Deal Guru
User avatar
Sep 10, 2009
10900 posts
402 upvotes
GT&A
I'm a bit lost here.

Can someone please give us a summary?

What exactly is going to happen?

Will UBB be imposed on us innocent and defenseless customers?

Thanks.
troll: someone you dislike, fear or do not comprehend...
11b guide
When the doorbell rings, it's just a request. You are not a dog, it is not a command, only a request. You are not in church, you are at home. No guilt.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 20, 2004
6935 posts
81 upvotes
longitude wrote: I'm a bit lost here.

Can someone please give us a summary?

What exactly is going to happen?

Will UBB be imposed on us innocent and defenseless customers?

Thanks.

There are plenty of summaries if you care to look. Geist's article on the last page is a good start.

But the short answer is no.
vero95 wrote: LOL what does project management have to do with project being over budget?
vero95 wrote: $5c for a plastic bag >= $30 for a jug of milk
Banned
Jan 11, 2004
19816 posts
562 upvotes
teleguitar wrote: Do you people realize how pathetic Internet is in Canada compared to other countries?!?

Over at DSL Reports, they're talking about the real details and the price increases that Bell/Rogers is going for. Reading the crap from this Mark guy just shows that there's so many stupid people out there so it's easy for the CRTC to cater to these monopolies.

it's pretty good from looking just south of us where rfd whiners always says why is everything cheaper in the states.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 29, 2001
4793 posts
40 upvotes
Toronto
You know it's so funny we haven't heard from Mark Goldberg since last night.

Maybe Mark and Mirko Bibic are busy in George Cope office crunching the number.

And jotting down talking points for the press, trying to spin this setback as victory for Bell.
Mark77 wrote: That's not very nice....and you're missing out on a lot of valuable knowledge if you ignore me. Your loss.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Apr 24, 2006
10140 posts
640 upvotes
Mississauga
Does Mark actually think he is going to change anyone's mind? "Pay more now, so we can have less in the future"
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
18128 posts
2633 upvotes
Langley
flashy_mcflash wrote: So Mark, one question - if the cost of bandwidth claimed by Teksavvy (and everyone else other than Bell) are so incorrect and easily disproven, why didn't Bell disprove it in front of the CRTC? I would think that little tidbit would've been a slam dunk to get UBB approved, but for whatever reason Bell couldn't assemble enough evidence to prove their case.

So who's lying here?

The CRTC did approve UBB, as far back as 2000. Nobody's lying, the CRTC just decided that the charging by capacity is better than charging for bandwidth. It's in the decision. The CRTC commented that billing disputes are easier to resolve with capacity billing, and direct UBB was off the table anyway because of the political interference.

There wasn't much dispute about the costs of bandwidth, but people zero'd in on the overage charges of $2 or something. But that's like returning a rental car late. There's a punitive charge because the company plans for the car to be back on a certain date. Same thing with network capacity, a user (or reseller) has to plan how much bandwidth they'll use, and the network build follows the planned demand.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 20, 2004
6935 posts
81 upvotes
i6s1 wrote: The CRTC did approve UBB, as far back as 2000. Nobody's lying, the CRTC just decided that the charging by capacity is better than charging for bandwidth. It's in the decision. The CRTC commented that billing disputes are easier to resolve with capacity billing, and direct UBB was off the table anyway because of the political interference.

There wasn't much dispute about the costs of bandwidth, but people zero'd in on the overage charges of $2 or something. But that's like returning a rental car late. There's a punitive charge because the company plans for the car to be back on a certain date. Same thing with network capacity, a user (or reseller) has to plan how much bandwidth they'll use, and the network build follows the planned demand.

