 |
|
|
  |
MP speaks out against 'net throttling' during London visit
The issue hit the news last week when CTV.ca reported the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), filed an official complaint with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) over the 'traffic-shaping' measures presently being applied by Bell Canada. Independent Internet service providers who use Bell Canada's telephone lines say some of their customers face slower download times because of new 'traffic-shaping' policies being implemented by the telecom giant, CTV.ca reported. But both Angus and Mathyssen contend the Conservative government is missing in action when it comes to protecting consumers and freedom of information on the internet. Calling it a consumer rights issue, Angus said most politicians don't get it. "They don't understand net neutrality. They're about as far as you can get from the issue. "I believe politicians who are on the wrong side of this issue are in for a rude wake-up call when the election comes," he said, adding the issue will be an important one in key ridings such as those in London and the surrounding area. "What's really at issue here is we need clear and transparent rules for how the giant telecoms are going to allow traffic flow on the Internet," said Angus, digital spokesperson for the federal NDP party. "We have a situation where accusations are being made… Bell is essentially throttling certain levels of traffic and it tends to be directed at third party ISP competitors," he said, adding the big telecoms are implementing or moving towards the implementation of tiered pricing, and if they are "squeezing out the smaller competitors who are giving better rates – that's a big problem, it's not fair competition." In addition, with this type of power in the hands of big corporations, freedom of speech and information relatively easily accessed on the Internet could be disrupted, by slowing down the traffic access, if these companies decide they don't like the content being published. "Who is going to be in control of the Internet, the consumer or the giant telecoms?" Angus asked. "If Bell and Rogers are going to decide what type of traffic is going to be in the fast lane and who is going to be in the slow lane, then, certainly, consumers could be held hostage – firstly in pricing and second in their ability to access." According to CTV.ca, Bell claims the new policies are meant to prevent a small group of users from hogging bandwidth from others online. Mirko Bibic, Bell's chief of regulatory affairs, rebuffed the CAIP complaint saying that Bell has a right to maintain the integrity of its network. He said DPI technology is a useful way to monitor traffic online. "Bandwidth doesn't just fall from the sky,'' Bibic told The Canadian Press, adding that more bandwidth would not resolve congestion issues. He also said traffic shaping was part of a "multi-pronged" strategy used to prevent congestion. Angus said he can understand the need by the telecoms to exercise some control and traffic shaping measures in order to ensure everything in cyberspace moves smoothly. "That's reasonable. I'm not adverse to the argument that if someone is using phenomenal amounts of bandwidth they should pay more. But I'm very concerned about letting the telecoms decide this without some transparent ground rules from the CRTC." RELATED STORY: 'Traffic-shaping' likely to slow Internet users RELATED STORY: NDP calls for net neutrality |
| I sent the following to the CRTC, and encourage others to comment directly to them. Please do not believe the crud Bell Canada is spewing re "traffic throttling". I was interested in trying out the CBC experiment in the Torrent distribution of a documentary online - so much for "theft of intellectual property". I downloaded, installed and used uTorrent for the first (and only) time - so much for "habitual bandwidth hogs" Although my Primus DSL service has been measured at 1.7 Mb/s download and 750 Kb/s upload speed, the torrent connection ran at less than 25 Kb/s download and less than 1 Kb/s upload speed to peers - so much for "reasonable restriction". I started the download in the late evening. It took all night to complete - so much for "peak periods". It should be obvious to all, including the CRTC, that Bell is using it's monopoly to suppress competition. If "traffic shaping" proves necessary it should only be done by the ISPs, not the carrier. For those who wish to complain directly to the CRTC: The CRTC website is http://www.crtc.gc.ca On the left panel is the link "Complaints and Inquiries" Clicking on that produces "STEP 1 of 5" and a drop-down list. Choose "Complaints" then "Next". This produces "STEP 2 of 5" and a drop-down list. Choose "Telephone" then "Next". Explanation: The CRTC does not regulate the internet per se. Bell is free to do whatever traffic shaping they choose on their Sympatico ISP accounts. That is not the issue here; Bell, as a CARRIER, is interfering with the traffic of other ISPs. The CRTC DOES regulate carriers, and public complaint is not only allowed, but encouraged. Thus, choose "telephone" as a carrier complaint. "Step 3 of 5" asks for your personal info & how you would like to be replied to. I choose e-mail. "Step 4 of 5" inputs your complaint. "Step 5 of 5" completes the process. I urge you to take advantage of this process. |
| By: Donald Thompson on 04/19/2008 |
| I think that the CRTC is failing to consider public interest internet by allowing Bell and Rogers to throttle or censor network traffic. |
| By: Tim Butler on 04/20/2008 |
| Is it not the case that ISPs buy capacity through Bell? So long as Bell doesn't sell what it hasn't got then Bell shouldn't run into capacity problems. If the ISPs run into capacity limitations through lack of available funds then they either need to start charging more, and/or control subscriber habits by calculating sustainable numbers for average subscriber usage (a cap on bandwidth consumption). None of what's happening makes sense. Subscribers PAY for their service and operate it within the confines of the ISPs agreement. They shouldn't be punished for that, it'd be the ISPs at fault. What business is it of Bells to manipulate traffic flows on behalf of the ISPs paying for and utilising Bell's service within the confines of the business agreement? The ISPs are just using their product in the same way end user subscribers to ISPs use theirs. And just to make it all even more laughable, Bell never even mentioned to their clients that they intended to introduce this new policy arbitrary traffic manipulation. I would take a guess that the true motivation for Bell's actions are NOT being revealed here. Just smoke and mirrors. |
| By: your name on 04/20/2008 |
| People seem to be missing the bigger issue here.... Bell, Rogers, and other ISP's are all increasingly engaging in traffic shaping whether through throttling, DPI, or otherwise, which is slowing down the speed at which we can use the internet. This is a problem but if one follows the pattern of ISP's in other countries, i.e.: Virgin in UK, throttling torrents is just the beginning. Virgin is trying to force contracts upon popular bandwidth heavy websites, (YouTube, MySpace, Facebook) that would require them to pay the ISP to not throttle traffic from that site. This is unfair to those websites, not that we should care, but more importantly, it is unfair to us because either these websites will refuse to pay these new fees from the ISP's and become too slow to access at a reasonable speed, or they will pay up and agree to pay so that users that access the website at the speeds they are entitled to in accordance with their rate plan. Its a bit like those old time protection rackets, "Pay us and we won't let you get hurt," which is really more of a threat than an assurance. As the current throttling situation suggests, Bell and Rogers are more than willing to engage in such monopolistic and unfair trade practices. And you can complain to the CRTC all you want, everyone knows they are in Ted Roger's pocket. |
| By: AJ on 04/20/2008 |
| Not knowing as much about this issue as others who have commented, but from what I have read, the CRTC must step in. It's why they even exist. To keep competition FAIR! So get on it CRTC. What's the problem? What I do know first hand is that I just increased my internet plan with Bell because of their ridiculous bandwith charges. I had a plan with Bell that cost $39.95/mth (their cheapest), plus I was receiving an extra $52 in bandwidth usage on my bill. My plan covered no bandwith. I was being charged immediately for any downloading. (I am NOT a gamer at all, but I do visit YouTube and Facebook often. So what. $52????) Besides, who in their right mind pays 91.95 plus tax for an internet connection that times out with every 2nd click. I had their slowest available for economical reasons and I do not believe $39.95/mth is cheap by any means. So, I complained. It was not explained to me at the time of purchasing the plan that bandwidth was extra. I was given a credit (thank you.), I took the next plan up that cost the SAME price at $39.95/mth which includes 60K of bandwith. No extra charges. I use less than 3K a month in downloading. However, the kicker comes where my actual internet speed is now even SLOWER than what I had before. ??? Also, I know these communication giants are probably just gathering funds from customers because they HAVE TO update their lousy infrastructure and they're not prepared to pay for it. Oh, but we will. Billions!!! Heaven forbid for Bell or Rogers to ever have to invest in their own companies. The shareholders wouldn't be too happy. Money, money, money...sickening! The whole thing is a CROCK! Never thought I'd say this, but to all American ISP companies, please come to Canada and bring on the competition. I am sick of being ripped right off because I only have 2 companies to choose from where my internet access originates. HELP! |
| By: Jenny of London on 04/20/2008 |
| Oh, good: politicians lurching in on it, fuelling the fires with half the information! If anyone would have taken a few minutes to read a recent interview with a Bell manager in overseeing the ISP issue, they would have caught a couple of simple but significant facts: The ISPs who are objecting, are those who simply buy bandwidth wholesale and resell it - frequently to heavy users looking for discounts because of their volume needs. These ISPs could instead choose more appropriately to lease a line from Bell, and then sell that bandwidth to their own subscribers with no comment from Bell on who uses what, BUT THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO. This is a classic case of alleged entrepreneurs and cheap clients looking for an almost-free ride on someone else's infrastructure. If you abuse a business model to the deteriment of other main subscribers' services, you really have no right to scream "unfair". You (alt ISPs and their clients) should just go ahead and find another legitimate method for your high-consumption habits that don't intrude on a service priced for the majority of us. Lease it or build it yourself, and price it accordingly. |
| By: RB Shaffer on 04/20/2008 |
| Thanks to the development of the Large Hadron Collider in Cern, there has been a spinoff technology that will offer internet speeds 10,000 times faster than current high speed. Can't wait for that...Bell will reduce terrabyte speeds to those associated with 56k dial up. That's fast enough for a country where all we do is trap beavers and cut down trees. All they need to do is send email jokes about Americans in plain text format, eh? Sheesh...only in Canada you say? |
| By: Ian Shaw on 04/20/2008 |
| RB Shaffer; you mention that the ISPs "buy bandwidth" wholesale from Bell. How is it that those ISPs cannot then utilise the very bandwidth they've purchased? That doesn't seem right to me at all. I do not understand how you can justify Bell's actions against third-party ISPs legitimate purchase!? Have the ISPs not paid the cost that Bell ask for the service? |
| By: GeorgeP on 04/20/2008 |
| The NDP knee jerk election threat in the issue makes me want to dig into it. I think the NDP really hates what they call big business, often to the detriment of the public. What appears to be the case is the NDP is supporting the 'scalpers' who buy bandwidth and sell it at a profit. As long as the scalpers are in the system, it will be inefficient. It is the kind of speculation that adds cost to the general public. Let industry come up with a solution; keep government and grandstanding politicians out of it. |
| By: Francis T. Manns on 04/20/2008 |
| All I can say is wow, to all the people that think Bell is right. This is a free country. Who is Bell to discriminate. Downloading torrent is legal. So may I ask to these people, why should a service that is provided to me discriminated against? Somebody can bandwidth hog using many other methods ie video content or rapidshare and thats ok, but torrents are not. Oh I know torrents can be detected so lets slow them down. The only reason torrents are being throttled is so that Bell can get more customers on the same lines without upgrading the infrastructure that now is not suffice. Way to go Bell. You made what, close to 4 billion last year and now you will start providing less service to your customers so you can make more money. P.S.. to the people Bell is throttling, their own customers too, so I as a customer am livid too. I have had their high speed service for 10 years and now have been downgraded to dialup speed for $500 dollar a year. |
| By: fred jones on 04/20/2008 |
| What really upsets me is the fact they advertise unlimited bandwidth then whine when people attempt to use it. There's absolutely no need for 7 gbs 10 gbs and 17gbs if people are capped. I'm a user in between. I'm not casual nor a power user and I can already see that 60 gbs is but a ploy for more money, as bandwidth demands rise they attempt to curtail fair use. What's most amusing is the fact they seem to think we are unwilling to go without the internet all together, as people become more frustrated with their ISP, I'm sure this option will be looked at by many consumers. Especially after an inflated 80-100 internet bill. |
| By: Mark on 04/20/2008 |
| The key issue here is, the general tariff that the independent ISP's use to purchase bandwidth from Bell does NOT stipulate clearly, exactly what bandwidth they are allowed to use. Nor does it say anything about shaping traffic. If on the other hand, you arrange a GigE link from Bell to go from one location to another, Bell will guarantee that you will get full speed. What is perfectly clear is the tariff needs to be re-written. |
| By: neil h on 04/20/2008 |
