Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bell Canada's Misinformation About Throttling

Posted by kdawson on from the competition-in-a-natural-monopoly dept.

rsax writes "Bell Canada's chief of regulatory affairs Mirko Bibic has been attempting to justify the throttling of the last-mile connection to independent ISPs. As is typical, Bell Canada is abusing people's confusion between issues around Network Neutrality and the last mile natural monopoly. If people continue to confuse these two related but separate issues, Bell Canada and other incumbent phone and cable companies will win this critical debate."

120 comments

  1. Dollars by Adolf+Hitroll · · Score: -1, Troll

    as in Canadian dollars, not as in piece of shit!

    --
    Smile, don't click...
  2. Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by masamax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bell does make one valid point that the smaller ISPs are not speaking about, namely that they are purchasing bandwidth from bell wholesale. There is nothing stopping those ISPs from installing their own routing centres, even within Bell's infrastructure whereby the only must lease the lines, not the other stuff. Instead, they want to avoid such infrastructure investment. That being said, most of the small ISP's probably lack the capital to undertake such an endeavor.

    --
    I like to kill your couch. HE DIED HARD! MOO.
    1. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by coldsteelrail · · Score: 1

      Also this issue is extremely critical for other (developing) countries who are looking towards what's happening with this issue. Places where there is a widely segregated ISP base, could trigger consolidation leading to such a market scenario.

    2. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're mistaken. Teksavvy for example does NOT purchase wholesale internet access, they have their own routes and peering agreements.

    3. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Being a Teksavvy customer, I cannot express how awesome their service is since they use their own bandwidth. Being routed straight through the Toronto Internet Exchange, a mere 6 hops from Google's GTA data centre, is nothing short of exquisite. I simply adore pinging 30ms to eastern seaboard game servers and 10ms to GTA area game servers. Not to mention their incredibly awesome tech support staff who don't even work from flow charts but just know their stuff. (all my calls have ended in under 2 minutes with them fixing the issue or getting back to me the next day with progress)

      I was hoping somebody would reply "TEKSAVVY" to the parent and am glad you did. They are easily the best ISP I've used, even if they don't reach the top speeds provided by Bell or Rogers. (no, I do not work for them or have a relative that works for them or anything, I am just a fiercely loyal customer)

    4. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by yani · · Score: 5, Informative
      Mod parent up, this is a correct counter-example to the original post which seems to buy into Bell's rhetoric.

      In fact Teksavvy even gives its customers a choice of which routing they would prefer, unlimited over Cogent or 100gb/month over Peer 1 (lower latency)!

      http://www.teksavvy.com/en/resdsl.asp?ID=7&mID=1

    5. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by masamax · · Score: 1

      You're mistaken. Teksavvy for example does NOT purchase wholesale internet access, they have their own routes and peering agreements. If that's the case, they shouldn't be affected by throttling AFAIK.
      --
      I like to kill your couch. HE DIED HARD! MOO.
    6. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by flyonthewall · · Score: 4, Informative

      by masamax (543884) on Wednesday April 16, @08:00AM (#23088240)

      You're mistaken. Teksavvy for example does NOT purchase wholesale internet access, they have their own routes and peering agreements. If that's the case, they shouldn't be affected by throttling AFAIK That is why this is so maddening. The throttling, as far as can be determined, happens on the GAS access, before it hits the first ISP(s) router. The data being shaped is not even considered internet traffic yet.
      --
      "The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
    7. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by gmack · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not even close to true. In fact Smaller ISPs pay for the bandwidth used at two points:

      They pay for the link based on size between their PPPOE authentication servers and Bell's ADSL equipment. If this link fills up it's not Bell that suffers it's the ISP. (I've seen it happen)

      They again for outgoing bandwidth with whatever carrier they go with.

      There is no performance reason for Bell to throttle the PPPOE connections going to other ISPs. If the other ISP mismanages it's network then either they pay extra or the customers get mad and leave.

      Also the option to lease the lines is a terrible idea. Under the current regulatory structure Bell has to rent out space in it's main buildings but not in it's "remote co". If you can't get a good DSL signal from Bell they route your lines through a remote CO so your connected to DSL equipment closer to your house.

      A company I used to work for tried to setup their own equipment and connect customers and what we found was that at certain distances Bell's standard ADSL was outrunning our ADSL 2+ (24mbps) equipment. Now that Bell is also going 2+ there is no speed advantage at any distance.

    8. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Moralpanic · · Score: 1

      That's interesting, because i'm with TekSavvy and i'm getting throttled. I'm in the K/W area.

    9. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by DarrenBaker · · Score: 1

      Ditto! I switched to Teksavvy in December (from Rogers), and even though I took a 3 Mb/s cut (and a $30/month cut in price), everything - especially torrents - downloads at a face-melting speed, comparatively.

      I have worked in Cable for the last fifteen years, and was worried about the switch to DSL, but man... I needn't have worried. If you're in the GTA (I'm actually up in Barrie, an hour away), I can't recommend them highly enough.

    10. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by beyonddeath · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, us teksavvy customers (I personally have dual connections from them, we like it so much), are getting throttled. As many know teksavvy is now suing bell as this is not part of the contract. Anyways, yes we are getting throttled, and no its not teksavvys fault. If you need an isp, or hate your current isp (I dont know like comwave, cia, rogers,bell,...generic isp here...) switch to teksavvy you will be happy you did! (dont work for them, another happy customer!)

    11. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Moralpanic · · Score: 1

      Well, here's an email i got from them, and they are being throttled:

      Dear Customers, As many of you may have heard of late, there have been quite a few activities through Bell that have caused some negative performance on P2P and BT traffic for us and all other DSL providers in Ontario and Québec.

      TekSavvy is committed to fighting this injustice. For more details on this matter, go to: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/teksavvy for various discussions.

      In trying to bring a little bit of both humour and fun to this stressful week, we sat down and came up with a fun event to hold/get us through this challenging time!

      We'll be setting up a gaming server to be ready for Saturday morning.

    12. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Feyr · · Score: 3, Informative

      you're confusing two types of bandwidth. the way bell's infrastructure work is this:

      every lines terminate into a DSLAM.

      then if the DSLAM is bell's they will either:
      forward the entire L2TP(or ppp, same thing) tunnel over a dedicated line that they forced teksavvy to install and terminate it on teksavvy's equipment, at which point teksavvy can do whatever the hell they want with the traffic
      or
      bell terminates it on their own equipment and then sells "bandwidth" to the outside internet

      both of these solutions can be thottled, and you'd still get the "choose your routing" part

      there is another option for resellers, which is installing their own DSLAMs in bell's colo centers. it is expensive, and ill defined. any maintenance you might have to do is expensive as hell, bell charges you the full cost for whatever changes are to be made (including plugging in a customer's line into it).

      some resellers use this type of colo, but usually they are geographically limited (you need dslams all over the place to physically serve every customer's lines)

    13. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by CastrTroy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And therefore they are not being affected by the throttling.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    14. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Sark666 · · Score: 1

      Just curious, How much of a latency difference does it make? I'm concerned with my voip account and some online gaming.

