[on-asterisk] Variable expressions broken?
In Asterisk 1.4.23.1, expressions don't seem to be working.
According to the docs (doc/channelvariables.txt), you should be able to
do this:
exten = 1,2,Set(koko=$[2 * ${lala}])
In my system I have this:
exten = i,2,Set(TRIES=$[1 + ${TRIES}])
However, it generates this error:
WARNING[6389]: ast_expr2.fl:407 ast_yyerror: ast_yyerror(): syntax
error: syntax error, unexpected $end, expecting '-' or '!' or '(' or
'token'; Input:
1 +
^
I know this worked in the past so is there something I'm not seeing or
are expressions not working in Asterisk?
Regards,
--
John Lange
http://www.johnlange.ca
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org
For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org
[on-asterisk] linksys spa400 annoyances
I've found documentation around the spa400 rather scarce, especially regarding some annoying behaviors: First, it picks up the analog line before ringing through to my SIP phones, and second, it beeps when it initially picks up the line. Anyone know how to get around this so that it doesn't answer before the called party answers, and doesn't beep upon answering? Cheers, spd -- | It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what | you know for sure that just ain't so. -- Mark Twain | | Network: http://www.linkedin.com/in/spditner | http://facebook.com/people/Simon-P-Ditner/776370031 | http://twitter.com/spditner - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org
RE: [on-asterisk] linksys spa400 annoyances
Simon, I am assuming you have disabled Answer after x rings or set it to minimum (1 or 0?) and secondly Fax detect can be disabled if you don't need that feature. Elliott -Original Message- From: Simon P. Ditner [mailto:si...@uc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:26 PM To: asterisk@uc.org Subject: [on-asterisk] linksys spa400 annoyances I've found documentation around the spa400 rather scarce, especially regarding some annoying behaviors: First, it picks up the analog line before ringing through to my SIP phones, and second, it beeps when it initially picks up the line. Anyone know how to get around this so that it doesn't answer before the called party answers, and doesn't beep upon answering? Cheers, spd -- | It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what | you know for sure that just ain't so. -- Mark Twain | | Network: http://www.linkedin.com/in/spditner | http://facebook.com/people/Simon-P-Ditner/776370031 | http://twitter.com/spditner - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org
[on-asterisk] FW: [Important Notice] Many activities at the CRTC that can affect you, the consumer...
FYI. In case you havent seen this -Original Message- From: TekSavvy Solutions Inc [mailto:supp...@teksavvy.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:38 PM To: Ansar Mohammed Subject: [Important Notice] Many activities at the CRTC that can affect you, the consumer... Dear Valued Customer, We are writing to you today as many activities are underway to shape/reshape Internet use as you all know it. Over the last year some of you have been made aware and/or have seen activities on throttling in the news or in your daily lives. Another proceeding relating to the Internet in Canada required Telecom providers (Bell/Telus/etc.) to provide ISPs with wholesale service speeds that match those that they offer to their own retail customers. Specifically, Bell has been directed by the CRTC to provide matching speeds which would allow us all to have more flexibility in our day to day online requirements. Instead of adhering to these directives, Bell decided to take this issue to the federal Cabinet and at the same time file a tariff application with the CRTC proposing to introduce Usage Based Billing (UBB) on its wholesale customer accounts. What does this mean for you, the consumer? Bell provides TekSavvy with last mile, wholesale DSL access services, which TekSavvy uses to provide you with your Internet access. If Bell were to be allowed to introduce UBB on this service, a cap of 60GB would be imposed on all of its users, with very heavy penalties per Gigabyte afterwards (multiple times more than our current per Gigabyte rate of $0.25/GB on overages). This would inherently all but remove Unlimited internet services in Ontario/Quebec and potentially cause large increases in internet costs from month to month. If you'd like to make your comments/concerns known about what Bell is attempting to do, please do so here: http://support.crtc.gc.ca/crtcsubmissionmu/forms/Telecom.aspx?lang=e Select the word Tariff from the drop down list. Add the following in Subject Line File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 - Bell Canada - TN 7181 and make your thoughts known! The deadline for filing your comments is today at midnight, so hurry! Regards, Rocky Rocky Gaudrault Chief Executive Officer TekSavvy Solutions Inc. 330 Richmond Street, Suite 205 Chatham, ON, N7M 1P7 Customer Service: 877-779-1575 URL: www.teksavvy.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org
RE: [on-asterisk] linksys spa400 annoyances