| Francis Manns--where do you see an NDP knee-jerk election threat???--did you read the article at all??? All Mr. Angus said is that politicians who don't pay attention to this are in for a rude awakening when the next election comes. It isn't a call for an election on the issue. It is a statement of fact, however, that politicians cannot ignore internet issues in this day and age. All your comment suggests to me is that you are a Liberal or Conservative party member who just plain old hates the NDP without really knowing a thing about the party or it's policies. You don't understand the issue, given that you refer to third party ISP's as "scalpers". Comments like your's given credibility to the idea that people should have to take an intelligence test before being allowed to vote (or being allowed on the internet). RB Shaffer's comments are even more ridiculous. Read the article with the interview from the Bell Manager--yeah, cause that's an unbiased source isn't it. (Oh yes, let's not forget that it was the taxpayers who subsidized Bell's infrastructure building in the first place) The real irony here is that while the USA is taking action to prevent bandwidth throttling, while a Conservative government that pretends to be all about "free market economics" (although in reality they are all about corporate hegemony) is sitting on its hands doing nothing. Meanwhile the NDP, which is so often unfairly attacked as being against "free enterprise" is fighting to ensure that a fair and level playing field is established to give consumers choice. Canada could use a whole lot more Charlie Angus (who is also a musician--but let's not even get into the whole recording industry vs. downloaders issue). |
| By: wes druer on 04/20/2008 |
| If Bell and Rogers have difficulty with certain ISP, who purchase Bandwidth from them, they should find a way to restrict the Bandwidth available to those ISPs and not all users. My contract with Rogers says nothing about Traffic Shaping, Throttling, and I don't think the contracts of others do either, so how are they permitted to change the contract to accommodate their own Greed. This is nothing but a Prelude to higher prices. What these Corporations don't seem to realize is, expensive Internet access is not a necessity for most subscribers its considered an Entertainment expense. I for one use very little Bandwidth and Roger's recent information Bulletin to me, has made me realize that much cheaper dial up service might be quite sufficient. I consider I'm already paying a premium price for what I receive. Perhaps a switch to lower priced Service more matched to my requirements is in order. I have a finite amount I'm prepared to pay for such Service and perhaps cancellation of both Internet and Cable TV Service is in order, as neither deliver much for the investment made. All consumers should reconsider their use of such Services, if you don't need it, don't allow yourself to be victimized by these Corporations, CANCEL the Service. What government (CRTC) needs to do is control these Corporations, or directly stimulate competition, perhaps by providing funds to the ISP who are now being Targeted to build their own infrastrucrture and enable them to compete directly with Bell and Rogers. Our Internet Service is already far more expensive and inferior to that being offered in other parts of the world ie. Europe and Japan. If Canada is to remain competitive, the Government through its agents needs to do something immediately. I know controlling Big Business in anyway is not something that a Conservative Government wishes to contemplate, but if they ever hope to form a majority in this Country, they need to demonstrate that they are firmly behind behind the electorate, and are prepared to protect them from from the whims of unfetter Capitalist. |
| By: Max Vere-Holloway on 04/20/2008 |
| Although I appreciate what Charlie Angus is doing, the problem here is that the P2P BitTorrent method of distributing large files is a major technological change, whereby instead of the distributor (e.g. CBC) providing net bandwidth and server capacity, he/she "downloads" the task to the bottom end, making clients into servers and the "last mile" (i.e. Bell) carrying the load. The ISPs piggybacking onto Bell are doing the same thing, effectively using much more bandwidth than was anticipated by Bell. The only thing bothering me is that Bell has lifted the cap on the maximum amount billed. This is extremely dangerous! There have been several cases where mobile-phone Internet access users have unknowingly run up bills of many tens of thousands of dollars, because the phone company had no check in place if usage exceeded some set amount. This is the one thing which must be regulated. If usage exceeds a certain amount, service must be suspended until explicitly approved by the user. |
| By: Stefan Mochnacki on 04/20/2008 |
| All I have to say is Bell Canada (to protect their Microsoft Networks [MSN]) branded Internet service is limiting my access to Linux torrents. If that is not entering into some serious anti-competitive territory, I don't know what is. I'm happy to pay for the right to access torrents, I just hope that the CRTC builds some ground rules for the big providers to work within. |
| By: Colin on 04/20/2008 |
| For anyone in a small area of southern NB and all of Nova Scotia that might be reading this: I have contacted Eastlink, and they say that they purchase their bandwith from a tier higher than Bell/Aliant & Rogers, and thus aren't subject to that throttling. They also have no plans to throttle any traffic. |
| By: Chris on 04/20/2008 |
