Slashdot Mirror
Bell Canada Ordered To Justify Traffic-Shaping Practices
somecanuckchick writes "The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has ordered Bell Canada to justify its traffic-shaping practices. The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission on Thursday told the company it has until June 23 to make public data that was marked confidential in a May 29 filing. Bell had said it needed to keep quiet the information, which details the level of internet traffic and possible congestion on its network, for competitive reasons."
Will Rogers be next? Cogeco?
I'm guessing that means "if our customers find out the crap we're pulling then they'll go to the competition".
Either that or that competitors will realise exactly how much it's possible to dupe their customers into acxcepting as "just the way it is" before anyone gets upset.
Is the implication here that, if they disclose how they are shaping their traffic, competitors will somehow seize that information and offer better service as a result? I don't think Bell Canada's customers are just chomping at the bit to get more traffic shaping on their lines, and I don't think they'd be any happier about it with a competitor, even if the prices were lower.
About the only logical application I can see of "competitive reasons" would be, "Oh no! Now our customers know we actually *were* screwing them hard, and now they're leaving for our competitors in droves!"
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada is a very liberal (meaning "associated with the liberal party of Canada", who is not currently in power, but has managed to thoroughly infiltrate and subvert the federal State apparatus, up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada) company.
As such, it just has won a case before the Supreme Court of Canada, despite that Bell's case flies in the fact of Canadian law and jurisprudence.
The CRTC board is also throroughly liberal.
So it will not be suprising that the CRTC will eventually rules in favour of Bell, and it will probably because it will face pressure from liberals.
Almost everyone I know that isn't a geek cares about one thing when it comes to the Internet: speed. But the non-geeks don't understand that speed is not about how fast things download always, but sometimes about how fast things appear. It's the bandwidth versus latency issue.
I've come to discover in my 21 years of being "online" that even with geeks, low latency is more important than high speed most of the time. I ran a large multinode BBS, and the most important reason for having a faster modem was not to download files quicker. It was so that the site would appear quicker: the message forums, the BBS doors (online games), the chat area, etc.
Today, when I see people complain about the speed of their Internet, it's always a latency issue. Maybe some spyware swapped DNS servers, maybe they're using an antiquated dial-up; whatever the case, latency is more important to the vast majority of users than bandwidth. This is why traffic shaping is so important, and also why keeping it private is also important. The moment that the few geeks who demand maximum bandwidth find a way around traffic shaping, those who demand low latency will suffer. For the huge majority of Internet users, if their downloads are 200kbps or 2000kbps, they don't care. While they're downloading, they're surfing, and they want that web site to pop up on the screen instantly or quicker.
We have to look at the real problem here: the lack of competition. Even if there are two or three competitors in a market, there is still room for more. When you realize that the lack fo competition is due to the stifling of local, state and Federal government regulations, you'll find the true culprit for what ails you: too many regulations preventing competition from bringing to the market what you want at a price you're willing to pay. Get rid of government strangeholds and the Internet will blossom further. This article tells me things will get worse as those who promise to protect you will only find new ways to collect their paychecks in the form of political contributions.
it is competitive pressure they fear, as they are shaping traffic while they have opened an on-line video store to help provide the bandwidth. The fact that Bell has increased the services they offer while trying not to spend money expanding their server to server infrastructure would probably give competitors a leg up in knowing how close they really are to capacity. Knowing that, they could use it as an edge. That said, selling high speed as high speed to customers while throttling their speed and hoping they don't notice is still bait and switch.
That's hiding the made up bull that they pull. They would rather do this and save their investments in more infrastructure but still get more users and lines leased.
Sigh.
Bell knows that if people see what it is doing, with no valid reasons, that they will go to the competition. I used to be with Bell with internet, but went to another ISP after their "unlimited" placed a cap on my download limit.
Unfortunately, all the ISP now in my area have caps now, but at least you can choose what you need from mine. I can pay for fast speed with a low cap, or a high cap based on my needs. Bell never gave that choice. It was "Next month, you are going the have a limit, and we will charge you for every gig you go over. Plus you will be penalized if you cancel any contracts."
When they told me they would charge me for a canceling my Internet contract, I told them if they try, I would cancel my phone as well. They waived the fee.
Vote with your wallet! Truer words were never spoken or typed.
Now if I can just get cheaper and better phone provider....
Good.. Bad.. I'm the guy with the gun.
Bell doesn't want anyone to know just how much money they've been siphoning off that should have been spent on infrastructure upgrades to avoid the current congestion in the first place.
"Everybody else is doing it!"
I think bell really shot themselves in the foot with their argument that their lines are overwhelmed by traffic from torrents or 'heavy users'. This has really turned up the passion with the general public at large. Michael Geist www.michaelgeist.ca has an extremly infomative series of articles titled "a week in the life of the new canadian dmca" where he uses an every day normal family to explain what would and would no longer be acceptable if this law passes.
His facebook privacy group has swelled to over 65 000 individuals since it's creation. This included with the efforts of other canadian organizations (www.copyrightforcanadians.ca) has really brought this issue to the forefront of canadian politics. Net neutrality wasn`t even a whisper a few months ago, now it`s being talked about around the water cooler at work. So let me be one of the first to say it: Thank you Bell Canada. Thank you for being that large corporation which believes it has a right to do whatever it wants to it`s customers. You`ve helped out net neutrality in Canada more than you could of imagined.
I can`t wait to see just how clogged their resources are. I hope someone is able to cut through the legalese to give us a nice idea of how their equipment and service is really running.