None of this answers my query. Mark posited that Teksavvy's claim that bandwidth costs 'pennies per gig' is an easily disproven claim. Do you not think that it would've been in Bell's interests in this case to say "this is a breakdown of the costs per gig, and this is why we charge what we do"? So far I haven't seen anything from Bell that justifies exactly how much profit they're making per gig.
vero95 wrote: LOL what does project management have to do with project being over budget?
vero95 wrote: $5c for a plastic bag >= $30 for a jug of milk
Deal Fanatic
Dec 11, 2003
7878 posts
345 upvotes
For the same ~$15 access price, Rogers offers 10 Mbps while Bell only offers 5 Mbps. In addition of offering half the speed, capacity rate from Bell is nearly double of Rogers. If that's how it pans out we should see 5 Mbps DSL more expensive than 10 Mbps cable internet.

Looks like I will cancel my DSL and phone line along with it.
October 2015 for sale, PM for details!
PS3 EA Sports Active 2 $20
195-65-15 Winter tire with alloy wheel $500
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
flashy_mcflash wrote: None of this answers my query. Mark posited that Teksavvy's claim that bandwidth costs 'pennies per gig' is an easily disproven claim. Do you not think that it would've been in Bell's interests in this case to say "this is a breakdown of the costs per gig, and this is why we charge what we do"? So far I haven't seen anything from Bell that justifies exactly how much profit they're making per gig.

You can see from Bell's financial statements that, on their entire system, wired and wireless, they make around 15 cents 'profit' for every dollar they take in overall. Now, it is well known that wireless margins are far higher than wired margins, so the wired margins are considerably less.

15 cents profit on every dollar taken in does not imply that they're 10X overcharging relative to their cost of production. 1/ (1-15%) = ~17% higher rates than their 'cost'. And 'cost' is such a subjective thing in telecom because the assets are very long-term, and ultimately, many accounting assumptions have been made concerning the life of those assets which may or may not be accurate. If Netflix was allowed to run wild and destroy the TV business, the accounting assumptions would have been innappropriate and Bell would have been forced, sooner or later, to record an impairment.

Now if Bell has 200%, 300% profit margins, like the Teksavvy's of the world suggest.....then we might be having a different conversation, but quite frankly, Canada has enough entrepreneurs that would step up to the plate and create systems in competition to Bell for local infrastructure that such wide margins would be completely unsustainable. Heck, Teksavvy might even be one of those entrepreneurial organizations!
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
Mar 18, 2009
1447 posts
284 upvotes
Renous
elty wrote: For the same ~$15 access price, Rogers offers 10 Mbps while Bell only offers 5 Mbps. In addition of offering half the speed, capacity rate from Bell is nearly double of Rogers. If that's how it pans out we should see 5 Mbps DSL more expensive than 10 Mbps cable internet.

Looks like I will cancel my DSL and phone line along with it.

I'm sure you won't be alone. Any potential profit from this move will be offset by the exodus of customers. Bell has been sitting on it's customer base for too long, and now they're adding weight.

Way to go Bell! ;)
Reserved for future time travellers
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
18128 posts
2633 upvotes
Langley
flashy_mcflash wrote: None of this answers my query. Mark posited that Teksavvy's claim that bandwidth costs 'pennies per gig' is an easily disproven claim. Do you not think that it would've been in Bell's interests in this case to say "this is a breakdown of the costs per gig, and this is why we charge what we do"? So far I haven't seen anything from Bell that justifies exactly how much profit they're making per gig.

The CRTC would have had to justify those costs to the CRTC in confidence before UBB was approved last year. They won't be public knowledge, but the CRTC doesn't just approve whatever costs Bell wants. There's no need to re-justify those costs at this hearing, but telcos did submit costs for remote DSLAMs to justify the 10% premium for those services. Even reading the latest decision, the CRTC did adjust the costs from one of the telcos (don't remember which one, I don't think it was Bell) because they depreciated the concrete pad, cabinet and conduit over too short a time frame. A mistake in my mind, since the next gen is fiber, and since copper and fiber will have to co-exist for a period of time, a new pad will have to be built and some new conduit placed. After that, when the copper is no longer used, the pad and the cabinet will be obsolete.

