dslreports logo
 story category
Canadian ISPs (Almost) Come Clean On Throttling
CRTC's 'investigation' of net neutrality revealing network practices...

This certainly isn't a surprise to regular readers of Broadband Reports, given we've been talking about this for the better part of a decade now -- but Canadian ISPs aren't very gentle when it comes to handling P2P traffic. For years we've tracked how Canadian cable providers are at the forefront of using caps and traffic throttling to avoid having to invest in infrastructure upgrades. Shaw was one of the first providers to throttle the entire BitTorrent application, and fellow cable operator Rogers has long been playing traffic shaping cat and mouse with "bandwidth hogs."

Click for full size
Last year, Bell Canada took things to a new level by throttling the P2P bandwidth they delivered to wholesale operators -- without telling them about it. Despite the fact this prevents competitors from offering an unthrottled, superior alternative to Bell's Sympatico service, and it throttles any P2P competitors to Bell's video store -- the CRTC ruled that Bell's actions were in no way discriminatory.

The CRTC did say they'd be conducting a broader exploration of network neutrality, a concept that really wasn't discussed much in Canada before the Bell throttling incident. As part of that inquiry, Canadian ISPs have been sharing their network management practices with the CRTC (see filings). Christopher Parsons, a grad student at the University of Victoria, has compiled a fantastic summary of ISP responses to the CRTC (also see his blog).

Rogers, Bell Canada, Shaw and Cogeco all admit to using deep packet inspection technology to slow certain types of Internet traffic. Those carriers admit they've been doing so for years in order to protect the network from "excessive" consumption. Telus, MTS Allstream, Saskatchewan Telecom and Primus Telecom definitively claim they do not specifically target P2P traffic. Much of the data filed in confidence with the CRTC and not shared with the public.

(Metered billing) is still not considered an acceptable method given the latency between use

and billing – (and it) would not dissuade 'abuses' of the network.

-Cogeco on throttling over metered billing
Page 24 of Parsons' synopsis is particularly of note -- Rogers claiming they utilize DPI throttling to prevent their network from becoming "the world’s buffet." Cogeco admits they started throttling back in 2001 instead of moving to metered billing, which they claim "would not dissuade ‘abuses’ of the network."

While many ISPs use some kind of network management to handle congestion, customers often aren't informed of them. If (as many ISP lobbyists argue) it's the right of the ISP to manage their network as they see fit -- it should equally be the right of the consumer to be clearly informed about how ISP networks differ -- allowing the market to reward ISPs that invest in network infrastructure and develop the most intelligent (and least intrusive) network management practices.

But that requires a strong government nudge (as we saw here in the States with Comcast), given these carriers will never be completely forthright with consumers voluntarily -- as doing so admits limitations of their networks. The CRTC is expected to have a public hearing this summer further discussing these filings, though it's not clear if anything will come of it. As in the United States, the revolving door between regulators, incumbent lobbyists and incumbent executives make regulatory objectivity almost impossible, and incumbent favoritism almost guaranteed.

The CRTC's vice-chairman, Leonard Katz, spent seventeen years working for Rogers and eleven for Bell. Canada's Telecom Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, tasked with determining regulatory framework, was led by the ex-owner of Inukshuk (sold to Bell/Rogers), an exec that played a huge role in the Bell & Microsoft alliance and a lawyer whose firm represents incumbent operators.

Consumers and independent ISPs are both hoping that the CRTC finally takes some kind of action, though they're still stunned from the CRTC's last (in)decision. "Something is very wrong with how the decision went down," Teksavvy CEO Rocky Gaudrault recently told me. "I really hope those responsible for causing this have their day on owning up to what they've done to Internet in Canada," says Gaudrault.
view:
topics flat nest 

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

1 recommendation

El Quintron

Premium Member

Procrastination on Principle.

The CRTC will have to be publicly embarrassed and threathened with dissolution in order to take any type of action.

Like long distance de-regulation they will sit on the fence and pretend it isn't good for Canadians for as long as they can.

grabeck
join:2003-07-17
Calgary, AB

1 recommendation

grabeck

Member

I agree for the most part...

That throttling should be in place, however, not in it's current state.

If I understand correctly, ISP's are worried about abuse. If that is the case there is NO reason why a customer like myself should be throttled.

I have a 100GB monthly cap with Shaw. On average I use 20-40GB of that bandwidth... far less the 50%. Yet, I know I'm throttled on my on-line gaming experience as well as any torrents I may pull down. Unacceptable in my opinion.

We as customers should not have any bandwidth restrictions UNTIL we are above or "abuse" what we pay for. If I were to use over 100GB of bandwidth in a month, that yes, I would expect to be throttled to no end for "abusing" Shaw's network. Until I hit that number however, any type of tampering with my allotted bandwidth is just bad business.

JGROCKY
Premium Member
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON

JGROCKY

Premium Member

Re: I agree for the most part...

Imagine if you paid for 40,000 DSL Lines, and 2,240,000GB (7,000Mbps) of backbone traffic every month and were being told all of a sudden that Joe user #33004, #4503 & #34207 were somehow abusing their DSL connections and another 1000-2000 or so were deemed abusers also, so they're now going to take over our network (being as their responsibility stops in Toronto, where the Internet starts) and make decisions that aren't theirs to make!

...all in the name of network management? On something I paid in full for!? Unlike DSL connections we're not paying for "up to" services... we're paying for an aggregation of services, which some, apparently had no intentions on delivering.

This is all one big bad dream right now!

DJMASACRE
join:2008-05-27
Nepean, ON

1 edit

DJMASACRE to grabeck

Member

to grabeck
said by grabeck:

That throttling should be in place, however, not in it's current state.