| What these monopolized businesses are doing is just plain wrong and should be against the law. Throttling internet traffic when you pay for a set bandwidth cap and throughput is like throttling phone calls. Sorry you can only make 3 phone calls this hour because we are at a peak period. You'd see a huge backlash if they started to throttle phone calls. Bell should not be throttling resellers... all they are showing is that they want to maintain their monopoly and are purposely interfering with competitors. If you can't handle the bandwidth UPGRADE! You upgrade your phone systems to handle more customers...why not upgrade for internet traffic? What? We're not good enough for you? I honestly am tired of paying $80 for going over the cap and on top of that throttled traffic? Come on... if you download a game beta, which is totally legal, and it's over 8GB, there goes your bandwidth for the week. This whole situation is stupid... We need more competition in Canada, we need to end this damned monopoly. |
| By: Franky on 04/20/2008 |
| Why are we even having this discussion still. Look at what happened in the USA. Why is it Canadians just sit back and say ... ok ........and even the CRTC are sitting on the fence. Could you imagine the uproar and civil disobedience and riots that would happen on the streets of USA if they tried passing a GST there? They would burn down the white house. But us Canadians are a bunch of pansies. This war has already be fought and the consumers won and the ISP's in the states were harshly put back in their places . Next to Microsoft... Bell Canada is probably the worlds biggest monopoly... They need to be harshly put back in their places, just like in the USA and the CRTC needs to grow a set of balls and tell Bell Canada that their overselling of their capacity is what caused all this in the first place. So they created the problem .... they have to live with it, or fix it. Not use it as an opportunity to increase their bottom line. Whats next .....? Is Bell Canada gonna start telling me what kinds of conversations I can have on my telephone ? Because that's exactly what's happening here. |
| By: Dave Santos on 04/21/2008 |
| To Chris who said Eastlink "have no plans to throttle any traffic", you should check again. They have been doing it for a long time. By the way, the issue is all about freedom and fairness. The internet should be free and fair to everyone. That can't happen when you have a few users consuming extraordinary amounts of bandwidth. All those that have this crazy notion that the internet should not be managed , than answer me who makes sure it works and who will pay the bills? I don’t want my bill going up and my speed slowed down because of 5% of power hungry users. It does not take a genius to confirm that this figure is close enough to the number of users who eat up all the bandwidth. And guess what - its not fair or free for the 95% of the rest of us. why should I be paying their freight? This is like saying 18 wheelers (and larger) should be able to use any road, any time, and not pay for it. And its completely ridiculous to think this is ok for the rest of us in cars. We would paying extraordinary amounts in taxes to pay for the extra lanes and maintenance on those roads. Come on people! Who are we kidding, we all know this is about a bunch of P2P freebies making a lot of noise under the guise of “net neutrality”. The real net neutrality is about freedom and fairness and we don’t get it when we have a few ruin it for everyone else. BTW, I have no problem with clear guidelines for privacy and security. This is different than 3rd party companies and a few abusers taking advantage of the good will of net neutral networks. |
| By: Gerry on 04/21/2008 |
| A wise man once said, go west young man there is opportunity there. I pay 35 dollars a month for Shaw Extreme cable. I bought my modem which saves me 5 dollars a month and I am allowed 100 gb. of bandwith a month. You guys are getting ripped off big time. |
| By: jack on 04/21/2008 |
| It blows me away how these people who are for throttling. Has anybody heard of kazza limewire napster? This stuff has been around for close to 10 years. Are your heads stuck in the sand? The true story is corporate greed. I would say that 100% of the people I know use p2p, not 2%, which is what Bell would like you to believe. It's like having a city grow your taxes come in and now they just all give themselves raises while they do nothing to deal with the increase in customers. High speed has been around for 10 years now. It's time to upgrade not downgrade. |
| By: fred jones on 04/21/2008 |
| I find it ironic that Bell announces throttling after CBC announces releasing programs on torrent sites. |
| By: fred jones on 04/21/2008 |
