Slashdot Mirror
Canadian ISP Ordered to Prove Traffic-Shaping is Needed
Sepiraph writes "In a letter sent to the Canadian Association of Internet Providers and Bell Canada on May 15, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) have ordered Bell Canada to provide tangible evidence that its broadband networks are congested to justify the company's Internet traffic-shaping policies. This is a response after Bell planned to tackle the issue of traffic shaping, also called throttling, on the company's broadband networks. It would be interesting to see Bell's response, as well as to see some real-world actual numbers and compare them to a previous study."
One thing that confuses the US net neutrality debate is that the ISPs have got massive subsidies in return for apparently better services, which have not occurred. If everyone bit the bullet and accepted they are not going to get them then everything could move on. They have wronged by handing out monopolies and they have wronged by subsidising them. Another wrong isn't going to fix the system. Just allow proper competition. (Yea sorry I didn't get to read this article but i want to go to bed now :) ) Anyway, there was blatantly no net neutrality in the first place.
I would rather have the CRTC ask Bell Canada to provide tangible evidence that the laws of arthmetic failed when they computed the bandwidth available to each customer.
Even if Bell can not prove at the moment the network usage is saturated all they have to do is wait and do not invest a penny in new infrastructure. Eventually the network will be saturated and Bell will win. They can even help themselves by selling a server or two to speed up the process.
So you're saying (if you read the article) that Bell can find a way to saturate their bandwidth by the end of the month? I'd be really impressed if Bell can manage to stall the CRTC for much longer.
Except if Bell can be shown to be falling down with respect to deploying the _necessary_ infrastructure to support telecommunications, they might be penalized in subsidies or something.
They've been granted a (partial) monopoly in order to ensure the infrastructure gets built. If they say it's not big enough, then they're likely to look silly and be told to build more.
they made promises they can't live up to and now they are handling it by censoring the internet. I don't care if it is "necessary", they screwed up and it should be handled in a responsible way - by upgrading the network
This is funny. If they can "prove" that traffic shaping is necessary, they have essentially proven that they are unable to provide the services they are charging people for. No matter what their proof looks like, they're hosed. Either they will be forced to quit traffic shaping and admit they don't need to do it, or they'll be open to class action lawsuits for failing to provide contracted services.
I don't feel too sorry for them... The telcos tear up the street every couple of years and I still don't have fiber to my house. To hell with them. The concept of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders has gone way too far, and it's time that service companies get a little legal protection when they choose to provide their customers with their contracted service instead of making an extra penny for their shareholders. Just look at the yahoo debacle... The company leadership might actually end up IN JAIL for trying to do the "right thing" for the company and their customers, because a couple shareholders are pissed they couldn't make a fast buck by selling out to Microsoft. That is a complete perversion of the concept of fiduciary responsibility, and our legal system ought to provide for companies that actually attempt to stay in business and fulfill their contracts with their customers.
You must have a source on the 200B story that doesn't cost $20 to read.
This is the Internet, for Pete's sake!
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
[2] d)
If their clever plan involves sitting around and waiting for the network to get saturated, they might be waiting for a while.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Many things big businesses do are illegal, just look at MS, both the EU and US found them engaging in anti-competitive practices, MS just said what are you going to do about it and still continues to. Most ISPs can do the same thing, if you want high-speed internet, who else are you going to turn to other then those who offer it regardless if they throttle, overcharge and inject ads into your internet.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Don't celebrate, yet.
Here's the deal: The ISP is going to produce a bullshit report that will be taken as The Gospel Truth from the Mountain that was Hand-Delivered by Moses Himself - by those that matter, anyway - and it will be used to justify each and every new attack on the proles.
Do you honestly believe that politicians, who need contributions to get re-elected, will bite the hands that feed them? American, Canadian, African - it doesn't matter.
The system is rigged to fuck us. Accept it and act accordingly.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
I'm sure people will start taking responsibility for their actions. Just as soon as corporations do.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Yeah anytime I try to do anything encrypted over the net (including bittorrent) my connection grinds to a halt.
The good thing about this is if they're forced to remove the throttling from wholesalers connections... They they will either be forced to remove the throttling from their own services or be relegated to merely a supplier of internet capacity. This is why they have went out of their way to throttle their wholesaler's connections because they were having to throttle their own connections.
Hopefully the CRTC wont eat the garbage they spit up infront of them and actually put their foot down and decree the Net Neutrality principles (or common carrier) as having precedence over their bottom line.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Crime amongst the wealthy is a considerable problem. Corporations (and other obscenely wealthy folk) commit these crimes because they can, and they know that even if they are caught, it becomes more of an inconvenience than a problem. Compare that to a middle-class home, who would be devastated by fines that the rich can simply take in their stride. It's a one size fits all approach, and it doesn't work.
I propose that we scale fines to the income of the guilty party. Give out fines as percentages of yearly income. You could take the income records from last years tax time and fine a certain portion of that amount. If you commit a particularly serious crime, you may be charged as much as 50% of your yearly income, which would be equally devastating for anyone, no matter how much money they have. Fines would become a deterrent for all. Suddenly, breaking the law routinely doesn't seem to be such a financially viable business strategy.
Of course, the deterrent factor becomes less reliable on the very bottom of the scale. If a person has no money, then there would be no punishment, and consequently, they could do what they want. It also wouldn't cover damages to specific parties. We wouldn't want a situation where the fine is less expensive than the damage of the act itself. Whatever the problems, though, I think this idea has potential.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Explain to me how you believe that someone agrees to allow Bell to shape their traffic without having signed a contract with Bell.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Corporations, unions, and other organizations are not allowed to contribute at all.
Actually I think they are only limited monetarily - they are allowed to donate as much labour as they want. Which can be considerable in many situations.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
and allowing more lines will cause tons of money to magically appear to run new lines? the startup cost of running new lines is enormous. it would be impossible to compete when the other guy already has an infrastructure and you have to build one from scratch.
and it's not their property. a whole lot of the people's money was given to them to build that infrastructure, so you you think we should let them do what they like with practically public property, i would recommend you visit a competent psychologist.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time