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?
not just in china
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.
unbelievable
I can't wrap my head around that number.
Actually
Re: Prefer Indepence
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.
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.
worst movie seen in a while
streisand strikes again
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.
someone call Jack Bauer
You know, where data is magically filtered, decrypted and displayed on wall sized monitors in real time.
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.
not machine gun approach
not to be nitpicking but ....
Aren't silver bullets for werewolves and the rest for vampires?
(untitled comment)
(gee is that my boss coming this way? Uh oh I really shouldn't be surfing techdirt all day long.)
:-)
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.
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
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]
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.
More comments from Perry K >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Perry K.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt