ScytheNoire
join:2008-04-08
Windsor, ON
| reply to TSI Gabe
Re: How much Bell's throttling affects our network and others
Since April 7th, my internet hasn't worked right, at all. I've been through hell trying everything TekSavvy has wanted me to, but it's not on my end, never has been. It's directly a result of Bell's changes.
I cannot browse the web or play games without problems happening. My signal is strong and clean, but it keeps having multiple login's (router has been out of the equation, so not that), and constant problems.
This has caused me a lot of aggravation and headache, phone bill costs, and now I'm having Crohn's attacks, causing me a lot of physical pain. This could lead to me missing work and having to go to the hospital.
All of this caused by Bell's traffic shaping of people who are not Bell customers. Good job Bell, you are destroying my life and costing me a lot of money. |
|
Windscreen Wiper
@theplanet.com
| reply to TSI Gabe
The graphs don't make any sense to me.
I don't understand the 1gbps difference claim as the 1st graph only indicates an 0.4gbps change at 06:15.
The 2nd and 3rd graphs don't seem to relect the same time period as the 1st? They don't indicate the large spike at 06:15. The protocol recognition makes no sense, either. There's no way P2P is using that little in comparisson to UDP (?) and web traffic, it should surely be MUCH larger given its popularity and general size of transfers that take place (I've seen graphs from other ISPs that look far different to that distribution). I suspect P2P traffic is actually represented across all indicated protocols there, including UDP (which is nonsense, surely?). It also makes no sense at all that the 3rd graph shows a 110mbps drop across ALL protocols, and at ALL times of the day? They also appear to indicate peak activity in the wee morning hours and minimum in the evening. I gather the times indicated are 12 hours out of step?
All in all these graphs just don't make any sense. |
|
netwerk
Premium
join:2003-02-03
BC | reply to DabberDan
All i was saying is that graph shows p2p specifically but thats only going to be un-encrypted p2p traffic. I bet the majority of p2p is encrypted so its not shown on that graph. |
|
morningstar
join:2007-02-15
London, ON | reply to TSI Gabe
I know this may sound naive, but is this even legal?
I plan to call them later to disconnect my phone. My mom has had it for 7 years now, but it's time to move on. I'll let them know why I'm deciding to cancel the service, too. |
|
DabberDan
join:2004-11-15
Gatineau, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to netwerk
said by netwerk  :said by TSI Gabe :Please judge for yourselves... Most people use encrypted p2p now i think. I don't know... not sure if it makes any difference. I use only encrypted and force it too - I still get throttled.
Plus, this limits incoming connection and download speeds since not everybody sharing the file have encrypted enabled/forced. Thus you're still artificially throttling yourself in a way  |
|
netwerk
Premium
join:2003-02-03
BC
·TELUS
·TekSavvy Solutions..
2 edits | reply to TSI Gabe
said by TSI Gabe :Please judge for yourselves... Thats a pretty neat graph. I'm curious how you can differentiate between encrypted p2p and other protocols. If its using a l7 type filter thats only going to show p2p un-encrypted traffic.
Most people use encrypted p2p now i think. So I really think that graph might be slightly inaccurate. I might be wrong though as I don't know very much about IP |
|
morisato
join:2008-03-16
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to TSI Gabe
well I'll be sure to assist you with all that extra bandwidth going to use rocky once i get Onto teksavvy so u waste less.. and ya a decent Upstream would truely Rule so i could actually send a friend something etc.. Sure be nice to not have shat upstreams.. |
|
jsprat
@bell.ca
| reply to TSI Gabe
Would it be possible to provide a graph from February? March break, and reading week happens over several weeks in March, depending on the school boards. February may prove to be a more relevant bench-mark. jmho.  |
|
CableGuy2
join:2002-01-07
Canada Rocks
| reply to TSI Gabe
With this information and the information from this post
»From the ennemy's mouth: P2P no longer largest bandwidth use
Bell should be throttling people surfing the web and watching YouTube since they seem to be the real culprits.  |
|
NBomb
join:2007-01-23
Etobicoke, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to JayMan
I've said it before, but honestly I would really just like more upstream. 5/2 would be just divine. 11mbit down is really more than I have a practical use for.
In my case, ADSL2+ isn't really that exciting, since at most I'll probably see 1mbit up. |
|
JayMan
Whoot
Premium
join:2002-06-05
Earth | reply to TSI Gabe
Add on make Bell start spending some money to improve the network, give people access to ADSL2 etc... |
|
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| reply to Bskll
said by Bskll :don't forget the almighty Punitive damages Punitive damages are rarely awarded in Canadian judgements, so that's a non-starter. The fact that Bell did this without any prior warning, causing these ISPs significant financial hardship is most certainly grounds for some kind of suit, and shows a lot of bad faith on the part of Bell. In addition, the terms of the contract - the terms that Bell claims gives them this right - have been revealed to be no right at all, unless Bit Torrent, P2P, VoIP and other services are somehow considered network hacking.
I'd really like to see someone apply for an injunction pending the outcome of the case, especially considering the financial implications that are becoming more and more apparent.
--
I swear that I will faithfully and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. |
|
Bskll
join:2004-02-02
Toronto, ON
clubs: | reply to TSI Gabe
don't forget the almighty Punitive damages |
|
qweloo
join:2007-10-04
h3p 2c4
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to qweloo
This could be a civil suit separate from the complaint to the CRTC. And you can sue together with the other ISP. I dont know if the tariffs or the specific contract you have with Bell precludes the possibility but if there is none it could be a possibility.
I dont know the numbers but you and the other ISP can claim a lot of things when you think about it.
1) extra transit cost and any other cost committed based on your prior planning (ie equipment for upgrade, manpower on upgrade project that you did based on previous bandwidth requirements)
2) direct damage on your business from loss of customers due to this. Loss of existing customers and loss of future customers.
3) damage on your brand name and reputation since you are were advertising no throttled internet. cost of change in your marketing campaign ( website change, advertising)
4) Extra support overtime or manpower needed to respond to increased calls resulting from this sudden change imposed on your customers
5) exemplary damages as a preventive measure
Others can add in if they think of anything. |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | reply to qweloo
We just renegotiated both the Peer1 and Cogent contracts in the last 4 to 6 weeks if I recall! 
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
qweloo
join:2007-10-04
h3p 2c4
·Bell Sympatico
2 edits | reply to R0CKY
said by R0CKY :I mentioned this in the "discount thread" but thought it was worth repeating. As a result of this stuff (not being forewarned, etc...), we've now over-committed on transit! We've committed to the following: Peer1 - 1,000Mbps Internap - 800Mbps Cogent - 600Mbps Teleglobe - 100Mbps T-Systems - 100Mbps Total committed - 2,600Mbps So, savings.... after having sat down and done the math today with these graphs???? Don't think so. This should be claimed to Bell as actual damages to TSI done by them doing it without forewarning .... If it is the same situation for all ISP it could add up to a nice sum (?)
Also exemplary damages should be asked to deter them from doing anything like this again without consulting with you first. |
|
lance_
Premium
join:2008-03-30
Toronto, ON | reply to TSI Gabe
Thanks for posting this Gabe. I'm glad TSI is so open about the matter.
I'm shocked by the difference. BitTorrent doesn't even use UDP for payload, so that 75% drop in UDP is stunning. I think I'll write to the minister of industry. |
|
Name96
join:2008-03-28
| reply to TSI Gabe
said by TSI Gabe :Guys, the scale was not changed. The graphs show the actual real difference. If the second and third graphs are taken at face value, then Bell traffic shaping has reduced TSI's entire bandwidth needs to one third of what they were, even during the hours that P2P isn't degraded.
Is this what you're saying? |
|
JayMan
Whoot
Premium
join:2002-06-05
Earth | reply to TSI Gabe
Why do people question what is sitting right infront of them. The graphs prove they are throttling what else do you all want??? |
|
inferno_gn
Premium
join:2007-02-26
Verdun, QC | reply to TSI Gabe
Hi there,
To be honest, I don't get the graph. *lol*
inferno_gn
--
Otaku Anime Network
»www.otakuanime.com/ |
|
