Lugnut2000
@bell.ca
| Interesting blog post re Bell Throttling
Go here:
»blogs.itworldcanada.com/insights···-issues/
The author attempts to separate the issues of net neutrality and throttling.
His conclusion is that Bell under-built its networks and knew that congestion was the likely outcome, ergo its move to throttle not only its own networks but also that of third-party providers.
The author also thinks that TekSavvy and other third-party ISP's have the right to expect a minimum standard (i.e. non-throttled) of service. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| I am not convinced that Bell under built its network.
I think that it's a strong possibility Bell's delays over IPTV have probably come to a head and somebody at the top of the pack wanted action.
So Nexxia decided they want to start reserving bandwidth for IPTV, forcing Sympatico and 3rd parties to do with less of the pipes they've been using. Now all of a sudden you have a congestion problem ... and the cheap way out is to install throttling boxes instead of install more infrastructure or make the IPTV folks install their own infrastructure in a hurry. |
|
DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
clubs:
 ·Bell Sympatico
| said by sbrook  :I think that it's a strong possibility Bell's delays over IPTV have probably come to a head and somebody at the top of the pack wanted action. So Nexxia decided they want to start reserving bandwidth for IPTV, forcing Sympatico and 3rd parties to do with less of the pipes they've been using. Now all of a sudden you have a congestion problem ... and the cheap way out is to install throttling boxes instead of install more infrastructure or make the IPTV folks install their own infrastructure in a hurry. That makes a lot of sense. And since it is a lot faster to bring up traffic shaping hardware than it is to increase fiber capacity, it's a reasonable explanation for what is going on.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada
clubs:
| reply to Lugnut2000
Ok first question...
Is it the bandwidth needed or is it the amount of connections?
People are no doubt using their bandwidth. However what puts torrents out there is the connections.
Now if connections are the only problem... replace the throttling with a system which doesn't affect anything... but limits how many connections one user can have. Be it 500 or whatever. This doesn't have a true effect on speeds because typically you can easily max speed with less then 500.
Now if it's bandwidth. Simply knock anyone who downloads lots to a profile which hurts... Instead of being able to download at 500kb/s you can only go 100-150kb/s. This has an affect on everything. Cutting everything down.
As we have established... p2p accounts for maybe a quarter of the traffic. So if there is indeed any congestion happening at all... throttling p2p wont help much. You have to throttle ALL internet traffic. Which is happening. According to teksavvy's graphs all internet traffic has been throttled to about 30%
Moreover, look wat website we are on. This website has »/routerwatch
Which monitors routers which out to show congestion across the board if they are indeed being congested... Bell.ca's routers however are not being congested or they would be loosing packets.
quote:
I am not convinced that Bell under built its network.
I too disagree with that also. Bell hasn't underbuilt their networks. If they did... they would actually be getting congestion. Which that is not happening.
Hell if you go down to comcast's routers... there you can see congestion. Which is ironic because they have outright ended bittorrents. Bell is allowing 30kb/s to get through AND ALL connections. Yet they show no congestion.
Thusly you cannot make the assertion that congestion is why they are throttling.
CRIA threatening them and wanting them to do something against pirates which is what has sparked this. The sad part is how they do this through non-competition and collusion. Which is illegal. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
1 edit | As far as I know, as soon as it departs your system, it should in theory become "connectionless" ... DSL NAT/NATP routers are connection sensitive to preserve the IP relationship to the connections across the router. Since the Bell routers are not doing NAT/NATP, then there's no need to deal with that so become connectionless.
It is a matter of not total bytes consumed but instantaneous traffic requirements that are resolved by throttling.
Bandwidth control would make more sense by reducing modem speed profiles ... but that would create other problems.
Actually, as of last fall, Bell's network was starting to show problems - interestingly just before they implemented throttling. Which is one of the clues that make me think they created a problem by reserving bandwidth for something else and then throttling what was left.
You can't measure the problems across Bell's internal networks from the external routerwatch though.
