 jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary Got this in the mail today:
The CRTC page for the file at: »www.crtc.gc.ca/partvii/eng/2009/···7727.htm (my submission had been files as the V42 * 7826 file, I assume they will combine with CAIP's submission).
========================================
29 May 2009 File No.: 8662-V42-200907826 8662-P8-200907727
BY E-MAIL
Mr. Tom Copeland Chair Canadian Association of Internet Providers tom.copeland@caip.ca
Mr. John Lawford Counsel for PIAC lawford@piac.ca
MR. Jean-François Mezei Vaxination Informatique 86 Harwood Gate Beaconsfield QC H9W 3A3 jfmezei@vaxination.ca
Dear Sirs:
Re: Part VII Applications Requesting a Review and Vary of Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-108
The Commission is in receipt of an application, dated 20 May 2009, made by Vaxination Informatique (Vaxination) pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure requesting that the Commission review and vary Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-108, The Canadian Association of Internet Providers' application regarding Bell Canada's traffic shaping of its wholesale Gateway Access Service, 20 November 2008 (Decision 2008-108).
The Commission is also in receipt of a Part VII application made by the Consumers Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers and a number of other parties (CAIP et al.), dated 21 May 2009, also requesting that the Commission review and vary Decision 2008-108.
In view of the similarity of the issues raised in these applications, these two applications will be considered in one combined proceeding. Interested parties may file with the Commission, serving a copy on Vaxination and CAIP et al., comments with regard to the issues raised in these applications by 20 June 2009. Vaxination and CAIP et al. may provide their responses to these comments, serving a copy on all other parties, by 30 June 2009. Documents to be filed and served in accordance with the above process are to be received, not merely sent, by the dates indicated.
Commission staff notes that Vaxination has proposed that the cost studies requested by the Commission in support of its consideration of Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7181 be made part of this Part VII process. Commission staff considers that these cost studies do not relate to the issues raised in this proceeding, and hence they will not form part of the record of this proceeding.
Yours sincerely
Original signed by
Yvan Davidson Senior Manager Costing & Competitive Services | |
|
 InvalidError
join:2008-02-03
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Videotron
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary said by jfmezei :Commission staff notes that Vaxination has proposed that the cost studies requested by the Commission in support of its consideration of Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7181 be made part of this Part VII process. Commission staff considers that these cost studies do not relate to the issues raised in this proceeding, and hence they will not form part of the record of this proceeding. More proof that the CRTC is staffed by either morons or Bell sympathizers.
How is a cost study related to throttling any different than a cost study for UBB or providing ADSL2 to GAS? These are simply three facets of the same thing, they use the same infrastructure, wires, fibers and other facilities so all their costs are intrinsically linked to each other.
I guess this means we can look forward to the CRTC requesting separate cost study for each individual issue and with a 2+ month allowance each time, we will not be remotely close to seeing the end of this BS this year.
The CRTC needs to get its ass in gear, decisions made in geological time are incompatible with access to technology. The CRTC makes even the FCC look good. | |
|
 |   jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary This may have to do more with process.
CRTC gave a june 30th deadline for comments on the R&V. The Cost study arrives July 10th.
By diassociating both, it allows the CRTC to proceed with this R&V without having to wait for the cost study.
My argument was that if ISPs are paying in full for bandwidth, then Bell should provision its network to provide said bandwidth without having any negative impact on others. And "paying in full" would be proven by the cost studies.
By the time the CRTC gets around to deciding on the R&V, they will have seen the cost study, and I suspect they alreaydy know that it will show that ISPs are paying in full for their bandwidth and then some. | |
|
  Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| CRTC Special Edition Kneepads are now available in your favourite Telco / Cableco colours.
Sized to fit every CRTC Commissioner. | |
|
 |   Angelo_ The Network Guy Premium join:2002-06-18
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary i'm not shocked JF
this is the wrong time to ask for a cost study.
Also what caip brought up the crtc currently has to look into as privacy issues should be their #1 concern. Theres been too many people fighting bell over this for this to go awa y now, it'll be interesting to see what happens when bell looses | |
|
 |  |   jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary >this is the wrong time to ask for a cost study.
I update my submission hours before submitting it when I find out that the CRTC was asking for a cost study anyways.
All the issues are interrelated and come down to one simple issue:
increased average use by customer who will download more and more media-heavy files (aka: large files, angello, you, of all people, should know this). This is not very different from dial-up days when Bell's busy hour moved to the evening because of dial-up internet suddently changed average call duration and wrecked Bell's capacity models. Yet, Bell reacted by adding sufficient capacity to handle the load.
In the case of GAS, there are changing patterns from the old style HTTP only transactions that were short bursts with large amount sof iddle time while the user read the text page. Bell is reacting by preventing the changing patterms by throttling those who have evolved into new style of internet usage, this, despite ISPs paying for the capacity that is requyire to service the new generation of users.
Sympatico may have decided to not invest to support the new generation of internet usage. But some other ISP is willing to purchase the capacity needed to provide this service, Bell shouldn't be allowed to prevent this.
To this end, proving that GAS rates reflect the costs of providing the capacity that is being purchased is critical to show that Bell has no right to claim that GAS customers are using more than they are paying for.
The ultimate result should be that the CRTC forces Sympatico to buy GAS from Bell, or that the CRTC decide that GAS is a totally separate service from Sympatico and that Bell cannot be allowed to manage it in the same way.
In the later case, proving that GAS rates match or exceed the cost of providing the service means that Bell should be obligate to have sufficient capacity in its network to deleiver the purchased products.
If there is sufficient capacity, then usage within the bounds of what is being purchased should not negatively affect other users. | |
|
 |  |  |   Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary said by jfmezei :...... This is not very different from dial-up days when Bell's busy hour moved to the evening because of dial-up internet suddently changed average call duration and wrecked Bell's capacity models. Yet, Bell reacted by adding sufficient capacity to handle the load. Absolutely correct.
Look at the timeline:
Independent ISP's corporately, and their users, experienced no capacity issues prior to August/November 2007 when Bell began to throttle Sympatico users.
It's not as if Sympatico users suddenly began to consume dramatically more bandwidth.
Then in the period between November 2007 - March 2008 when Bell began the stealth throttle of ISP GAS links, none of the independent ISP's were having any capacity issues on GAS except for their normal growth patterns - necessitating merely normal capacity planning on their part.
Subsequent to March 2008, Bell pulls back the curtain on their on-line movie store.
It's abundantly clear that what Bell was/is doing is attempting to discriminate against all by reserving bandwidth for paid content offered by one of their subsidiaries during the evening hours when the bulk of such content is typically viewed.
Bell could have run fiber from its movie store head-end to each CO to give themselves a dedicated pipe for their paid content, and bypassed the allegedly congested GAS-tariffed pipes (bought and paid for by independent ISP's), but they didn't. | |
|
 freejazz_RdJ
join:2009-03-10
| I'll agree that cost studies don't really come into play in the R&V process since they had no part in the original proceeding... cost of the service wasn't discussed as a central claim.
I'm sure we'll be fascinated by the cost study analysis, but the costs themselves likely won't be public in order to protect the business, as we would expect. It could either be that they've been making obscene profits on the GAS service or that they've been making little if any profit. At the end of the day, if it isn't obscenely profitable and they can show growth in traffic and the corresponding growth in transport isn't being recouped by the GAS fees it would hurt the indie ISP's.
It's also important to remember that the transport of a GAS customer's traffic is more expensive than for a retail client. Not only because retail clients likely hit an IP-pop much closer to home, but because GAS clients require additional engineering/equipment/licensing that wouldn't be needed if wholesale didn't exist. | |
|
  jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC | Update: The deadline for comments has been moved to June 22nd from June 20th (I had incorrectly stated 30th before).
CAIPetAl, as well as myself will have until July 2 for the final comments. | |
|
 |   Angelo_ The Network Guy Premium join:2002-06-18 | Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary theres no point for a cost study.. bell will just fudge the numbers. | |
|
 |  |   mlerner Premium join:2000-11-25 Nepean, ON | Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary They don't have to fudge the numbers, the CRTC will just accept it as is. | |
|
 |  |  |   Angelo_ The Network Guy Premium join:2002-06-18
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary said by mlerner :They don't have to fudge the numbers, the CRTC will just accept it as is. LOL i somehow belive this | |
|
 globus999
join:2008-05-15
| Yur missing the point. Look, it *IS* simple. When you are in a bureaucratic organization *AND* you fully respond to "superiors" in you chain of command, you *DO NOT*, under any circumstances, make your superiors look fool. Your job is NOT to fulfil your job description but to keep your bosses happy (call them the Telco/Government Industrial Complex - borrowing from Eisenhower). The simplest method of doing so, is to make the processes *SO* incomprehensible, *SO* intertwined, *SO* lengthy as to:
1 - Confuse the heck out of everybody 2 - Give rise to a gazillion questions that will clogg the minds 3 - More importantly: provide "plausible deniability" for the upper-ups, a series of layered CYI escape hatches for all and, if all fails, cover your own ass.
The issue of "cost studies" falls squarely within this tactic.
OF COURSE "cost studies" have no blinkig *RATIONAL* reason to be required for this. HOWEVER, they are perfect for steps 1, 2 and 3.
I said it before, continually, and I will say it again. We are *DOOMED*. The CRTC has been fully paid for in advance. We have no chance in HELL to get anything even close to fair decision out of them for the foreseeable future (aka, until hell freezes over).
My two cents. | |
|
 |   jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary >The simplest method of doing so, is to make the processes *SO* >incomprehensible, *SO* intertwined, *SO* lengthy as to:
Ah, but here, we have a case of a few people having gone through the text of the rules and procedures and found the way to challenge the CRTC decision. And having read the text myself, I can tell you that it really isn't that complicated. In fact, the Telecom Act is not very "legalese" and is quite readable by anyone who understands telecommunications.
For TN7181, Bell has essentially asked to double the rates by charging for both capacity and metered usage. It is part of the CRTC's bureaucratic duties to ask Bell to justify this significant increase in rates by proving that its costs to operate GAS have recently doubled.
But what the CRTC *really* needs to do is to step back and take a "big picture" look at all of what Bell is asking for and not wanting to give. Bell wants to thorttle, Bell wants to charge exhorbitant per gig rates, Bell doesn't want to give us access to modern DSLAMs, relegating us to unupgraded "legacy" equipment and network.
This does not lead to a competitive environment when Bell is rebuilding its last mile and not giving competitive access to it, yet, wants to throttle competitors who aren't even on the same network anymore.
Throttling is all about Bell being unable to provide the bandwidth that it sells to ISPs. This is due to insufficient investment in the GAS infrastructure. While some ISPs brag about all their GigE links, many others are still stuck with ancient ATM links because the COs they are attached to don't support GigE service yet.
In TN7181, Bell asks to double the rates, still throttle and not give increase in speeds. The text of the 7181 request mentions the acquired right to throttle thanks to 2008-108.
So, if the cost analysis shows that Bell gets sufficient revenus with the current structure and should have plenty of money to upgrade equipment to modern standards and provide the full bandwidth that is being purchased by ISPs, then there would not be any need to throttle the ISPs. | |
|
  jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Just a heads-up.
The R&V for the GAS throttling 2008-108 decision has a deadline for comments coming this monday (22-Jun-2009 23:59:59.9999999997)
This deadline applies to both general comments as well as comments from interested parties such as Bell and probably other telcos, and folks like Sandvine.
Hopefully, there will be other independant ISPs who file something.
Unless the process changes, Bell will not have another say in the matter. So it will not have an opportunity to reply to yoiur comments if they appear after Bell has made its submission.
Unless the process changes, the 2 co-leaders (the CAIp group and myself) will then file separate submissions no later than July 2nd at 23:59:59.9999996 )
During the day on Monday, we should be getting email copies of the various submissions. | |
|
 |   jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary Distributel has filed comments. Have not had the time to fully read them yet, but they support my (and that of CAIPs) applications. | |
|
 |  |   diskace Ebox Senior Premium,VIP join:2002-02-21 | Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary Very good ! Thank you so much JF -- Electronic Box Inc. | |
|
 |  |   R0CKY TSI Rocky Premium,VIP join:2005-05-19 Chatham, ON
| Was a good submission by Distributel!
They're generally a very quiet group so I hope this gets recognized by the CRTC....
