they stop? So who authorized these clowns to to extort in the first place? Or can anyone start a business like this?
The article mentions the report was done by sweet consulting which is apparently run by Gavin Sweet and Helen Sweet. I'd like to see this actual report not just BPI's interpretation of it.
• Background Music on Hold over a Telephone [15B]
• Background Music provided by Audio Tapes / Compact Discs /
Jukeboxes / Radio attached to speakers [15A]
• Fitness / Dance Instruction [19]
• Karaoke [20]
• Live Entertainment Accompanied by Recorded Music [3B]
• Live Music (i.e. Bands / Single Performer) [3A]
• Motion Picture Theatre / Drive-In Theatre [6]
• Receptions, conventions, assemblies and fashion shows [8]
• Recorded Music for Dancing [18]
• Recorded Music in an Adult Entertainment Club [3C]
• Recreational Facilities Operated by Municipality, School, College or University [21]
• Skating Rink (Roller / Ice) [7]
"knowing that their rules will be in line with everyone else"
Say what now? You've just described the ratchet effect. These 'anti-counterfitting' negotiations include so much copyright measures it should be called the pro-copyrightholders treaty. Here in Canada we already have had some semblance of public consultations on copyright. That feedback from thousands of citizens basically made it clear we don't need more draconian measure like 3 accusations and you're out. Yet, according to you, in order to be 'in-line' with everyone else, our government should institute copyright law against the wishes of it's citizens?
On the post: Angry Birds CEO At Peace With Chinese Counterfeit Merchandise
not just in china
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Re: Ever been to school Mike ?
2. You probably meant either students' ability or student's ability. (not sure if you were referring to the plural form)
3. You started your second sentence with conjunction.
4. You probably meant "I have to issue you a B" rather than "I have to issue with a B"
5. you probably meant to say "Spellcheckers work well" rather than good.
My unschooled son would have caught these errors. No, he hasn't been to school since grade 1.
As you can see, we all make mistakes. Stop nitpicking already.
On the post: Mattel's Lawsuit To Claim Ownership Of Bratz Comes Back To Bite Big Time: Told To Pay $309 Million
unbelievable
I can't wrap my head around that number.
On the post: Judge Allows US Copyright Group To Shakedown 23,322 IP Addresses For Downloading The Expendables
Actually
On the post: How Lawyers For Settlers Of Catan Abuse IP Law To Take Down Perfectly Legal Competitors
Re: Prefer Indepence
On the post: Canadian Broadband Regulators Annoyed That People Are Pointing Out They Don't Understand What They're Regulating
Re: Re: Re:
Even if those 3rd party aggregration links are fully saturated it makes no difference. If it did, then Bell didn't do their homework on submitting their costs for these tarrifs. If that's the case they should apply for updated GAS tarrifs instead of trying to both double dip and set retail rates for their competitors via UBB.
On the post: Canadian Broadband Regulators Annoyed That People Are Pointing Out They Don't Understand What They're Regulating
Re:
This isn't about what's reasonable. This is about Bell imposing additional retail based costs when 3rd party ISP have already paid for their bandwidth.
1. They pay Bell a fee per subscriber and this fee has been deemed by the CRTC to be 'fair and just' as per tarrif.
2. They pay a fee for each 1 Gb/s aggregration link to their NOC, again as per tarrif.
Now that the packets are in the hands of the ISP, so to speak, they should be able to decide how to manage that traffic. This includes paying for the upstream transit, their own routing gear, etc.
So why does Bell get to double dip and tack on an additional cost for something that the ISP delivers. Is Bell going to pay the upstream transit?
If anyone is looking for a free lunch here it's Bell.
On the post: Expendables Producers Decide To Demand Cash From Fans Who Downloaded
worst movie seen in a while
On the post: Magnet Madness: Legal Threats, DMCA Takedowns & Goofy Videos & Photos -- But No Actual Lawsuits
streisand strikes again
On the post: Will The NAB Agree To A Performance Rights Tax In Exchange For Having RIAA Support Mandatory FM Radio In Mobile Phones?
hmmmm
Will my iphone sans FM be confiscated at the airport as I enter the US because it doesn't conform?
Maybe I can rent an FM tuner for the duration of my stay in the US?
This is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've seen in a while. It's not going to fly.
On the post: To Find Needles In Haystacks, US Gov't Has Built Hundreds Of New Haystacks
someone call Jack Bauer
You know, where data is magically filtered, decrypted and displayed on wall sized monitors in real time.
On the post: Scammers Actually Got Away With Millions Of Microtransactions Scam
really
Really, you have never heard of what basically amounts to a crude variation of a "salami attack" Mike. I'll leave it to interested readers to find the pertinent examples. This technique has been around for a lot of years in different forms.
On the post: Company That Sends Out Almost-Extortion-Like 'Pre-Settlement Letters' Sees No Problem With Almost-Extortion-Like 'Pre-Settlement Letters'
not machine gun approach
On the post: Sorry, There's No Silver Bullet Business Model For The Music Industry
not to be nitpicking but ....
Aren't silver bullets for werewolves and the rest for vampires?
On the post: Internet Addiction Might Actually Get Recognized By The Official Book Of Mental Disorders?
(gee is that my boss coming this way? Uh oh I really shouldn't be surfing techdirt all day long.)
On the post: Confused Musician Threatens Google, Blog Because Her Works Are Found Elsewhere On The Internet
:-)
On the post: Judge Not Amused By South Butt's Amusing Legal Filing
you missed the best part
"I do not find it to be implausible that the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution"
The judge is unable to distinguish between a face and a butt.
On the post: BPI Insists UK ISPs Overstating The Cost Of Three Strikes; So Will BPI Pay The Difference If Wrong?
where's this report?
Sweet Consulting: http://www.sweetconsulting.co.uk/about.html
Gavin Sweet
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/gavinsweet
Helen Sweet
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/helen-sweet/5/80b/aa0
On the post: SOCAN Wants To Charge Buskers Performance Fees
FYI these are the items that SOCAN deems to be licensable
source: https://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/lic/n_user.jsp
• Background Music on Hold over a Telephone [15B]
• Background Music provided by Audio Tapes / Compact Discs /
Jukeboxes / Radio attached to speakers [15A]
• Fitness / Dance Instruction [19]
• Karaoke [20]
• Live Entertainment Accompanied by Recorded Music [3B]
• Live Music (i.e. Bands / Single Performer) [3A]
• Motion Picture Theatre / Drive-In Theatre [6]
• Receptions, conventions, assemblies and fashion shows [8]
• Recorded Music for Dancing [18]
• Recorded Music in an Adult Entertainment Club [3C]
• Recreational Facilities Operated by Municipality, School, College or University [21]
• Skating Rink (Roller / Ice) [7]
On the post: Why Would Countries Leave ACTA Negotiations If Text Was Public?
Re:
Say what now? You've just described the ratchet effect. These 'anti-counterfitting' negotiations include so much copyright measures it should be called the pro-copyrightholders treaty. Here in Canada we already have had some semblance of public consultations on copyright. That feedback from thousands of citizens basically made it clear we don't need more draconian measure like 3 accusations and you're out. Yet, according to you, in order to be 'in-line' with everyone else, our government should institute copyright law against the wishes of it's citizens?
Thanks, but no thanks.
Next >>