The Answer After rings needs to be set to at least two for callerid to be detected. In 1.1.2.2 it doesn't support a value of less than two. There's no fax detection in this unit. The SPA-400 is a 4 port FXO gateway meant to be used with the SPA-9000, and is both fairly stupid and not as flexible in terms of settings as the SPA-3201/2201/etc series. As often seems to be the case when I run in to bad behavior, upgrading the firmware from 1.0.0.2 to 1.1.2.2 got rid of the premature off-hook and 'beep'. However, now it postpends the port ID to the callerid-name of any inbound calls *eyeroll*, so instead of 'Simon Ditner', I get 'Simon Ditner - port1'. At least I can trim that off in the dialplan. re, spd On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Elliott Jeyaseelan wrote: Simon, I am assuming you have disabled Answer after x rings or set it to minimum (1 or 0?) and secondly Fax detect can be disabled if you don't need that feature. Elliott -Original Message- From: Simon P. Ditner [mailto:si...@uc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:26 PM To: asterisk@uc.org Subject: [on-asterisk] linksys spa400 annoyances I've found documentation around the spa400 rather scarce, especially regarding some annoying behaviors: First, it picks up the analog line before ringing through to my SIP phones, and second, it beeps when it initially picks up the line. Anyone know how to get around this so that it doesn't answer before the called party answers, and doesn't beep upon answering? Cheers, spd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org
Re: [on-asterisk] Various regulatory issues that could affect you
I'm repeating an old message since I think that it is important and urgent. I've seen no response to it on this list (the biz list had some). Note: this is the last day to comment on URB. It's easy: there is an awkward web form. Here's how Teksavvy explained using it: http://support.crtc.gc.ca/crtcsubmissionmu/forms/Telecom.aspx?lang=e Select the word Tariff from the drop down list. Add the following in Subject Line File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 - Bell Canada - TN 7181 and make your thoughts known! I think that there are 30 days from March 27 to respond to the petition to cabinet. | Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:56:30 -0400 | From: Bill Sandiford b...@telnetcommunications.com | To: 'asterisk Mailing' asterisk@uc.org, 'b...@taug.ca' b...@taug.ca | Subject: [on-asterisk] Various regulatory issues that could affect you | | All: | | I apologize in advance for the cross-posting between lists, however I | felt this was of significant enough importance to justify it (hopefully | Simon and Dave agree with my assessment). I suggest that any discussion | of this topic take place on the general list | (asterisk@uc.orgmailto:asterisk@uc.org). | | There is a lot of regulatory proceedings going on right now. These | proceedings are actually what is taking up the most of my time these | days. The most important of which are the following | | http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09316.html | | We are opposing the Bell and Telus petitions and supporting the | Allstream petition. | | Bell is basically petitioning Governor in Council to overturn CRTC | decisions that they don't like. There are huge implications to this, | especially in these few cases. | | But more importantly Bell has recently filed a tariff notice for what is | known as UBB (Usage based billing) | | http://www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2009/b2_7181.htm | | UBB will force wholesalers (like Telnet, Teksavvy, and others) to | enforce 60 GB/month caps on our subscribers and bill for usage above | 60GB. Bell is asking the CRTC for this to be effective May 31, 2009. | As you will see from the link above, Telnet (in association with some | others) have already filed a letter with the CRTC asking that interim | approval of this tariff not be granted as we plan to intervene and fight | this tariff. | | Have a read of the files in the links. | | Regards, | | Bill Sandiford | Telnet Communications | 905-674-2000 x100 | b...@telnetcommunications.commailto:b...@telnetcommunications.com | | IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the | individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain | information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure | under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended | recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution | or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have | received this communication in error, please notify the sender | immediately by email and delete the message. Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org
Re: [on-asterisk] Various regulatory issues that could affect you
Can someone confirm if this applies to business DSL service? Bell told me it only applies to Residential DSL services (Res GAS accounts) and not Business DSL services. Maybe this is why you didn't received much support since most people on this list deals 100% with businesses only? I'm just guessing here. Thanks. Stephan Monette Unlimitel Inc. Tel.: 613-688-6212. x221 TF : 1-877-464-6638, x221 FAX : 613-482-1077 D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote: I'm repeating an old message since I think that it is important and urgent. I've seen no response to it on this list (the biz list had some). Note: this is the last day to comment on URB. It's easy: there is an awkward web form. Here's how Teksavvy explained using it: http://support.crtc.gc.ca/crtcsubmissionmu/forms/Telecom.aspx?lang=e Select the word Tariff from the drop down list. Add the following in Subject Line File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 - Bell Canada - TN 7181 and make your thoughts known! I think that there are 30 days from March 27 to respond to the petition to cabinet. | Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:56:30 -0400 | From: Bill Sandiford b...@telnetcommunications.com | To: 'asterisk Mailing' asterisk@uc.org, 'b...@taug.ca' b...@taug.ca | Subject: [on-asterisk] Various regulatory issues that could affect you | | All: | | I apologize in advance for the cross-posting between lists, however I | felt this was of significant enough importance to justify it (hopefully | Simon and Dave agree with my assessment). I suggest that any discussion | of this topic take place on the general list | (asterisk@uc.orgmailto:asterisk@uc.org). | | There is a lot of regulatory proceedings going on right now. These | proceedings are actually what is taking up the most of my time these | days. The most important of which are the following | | http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09316.html | | We are opposing the Bell and Telus petitions and supporting the | Allstream petition. | | Bell is basically petitioning Governor in Council to overturn CRTC | decisions that they don't like. There are huge implications to this, | especially in these few cases. | | But more importantly Bell has recently filed a tariff notice for what is | known as UBB (Usage based billing) | | http://www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2009/b2_7181.htm | | UBB will force wholesalers (like Telnet, Teksavvy, and others) to | enforce 60 GB/month caps on our subscribers and bill for usage above | 60GB. Bell is asking the CRTC for this to be effective May 31, 2009. | As you will see from the link above, Telnet (in association with some | others) have already filed a letter with the CRTC asking that interim | approval of this tariff not be granted as we plan to intervene and fight | this tariff. | | Have a read of the files in the links. | | Regards, | | Bill Sandiford | Telnet Communications | 905-674-2000 x100 | b...@telnetcommunications.commailto:b...@telnetcommunications.com | | IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the | individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain | information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure | under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended | recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution | or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have | received this communication in error, please notify the sender | immediately by email and delete the message. Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org
Re: [on-asterisk] Various regulatory issues that could affect you
Here was the article when things first started heating up last year. I assumed that they would be throttling business lines if they throttle third-party ISP's, but I cannot confirm either way. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080325.wgtinternet26/BNStory/Technology/?page=rssid=RTGAM.20080325.wgtinternet26 Johannes On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Stephan Monette monet...@unlimitel.cawrote: Can someone confirm if this applies to business DSL service? Bell told me it only applies to Residential DSL services (Res GAS accounts) and not Business DSL services. Maybe this is why you didn't received much support since most people on this list deals 100% with businesses only? I'm just guessing here. Thanks. Stephan Monette Unlimitel Inc. Tel.: 613-688-6212. x221 TF : 1-877-464-6638, x221 FAX : 613-482-1077 D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote: I'm repeating an old message since I think that it is important and urgent. I've seen no response to it on this list (the biz list had some). Note: this is the last day to comment on URB. It's easy: there is an awkward web form. Here's how Teksavvy explained using it: http://support.crtc.gc.ca/crtcsubmissionmu/forms/Telecom.aspx?lang=e Select the word Tariff from the drop down list. Add the following in Subject Line File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 - Bell Canada - TN 7181 and make your thoughts known! I think that there are 30 days from March 27 to respond to the petition to cabinet. | Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:56:30 -0400 | From: Bill Sandiford b...@telnetcommunications.com | To: 'asterisk Mailing' asterisk@uc.org, 'b...@taug.ca' b...@taug.ca | Subject: [on-asterisk] Various regulatory issues that could affect you | | All: | | I apologize in advance for the cross-posting between lists, however I | felt this was of significant enough importance to justify it (hopefully | Simon and Dave agree with my assessment). I suggest that any discussion | of this topic take place on the general list | (asterisk@uc.orgmailto: asterisk@uc.org). | | There is a lot of regulatory proceedings going on right now. These | proceedings are actually what is taking up the most of my time these | days. The most important of which are the following | | http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09316.html | | We are opposing the Bell and Telus petitions and supporting the | Allstream petition. | | Bell is basically petitioning Governor in Council to overturn CRTC | decisions that they don't like. There are huge implications to this, | especially in these few cases. | | But more importantly Bell has recently filed a tariff notice for what is | known as UBB (Usage based billing) | | http://www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2009/b2_7181.htm | | UBB will force wholesalers (like Telnet, Teksavvy, and others) to | enforce 60 GB/month caps on our subscribers and bill for usage above | 60GB. Bell is asking the CRTC for this to be effective May 31, 2009. | As you will see from the link above, Telnet (in association with some | others) have already filed a letter with the CRTC asking that interim | approval of this tariff not be granted as we plan to intervene and fight | this tariff. | | Have a read of the files in the links. | | Regards, | | Bill Sandiford | Telnet Communications | 905-674-2000 x100 | b...@telnetcommunications.commailto:b...@telnetcommunications.com | | IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the | individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain | information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure | under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended | recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution | or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have | received this communication in error, please notify the sender | immediately by email and delete the message. Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org
Re: [on-asterisk] Various regulatory issues that could affect you
Bill, Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention (and Hugh, thanks for reminding us). Here's what I wrote to them: The internet is critical infrastructure that should not be owned or controlled by any one entity. Perhaps we can use roads and highways as an analogy. There are companies who can and do profit from building our roads, but we, the society, still own those roads. An instructive exception to this is the 407ETR, which is private, has no competition, and is one of the most expensive toll roads in the world. Society does not benefit when companies are allowed to monopolize infrastructure. Not sure if it'll help, but I guess every little bit . . . Jim Bill Sandiford wrote: All: I apologize in advance for the cross-posting between lists, however I felt this was of significant enough importance to justify it (hopefully Simon and Dave agree with my assessment). I suggest that any discussion of this topic take place on the general list (asterisk@uc.orgmailto:asterisk@uc.org). There is a lot of regulatory proceedings going on right now. These proceedings are actually what is taking up the most of my time these days. The most important of which are the following http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09316.html We are opposing the Bell and Telus petitions and supporting the Allstream petition. Bell is basically petitioning Governor in Council to overturn CRTC decisions that they don't like. There are huge implications to this, especially in these few cases. But more importantly Bell has recently filed a tariff notice for what is known as UBB (Usage based billing) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2009/b2_7181.htm UBB will force wholesalers (like Telnet, Teksavvy, and others) to enforce 60 GB/month caps on our subscribers and bill for usage above 60GB. Bell is asking the CRTC for this to be effective May 31, 2009. As you will see from the link above, Telnet (in association with some others) have already filed a letter with the CRTC asking that interim approval of this tariff not be granted as we plan to intervene and fight this tariff. Have a read of the files in the links. Regards, Bill Sandiford Telnet Communications 905-674-2000 x100 b...@telnetcommunications.commailto:b...@telnetcommunications.com IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message. Thank you. -- -- Jim Van Meggelen j...@vanmeggelen.ca http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2177 A child is the ultimate startup, and I have three. This makes me rich. Guy Kawasaki -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org
Re: [on-asterisk] Various regulatory issues that could affect you
I got the same prompting from Teksavvy so I decided to put my response together. I've shared it here in case it helps nudge people into posting their thoughts to the comission. Those of you who know me, know that I get a bit long-winded so you won't be surprised that Jim's is much more terse than mine. :-) Whether brief or not, I would encourage members to make their thoughts known to the commission. Their mandate is to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public. It's hard for me to see how letting Bell dictate the way overage charges will be charged to end-users can be good for competition or the end user. For what it's worth, here is the full text of my comment to the comission: Tuesday April 14, 2009 Toronto Ontario, Canada As a consumer of DSL services both at home and in Ontario and Quebec as the IT Manager at work, I am very concerned by the anti-competitive and retrogressive nature of Tariff Application 7181 as proposed by Bell Canada. In order to be competitive, ISPs must be able to offer speed-matched services and differentiate their offerings using self-determined price structures. Small DSL providers do not have the brand recognition, capitalization, or variety of offerings that come with incumbency. The ability to set usage terms (such as limits, traffic shaping/prioritization and pricing tiers) is a fundamental part of this ability to differentiate. Weighing the needs of the Bell against those of ISPs, it is clear that Bell must have a mechanism to recover infrastructure costs in a way that is proportionate to consumption. It does not follow, however, that they should offer a subset of speeds and dictate how bandwidth costs are passed on to customers and at what tiers. Furthermore, it seems that the overage charges are not consistent with market prices for wholesale bandwidth and are in fact punitive. I am not opposed, in principle, to charging consumers on a pay-per-usage basis but this pricing scheme should not be set by the ISP. Bell’s incumbency makes them the de-facto option for service for many consumers. As a result, they attract a higher than average number of light-weight bandwidth users. The competitive providers typically have better technical support, more flexible offerings and thus appeal to power users. If Bell uses this tariff to push a common pricing structure through to the consumer, it will not foster innovation and competition but, instead, lower the bar across the board to the lowest common denominator; which is, all too often, the incumbent. I would also point out that if the commission were to wade into this area, it would be regulating a moving target. According to Bell Canada’s submission, characterizations of Internet usage increase range from “50% per year” to “exponentially”. Over the 5 year period cited in the application, this could be anywhere from a factor of 7.6 to a factor in the thousands. As bandwidth availability dramatically increases and cost of provisioning decreases accordingly, how often will the commission revise the tiers and associated charges? Every day that goes by at a fixed tier, Bell’s profit margin increases and so does it’s competitive advantage ISPs; creating a regulated preferential environment. As disappointed as I am with this single application, it should be noted that it is more disconcerting when taken as a whole with Bell’s other efforts to avoid speed matching and force traffic shaping upon their ISPs. Of further concern is Bell’s view that it can use the CRTC as a forum of convenience and resort to political interference (section 4 of the tariff application) when due process yields an undesired outcome. I urge the commission to act in the interest of the public and ensure that the regulatory framework promotes diversity of services, pricing and competition. The inherent conflict of interest presented by the dual nature of ‘Bell the upstream wholesale provider’, and ‘Bell the marketplace competitor’ must be checked by the regulatory authority of the commission. I ask that the commission deny Bell’s application for a tiered pricing as set out in tariff application 7181, and act quickly to seek compliance with it’s CRTC Telecom order 2009-111 which would bring speed matching to the wholesale DSL marketplace and freedom of choice to consumers. Sincerely, David Donovan Toronto Ontario, Canada On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier h...@mimosa.com wrote: I'm repeating an old message since I think that it is important and urgent. I've seen no response to it on this list (the biz list had some). Note: this is the last day to comment on URB. It's easy: there is an awkward web form. Here's how Teksavvy explained using it: http://support.crtc.gc.ca/crtcsubmissionmu/forms/Telecom.aspx?lang=e Select the word Tariff from the drop down list. Add the following in Subject Line File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 - Bell Canada - TN
RE: [on-asterisk] Various regulatory issues that could affect you
Hi Guys: We are still finalizing our official reply comments for the CRTC. I can tell you all that it has been a very long process. Along the way I have also been privy to review the drafts of several other ISPS and CLECs prior to their filing with the commission. I think that the more of you that file comments the better our chances will be of success. I do have a few points to note however, hopefully they will be of use to you in your submissions. 1. Keep in mind that Gateway Access Service (GAS), the product that Bell sells to us as ISPs is NOT an internet service. It is a service that combines the last mile via DSL with a backhaul facility to bring your traffic to our network as your ISP. The internet is not involved. 2. Keeping number 1 above in mind, the reason why this tariff filing is so bad is that Bell is trying to enforce RETAIL INTERNET SERVICE policies on a service that is NOT RETAIL INTERNET SERVICE. The concepts of usage based billing is one that is being used by Bell in the provision of their Sympatico services for residents, or Bell Business Internet on the business side. In both cases they are internet services, but the service that Bell provides to us as ISPs is not internet, it is last mile connectivity and backhaul. Bottom line, Bell is trying to force their retail internet policies onto wholesale services that are not internet. This must not be allowed. I will be up very late tonight finalizing Telnet's official reply to this proceeding. If anyone is unsure of process or needs some help feel free to shoot me an email or (**Bill evaluates risk of publishing his cell number to a public list and decides that it is worth it**) call me on my cell number at 905-409-5228 up until 10pm or so. Regards, Bill -Original Message- From: Dave Donovan [mailto:donovan.da...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:07 PM To: asterisk Mailing Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] Various regulatory issues that could affect you I got the same prompting from Teksavvy so I decided to put my response together. I've shared it here in case it helps nudge people into posting their thoughts to the comission. Those of you who know me, know that I get a bit long-winded so you won't be surprised that Jim's is much more terse than mine. :-) Whether brief or not, I would encourage members to make their thoughts known to the commission. Their mandate is to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public. It's hard for me to see how letting Bell dictate the way overage charges will be charged to end-users can be good for competition or the end user. For what it's worth, here is the full text of my comment to the comission: Tuesday April 14, 2009 Toronto Ontario, Canada As a consumer of DSL services both at home and in Ontario and Quebec as the IT Manager at work, I am very concerned by the anti-competitive and retrogressive nature of Tariff Application 7181 as proposed by Bell Canada. In order to be competitive, ISPs must be able to offer speed-matched services and differentiate their offerings using self-determined price structures. Small DSL providers do not have the brand recognition, capitalization, or variety of offerings that come with incumbency. The ability to set usage terms (such as limits, traffic shaping/prioritization and pricing tiers) is a fundamental part of this ability to differentiate. Weighing the needs of the Bell against those of ISPs, it is clear that Bell must have a mechanism to recover infrastructure costs in a way that is proportionate to consumption. It does not follow, however, that they should offer a subset of speeds and dictate how bandwidth costs are passed on to customers and at what tiers. Furthermore, it seems that the overage charges are not consistent with market prices for wholesale bandwidth and are in fact punitive. I am not opposed, in principle, to charging consumers on a pay-per-usage basis but this pricing scheme should not be set by the ISP. Bell's incumbency makes them the de-facto option for service for many consumers. As a result, they attract a higher than average number of light-weight bandwidth users. The competitive providers typically have better technical support, more flexible offerings and thus appeal to power users. If Bell uses this tariff to push a common pricing structure through to the consumer, it will not foster innovation and competition but, instead, lower the bar across the board to the lowest common denominator; which is, all too often, the incumbent. I would also point out that if the commission were to wade into this area, it would be regulating a moving target. According to Bell Canada's submission, characterizations of Internet usage increase range from 50% per year to exponentially. Over the 5 year period cited in the application, this could be anywhere from a factor of 7.6 to a factor in the thousands. As bandwidth availability dramatically
[on-asterisk] call for speakers
I'm looking for more speakers for our spring summer talks Some topics that have been floated: - double WAN / network redundancy - how predictive diallers work - embeded asterisk on flash disks; CF/IDE adapters can be found cheap on dealextreme.com - passive cooling - VoIP clients for Android/iPhone/BlackBerry/WinCE/Symbian - writing plugins for Asterisk/Freeswitch/SER/Yate - linux tips tricks - asterisk tips tricks - webmin for those not interested in linux - virtualization - voicemail alternatives Feel free to make suggestions. Not all topics need to have mass appeal either, I'm prefectly happy to arrange talks and workshops for special interests, like HAM Asterisk, or getting down and dirty configuring a BCM to work with open source telephony. Cheers, spd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: asterisk-unsubscr...@uc.org For additional commands, e-mail: asterisk-h...@uc.org