When someone normally works with the system "as is" until it finally has no choice but to speak up someone should ask why!
....this is one of those cases! -- TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
| |
|
  jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Bell's submission. (I created a .PDF from their proprietary microsoft document). | |
|
 |   jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary Ok, after first read:
BASICALLY:
Bell doesn't really address the arguments of the 2 applicants, it argues that the R&V is not justified and that 2008-108 was legitimate and rightly gives Bell the right to thorttle.
There are a couple of areas where I can see Bell scroring a few points, but those can be challenged fairly easily.
This document is not very strong in my opinion, but it could be that Bell has already invited the CRTC commissioners to a number of golf tournaments and doesn't feel it necessary to write up documents. | |
|
 |  |   jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary Campaign for democratic media's submission: (by CIPPIC) | |
|
 |  |  |   jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
1 edit | Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary The submission from the Union des Consommateurs.
It is in french.
Update:
First part is about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which the Union alleges is violated by crippling P2P communications. | |
|
 |   R0CKY TSI Rocky Premium,VIP join:2005-05-19 Chatham, ON
| said by jfmezei :Bell's submission. (I created a .PDF from their proprietary microsoft document). Interesting/Funny statements made in sections 18 & 21...
This smells of a bully trying to say, no take-backs, double stampsies! LOL
They have bad arguments and feel out of arrogance that they shouldn't have to justify how they've abused their responsibility as a Monopoly and errors in judgement could have been made by the CRTC!
Oish.... Ok, I'm done commenting on this... for now.
Rocky -- TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
| |
|
 |  |   Stand up n shout
@videotron.ca
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary said by R0CKY :Oish.... Ok, I'm done commenting on this... No. Let it out!

+1 for Distributel. Well done.
Now to read the rest... | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |   jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
1 edit | Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary Comments from the Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFTPA).
The second attachement contains a smaller file name that has the .PDF extension which appears to have been trunctated when the first one was uploaded to this DSLR software. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   psst
@videotron.ca
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary said by jfmezei :Comments from the Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFTPA). Psst, the "extension" (*.pdf) is missing (people should be able to figure this out... but just in case). | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   Guspaz Guspaz Premium,MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC | Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary Wow. Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows. The television and film industry, against throttling of P2P... | |
|
 |  |  |  |   stop sign
@videotron.ca
| said by jfmezei :I am disapointed by Bell's submission. I was expecting it to have a lot more meat. It makes me wonder if Bell has admitted defeat, or whether there is one sentence in there that will be key and force CRTC to continue to support Bell. Stall tactic. | |
|
 |   Disillusioned
@ncf.ca
| As per the Bell's redacted reply at paragraph 18 of "# of the total base of end-users"
I would like to know what they are including in the "total base of end-users". Does it include all their Internet services or only broadband through the copper fed CO facilities? Does it include or exclude dial-up, wifi, smart phone clients? Is it only residential or does it include business accounts? If it is "total" base, I would think that some of the large corporations that Bell provides for would consume huge amounts of data transfer. | |
|
  spotted
@videotron.ca
| Your postings have made it on the Dr. Geist website and p2pnet:
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4082/196/
»www.p2pnet.net/story/23941
Thanks for keeping us all in the loop.
P2PNet points to a submission from the Canadian Film and Television Production Association that argues that Bell's throttling practices unduly disadvantage P2P content, P2P apps, and end-users accessing legal P2P content. | |
|
  jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| There is a newcomer to the review and vary. Didn't get a copy by email.
And CRTC had added the CFPTA to the web site and it seems to be gone now.
The CISP submission doesn't discuss throttling at all. However, it does provide soem advise on allowing ISPs access to the CO where they can connect to the region's DSLAMS and which would then remove from the ILEC the need to "traffic manage" the network because independant,s traffic would leave Bell's network at the CO. | |
|
 |  See 7 replies to this post |
|
  mouser
@teksavvy.com | I liked both submissions, but I have to disagree with the point the CAIP makes in mentioning that UBB being used as an alternative to throttling... that could bite them back in future submissions related to tarrif's | |
|
 |  See 9 replies to this post |
|
  jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| CRTC has issued a policy on when they will give their answer to the Thorttling.
(long interruption due to Hydro Québec power outage)
Dear Sirs:
Re: Part VII Applications Requesting a Review and Vary of Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-108
In Service standards for the disposition of telecommunications applications, Telecom Circular CRTC 2006-11, 7 December 2006, the Commission stated that it would categorize Part VII applications into two types:
Type 1 applications that generally do not involve multiple parties or raise significant policy issues and Type 2 applications that do involve multiple parties and/or raise significant policy issues
The Commission also adopted the following service standards for Part VII applications:
Type 1 Part VII applications 90 percent of determinations to be issued on an interim or final basis within four months of the close-of-record; and
Type 2 Part VII applications 85 percent of determinations to be issued on an interim or final basis within eight months of the close-of-record. - 2 -
The Commission stated that it would inform applicants, by letter, within 10 days of the end of the comment period for applications, whether the application is considered to be a Type 1 or Type 2 application, and the applicable service standard.
Commission staff has assessed the above application and considers it to be a Type 2 application. Accordingly, the Commission expects to issue an interim or final determination within eight months of the close-of-record.
Yours sincerely, Original signed by Yvan Davidson, Senior Manager, Competition, Costing & Tariffs | |
|
  mlerner Premium join:2000-11-25 Nepean, ON | Has any of these proceedings *ever* been given type 1? I mean I know they have to do research and such but up to 8 months? | |
|
 |  MaynardKrebs Premium join:2009-06-17 | Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary And then there is one, which for political reasons may be delayed for 5-6 years. | |
|
 |  |  |
 Jazdi
join:2009-07-06 Ottawa, ON
| Time of day billing is a good idea, the goal of which should be to flatten out the daily usage graph so as to be making the most effective use of the network's capacity. Unfortunately, none of the current UBB offerings have this effect. With a 60gb cap, I have no incentive to not use all those 60gb during peak hours. Instead, it would seem appropriate if a somewhat lower cap was offered during peak hours, while leaving off-peak hours completely unmetered. | |
|
  jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Now I am confused.... They just said that it was Type 2, now they say it is type 1.
quote:
Dear Sirs:
Re: Part VII Applications Requesting a Review and Vary of Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-108
Further to Commission staffs letter dated 15 July 2009 regarding the time by which the Commission expects to issue an interim or final determination in the above-noted applications: Commission staff notes that, consistent with the service standard for a Type 1 application, the Commission expects to issue an interim or final determination with respect to these applications within four months of the close-of-record.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Yvan Davidson, Senior Manager, Competition, Costing & Tariffs
| |
|
 |   mazhurg Premium join:2004-05-02 Portage La Prairie, MB | Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary Difference is? Not on the determination time-line but what makes it a type 1 vs 2? -- "Vision without funds.... is a hallucination" | |
|
 |   mlerner Premium join:2000-11-25 Nepean, ON | Well now that is on public record, if they change it again we can challenge them and hopefully get a verdict faster. | |
|
  jfmezei Premium join:2007-01-03 Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| On July 31, the Commission issued a new process letter for the Review and Vary of the 2008-108 decision (granting Bell the right to throttle competitors).
Some highlights:
quote: Commission staff notes that at paragraph 18 of its 22 June 2009 comments on CAIP et al.s Part VII application Bell Canada et al. provided information related to the bandwidth consumed by wholesale end-users in confidence. As CAIP et al. noted in its 24 July 2009 letter, Bell Canada subsequently placed similar information on the public record of the PN 2008-19 proceeding.
Commission staff considers that in light of Bell Canada et al.s voluntary public disclosures in the PN 2008-19 proceeding, it would not be appropriate to maintain the confidentiality of similar information filed in confidence at paragraph 18 of Bell Canada et al.s 22 June 2009 comments on CAIP et al,s Part VII application, as such information is not consistently treated as confidential by Bell Canada. In this regard, Commission staff considers that the harm likely to result from the disclosure of the information in question does not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure. Therefore, Bell Canada et al. is to provide on the public record the information filed in confidence at paragraph 18 of its 22 June 2009 comments by 4 August 2009.
Parties that have commented in the R&V applications proceeding may file additional comments, serving a copy on other parties, related solely to the information provided by Bell Canada et al. by 10 August 2009.