      Also, I was glad to see them offer dry dsl (does anyone else offer that in Canada?). But what is bandrates? This is only listed for dry loop dsl. What's the difference from band a to g?

              * Band Rates
      Band A $7.25/mo.
      Band B $9.10/mo.
      Band C $10.22/mo.
      Band D $10.98/mo.
      Band E $15.91/mo.
      Band F $16.20/mo.
      Band G $25.10/mo.

    15. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      There is nothing stopping those ISPs from installing their own routing centres, even within Bell's infrastructure whereby the only must lease the lines, not the other stuff

      There's nothing stopping me from forging my own parts from scratch and assembling a pickup truck myself, but that would not excuse Ford from delivering a Pinto when I ordered a F-150.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    16. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Tyr_7BE · · Score: 1

      I see this a lot. People go with Teksavvy and they're rabid with loyalty. They must be doing _something_ right. I'm moving in a few months and they're definitely the first option I'm looking into, based on this fact alone.

    17. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Random+Destruction · · Score: 2, Informative

      The band depends on where you live.

      And yes, bell offers dry dsl. And they don't even charge an additional fee. That's the only thing keeping me with bell right now. That extra $10 that I'd have to pay anywhere else is just enough to keep me.

      --
      :x
    18. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Sark666 · · Score: 1

      Ok cool, I never knew bell offers dry dsl with no additional charges.

      I guess someone paying rate g is far away from the dsl main line? 25 extra a month is pretty damn pricey.

    19. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And therefore they are not being affected by the throttling.

      You are, of course, totally incorrect in your assertion. But it's easier for you to toss off a worthless one-liner troll-style than actually look into the matter, right? I'd suggest you go here , get yourself some insight and then come back and correct yourself.

      Note to mods: Does posting wrong information just get a pass here these days?

    20. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by AndrewR81 · · Score: 1

      What is GAS access? or a GAS ISP? I've heard these terms thrown around but I can't find any info on them by googling or otherwise.

    21. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Cliffy03 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This GAS (Gateway Access service) access is the part that is regulated by the CRTC (tariff 5410). It is the term for "last mile aceess". Any DSL provider uses this service from the incumbent telco. From there they need backhaul bandwidth to their own Internet peering.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Nigel makes plans for you!
    22. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by twilight30 · · Score: 1

      I'm on dryloop as well, and I've noticed that the modem will spontaneously cut out every so often. Cut out dead, that is.

      Bell technicians have checked out the line numerous times and never been able to find anything wrong with it. Finally yesterday I asked them to ship a replacement as it seems to be the only thing left.

      Prior to this I had excellent service (strange, I know).

      If this behaviour, and the throttling, continue past my move date in a month's time, I'm off to TekSavvy, absolutely. I am using one of their leased services at the moment as a supplement and their customer service should shame any other company.

      --
      ========================================
      Death will come, and will have your eyes
      -- Pavese
    23. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by jatreuman · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that widescale DSLAM deployment is prohibitively expensive, Bell will only let you colocate in the CO. Customers in remote areas who are too far from the CO can't be serviced by them. Even some relatively dense suburban neighbourhoods (such as mine) are too far from the CO to get a decent sync speed.

      Bell works around these issues by using remotes, but they won't allow third party ISPs to put their own DSLAMs in them. And even if building your own remotes wasn't such a ridiculous idea, Bell probably wouldn't let you plug it into their copper.

      So installing your own DSLAMs is really only practical in dense urban neighbourhoods. For everyone else it'll just result in slower speeds, or possibly even no service at all.

    24. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by wildem · · Score: 1

      Exactly!!
      Teksavvy ROCKS!!

      Their customer service and a personable approach is bar none the best I have ever seen. Their services are cheaper, more reliable and faster than Bells. What does Bell do about it ? They f**k up your traffic.

      Here's what I know:

      I have been on Teksavvy for many years ( an ex-Bell subscriber ) . As of few days ago, their traffic during ~4pm - ~1am has been shaped by Bell. What used to be a ~600 KBp/s now turned into a 30 KBp/s. At the same time 2 of my friends living right beside me can do the exactly same download using their Bell Sympatico at around ~150 KBp/s .

      They say that their traffic sometimes gets stuck on 100 and sometimes on 150 , but never at 30 KBp/s.

      What else ... 2 months ago, I was having line issues and my access was dropped for about 14 days. I called Bell to give them an earful, because it was their problem and finally it was solved. In turn, they have called me 4 times since then, offering me various promotions to switch to them. Stuff like 3 months free, on another occasion they tried to offer free long distance, but the last call takes the cake: A Bell rep calls me and offers me a portable wireless internet http://bell.ca/shop/Sme.Sol.Internet.Unplug.Home.page and says it will be free of charge for 2 months. In addition I can stay with my current land line ISP provider. He tried very hard to find out which ISP i subscribe to ( as all other Bell reps that called me ) . I simply told him that I wouldn't give out that information.

      A week passes by, and Bell sends me a land line based kit with a regular DSL modem and phone filter package. As I call them, telling them that I was sent the wrong package, as It was supposed to be a portable wireless business internet one, the lady simply denied THAT BELL OFFERS THIS KIND OF SERVICE . They do, look here : http://bell.ca/shop/Sme.Sol.Internet.Unplug.Home.page .

      In any case, I told them to screw off and shipped the kit back, but not before she tried to find out my ISPs name. Once again, I told her to fly a kite.

      Lesson learned. Bell will do anything under the sun to muscle out their competition because they are leaving Bell en-masse in hope to get treated with respect and have the service that's stated on the contract.

    25. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is that Yes ISP may install their own equipment however BELL CANADA ONLY ALLOWS ISPS to install in Central Offices and NOT at remotes (DSLAMS located outside the Central Offices) In Montreal, 80% of ELIGIBLE DSL Customers are ONLY AVAILABLE via REMOTES and BELL DOES NOT ALLOW ISPS into their remotes. Therefore there still is a monopoly for the last mile and you can't gain access to it unless CRTC specifies that we can.

    26. Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are getting throttled cause the link between your house <-- Bell DSLAM -- Bell BAS -- BELL DPI (Throttling server) -- TechSavvy's Mandatory BELL AHSSPI Dedicated Link --> To Techsavvy is being throttled by Bell's DPI server.  From TechSavvy to the Internet is not throttled.

  3. Shocked and appalled by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: -1, Troll

    I, for one, am shocked and appalled that a monopoly would abuse its position. Shame on you Bell Canada!

