Slashdot Mirror


Canadians Find Traffic Shaping "Reasonable"

gehrehmee writes "A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll on ISPs' use of traffic shaping suggests that 60% of survey respondents find the practice reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly, while 22% believe Internet management is unreasonable regardless. The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.' Is there a lack of education about the long-term effects of traffic shaping on free communication? Or are net neutrality advocates just out of touch?" The poll found that only 20% of respondents had ever heard of traffic shaping. The article is unclear on whether the "60%" who found the practice "reasonable" are 60% of all respondents — most of whom don't know what they are talking about — or 60% of the minority who know. If the former, then the exact phrasing of the question is the overwhelming determinant of the response. At the CTRC hearings, which wrapped up today, Bell Canada executives revealed that the company "slows certain types of downloads [P2P] to as little as 1.5 to 3 per cent of their advertised speed during 9-1/2 hours of the day."

9 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Using the truth to bolster a lie by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't a question about Net Neutrality at all. This is a question about network management. If you asked people this question: "Do you think data being consumed in real time (video, phone calls, etc.) should have higher priority than data being transferred for later use?" the answer from a reasonable person is likely to be "yes". And it's not a bad answer.

    The actual Net Neutrality question is: "Do you think Rogers Cablesystem should be allowed to degrade Vonage's VoIP traffic if they don't similarly degrade Rogers' own VoIP traffic?"

    The real problems come from confusingly bad articles like these, where people are being mislead to believe network management is the same as net neutrality. That's the lie that is being used to skew the statistics of public opinion. And it doesn't help that P2P proponents try to use the same lie to claim some mythical rights under the guise of net neutrality, either. If a router has a choice between discarding one packet or another, it's disruptive to fewer people if it throws away the VoIP packet. That's traffic shaping 101, and has nothing to do with network neutrality.

    --
    John
    1. Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie by Blymie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is, that this *is* about network neutrality as well.

      What happens when someone wants to start offering cable TV over the net? It's already started, and that's much more bandwidth intensive than P2P. It is also completely legal, to boot! In Canada, you can rebroadcast OTA TV without paying anyone a dime, currently.

      What happens when someone starts to offer live video streaming, aka movie downloading, legally?

      Heck, what about video game patches, add ons, downloads of Linux distros, etc, etc, etc. All of these are entirely legal, and all of them can use P2P.

      Bell's silly contention is that P2P somehow causes severe bandwidth issues. In reality, they take objection to ALL bandwidth intensive applications. They've stated so in the past, with comments like "only 5% of users use P2P, everyone else only checks their email and views a few webpages a night". To them, a "few webpages" means looking at Google news, and barely using anything bandwidth intensive like YouTube. The real issue here is that Bell vastly oversells its bandwidth.

      Throttling in *any way* causes issues with Network Neutrality. An ISP is a pipe. Provide $x bandwidth, with $y data cap, and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. Anything else is entirely, completely, and fully dishonest.

      Hell, Bell and Rogers sell movie rentals, TV access, cable and the like. To them, any way they can make bandwidth intensive applications look bad, is a big, massive boon to their business.

    2. Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And to you I say: Perhaps everyone who pays for X Mbps should be able to obtain it 99% of the time. Minor degradation for 1% of the day is fine, but significantly overselling bandwidth when you *know* the usage patterns of your customers will require a bigger pipe for substantial portions of the day is irresponsible.

      When you have unspecified traffic shaping in play, you distort the free market: How do I compare two providers of a 10 Mbps connection when they don't say what the practical speed will be (and largely can't: I've seen cable modems run reliably at 10 KB/s or less in some areas that were massively underprovisioned, while the same company provided 24/7 1 MB/s connections less than a mile away).

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    3. Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie by phoomp · · Score: 5, Insightful
      60% agree with the question.

      20% understand the question.

    4. Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie by seasleepy · · Score: 5, Informative
      The comments on Michael Geist's blog indicate that the polling went rather like you expected.

      Interestingly, just prior to the release of the survey, one of the people who was called over the weekend (the survey was conducted July 9 - 12th) contacted me to report:

      I took a Harris-Decima phone poll over the weekend and their questions about traffic shaping could be roughly summed up as "Did you know that your neighbour's movie downloading is slowing down your Internet?".

    5. Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie by Blymie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Essentially your argument is "You should not be using the full speed your modem provides".

      That's all you're arguing. I could saturate that speed using torrents, using edonkey, using netflix, using youtube, simply clicking on a download link for a webpage, or even updating security patches to a new XP box! It's an invalid argument, hands down.

      Plain and simple, Bell oversells its bandwidth. Most dialup ISPs used to have a 1/10 ratio when selling to subscribers. Good ISPs used to have 1/5. I suspect Bell is somewhere in the 1/1000 range, or even 1/10000.

      If Bell was *really* concerned about their client's experience, they'd use packet shaping to ensure that P2P had a *lower priority* over SIP and other protocols. They don't, however, because they have a vested interest in ensuring that bandwidth heavy traffic is not used on their network, because:

      1) it competes with all of their other businesses! Bandwidth usage = competition with TV, Video downloads, etc
      2) it would require them to invent in technology upgrades
      3) it makes sure that other ISPs can not compete with Bell as effectively

      Keep in mind that there is almost NO competition here in Canada. If Bell was *competing* for subscribers, they'd to their best to ensure that their service was better than the next door over. They don't, because their only competition is the cable company, who also does not compete.

      After all, with only two players in the market, why compete?

      The same sits true for cellular services in this country, which is replied to with absurd statements of how we are 'spread out'. Absurd, the have a few low-grade, old tech towers strung in the open places, but other than that, our population density is just as high as any place else.

      This is about a lack of competition, pure and simple.

  2. Terrible Analogy by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.'

    I'm not a customer of Rogers but I do know that Comcast and Cox cap you at your cable modem (and I'd bet Rogers does too) ... so a better analogy might be:

    'a car that parks in its own lane of a busy highway with a lane for every home at all times of the day or night, clogging that lane for themselves unless they take action.'

    And the best analogy would be:

    'a single person driving nonstop cars in their own personal lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging that lane for themselves because they paid for the lane and they're going to fucking use it.'

    If you can't support 5Mb/s don't advertise 5Mb/s! And don't sell people plans with that written on it if you can't support everyone doing it! Oh? You've discovered people will shell out a lot more money for better connections so you like to be able to advertise 5Mb/s? You don't say ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Re:Invasion of the opinionated idiots by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

    People who use car analogies to appeal to people who would otherwise not understand a thing about the topic are like that asshole in the white Escort who sat in front of me at the light this morning yapping away on his cell phone, too oblivious to notice that the light had changed.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  4. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not? Because I pay for an Internet connection, not a web and email connection. Who are you to decide that my use of the internet is less important than yours?