In short: during the R&V process, Bell submitted stuff in confidence. During the Public Hearings, they publically released information that had been made private in the R&V.
Paragraph 18 of Bell's R&V submission stated: quote: 18. The Companies submit that the Applicants have failed to raise substantial doubt as to the correctness of Decision 2008-108. Furthermore, consistent with the Commission's finding in Decision 2008-108 that GAS customers during peak periods would contribute to the network congestion that exists in the Companies' networks , the Companies stated in their response to The Companies(CRTC)4Dec08-9 PN 2008-19 that wholesale end-users were, in
December 2008, consuming # of the bandwidth during peak periods even though they were only # of the total base of end-users. As of May 2009, these numbers have increased and wholesale users are now consuming # of the bandwidth during peak periods even though they are only # of the total base of end-users. This amount is now more than double from their consumption levels prior to deployment of traffic shaping even though their share of the total base has not really changed.
The R&V file is at: »crtc.gc.ca/partvii/eng/2009/8662···7727.htm and »crtc.gc.ca/partvii/eng/2009/8662···7826.htm (they focused on the first one) | |
|
 |  See 7 replies to this post |
|
  mlerner Premium join:2000-11-25 Nepean, ON | Alright JF you have to call out the BS and hope the CRTC wakes up. This is beyond piss poor network management, this is stupidity. | |
|
 freejazz_RdJ
join:2009-03-10
| Is anybody missing the fact that 14% or 16% of users using 27% and 29% of a finite resource is inequitable if the balance of users are sacrificing (by being throttled without MLPPP/VPN/SSH workarounds) their speeds in the name of equity? This kind of inequitable distribution wouldn't be tolerated with water from a common aquifer, school funding or all manner of things, why is it any more fair in this context?
It's also clear that either throttling P2P isn't working and/or P2P isn't the major source of consumption and/or MLPPP/SSH/VPN are effective countermeasures. Perhaps the move to a per-endpoint model which would basically even these numbers out, much to the chagrin of what appears to be the high-usage client base of the wholesale customers, would be a net benefit to Bell. However, off peak, this would still allow un-even usage by wholesale clients which is fine by me... unused capacity at one point in time can't be saved for later, so make full use of it. | |
|
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 jam_bongo
join:2002-07-17 Toronto, ON
2 edits | is there much detail behind these numbers? (is it a true sum or a manipulated average taken from a sample?)
edit*
another question is there any available data for hour by hour peaks? Are we to asume that in May 2009 bandwidth usage was sustained to 29% of the network for the entire period of 4pm to 2 am? | |
|
  Jaser
@teksavvy.com
| Ya, I was noticing that in their math too, how there was a downward trend in wholesale usage.
I guess the big question is, has congestion yet been proven? I've expect to see minute by minute usage curves amongst major data transit points, and to see hard clips for evidence of actual link saturation. Such evidence would then need to be further analyzed to see if it is actually significant for the user or not, but without the hard clips on the curves, congestion simply is not present. | |
|
  Guspaz Guspaz Premium,MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC | 27/14 = 1.9% bandwidth used per % user share 29/16 = 1.8% bandwidth used per % user share
During the period, wholesaler bandwidth per-user was reduced by roughly 6%
Bell's essentially misrepresenting the figures. | |
|
 |  jam_bongo
join:2002-07-17 Toronto, ON
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary said by Guspaz :27/14 = 1.9% bandwidth used per % user share 29/16 = 1.8% bandwidth used per % user share During the period, wholesaler bandwidth per-user was reduced by roughly 6% Bell's essentially misrepresenting the figures. in other words the Exaflood isn't coming? | |
|
 |  |   mlerner Premium join:2000-11-25 Nepean, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: Status of 2008-108 Throttling Review and Vary said by jam_bongo :said by Guspaz :27/14 = 1.9% bandwidth used per % user share 29/16 = 1.8% bandwidth used per % user share During the period, wholesaler bandwidth per-user was reduced by roughly 6% Bell's essentially misrepresenting the figures. in other words the Exaflood isn't coming? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps they're only looking at specific links instead of the network as a whole, they did mention ATM links as being heavily congested but then that throws off their stats completely because they're looking at specific traffic and not the traffic on the entire aggregation network. | |
|
 |
|
 |