    I'm sorry, that's a lie. I just can't get too excited about this type of thing. The only users who are really inconvenienced by traffic shaping are the system abusers. All others use a paltry amount of bandwidth which is not throttled.

    The tumult over this neutrality business is boring. The only way to solve this is to enact and enforce draconian laws and heavy oversight to make sure that net neutrality is maintained. The cure is more expensive than the disease.

    Makes me sleepy... zedzedzed...

    1. Re:Shocked and appalled by lazy_nihilist · · Score: 1

      I need an analogy to understand what's happening. :-)

    2. Re:Shocked and appalled by Itninja · · Score: 1

      The only users who are really inconvenienced by traffic shaping are the system abusers.
      So do 'system abusers' = 'people who do more than update their facebook page and read email'? You know there are a lot of legitimate torrents out there (like Linux distos). Not everybody surfxors the Interwebs for pr0n and MP3z you know....
      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    3. Re:Shocked and appalled by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1, Funny

      How frequently would one need to download a Linux distro? Is this a common thing for you?

      Not everybody surfxors the Interwebs for pr0n and MP3z you know....

      That's just blatantly untrue. Unless you are also including people who don't have access to computers and the internet.

    4. Re:Shocked and appalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somebody think of the FREE porn!

    5. Re:Shocked and appalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea 99% of those downloading torrents are not downloading porn, mp3s, movies and other warez.

    6. Re:Shocked and appalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      The only users who are really inconvenienced by traffic shaping are the system abusers. This is a blatant lie. It doesn't surprise me that someone with a nick like that is so completely and utterly stupid.
    7. Re:Shocked and appalled by SpeedyDX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, that's not even remotely true. Rogers used to throttle BT bandwidth. There were legitimate things that I wanted to do with BT that I couldn't. I am a hobbyist photographer, and I sometimes share stock photos with my buddies. I wish I could've used BT to share those huge RAW files, but I couldn't. I also have to download Linux distros, and WoW updates. Those are legitimate actions that I couldn't engage in because of the throttling. Does engaging in those activities make me a "system abuser"?

      As far as I can tell, Rogers doesn't throttle anymore since I've experienced up to 10Mbps for some of my BT transfers, and they've actually offered HIGHER throughput since they stopped throttling (from 8Mbps to 10Mbps). They now put, and enforce, an advertised bandwidth cap on all their plans. My particular plan, the highest available, has 95GB of transfer. They also notify you when you reach 75% of your capacity. If their current practices are any indication, I think that "this neutrality business" is actually a very simple thing to solve. I'm getting exactly what they tell me I'm paying for, a 10Mbps line with a 95GB cap. No draconian laws or heavy oversight. The cure is simple. It's to give your customers what you tell them you will. Instead of advertising "unlimited" or "unmetered" bandwidth, offer different bandwidth caps and different throughput levels at different price ranges.

      I have to applaud Rogers for doing this. They've gone about it the right way, and I am now a very, very satisfied customer.

    8. Re:Shocked and appalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      I have to applaud Rogers for doing this. They've gone about it the right way, and I am now a very, very satisfied customer. Low bandwidth caps and costing quite a premium.
      So you like being ripped off by Rogers. Not surprising.
    9. Re:Shocked and appalled by besalope · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I, for one, am shocked and appalled that a monopoly would abuse its position. Shame on you Bell Canada!

      I'm sorry, that's a lie. I just can't get too excited about this type of thing. The only users who are really inconvenienced by traffic shaping are the system abusers. All others use a paltry amount of bandwidth which is not throttled.

      The tumult over this neutrality business is boring. The only way to solve this is to enact and enforce draconian laws and heavy oversight to make sure that net neutrality is maintained. The cure is more expensive than the disease.

      Makes me sleepy... zedzedzed... It's more a matter of principle. If I pay over priced rates for X-Level of service, I expect that said ISP meet their legally bound obligations and provide X-Level of service. e.g. If I'm paying for a 10Mb/1Mb then damn well better have a constant 10Mb/1Mb connection, not a 10Mb/1Mb in off hours and a 5Mb/.5Mb during the prime hours.
    10. Re:Shocked and appalled by lusiphur69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The only users who are really inconvenienced by traffic shaping are the system abusers. All others use a paltry amount of bandwidth which is not throttled."

      Huh? You've got to be joking. People streaming endless YouToob garbage take up a 'paltry' amount of bandwidth? Large scale data transfers to co-located servers? VOIP applications like Skype? Just about any streaming application takes a significant amount of bandwidth and I suspect that you are aware of this.

      The ONLY - your words - users who are inconvenienced are 'system abusers' (your own perjorative)? Here you have adopted the dishonest language of the money-hungry state-supported ISP's.

      First off, I fail to understand how a customer who is using their service as advertised (X amount of throughput) can 'abuse' the system. Do they send endless amounts of SYN packet requests? Beat their modems and forget to send them birthday cards? What is your definition of abuse?

      I certainly don't call it abuse if I pay 2$ to cross a toll road at a max rate of speed of 55 mph. Nor would I call it abuse if the toll road company offers to allow me 'unlimited' access to the road for 20$ a month, even were I to drive tour buses packed with people down the road, 24/7. If the toll road operator complained about the excessive traffic my bus was generating, they have two options: widen the road or amend the contract. They cannot simply shoot the tires as I pass by in my bus (and everyone else driving a bus), then tell everyone they have improved road service.

    11. Re:Shocked and appalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How frequently would one need to download a Linux distro? As often as I bloody-well please, thank you very much. Of course, the legal use of the protocol in question isn't limited to just Linux distros. There's a vast amount of perfectly legal files that I may wish to download, and as the owner of the bandwidth I use, it is my right to make use of my connection as I deem fit. I pay for a 6Mbps service, and assuming my modem and line are capable of such speeds, they have no right to limit my use of one particular protocol. Traffic is traffic, regardless of what protocol it's riding on. Hypothetically speaking, if I were to sit at my computer surfing the web all day every day for a month straight, saturating my connection the entire time, I likely wouldn't be penalized for such conduct. Why? Because it's all arriving via HTTP, and as far as I can tell, they're not throttling any sort of HTTP traffic. Bell's apparent policies on all of these matters DO NOT make sense, nor are they fair to those of us who utilize technology for things other than piracy.

      All of this being said, I've already cancelled my Bell Sympatico residential service earlier this week, to become effective on May 14th. I had previously been a Sympatico customer with the same account for over 6 years. I am sure I am not the only person who's taking such action. Paying good money for a connection capable of 600+ KBps, yet only allows me to achieve 30KBps for torrents, is like me burning my money. Maybe another company will value my cash more than Bell seems to. We shall see, I suppose...
    12. Re:Shocked and appalled by malinha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you right, if they can't delivery what they sell, don't sell that much. It's like buying a car that the vendors says it goes to 300km/h but... only gets to 100km/h because you are "abusing" the car you payed for...

    13. Re:Shocked and appalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If its a good deal or not really isn't the issue (yet).

      If my ISP wants to throttle my connection to a specific speed, or only of specific protocols, they can. But goddamnit they NEED to tell me this BEFORE I sign up, so I know what I'm buying.

      If I purchase an "unlimited" plan at 10mb's, I expect unlimited usage of that 10 mb like because well shit thats what I'm paying for isn't it?

      If my ISP does not want to invest in infrastructure to support growing traffic demands thats their business (a poor decision I think but hey I'm not a stockholder) and therefor can no longer deliver unlimited plans, they need to own up to that. If my ISP can't give me unlimited they need to advertise what they are giving me.

      The GP noted he was a happy customer because there was no bullshit, he pays a certain amount and he knows exactly what hes getting.

      He didn't sign up for an unlimited plan at 15 mb and find out it drops to 2 mb after the first 10 minutes, he's not getting cut off with no notice because of some sketchy rule in the ToS that lets his ISP decide hes misbehaving, certain services aren't slower than others. He's got a net connection, its got a limit (though if you need more than 95 gigs a month clearly its time to cut back on the pron), but he knows exactly what those limits are.

      Sounds fairly decent to me.

      Finally it should be interesting to note, since his ISP is selling him throughput, not the connection it self, that it actually provides the ISP incentive to make sure his connection is as fast as possible. A faster connection means hes more likely to go over his limit and incur an extra surcharge, in this case they WANT your BT to work well because if you go nuts on it they make more money.

    14. Re:Shocked and appalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I need an analogy to understand what's happening. :-) Not having an analogy is like not having an example.
    15. Re:Shocked and appalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certainly don't call it abuse if I pay 2$ to cross a toll road at a max rate of speed of 55 mph. Nor would I call it abuse if the toll road company offers to allow me 'unlimited' access to the road for 20$ a month, even were I to drive tour buses packed with people down the road, 24/7. If the toll road operator complained about the excessive traffic my bus was generating, they have two options: widen the road or amend the contract. They cannot simply shoot the tires as I pass by in my bus (and everyone else driving a bus), then tell everyone they have improved road service. That is a really good analogy
    16. Re:Shocked and appalled by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, they can and do put in "traffic calming" infrastructure downgrades which is analogous to what Bell is doing. But that is a gripe for another day...

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    17. Re:Shocked and appalled by chrish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Torrents aren't just for Linux distros and media piracy. Jamendo distributes music via torrent and World of Warcraft updates are torrents, for example. Jamendo might be a small fish, but you probably know at least one person playing WoW.

      Managed torrents (like WoW updates) would be an excellent way to distribute operating system patches and updates.

      --
      - chrish
    18. Re:Shocked and appalled by gmack · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't really a debate about network neutrality. This debate is about Bell throttling traffic on OTHER People's networks.

      Bell has no legitimate business interest in how third parties run their network since said third parties have to pay for any resources used.

      This is about Bell wanting to raise prices for it's own customers but needing to make sure theres no competition for them to jump to first.

    19. Re:Shocked and appalled by rubberglove · · Score: 1

      I am fairly inconvenienced by the fact that my VOIP service has suddenly turned to shit from 4:00 pm to 2:00 am because of a change in Bell's (NOT my ISP's) policies.

      Granted, this only happens if I am running bittorrent. However, throttling P2P is one thing, but turning my phone service (which competes directly with Bell's offering) into an echo-y, choppy mess is a whole other ball of wax.

      And, yes, I know how to set up QOS on my router to give VOIP priority over BT, but during the throttling period, this doesn't work anymore. That effectively means that during that time I cannot use ANY P2P services, since I haven't yet mastered the ability to predict when other people will call me, or I will urgently need the phone. Furthermore (I could go on all day), it's not even enough to simply stop Bittorrent when someone calls - there seems to be some 'settling time' before my connection gets back to normal, and usually I have to hang up and call back.

      I've asked this before: what happens if I need to call 911 suddenly? I know it's probably not the best idea to rely on VOIP for that sort of thing in general, but my phone service has been working great (P2P or not) for the past two years.

      And all this without giving any advance warning to the third-party ISPs. They've still yet to explain why that was necessary.

    20. Re:Shocked and appalled by sabernet · · Score: 1

      CBC(our national broadcaster) has podcasts for many of their shows and is trialing a bittorrent based video distro service.

      Now go troll elsewhere, this bridge is too small for you.

    21. Re:Shocked and appalled by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I hate when people bring up the Linux distro argument. Even if you were to download a DVD sized Linux distro every month (which would be quite odd) I'm sure they still wouldn't have a problem with it. If that's all people ere doing, there would be no problem. If it was just people downloading MP3s, they probably wouldn't complain either. What they are complaining about is the people who download 2 or 3 movies every day. These people exist, and they put a real strain on the network. If you want 300 GB of transfer every month, you better be prepared to pay for it. Most people have no more need for that much bandwidth, and it's time for those users to stop subsidizing those who do use that much bandwidth.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    22. Re:Shocked and appalled by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      So you like being ripped off by Rogers. Not surprising.

      At least they're not lying to their subscribers, unlike Bell. He's making an informed decision, instead of being defrauded like everyone else.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    23. Re:Shocked and appalled by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      What if you were transporting wide loads down the toll road at 10 KM/H and ruining the use of the road for everyone else. The road can only be so wide. Only so many cars can fit on that road at any time. If you are downloading at full speed 24/7, then you are using up bandwidth that others can't use, and ruining their experience. Granted, I don't think that any ISP should ever offer unlimited service, as it is impossible for them to provide. But saying that just because they don't specifically say you have a limit, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with their network. There is no minimum speed on most highways, but if too many people drive too slow, it causes problems for everyone.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    24. Re:Shocked and appalled by MoonlightSeraphim · · Score: 1

      Didn't Bell say that cable and satellite is a plenty of competition? I guess it is their answer to your why =(

    25. Re:Shocked and appalled by berlamont · · Score: 1

      The people that are using that amount of bandwidth for the most part don't care if the companies want to charge more while still allowing them to continue using the service how they please. Thats not the freakin' problem, the problem is when they say it's unlimited but then secretly block/throttle someones traffic instead of just telling them they are breaking a rule and making them pay more. Why are these companies so scared to just be upfront with people who want to download this much???

    26. Re:Shocked and appalled by misterooga · · Score: 1

      I do like the fact that they are letting you know. Having said that, I live in a household where we average 120GB per month on good months... and thus I was hoping to move on to DSL though this issue with Bell is making me pause a moment. I wonder if this issue will ever get resolved and how long it would take. One hand, I don't want to pay $2 / gb over usage...on the other, I don't want to pay for something that's only 30 KB for even simple browsing.

    27. Re:Shocked and appalled by Larryish · · Score: 1

      dude...

      that is the lamest car analogy EVER

    28. Re:Shocked and appalled by Danse · · Score: 1

      Why are these companies so scared to just be upfront with people who want to download this much??? Because then they can't advertise their basic service plans as "UNLIMITED INTARWEBZ!!11!!1 YOU CAN'T HANDLE OUR EXTREEEMMM SPEEEEDZ!!!!!!". Not that any of that really matters to my grandma who just checks her email and the weather, and maybe gets a little crazy once in a while and emails a picture...

      I blame AOL and all the overage charges people got back in the day for making people averse to subscribing to any ISP that isn't unlimited.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    29. Re:Shocked and appalled by Danse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I purchase an "unlimited" plan at 10mb's, I expect unlimited usage of that 10 mb like because well shit thats what I'm paying for isn't it? That's the issue isn't it? The question is did you actually purchase an "unlimited" plan, or did you purchased an "unlimited*" plan? There is a difference.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    30. Re:Shocked and appalled by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      dude...

      that is the lamest car analogy EVER Not by a long shot. Actually, a speed governor on a car that is capable of much higher speeds is a very apt analogy in this case. Better than most other analogies I've seen.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    31. Re:Shocked and appalled by Danse · · Score: 1

      Granted, I don't think that any ISP should ever offer unlimited service, as it is impossible for them to provide. But saying that just because they don't specifically say you have a limit, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with their network. Actually, that's pretty much exactly what it means. If they can't provide unlimited bandwidth, then they shouldn't say they can. It's not up to the customer to guess at what they are actually capable of providing. If they want to provide me with some specific level of service or bandwidth cap, then they should put that in big bold letters on their ads instead of "UNLIMITED". Makes sense don't it? Quit trying to blame the customers for using as much bandwidth as they like when that is what they were offered.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    32. Re:Shocked and appalled by Itninja · · Score: 1

      There are these people out there called 'computer guys'. These people build computers for themselves, for friends, and sometimes for a living. I am one of these people. Sometimes I want Ubuntu, sometimes Fedora, and sometimes I want to try a few different distros just to see what works best with the hardware at hand. I regularly download half a dozen Linux distros every month. And thanks to Comcast, each one takes nearly a day to complete.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    33. Re:Shocked and appalled by Cliffy03 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that any use of DPI is a problem to all. VOIP, VPN and gaming gets caught up in this. And if the majority of people don't get excited about these kind of things, then what is stopping the telcos from doing more to our connection. Replace ads in websites? throttle YouTube? How about blocking sites/services that compete with their own? Start getting excited!

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Nigel makes plans for you!
    34. Re:Shocked and appalled by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the distros don't change that fast. Once you have downloaded Ubuntu, you're good for 6 months. Do you redownload every time you want another copy? Even if you have 10 different distros you use, I couldn't see you needing to download more than 20 distros per year.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    35. Re:Shocked and appalled by twilight30 · · Score: 1

      As soon as my move date comes down, I'm doing the same. Dryloop customer for 2 years now.

      Hello TekSavvy!

      --
      ========================================
      Death will come, and will have your eyes
      -- Pavese
    36. Re:Shocked and appalled by Apagador-Man · · Score: 1

      Actually, where I live in (Portugal) there is a default minimum speed for EVERY highway.
      At the very most you may find traffic signs decerasing that even further.
      There:)

      And if my ISP says unlimited, I will demand unlimited. If a restaurant advertises "all you can eat", I'll bloody have my meal until I am satisfied or they run out of food (the former bring the most likely), and I will call the cops on them if they try to go back on their own word.

      I see it like this: if you WANT to have a business, you must obey the law AND follow what you advertise to the letter (something that is actually mandatory by law, in my country: you advertise shit, you'd better do what you advertised or you are fucked). You fail to do one of those things you are not fit to run that specific business and should lose it.

      --
      In the end, there can be only one!
    37. Re:Shocked and appalled by bellsucks · · Score: 1

      yah I make videos and release them to my friends on bittorrent and some times they are huge even after I compress them down.. so what.. and a apt-get upgrade if you have not done one in a month is usually pretty hefty amount of data too .. might not be bitttorrent but its big.. and voip can use 80kb/s using g711 (Ulaw/Alaw) codec (freeworlddialup.com with all the video sites.. man.. I am happy with teksavvy they kick butt

    38. Re:Shocked and appalled by ArtDent · · Score: 1

      Those bandwidth hogs sound like a really difficult problem. How could we deal with them?

      1. Keep track of how much bandwidth each user uses (this is, of course, trivially simple compared to the packet examination required for shaping, and no doubt they do it already) and, at the end of the month, charge them a quantity of money proportional to the bandwidth they consumed.

      2. Slow all peer-to-peer traffic to a crawl and hope for the best. When the best fails to materialize, abuse your last-mile monopoly to impose the same ridiculous policy on your competitors.

    39. Re:Shocked and appalled by Itninja · · Score: 1

      No, try tripling that number. Ubuntu alone has 8 different variants. Other distros have similar variants. You need to understand that I have laptops, desktops, ultra-mobile solid state pcs, virtual machines, et al. Not to mention that about 1 in five of my downloads don't pass the checksum test, and need to be downloaded again.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  4. Aliens FOUND !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    And there are more. Scientists have discovered that many more are likely to be found at borders, and in farm fields, and get this, hiding in plain sight !! Sometime gettig into the back of pickmeup tricks. They speak verbally using a language similar to spanish, but not quite, being aliens you know. Stay tuned for updates on
    this breaking news of the century !!

    1. Re:Aliens FOUND !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      tl;dr - Mexicans are superior, they come from outer space.

  5. Just nationalize it... by ArIck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Canadian government should just nationalize the last mile cables and have a government agency responsible for maintaining and upgrading the lines. Bell has enjoyed its monopoly position with free right of way, government subsidies and floor pricing set by CRTC so Bell can not complain they made a loss by setting up the line in the first place.... their investment has been multiplied tenfold.

    And for those skeptics who think they government would not be able to maintain it I would say this: If they could make our roads run in a decent way, the garbage collection in a decent way then the last mile cabling could be done in a decent way also. Ofcourse if required they could just contract the maintenance out to Bell Canada but then at least the government would be incharge.

    1. Re:Just nationalize it... by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Great. So the next time CUPE goes on strike, all of Canada loses internet access for weeks on end?

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    2. Re:Just nationalize it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to agree with you here, I really really do. I think the government should be given as little power as possible and the idea of the government, worse a bureaucracy being in direct control of my net frightens me.

      But teleco monopolies have jerked my chain one too many times, and the internet is widespread enough its practically an essential service just like electricity, and at the very least a government agency wouldn't be looking to pay a 7 figure salary to a board of directors so they might actually invest in upgrading that last mile.

      But then again, look what the fucktards did to our hydro, so no, they'd probably fuck this up too.

    3. Re:Just nationalize it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has already been done with electricity in Ontario. No one is going without electricity for weeks on end.

    4. Re:Just nationalize it... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      But then again, look what the fucktards did to our hydro, so no, they'd probably fuck this up too.
      You obviously live in Ontario (where the electric power was privatized during the Nonsense Revolution(TM), and rates tripled since then).

      You should move to Québec then where the still-nationalized power is the cheapest in the world, and where the network doesn't crumble (it's the only northeast power grid that didn't go down during the 2003 blackout)...

    5. Re:Just nationalize it... by radagenais · · Score: 1

      You can't nationalize the internet because then you put freedom of speech at threat (in case you want to rebutt "not in Canada!" I respond: Harper.) It's easier to keep an eye on private interest and for the state to regulate minimally.

      Anyway, those services you describe are farmed out to contractors. The state doesn't own very many garbage trucks or asphalt plants.

      (In Canada) if the gov't was your ISP, it would be "free", except your taxes would go up equivalent to the amount you are already paying, service would diminish in quality, the technology would gradually get further and further behind the times, and the union would have their new favorite service to interrupt during strike actions.

      "The government" is not the answer to every problem. Healthcare yes, intertubes mmm not so much.

      If you are not happy, use your spending power to switch from Bell. If you don't find a viable alternative in your area, start one. This internet thing is still open for business.

    6. Re:Just nationalize it... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      When is CUPE not on strike?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:Just nationalize it... by nologin · · Score: 1

      This isn't required...

      The CRTC already has rules that would require Bell Canada to provide other ISPs with last mile access, since there is no viable competitive infrastructure options available. Bell Canada must also provide that last mile at cost to the ISPs as per the CRTC regulations.

      Unfortunately, these rules don't appear to cover anything with regards to bandwidth throttling. However, I'm pretty sure that a case can be made with regards to the anti-competitive factors associated with this practice. The CRTC rules were set in place to encourage competition and I'm wondering if anyone affected has brought a complaint to the CRTC.

    8. Re:Just nationalize it... by ArIck · · Score: 1

      Dont nationlize the internet... that is just a bad idea. I am saying to nationalize the cables and in fact the 'last mile'. All ISP's could 'rent' the line and pay the government which would then be used to upgrade the system and increase development in rural areas.

      And did you just suggest that everyone who does not like Bell start to lay its own cable? Even the economics aside, I can not do it because to government regulation and the fact that I would need right of way from everyone's house under which the cable passes. Also, think how would you feel if every other day some private company dug up your driveway and porch to fix a broken cable.... this would be as bad as having six different power lines from six different power companies passing though.

    9. Re:Just nationalize it... by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1


      The Canadian government should just nationalize the last mile cables and have a government agency responsible for maintaining and upgrading the lines.


      Hmmm, in essence it would be nationalizing the internet. I hear Italy and Germany did great things by nationalizing newspapers some time back in the 40's. What's the worst that could happen by nationalizing the modern day equivalent?

    10. Re:Just nationalize it... by radagenais · · Score: 1

      I am saying to nationalize the cables
      Last mile isn't just cables though. You've got to get up to Layer 4.

      And did you just suggest that everyone who does not like Bell start to lay its own cable? People do it all the time. Bell isn't the only action in town.

      What I was proposing isn't a new idea. You get together with some people and buy a commercial feed and share it. This is how it's done in lots of places. Big business doesn't have to be the only action going.

      As for running wires... On a small scale, wireless works.
    11. Re:Just nationalize it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has already been done with electricity in Ontario. No one is going without electricity for weeks on end. one of these things is not like the other
    12. Re:Just nationalize it... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

      You mean things like how well they maintain roads and overpasses in Canada? Kinda like the overpass that collapsed and killed people in Montreal? Yeah. Ok. How about we get them maintaining the fundamental things that can literally mean the difference between life and death well before we ask them to maintain the "extras" like cabling to our homes.

    13. Re:Just nationalize it... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      not nationalized, but Sasktel does a fine job of managing the lines here, and provide good service IMO, though if you don't like them, there are lots of other options available.

      at the sibling post, i don't believe sasktel has had a strike since 1996.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    14. Re:Just nationalize it... by Cliffy03 · · Score: 1

      This isn't required... The CRTC already has rules that would require Bell Canada to provide other ISPs with last mile access, since there is no viable competitive infrastructure options available. Bell Canada must also provide that last mile at cost to the ISPs as per the CRTC regulations. While Bell is keeping everyone busy with the throttling issue, they are going to court to get tariff 5410/20 overruled as they claim there is enough competition and they should be allowed to charge fair market price.
      --
      In Soviet Russia, Nigel makes plans for you!
    15. Re:Just nationalize it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Saskatchewan the phone company is a Crown Corporation.

    16. Re:Just nationalize it... by dadragon · · Score: 1

      Not nationalised?

      SaskTel is wholly owned by the Crown Investments Corporation, which is wholly owned by the Provincial Crown. It's completely nationalised.

      That said, I agree that SaskTel does a reasonable job of maintaining and upgrading infrastructure, and there are cable operators that compete with their DSL service. There are even DSL wholesalers in Saskatchewan that lease the last mile from SaskTel too. Bell and Radiant immediately come to mind.

      In 2006 SaskTel went out and replaced every DSLAM in the major cities (a total of close to 900) to up the bandwidth available to make HDTV practical. They also buried a bunch of fibre and replaced a lot of buried copper in Saskatoon and Regina.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    17. Re:Just nationalize it... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      not exactly nationalized as it's not national. provincialized. ;)

      yeah, we've got shaw competing on cable (providing TV, internet, and VOIP phone), access using leased lines (providing IPTV, internet and VOIP phone), a dozen or so mom&pop ISPs leasing lines for just internet, along with wireless ISPs (xplorenet, and some other guys in the cities, along with sasktel's wireless (which i use myself, as i'm far out of reasonable DSL or cable range.)) and satellite for TV.

      there's just a fantastic amount of competition for TV, internet, and phone, which is exactly as it should be in a successful free market. just enough regulation to provide for competition.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  6. Eventually by Auckerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One day "the people" are going to learn the only thing a company is interested in is making money. They work for the consumer when it's more profitable to work for the consumer than it is to do something that isn't in the interested of the consumer. Network congestion is not solved by throttling, the only thing throttling does is make the internet slower. Which is supposedly the very thing it is supposed to solve.

    Of course, that's what they say. Here's the thing, if those guys could figure out a way to charge people for calling me on my phone, they would. Oh, but you say they are already paying for phone coverage, well our phone network is getting over used, we need set priorities, so we are going to direct your call in 5 minutes while more important people (who paid extra) can make calls to out customers right now. Sounds stupid doesn't it. IT'S THE SAME THING THEY ARE PROPOSING.

    One thing I don't get, why does something magically get confusing when the words "computer" or "internet" are used in the business discussion? Like somehow it's all of a sudden a debatable thing to talk about?

    Oh, that article writer is an idiot. Net Neutrality needs to me set in stone by law, end of story. Networks are made faster by putting in more pipes, not by turning off/down some of them.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
    1. Re:Eventually by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Oh, but you say they are already paying for phone coverage, well our phone network is getting over used, we need set priorities, so we are going to direct your call in 5 minutes while more important people (who paid extra) can make calls to out customers right now. Sounds stupid doesn't it.

      Calling during the day time is typically more expensive than calling at night. If you want to make an important call during normal business hours, you will need to pay extra.

      This also works with electricity. You pay more for daytime power than nighttime power. The demand on the system is greater during the day when businesses are all open and running all their appliances.

      IT'S THE SAME THING THEY ARE PROPOSING.

      Not really, but I suppose it's close enough that someone could play along.

    2. Re:Eventually by Auckerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it is the same thing. I pay for my network access, you pay for your network access. I don't pay to access YOUR network to YOUR network company. The agreements between the companies take care of that. The internet functions identically to the phone network. Making ME pay your phone company to call you faster is the same thing as making me pay your internet provider to send you a page faster. They are both same exact thing and both not in the interest of the consumer.

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    3. Re:Eventually by QuantumG · · Score: -1

      Did you know that in the UK those suckers pay both to making a call and for receiving them? Yeah, both the initiator of the call and the receiver of the call pay for "air time".

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Eventually by Phil246 · · Score: 2, Informative

      we do?
      that's news to me, having never had to pay to receive a call either on a landline or on a mobile....

    5. Re:Eventually by Gimble · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think so.

      For far too many years to remember, I have never ever paid to receive a call, either via landline or mobile (cell).

      We have always paid to make calls, any "free" minutes your package may have, are of course included in the package price.

      The only time you have to pay to receive a call is when the caller reverses the charges (call collect), but even then you have the option of whether to accept the call or not.

      The only other thing I can think of that may be close to what you're talking about is Pay As You Go (PAYG) mobile contracts, where there is often a minimum top up payment required to keep the number (and SIM card) active.

    6. Re:Eventually by fortunato · · Score: 1

      Its really irrelevant whether "the people" "learn the only thing a company is interested in is making money." The company can only make money by the will of the people. Its the basis of capitalism and its why things are like they are. As long as there is demand and people pay they will make money. If people do not pay and there is no demand they will not make money. Its really that simple.

      Monopolies are only monopolies because people will not sacrifice to do without. You can say Microsoft is a monopoly. But they are only a monopoly because people will not do without their product. Then you can go into artificial monopolies like the phone companies and the cable companies and your utilities. These are government mandated monopolies. You don't have a choice because your government says so. But even your government can get away with this because people are not willing to sacrifice and do without. Do without electricity, without TV, without a simple to use operating system, etc. The majority will always choose convenience.

      This is just how things work. Its human nature and its how things will probably always work. Sure, you get small revolutions or someone brilliant comes up with something game changing, but the fundamental rules never change. People are lazy, resistant to change, and there is always someone with a decent idea ready to capitalize on that. You can see evidence of it everywhere. Even in peoples shopping habits.

      Why do you think places like Costco and Sam's Club are so successful? I would venture its not because the prices are necessarily all that great (you can do better if you search online), it's because everything you "need" is in one place and its just plain easier to get it all at one place instead of driving around or walking through the mall. You can always cash in on the laziness of the masses.

      People who read Slashdot and bother to post comments are not the lazy types I'm talking about either. In general this demographic is not lazy and tends to overachieve. So its somewhat of a foreign concept. But the reality is more like the movie Idiocracy than not. In all seriousness as much as that movie is sarcastic and a parody its very much true.

    7. Re:Eventually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, I'm afraid that's actually total crap. I don't know where you got that from - the only times you would pay to receive a call on a UK phone are:

      1) You accept a reverse charges call.
      2) You have taken your UK mobile overseas and receive a call. Then you'll pay a (ridiculous) Roaming charge to receive the call.

      Those are both perfectly reasonable (in principle, if not in the actual scale of the charges)

    8. Re:Eventually by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 1

      I know this happens with some providers in the US, but i'm not sure about the UK.. it's certainly not universal.

      Also, your sig rocks. Space Dinosaurs ftw.

      --
      http://www.xkcd.com/354/
    9. Re:Eventually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US you pay for airtime on a cellphone, so you pay when someone calls you. Hell, I even have to pay a few pennies for each text message I receive, even the spam. Yes, it's stupid.

    10. Re:Eventually by dadragon · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he meant the USA. If it's like Canada, that is. Here we pay for air time both ways, except with landlines. All local calls on a landline are free, but on mobiles one usually pays for outgoing and incoming calls.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
  7. People's confusion? by Geak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think the issue lies with the fact that Bell itself is confused. Just remember that upper management doesn't know squat about techie stuff like internets and tubes and stuff. The CEO used to work for CN rail - a company he nearly ran into the ground by causing numerous safety issues, firing inspectors for mentioning things that needed repair. He probably just told the techies to "Make it cheaper for us using any and all means possible. Fuck the customers."

  8. It's simple economics by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1, Interesting

    well our phone network is getting over used, we need set priorities, so we are going to direct your call in 5 minutes while more important people (who paid extra) can make calls to out customers right now. Sounds stupid doesn't it. IT'S THE SAME THING THEY ARE PROPOSING. No, that's precisely what happened. Those who could afford a home telephone, had one installed, paid through the nose per minute and were able to connect instantly to whomever they chose. Everyone else used a payphone. What're you, fifteen or something, we've only had ubuiquitous phone coverage for about 30 years.

    Areas where flat rate is the norm will inevitably see infrastructure investment stagnation, bandwidth caps, throttling etc etc. With flat rate, there's really no incentive for ISPs to invest in more bandwidth. They don't get any more money for doing it. You want infinite bandwidth? Go pay for it.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:It's simple economics by Auckerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're telling me that you used to have to pay your phone company AND the phone company of the person you were calling in order to make a phone call or the receiving company just might not even put the call through? I couldn't even imagine all the phone bills you got back then.

      Metered prices is different than what these guys are doing.

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
  9. make the last mile a co-op by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. So the next time CUPE goes on strike, all of Canada loses internet access for weeks on end?


    Make the last mile a co-op: any ISP (or phone company) that want's access can buy into it, and they pay a membership fee as well as a per-line fee.

    All moneys and profits for infrastructure stay with-in the co-op, and companies compete on service and price. Profits are determined by how efficiently you run things.

  10. What?!? by Comboman · · Score: 2, Insightful
    And for those skeptics who think they government would not be able to maintain it I would say this: If they could make our roads run in a decent way ... then the last mile cabling could be done in a decent way also.

    Where do you live? The roads I drive on are full of potholes and crumbling bridges. The excessive gasoline tax I pay (that is supposed to maintain transportation infrastructure) is siphoned off for other things. You really want the people running our roads to run our internet connections?

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  11. Anonymous Coward.S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it should be obvious to everyone that no ISP can provide 10mbps (or even 5) to every customer AT ONCE. The amount of infrastructure that that would require is beyond of budget of any ICP.

    Of course they have to limit your bandwidth at times. Or am I'm missing the point?

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward.S by MoonlightSeraphim · · Score: 1

      Actually u are missing a point. Yes they can not provide unlim. to every customer and it is beyond the budget. But no, they can NOT and are NOT allowed to limit my bandwidth just because they advertised unlim. bandwidth plan and I've signed up for such.

  12. I'd certainly like to get what I pay for by phorm · · Score: 1

    Yes, all I have to say to the grandparent is *screw you*.

    I run a small webserver through my account with Teksavvy, which leases lines from Bell. In the last while I've noticed that my encrypted traffic (IMAPS in particular) when connecting to home has been shit during the day, but fine during the night. From various things I've read online it appears that the times for this coincide nicely with the periods when Bell likes to mess with traffic.

    It's not just torrents that Bell is messing up, there is collateral damage. To add to this, the last time my main desktop had filesystem issue and I needed to download a LiveCD for fixing... the torrent download rate of 5kbps really wasn't a pleasant thing.

  13. That's the spirit! by NickFortune · · Score: 1

    I, for one, am shocked and appalled that a monopoly would abuse its position. Shame on you Bell Canada!

    I'm sorry, that's a lie. I just can't get too excited about this type of thing.

    Just out of curiosity, when did we decide that monopolies, and the abuse of power were to be encouraged? Did I miss a memo, or something?

    All right everyone, move along, nothing to see here. Free market capitalism is SO Twentieth Century. Everybody move along ...

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  14. Natural Monopoly? by Chris+Acheson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems kind of odd to claim that last-mile internet access is a natural monopoly, considering that it's subject to "public right-of-way" regulations and fees imposed by local governments.

    --
    AEIOU: open-source anonymous internet currency
    1. Re:Natural Monopoly? by dadragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      SaskTel just upgraded their Saskatchewan infrastructure. They upgraded 10 cities in the province, with a total population of around 600K people. It cost them ~$300 million.

      You want to invest $500 per person? With no guarantees about ROI? That's 600K people who also could use a competitor's service.

      It's safe to say that the barrier for entry is pretty high.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
  15. Separate the infrastructure and the service by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 1

    The government should be in charge of laying out the infrastructure and lease it to all ISPs at the same price. What they do with it beyond that point is 100% their choice.

    The problem with Bell is that they own both the infrastructure and the service, so when they sell the service they give themselves lower infrastructure leasing rates than 3rd-party ISPs and make it impossible for them to compete. By all other accounts Bell is *worse* than all other ISPs. Their own competitive advantage, price, is gained through illegal monopolistic practices.

    The government should nationalize the infrastructure and fine the heck out of Bell for their practices.

  16. Bell tactics by Nesa2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I switched from Bell in November as soon as they started throttling my traffic.

    In March my traffic with TekSavvy was throttled as well due to Bell.

    There is no other Internet provider that I can use and get Unlimited Internet usage package at speeds for ADSL or Cable.

    Bell as singlehandedly brought their competition to same level of crappy service that they offer. I as consumer have no alternates. There is nothing I can do other than to write to all politicians in my areas, as well as inquire with all Internet providers as to what they are doing to keep me as a customer satisfied and fight Bell.

    So far, politicians seem ignorant of the issues and web services all throughout GTA are promising to fight Bell.

    While in Europe and Asia people are getting fiber coming up their doorstep, North America is tightening it's belt on innovation, and technology .

    We used to be innovators and leaders. What happened here?

    1. Re:Bell tactics by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      I sent a letter to my MP detailing my concerns (in non-geekspeak). I requested a reply including both my MP and the Conservative party's position on the issue.

      I got a 'thank you for your letter', but after a week have heard nothing further.

      However, I still encourage you to write your MP as well. Enough letters will result in action... and even though most people are irritated that their illegal torrents are slower, the truth is that there are LEGAL torrents, and that's irrelevant anyway. Bell has a last-mile monopoly, and they shouldn't be messing with the reseller ISPs - they sell bandwidth and transfer, not bandwidth and transfer tiered by packet type.

    2. Re:Bell tactics by ZDRuX · · Score: 1

      I would give Rogers another try. It seems that eversince the Comcast ordeal went live, they stopped throttling their traffic, at least for me? I`m not getting a full 800Kb/sec download 24/7 on torrents.

      Because of this, I ended up going over monthly limit and they sent me a "friendly" reminded that I should consider buying their faster/higher allowance package and guess what, I will!! I`m glad to pay more if I can get more! This is how it should work. Comcast should take notice and so should the other ISP's.

      --
      The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  17. the bigger they are, the more evil they become by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    personally, I wonder how much we each lose due to corporations corrupting the market

    it seems that there's no justice when it's the shop that's doing the lifting

  18. Re:No, you're full of it by yabos · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter how much data you transfer per month, YOU ARE ALWAYS THROTTLED. A grannie that tried to download a single torrent that uses 2GB per month is throttled. A person who uses 500GB a month is also throttled. They are not just throttling heavy users. The chance of a grannie downloading a torrent is pretty low but their throttling is also affecting legitimate encrypted traffic such as VPNs.

  19. Join the FIGHT ... this affects all INTERNET users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok People ... since we have some more discussion here.

    how about cross link this with the on going struggle in http://www.dslreports.com/ struggle....

    http://www.freeourbandwidth.com/

    Help with your comments from some 3rd party ISP's in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/teksavvy

  20. Join the FIGHT ... this affects all INTERNET users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok People ... since we have some more discussion here.

    how about cross link this with the on going struggle in http://www.dslreports.com/ struggle....

    http://www.freeourbandwidth.com/

    Help with your comments from some 3rd party ISP's in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/teksavvy

  21. personal throttling? by Znale · · Score: 1

    I don't understand this networking tech, last mile, independents, but I have personally seen throttling on myself in the last 2 months. I pay $50 a month for the unlimited high speed sympatico since June 2002. About once a week for the last 2 months my download speed drops in the middle of downloads. Last night it went from 400,000 bytes/sec to 40,000 bytes/sec. The only way I have been fixing this is power off the modem then router, waiting, disable/enable the connection and usually 30 minutes later I can be back up to normal, expected, payed for speed. Very annoying.

  22. Wait a sec... by starshinecruzer · · Score: 1

    So are you saying that small ISPs are the victims here? If we wanted to maintain Net Neutrality, would it be best to petition them or the providers they get their bandwidth from?