Vuze Study Exposes P2P Throttling By Canadian ISP Cogeco

urbanriot writes "Despite a growing number of complaints on the popular North American consumer broadband site BroadbandReports, employees working for the Canadian cable internet provider Cogeco have publicly denied interfering with torrents on their network. However, a recent plugin put out by the Vuze team exposed Cogeco of being the second worst ISP globally, of those tested. So far, Cogeco has failed to respond to these findings, but recent coverage from the mainstream media and Michael Geist may prompt them to finally admit to their controversial practices." The report by the Vuze team has some interesting information about other ISPs from around the world as well. Prior to this, Bell Canada was taking most of the flak in Canada for traffic management.

Comments

this is why we need competition

[timmarhy]

no monopolys or duopoloys - real competition.

Re:this is why we need competition

[WK2]

Competition doesn't do much good when the ISPs are allowed to lie. Some good, yes, but in order for competition to do it's thing, users need to be well-informed before they purchase.

Re:this is why we need competition

[electrictroy]

Define infrastructure.

I know you're thinking "cables", but could it also mean the healthcare system? How about food stores? Clothing stores? Or perhaps the land that everybody sits their house upon? Maybe the houses themselves could be considered "infrastructure" and should be owned collectively by the government?

Ooops, I just used the word collectivism.
So much for free will of the individual.

"HISTORY has shown that Government is like fire: a troublesome servant & a DEADLY master. Never should it be allowed to trample upon the individual liberties we fought to secure." - George Washington. You can not have government control of the Infrastructure and individual freedom at the same time. When government is in control, it suppresses the individual to the will of the state, and imprisons or kills those who refuse to be trampled. Hence Washington's description of government as a "deadly" master.

It is a wiser course to pursue a "pro-choice" position that seeks to provide multiple choices, and places the power of decision in the hands of the citizen. i.e. A policy that empowers the individual.

Re:this is why we need competition

[hvm2hvm]

"You can not have government control of the Infrastructure and individual freedom at the same time. When government is in control, it suppresses the individual to the will of the state, and imprisons or kills those who refuse to be trampled."

Well it's still better than what happens when the companies have control. The government is somewhat forced to make it better for the people but companies have no interest in caring for their customers as long as they get the money. And considering the owners of the company are still people they have immunity over the will of the customers (unless they do something illegal but they usually are careful with that). That immunity is granted by the government, which in theory is the expression of the people. Now that is not right at all.

Re:this is why we need competition

[CastrTroy]

Itunes replaced the CD cartel

I don't know why people love iTunes so much. Personally I think it's just as bad, if not worse than the CD cartel ever was. At least when I bought a CD, I owned it, and could copy it for personal use however I pleased. With MS shutting down shop for music sales, and cutting access to DRM keys, you would think that people would realize just how bad of a situation DRM music puts us in. Sure iTunes has some stuff that's DRM free, but the vast majority of it still has DRM. Online music sales (like the CD before it) was supposed to make things a lot cheaper. On iTunes, it still costs $10 an album, and you don't even get a physical product. CDs were only moderately more expensive. At least where I live. I like eMusic, because even though I'm bound to paying my $15 every month, I know I'm only paying $0.30 cents per track. Which I think is a much more fair price when you don't receive an actual physical product. And you can also redownload your music in the case where it was lost. I would probably spend $15 anyway on music. Better I get 50 tracks than 15. I have to admit, I do miss some of the bigger name bands, and wish that their music was available through better means, but I just can't justify paying $1.00 for a track. It just seems like a complete ripoff.

Re:this is why we need competition

[Remusti]

I have to say, your argument is excellent. I completely agree.

Utility and internet companies should own their own infrastructure. The only acceptable options are either:

a) One company delivering services to specific areas. This is a great way of securing personal liberty. Don't like the broadband provider for your area? Move house! Don't like the electricity provider in your new area? Move again! Wait, now you have a problem with your telephone provider? Move again, and this time do your research. Remember, market forces are the only thing these companies understand. When everybody leaves town, they're bound to upgrade the network.

b) Multiple series of cables running along the street. After all, what could be better than power and phone lines running down the street? Five sets! Who needs a footpath anyway? And what good is a footpath if we can't rip it up every time a new player comes to town? Pedestrians are chumps, too bloody lazy to learn how to drive, that's their problem.

Wait, no. Now that I type that, it starts to make a bit less sense.

I mean, what will we be advocating next? Putting roading into private hands? I don't even want to imagine that scenario.

I have to admit, I don't live in America, so I don't share your views on healthcare. I live in one of those really weird countries with universal healthcare. For some reason though, we still have medical insurance companies. How weird is that? Our central healthcare system is government owned and yet we have a choice in the provider of our medical care.

Anyway, I'm rambling now and I've started to forget the point I had in mind when I started writing. Bleh. Too late at night for a decent post. But I will say this: Government control is not the only option when it comes to public ownership. Utility cooperatives are one example. You seem to find the idea of a collective or cooperative scary though, for some reason. Think of it this way though, your infrastructure can be owned by:

1) A private company which is out for only one purpose, to make dollars. Any corners which can be cut will be cut, and no infrastructure upgrades will be rolled out until after they are needed.

2) The government. There aren't many governments which aren't bureaucratic, but if they aren't they tend to be totalitarian. Governments are very good at knowing what's best for you, which is an added bonus.

3) A cooperative owned by the people who are provided the service. Decisions on changes to the infrastructure are voted on by members. Can you imagine that? You telling the company what to do? How completely backwards that would be!

Right, right. Time to make my main point and then shut up. Your post does nothing to support choice. Allowing private enterprises to have monopolies and own infrastructure severely damages the ability for new players to enter the market. Remember that the monopoly is the antithesis of the free market, a monopolistic power crushes all competition.

Re:Bad ISPs

[Alpha Whisky]

What is really needed is a good ISP list. The only way to sort this out is to hurt the bad ISPs in the wallet by moving to the good ISPs.

How to advertise....

[iamsamed]

How do you adverstise such a thing when less than 10% of your customer base understand the concept behind it? Why would you advertise limited Internet access? I can see the ads

"Tired of the internet pig next door downloading illegal movies next door and bringing YOUR service to a crawl?

Working from home and your work just sits there because the guy next door is sharing all of his music with the rest of the world?

The sex addict down the street is sucking up your internet - BUY FROM US!

We don't feed the internet pigs!

Sign up with us and get your work done!

(in mice type) we throttle P2P, bitorrent, etc...."

See, no probelm.

Incompetence v.s. Malevolence

[pruneau]

Never forget one thing though: before ascribing something to malevolence, look into the incompetence direction first.

And having a mix of the two makes it even easier to hide behind plausible deniability. Because placing the right person at the right place, i.e. the worst net admin on the most loaded network might be just what it takes.

Re:False advertising?

[redelm]

It's not quite so easy -- first, most contracts contain a clause that the contract is the complete contract and other materials are not binding. Also notice disclaimers in advertising "where available", which may not be in many places. Third, the service advertised and shown as unlimited _home_ use may not match yours: a bit of surfing and sis watching a cartoon is not the same as 24/7 DL.

As for contract modification, these are not "one-time" contracts but continuing agreements. You can terminate at any time and so can they. Where there is an equipment lock-in, then substantial changes should give you the right to terminate without payback. I doubt a court would disagree.

Flawed Study

[Se7enLC]

This study compares the number of RESETs to the total number of connections made. It makes NO ATTEMPT at determining if the resets are false and injected by the ISP.