| @ Gerry 1. P2P traffic accounts for much more than just the "5% of power hungry users." According to WIRED magazine between 60%-80% of ALL internet traffic is P2P, while Bell's own filing with the CRTC states that only 33% of all traffic on their network is P2P. How are ISP's in Asia and Europe coping with the bandwidth requirements of P2P and other media-rich content, where it actually does reach 75% and up, without throttling, yet Bell complains that just 33% is enough to slow down the whole network? Obviously Bell does not want to upgrade their network to keep up with the demands of their customers. And, as for you Gerry, if you feel that those 5% are really ripping you off, since you are clearly not a P2P user, then why not just downgrade your service instead of subsidizing "a bunch of P2P freebies making a lot of noise under the guise of “net neutrality”. 1. Those "P2P freebies" pay for their service, just like you do, and are therefore entitled to the same service as you. It is not free. On the contrary, Canadian ISP's charge significantly more than their international counterparts, but throttle the bandwidth so customers do not even get the full speeds they pay for. BELL AND ROGERS ARE GETTING THE FREEBIE HERE, CHARGING FOR 7mb and 10 mb but only providing 2 or 3mb. 2. If you even understood what net neutrality means, you would see that it is an important issue for everybody, regardless of using P2P or not. Net neutrality affects every website you visit, every blog you read, every video you watch. If you are so ignorant to believe in the "good will of net neutral networks", then you shouldn't mind when Rogers and Bell start throttling Youtube, Facebook, Myspace, VOIP and every other media-rich high-bandwidth website or application, since they slow down the network more than all P2P users combined |
| By: housemix on 04/21/2008 |
| The problem is not directly the P2P traffic, but the Bell's (and others') willing to get a stake from the Content Provider's traffic (like YouTube, Facebook, etc...)... and I believe they are trying to keep a hand (like providing priorities) on the bandwidth in order to get some 'pay-per-use' services from these providers... with minumum effort (see: cash investment)... |
| By: Me on 04/21/2008 |
| Housemix, unfortunately you speak without the facts. Europeans, especially in the southern countries pay install fees and monthly fees way above North American rates. I am also a p2p user so please do not make any assumptions that I am not. I did not say rip off - not at all. I said with freedom and fairness and I maintain that. I realize that at certain times of day/night, internet traffic is managed as to not cause the rest of the internet a problem. You are making completely inappropriate statements when you read into my statements, things that are not there, and I ask that you argue the facts please and not assumptions. You are also inappropriate when you suggest that companies are not spending. I don’t have the numbers but neither do you so once again you jump to conclusions without facts. When 3rd party companies such as YouTube and Facebook start streaming high bandwidth content like HD streams, who is going pay for this. Seriously, clue in people, these companies are not into it for free; they are making billions in ad dollars (look at the facts with Googles recent earnings reports). These companies are making a serious profit and are not paying for any of the traffic they generate or use. Stop ignoring the facts and have everyone contribute to net neutrality. Back to my freedom but fairness comment. Customers need it, carriers need it and 3rd party content providers need it. And all need to be part of the solution, not just the carriers. Once again, lets chat with facts not emotions; please do not put comments and assumptions about me and my activities where you have not info. |
| By: Gerry on 04/21/2008 |
| I used to work for Bell. They are ripping off customers every day. They know most people are ignorant about how Internet really works. Just one question: If they want you to use the sympatico service only to send email and browse news, Why are they selling the HIGH SPEED service at 55 dollars/month? Keep in mind: Big Politicos and Big media are in Bell's pocket (no advertisments if they are giving away too much information). Call Bell for more information, you will get somebody in INDIA,who does not even own a PC, is reading a script and making 125 dollars/month. I am kidding you not. Just call them... |
| By: Benoit Breton on 04/21/2008 |
| And yet again there are people sucked in by the ISP claiming a few users are wrecking the net. If you sell me 1.5, 5, 10, or 15 Mbs/s at a throughput cap of 60 GB, then why can't I (and anyone else that bought into a plan like this) use the damn limit of our account when we decide to? I use torrents to download linux operating systems. Free and legal! Why would you punish me for doing that if I actually paid for the service anyway? This practice is BS! This is corporate sickness. If the system in place can't handle the traffic, then they OVERSOLD and overstated the ability of the network in the first place. Consumers here will pay, and pay, and pay again, just to get what was promised the first time. |
| By: Scott on 04/21/2008 |
| "Bandwidth doesn't just fall from the sky,'' Bibic told The Canadian Press, adding that more bandwidth would not resolve congestion issues." Um, adding more bandwidth would exactly resolve the congestion issue. What a primitive, narrow way of thinking. If everyone is going to take advantage of the internet for multimedia exchange then we're going to need more bandwidth, simple! And it's inevitable. Let's just accept it & lay the lines already, there are millions of paying subscribers. |
| By: Ravage on 04/21/2008 |
| If they charge people for going over their limit why don't I get a rebate for consistently staying well under mine? |
| By: Nite Owl on 04/21/2008 |
| It would appear most of the comments are missing the essential point. This issue is about fraud. Bell did not advise its customers (direct or indirect) BEFORE it undertook its policy of throttling. Bell were paid to deliver a service and defrauded the customer by implementing throttling without advisement or consent. Bell were found out and only later admitted their throttling policy. You or I would have been sued. What gives Bell the right to be exempt from the law? Clearly they cannot be trusted. |
| By: E. Smith on 04/21/2008 |
| I think we are missing the big picture here, This is about censorship. The internet is all about freedom of speech where anyone can access or post content. If an ISP can limit content...will they soon block content....deemed inappropriate for "thier" network?? What gives Bell the right to limit the content of other ISPs. I am no longer a customer of Bell due to this issue. Tami |
| By: Tami F on 04/21/2008 |
| Rogers is now offering 18mbps connections for home use. If bandwidth is running out why not leave it at 10mbps for HOME use. Why upgrade everyone's 3mb connection to 5mb and then 7mb for "free" if they don't have enough bandwidth. Bandwidth is readily available to the ISPs when it profits them. I would be perfectly happy with a 3mb connection but sadly that offer is no longer available. You can go with 1.5mbps which is rediculous or immediately get bumped to 7mbps. I've been imposed a 60gb cap, do not download frequently but I do play online games and stream online radio. I've been told that i'm now at 70% of my limit. I guess i'll have to stop listening to the radio online? and playing my games? I now have a cap on my connection which is fine. But its for the same price as when I didn't have a cap. Pay more for less. It's a perfect marketing strategy. (For them) |
| By: Marc on 04/21/2008 |
| The biggest problem here is that Bell has a pseudo monopoly over the telephone connection to your house, even though part of our taxes pay for part of it. Now their stomping their feet and saying no that connection is Mine! Mine Mine Mine! , I don't wanna share! And If I hafta share with others they're not to have as much or as good! So like you would do to any child, the parent government should take their privileges away and give it to a more responsible crown corporation company. |
| By: Aaron on 04/21/2008 |
| How would you like to pick up the phone and get a busy signal? Traffic shaping is all about quality of service, all services, including IP and telephonr. Its focus is on managing the bigger bandwidth usage issues and not so much about how fast you can download your torrents. |
| By: Mr.B on 04/21/2008 |
| The best part of all this is Bell saying, "Upgrading our network will not fix the congestion." I suppose that's true. But that's like saying, "Building the 401 will not fix road congestion." Also true. But goods and services move a heck of a lot faster. Use scales to the available infrastructure. |
| By: John on 04/21/2008 |
| I wouldn't mind extra charges based on my bandwidth usage, but these fees and the already expensive rate that Bell charges should be used to improve there equipment to increase the bandwidth available. If they are at capacity and can't do anything about it then they should not be selling more connections (which they can't handle). I also think they are walking a thin line on freedom of internet. Also close to false adverstising by saying x MB per second, but cutting you down to a few K if they (Bell) decides you are using too much. I work in a Virtual environment moving legitamite files from a central location (no MP3's no Movies) and I'm fearing that I'll be affected or next on the block when they reach capacity again. While I may benefit from Traffic Shaping since I don't fit the current target; I think this opens the door to doing it more and expanding the targets to other types of traffic. |
| By: Mike on 04/21/2008 |
| Gerry you and everyone else is thinking about now... "power hungry users boo-who-who" Well I'm hear to tell all of you Gerrys and RB Shaffers in Canada to something call the future. Yes today it's just P2P. But tomorrow there's going to phone traffic *VoIP which is becoming big* TV Traffic *heard of Triple play* these all are going to become available through the net, in some case are already. If we start charging for over useage now image what will happen when TV is the norm over the net. Canada will slowly fall behind the rest of the world if we go this route. It's sad when i can't find a topology of our fiber infrastructure in Canada, do we even have a OC192 line anywhere in Canada? come on Bell it's 2008. The net is a wonderful thing and should be kept that way. Remember the world won't stop for us and if our infrastructure can't keep up it will be sad need-less to say. |
| By: Seep's on 04/21/2008 |
| This is my 2nd comment here on this subject. If I buy a garden hose from Canadian tire, do they reserve the right to shut off my town water or otherwise tell me what water I can run thru it ..... because thats what really is happening here. Your isp (including Bell Sympatico) is nothing more than a garden hose supplier , and should be treated as such ... on every level...... some people buy a large diameter hose .... some people buy a small one, I'd like to see Canadian Tire try to control my water valve attached to my house....because thats exactly what Bell is doing here. And to make matters worse... if Bell does in fact manage to try to control my water valve on my home ....... if I try to connect it to my neighbours house (another ISP) ......they are also in control of that as well ? C'mon CRTC... stand up for all Canadians for once... and stop allowing Bell to screw with my and everyone else's internet connection . What were you created for in the first place ? To protect Canadian company's like Bell or the Canadian public? If water is indeed running short.....stop selling new water accounts till the water reserve is back to where is should be and allow EVERYONE the same right to the resource ... and not just people who take showers instead of baths. lol |
| By: Dave Santos on 04/22/2008 |
| People really do not understand this technology and unfortunately there is a huge hype bandwagon surrounding this issue. I encourage everyone to learn about Deep Packet Inspection and Traffic Shaping and get the facts. Internet Bandwidth is not unlimited and it is not difficult for only %5 of network users to use up to %95 of the available bandwidth. This is exactly the case in Japan where they have 500 Gbps capacity fiber grid and no traffic shaping. |
| By: Jacob Chappelle on 04/22/2008 |
| Jacob, why not just define fair bandwidth limits then. Or charge according to bandwidth consumption. Or configure fair-queuing policy in the network hardware. Or a whole number of other protocol-agnostic methods of governing traffic flow rates. There's just no need to cherry-pick data types. You're starting on a real slippery slope once you allow operators to configure priorities as it will not be long before they're configured based on the subjective interests of the service provider to the detrement of end-users who, in the end, will have little choice than to consume what the ISP chooses to serve. Big media/money will have the Internet configured back to good-ol' 'few-to-many' in little time where they can then milk your populace for all it's worth. Personally I'd rather see the Internet remain open for all to participate in freely than allow it to become some glorified television/media-centre serving what corporate interests define. Is that really what we want to create? ------------------------------ P.S. I'm quite familiar with data networking/application protocols and hardware so I do have a fair idea. |
| By: John Doe on 04/22/2008 |
| I see it as a ploy by Bell and Rogers etc. to get more revenue from their ISP services. My response will be to tailor my contract with them to suit my needs and any extra costs will come from cancellation of TV and or phone services. It's just my idea of "net-neutrality" ;) |
| By: John on 04/22/2008 |
| This is what I sent as a complaint to the CRTC... I want to complain about what Bell Canada is doing RE: throttling independent ISP providers. Bell Canada should not be allowed to interfere with any type of data that flows thru the independent providers pipe to the Bell Backbone connection -to the internet. That would be like allowing Bell Canada the right to control every traffic light's timing in every city in Canada. Also there is such an obvious blow to real competition in the market place here. This affects every Canadian . I am not asking the CRTC to control every traffic light in Canada, nor police the internet in any way ...... but regulate it so that at least a set of basic rules are enforced that levels the playing field, and even small service providers and start ups can play ball and in the end Canadian consumers will benefit from true honest competition. |
| By: Dave Santos on 04/23/2008 |
| What y'all are missing is the cost of bandwidth is now so cheap it amounts to peanuts. Bell and Telus could easily double capacity for a fraction of what we pay every month. Public power companies like Ontario and BC Hydro could give us all 1 gigE service for a few bucks a month over what it would cost to provide their new smart metering service.Big telecom campaign donations to politicians make that alternative impossible. What Bell et al are trying to do with their network shaping in conjunction with Harpers neocon stooges, is to set it up to charge y'all for a big bite to download your movies and Linux files - Turning lucritive profits into obscene. |
| By: seth on 04/23/2008 |
| The last thing we want is the government regulating and controlling the internet. You people need to learn the lesson "if it aint broke, don't fix it" because this is not going to end well. |
| By: Zachary Young on 04/26/2008 |
Submit Comment:
More Headlines
|
|
|