If the CRTC didn't feel that Bell's numbers were adequately justified last year, then they wouldn't have approved those costs at that time.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
Tijuana wrote: Does Mark actually think he is going to change anyone's mind? "Pay more now, so we can have less in the future"

The 'neat' thing about this debate is that if Bell's rates are excessive, and if an excess profit windfall is going to accrue to Bell, you can participate in it by purchasing BCE stock.

So tell me, are you lining up to buy BCE stock? Or not?

The dividend yield is already well over 5%. So its not like you're going to have an opportunity cost versus keeping your money in a 0% savings account, if you believe the narrative that Bell is this hugely over-profitable company that the Teksavvy's of the world seem to be pushing...
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Member
Apr 8, 2009
315 posts
69 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: You can see from Bell's financial statements that, on their entire system, wired and wireless, they make around 15 cents 'profit' for every dollar they take in overall. Now, it is well known that wireless margins are far higher than wired margins, so the wired margins are considerably less.

15 cents profit on every dollar taken in does not imply that they're 10X overcharging relative to their cost of production. 1/ (1-15%) = ~17% higher rates than their 'cost'. And 'cost' is such a subjective thing in telecom because the assets are very long-term, and ultimately, many accounting assumptions have been made concerning the life of those assets which may or may not be accurate. If Netflix was allowed to run wild and destroy the TV business, the accounting assumptions would have been innappropriate and Bell would have been forced, sooner or later, to record an impairment.

Now if Bell has 200%, 300% profit margins, like the Teksavvy's of the world suggest.....then we might be having a different conversation, but quite frankly, Canada has enough entrepreneurs that would step up to the plate and create systems in competition to Bell for local infrastructure that such wide margins would be completely unsustainable. Heck, Teksavvy might even be one of those entrepreneurial organizations!



Boy, you need to study ACCOUNTING 101.
profits in a corporation is what is leftover after income hiding is done to the max, and no other possible ways are possible to hiding the leftover cash anymore.

I personally know many corps use "empty shell" company to stash their cash before reporting their revenue.

.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
al_the_great wrote: Boy, you need to study ACCOUNTING 101.
profits in a corporation is what is leftover after income hiding is done to the max, and no other possible ways are possible to hiding the leftover cash anymore.
Bell has a very high debt burden, but income is not 'hidden' to the max at Bell, and public companies have every good reason to report as much as they can. Executive bonuses, and the value of their stock options are typically predicated on reporting great financial results.

There is no grand conspiracy at Bell to hide profits, or to report profit that doesn't exist. Usually in public companies with public reporting, and executives that hold stock or options, it is quite the opposite. Laws like Sarbanes-Oxley (which apply to Bell) were brought in because firms were over-reporting profit, not under-reporting it.
I personally know many corps use "empty shell" company to stash their cash before reporting their revenue.
If you have any evidence of Bell committing accounting/securities fraud or providing misleading statements to investors, there is a whisteblowers hotline, which has been set up. How to reach it is detailled somewhere on the Bell website.

Otherwise, your comments can safely be ignored.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
Oct 27, 2007
2075 posts
75 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: Bell has a very high debt burden, but income is not 'hidden' to the max at Bell, and public companies have every good reason to report as much as they can. Executive bonuses, and the value of their stock options are typically predicated on reporting great financial results.

There is no grand conspiracy at Bell to hide profits, or to report profit that doesn't exist. Usually in public companies with public reporting, and executives that hold stock or options, it is quite the opposite. Laws like Sarbanes-Oxley (which apply to Bell) were brought in because firms were over-reporting profit, not under-reporting it.



If you have any evidence of Bell committing accounting/securities fraud or providing misleading statements to investors, there is a whisteblowers hotline, which has been set up. How to reach it is detailled somewhere on the Bell website.

Otherwise, your comments can safely be ignored.
Stop lying and spinning things. You're disgusting....

Top