This is absolutely nothing to do with CRIA. Bell refused to divulge personal information about Canadian downloaders. They also have not taken part in the "Notice and Notice" scheme from what I've seen. Were this the case, you can be sure that CRIA would have gone after the small and 3rd party providers. The CRIAs claims of copyright violation was rejected by judicial review. So, Bell has nothing to fear at this time. If Canada had followed suit with a version of the DMCA, then you can be sure that CRIA would go after small companies first to get a measure of whether they could get this past the judiciary another time. |
|
HeadSpinning
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
| reply to sbrook
said by sbrook :So Nexxia decided they want to start reserving bandwidth for IPTV... The architecture of the current DSL network is not capable of supporting IPTV, so reserving bandwidth on it for IPTV isn't their motivation.
The IPTV network needs to run on a much higher capacity network, and have IP Multicast available at the DSLAM level. The current generation of ASAM 1000 and ASAM 7300 DSLAMs with ATM uplinks are not suitable for IPTV
I suspect that Bell had planned on having more of it's DSL customer base moved over to the new OPI-DSLAM network that they're building by now, and because of it, stopped adding additional capacity for growth to the ATM network. The OPI-DSLAM network isn't ready yet, and they were caught with a neglected ATM network. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | Well, they've sure reserved it for something other than Sympatico! |
|
HeadSpinning
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
| Here's what I think has happened:
Cable can't handle upstream traffic as well as DSL. Rogers throttles P2P, which uses lots of upstream traffic.
Sympatico starts getting a disproportionate share of P2P users defecting from Rogers, which puts more stress than normal on their DSL network.
Bell starts throttling P2P traffic, because they know that if left unchecked, will eventually cause problems - particularly because their OPI-DSLAM network is behind on deployment, and they've neglected the ATM aggregation network for a while in anticipation of the change. They also started to introduce higher speed tiers, and knew they were dangerous in light of P2P traffic.
Bell also wants to implement usage based billing, but due to their throttling, users are defecting to wholesale providers like Teksavvy - who was also selling $10.00/month unlimited logons to Sympatico customers who didn't want to get hit with huge bills for usage charges, get throttled, or give up their 7 Meg profile. These people were stuck on contracts, or wanted to keep their Sympatico e-mail addresses, etc.
Bell sees the shift in revenue and customers from retail to wholesale, so they decide to level up the playing field a bit, and make it less attractive to go to another DSL provider.
Just a theory... I'm probably correct on certain elements, and I might be missing the point on others. I guess my mind isn't quite as devious as theirs... |
|
b i n g o
@videotron.ca | HeadSpinning... BINGO!
rumour has it the media are getting this view as well.
 |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| There is absolutely no doubt this is a collusion type thing, but monitoring this forum over the past months, there was curiously a decidedly noticeable increase in performance complaints in the month just before throttling began, as if someone had shrunk the pipes. |
|
gurn
@rogers.com | reply to Lugnut2000
You both make good points. Pretty much decided to read anything either of you write. wish you guys would make your own topics more often. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | Just to update my post about CRIA etc. I've now heard of one incident of "Notice and Notice" to a member for copyright materials being forwarded by Bell. By comparison, in Rogers we see posts about these notices every couple months. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 |  reply to Lugnut2000
(topic move) Interesting blog post re Bell Throttling
Moderator Action
The post that was here (and all 1 followups to it), has been moved to a new topic .. »Bell shareholder report re Bell Throttling (was inter. blog. |
|
Bellundo
@teksavvy.com | reply to DKS
Re: Interesting blog post re Bell Throttling
I've heard of progressive technology but this must be regressive technology if such a thing exists. If it doesn't it does now. |
|
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada
clubs:
| reply to Lugnut2000
Actually I had something come to mind...
Under built its network? Or oversold? I distinctly remember that term being thrown around a bit back.
I'm still doubting either are true. There's no sign of congestion at all. Not even in toronto or ottawa. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | Residential internet services are by definition oversold. Were it not that way, we couldn't afford it! This is why we're sold a portal service and not a pipe service. |
|
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada
clubs:
| said by sbrook :Residential internet services are by definition oversold. Were it not that way, we couldn't afford it! This is why we're sold a portal service and not a pipe service. Well there you go then. thusly proving the underbuilt/oversold statement. |
|