The excuse to not release it for "competitive" reasons is laughable.
A) The ONLY competition that exists is the OTHER mega telecommunications conglomerate Rogers Communictions/Shaw/Cogeco/Etc... Who also use the exact same practices.
B) ALL the other independent ISPs it was pointed out sometime ago, use either Bell's or Rogers's lines, and thus are traffic shaping also if they know it or not.
C) The only reason they don't want to release is this isn't mainstream news yet. Your average Joe doesn't know what the heck traffic shaping is. However when journalists start looking it up to report on it, thats a lot more negative press, and frankly people are getting pretty sick and tired of the communication duopoly. They might also remind people about reports of bandwidth capping, or that how they hardly ever really provide the speed that they advertise. They lie, cheat, steal, annoy, mismanage, and impose fictional means and limited options to ensure profit. Heck you ever wonder why Bell Canada doesn't offer Dry DSL? Gee could it be because they are a PHONE company, and you don't need a active phone line to use it. Its all about selling packages, and convergence. I think it is time Canada took a SERIOUS look at our telecommunications situation, and what is being done around the world. If we want to be competitive into the future, leaving it in the hands of these asshats probably isn't a very good idea.
While I am at it, a hearty "Here Here!" to the CRTC who are doing their job as oversight of the industry. I only hope they follow through with Rogers Communications as well, and when it is all out in the open they actual make some sort of decision with teeth.
Quit pissing about. The #1 question is are these companies working in Canadians best interest? If the answer is no, then something MUST be done about it.
For all your radical capitalists out there that will immediately point out that these are publicly traded companies, and that they ultimately report to the shareholders. I will preemptively smash your argument saying in this case their is a 3 way conflict in that 1) the infrastructure is subsidized by tax dollars, 2) is a government regulated industry, and 3) today telecommunication s are vital and important role of any country's security and growth.
So let's end this confidentiality and pass legislation to force all Canadian isp's to provide the full set of specs. It seems to me that just like buying other equipment or services. The specifications should be displayed and cannot be misrepresented. Just like buying a TV or other elctronic device I want to see the specs so I may make an informed choice. There is no myterious technology here. It is just like any other consumer device.
I want Full Disclosure. I want to see exactly what my purchase is capable of and what I will recieve right on the label, so to speak. I want it just like any other product legislation in Canada. Why are only the internet providers allowed to pull this type of scam? Car company's are not allowed to misrepresent the engine displacement, nor can stereo amplifier companies misrepresent peak or continuous power output or even try to confuse the consumer. They must state what they are selling truthfully and according to standard measurement methods. If they tried to pull this type of scam, they would be paying huge fines.
The consumers should at least have the information available and choose to read it or not. Just like other product labelling in this country. If people don't want to think or let their friend pick for them, then fine, But get it out there for all to see.
The "Free Market" argument doesn't apply here. Bell has been subsidized by the government for the better part of a century, and given guaranteed monopolies in various areas (not to mention the fact that their lines are on public land). Bell does not operate in a free market, and never has.
On top of that, the "Free Market" doesn't work when the consumer is lied to and deliberately misled (there is nothing about traffic shaping in Bell's TOS, or in their contracts with the resellers).
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
My biggest problem with traffic shaping is this. Imagine if they tried to do this with our voice lines based on the content of your conversation. Customer1 is talking about a new song on the radio with customer2 and bell's traffic shaping is listening in. Customer2: Have you heard that new song on the radio by Metallica? Customer2: No I don't think so... Customer1: (starts singing the first verse to the new song.) Bells traffic shaping detects metallica's lyrics being sung in the conversation and immediately flags conversation and intervenes because of the content. Customer2: Oh yeah I've heard that one!!(starts to sing the 2nd verse to the song) Bell's traffic shaping software now is starting to throttle the conversation and diverts part of the bandwidth(analog or digital information)to other customers because of the content. Customer1: Hey I can hardly hear you! Your cutting in and out! customer2 barely hears customer1 and starts singing louder. Bells software adjusts Customer2: Say "static" prayers little one Dont "static" get, my son To include "static"one Customer1: Hey your cutting in and out! Customer2: Huh? (yells out)Can you hear me now!!! My whole point is this, be it either by analog or digital, bell has no right to listen in to the conversations I may be having. If I'm having a verbal conversation with someone and they want to listen into conversation they need a warrant, otherwise they are invading my privacy. Same goes for information that I send and receive over the internet.
The begining of the end...
You can't take the sky from me...
sort of problem?
Because I see a couple of problems with competition:
1) Competition, to function properly, requires that consumers be basically pretty well informed. If I start talking to say, my mother or my girlfriend's parents about shaping and throttling and ping times, well, I might as well just be making up words that as far as they knew, I just made up. Competition falls apart with uninformed consumers.
2) "The market for lemons" argument. There's a wikipedia for it, or just google for it, but basically it's the argument that, if a customer cannot tell the difference between a quality product and crappy product in advance of buying it, then the crap will drive out the good stuff.
3) The idea of a natural monopoly. I don't think it necessarily makes sense for us to have 2 or 3 or 10 players in the marketplace for internet services, any more than it would make sense for me to have 2 or 3 sets of pipes for water and sewer coming into my house so that I can decide, day by day, whether to use water supplier A vs B, based on prices and service and quality.
Some things simply _are_ a natural monopoly, and though it seems like heresy these days, competition will simply make situations like that dramatically _less_ efficient, not more.
Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong here. Anybody got an example that would do that?
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".