Re: [on-asterisk] Various regulatory issues that could affect you
I would say your note is a bit more thought out, and is likely to be taken more seriously than my little rant. Still, they need to know that people are aware of this, so the more the merrier. Dave Donovan wrote: I got the same prompting from Teksavvy so I decided to put my response together. I've shared it here in case it helps nudge people into posting their thoughts to the comission. Those of you who know me, know that I get a bit long-winded so you won't be surprised that Jim's is much more terse than mine. :-) Whether brief or not, I would encourage members to make their thoughts known to the commission. Their mandate is to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public. It's hard for me to see how letting Bell dictate the way overage charges will be charged to end-users can be good for competition or the end user. For what it's worth, here is the full text of my comment to the comission: Tuesday April 14, 2009 Toronto Ontario, Canada As a consumer of DSL services both at home and in Ontario and Quebec as the IT Manager at work, I am very concerned by the anti-competitive and retrogressive nature of Tariff Application 7181 as proposed by Bell Canada. In order to be competitive, ISPs must be able to offer speed-matched services and differentiate their offerings using self-determined price structures. Small DSL providers do not have the brand recognition, capitalization, or variety of offerings that come with incumbency. The ability to set usage terms (such as limits, traffic shaping/prioritization and pricing tiers) is a fundamental part of this ability to differentiate. Weighing the needs of the Bell against those of ISPs, it is clear that Bell must have a mechanism to recover infrastructure costs in a way that is proportionate to consumption. It does not follow, however, that they should offer a subset of speeds and dictate how bandwidth costs are passed on to customers and at what tiers. Furthermore, it seems that the overage charges are not consistent with market prices for wholesale bandwidth and are in fact punitive. I am not opposed, in principle, to charging consumers on a pay-per-usage basis but this pricing scheme should not be set by the ISP. Bell’s incumbency makes them the de-facto option for service for many consumers. As a result, they attract a higher than average number of light-weight bandwidth users. The competitive providers typically have better technical support, more flexible offerings and thus appeal to power users. If Bell uses this tariff to push a common pricing structure through to the consumer, it will not foster innovation and competition but, instead, lower the bar across the board to the lowest common denominator; which is, all too often, the incumbent. I would also point out that if the commission were to wade into this area, it would be regulating a moving target. According to Bell Canada’s submission, characterizations of Internet usage increase range from “50% per year” to “exponentially”. Over the 5 year period cited in the application, this could be anywhere from a factor of 7.6 to a factor in the thousands. As bandwidth availability dramatically increases and cost of provisioning decreases accordingly, how often will the commission revise the tiers and associated charges? Every day that goes by at a fixed tier, Bell’s profit margin increases and so does it’s competitive advantage ISPs; creating a regulated preferential environment. As disappointed as I am with this single application, it should be noted that it is more disconcerting when taken as a whole with Bell’s other efforts to avoid speed matching and force traffic shaping upon their ISPs. Of further concern is Bell’s view that it can use the CRTC as a forum of convenience and resort to political interference (section 4 of the tariff application) when due process yields an undesired outcome. I urge the commission to act in the interest of the public and ensure that the regulatory framework promotes diversity of services, pricing and competition. The inherent conflict of interest presented by the dual nature of ‘Bell the upstream wholesale provider’, and ‘Bell the marketplace competitor’ must be checked by the regulatory authority of the commission. I ask that the commission deny Bell’s application for a tiered pricing as set out in tariff application 7181, and act quickly to seek compliance with it’s CRTC Telecom order 2009-111 which would bring speed matching to the wholesale DSL marketplace and freedom of choice to consumers. Sincerely, David Donovan Toronto Ontario, Canada On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier h...@mimosa.com wrote: I'm repeating an old message since I think that it is important and urgent. I've seen no response to it on this list (the biz list had some). Note: this is the last day to comment on URB. It's easy: there is an awkward web form. Here's how Teksavvy explained using it:
