Slashdot Mirror
Bell Canada's Misinformation About Throttling
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."
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.
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
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.
You're mistaken. Teksavvy for example does NOT purchase wholesale internet access, they have their own routes and peering agreements.
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."
"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.
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...
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)
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...
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.
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
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
"The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
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.