If I understand correctly, ISP's are worried about abuse. If that is the case there is NO reason why a customer like myself should be throttled.

I have a 100GB monthly cap with Shaw. On average I use 20-40GB of that bandwidth... far less the 50%. Yet, I know I'm throttled on my on-line gaming experience as well as any torrents I may pull down. Unacceptable in my opinion.

We as customers should not have any bandwidth restrictions UNTIL we are above or "abuse" what we pay for. If I were to use over 100GB of bandwidth in a month, that yes, I would expect to be throttled to no end for "abusing" Shaw's network. Until I hit that number however, any type of tampering with my allotted bandwidth is just bad business.
Nobody should be throttled. If they are it should be to the providers discretion. Not the big company do it to all the smaller companies without telling them.

I have unlimited, no caps, and reach over 500Gigs per month.

Even if there was "better" throttling practices involved, then you SHOULD be the one who is throttled since you barely use up much download for the month, and as long as you can play games.

I on the other hand want to use all my bandwidth all month because thats what I paid for and expect. And I do get that now thank goodness NOT throttled.

The way it always should be.
jarthur31
join:2006-04-14
Carlsbad, NM

jarthur31 to grabeck

Member

to grabeck
I 100% agree with your sentiments here. What makes me angry is that I've been given a paltry 512 kbps upload and that is not nearly enough for XBOX Live! My ISP won't increase this because they fear everybody on the network will start torrenting or whatever and cripple their Intraweb.

The DSL service in this area is no better and it doesn't look like they'll be installing fiber within the 5 years.

I have no other ISP choice here so I'm screwed.

grabeck
join:2003-07-17
Calgary, AB

grabeck

Member

Re: I agree for the most part...

This is what I'm talking about. Jarthur's brings up the main issue customers are dealing with. What would u think the percentage of "abusers" are... 2%? and yet instead of being proactive and public about those people, ISP's try to hide the fact they are making across the board throttles that effect the users who need the bandwidth and speed, yet don't abuse it.

Those who pay for unlimited service are not the issue as to the person above, it's the clowns out there that can't follow a simple rule that is clearly stated to them yet, whine and moan the topic of caps, etc. come up. When an IPS says 100GB/month cap, I fail to see the logic in someone thinking 300-500GB is ok.... really what the hell?

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz

MVM

Re: I agree for the most part...

You should note that R0CKY isn't an end-user. He owns the ISP with 40,000 customers that he mentions. He buys 7 gigabits of connectivity from Bell to aggregate DSL subscribers. Bell is throttling individual DSL customers despite the fact that R0CKY's 7 gigabits of connectivity isn't saturated.

If R0CKY's customers use more bandwidth, R0CKY has to buy more GigE connections from Bell. So all arguments for throttling just fall out the window!

R0CKY's ISP has standard 200GB caps on regular accounts, with their "Unlimited" tier intended for users who use 300GB+ of bandwidth. Why shouldn't somebody think 300-500GB is OK when that's what their ISP is selling them?

fcisler
Premium Member
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY

fcisler

Premium Member

Ouch

The options of consumer internet in Canada seems horrible.

According to this, there's a total of 46 ISP's serving Ontario. Chatham apparently has 20 ISP's serving it. I can't imagine that the 20 ISP's cover 100%, but here's a breakdown:

18 DSL
2 cable
1 Sat/Wireless
(one company apparently provides cable and DSL, Altima.net)

Are ALL of those DSL companies resellers? Do any of them own their own copper or rent a dry loop and use their own DSLAM equipment? Do the two cable companies throttle/have caps?

Keeping in mind I've only been to Canada twice and know almost nothing of it - your internet options seem to suck. Horribly. I feel sorry you have to put up with that ()#$%)@!
st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA

st7860

Member

Re: Ouch

said by fcisler:

The options of consumer internet in Canada seems horrible.

According to this, there's a total of 46 ISP's serving Ontario. Chatham apparently has 20 ISP's serving it. I can't imagine that the 20 ISP's cover 100%, but here's a breakdown:

18 DSL
2 cable
1 Sat/Wireless
(one company apparently provides cable and DSL, Altima.net)

Are ALL of those DSL companies resellers? Do any of them own their own copper or rent a dry loop and use their own DSLAM equipment? Do the two cable companies throttle/have caps?

Keeping in mind I've only been to Canada twice and know almost nothing of it - your internet options seem to suck. Horribly. I feel sorry you have to put up with that ()#$%)@!
what the media doesn't tell you is that those companies whining about throttling are not using their own networks. they basically buy services from Bell Canada and resell them, providing only their own mail/news servers and miscellaneous backhaul here and there.

They are, in almost all cases NOT renting dry loops from Bell Canada, and in almost all cases NOT colocating any of their own DSLAMS with Bell Canada.

So then since they're basically just reselling white label ADSL with a few support services added, they are obviously subject to the host companies regulations and irritations, such as throttling and so on.
ragingwolf
join:2003-04-22
Nepean, ON

ragingwolf

Member

Re: Ouch

said by st7860:

what the media doesn't tell you is that those companies whining about throttling are not using their own networks. they basically buy services from Bell Canada and resell them, providing only their own mail/news servers and miscellaneous backhaul here and there.

They are, in almost all cases NOT renting dry loops from Bell Canada, and in almost all cases NOT colocating any of their own DSLAMS with Bell Canada.

So then since they're basically just reselling white label ADSL with a few support services added, they are obviously subject to the host companies regulations and irritations, such as throttling and so on.
Obviously, you aren't familiar enough with Canadian internet. These so-called "resellers" are far from a white label'd Bell internet. You people in the US always seem to fly off the handle thinking you know it all, when you are absolutely clueless about the situation. Do some research before you post and maybe you'll see why Canadians are so infuriated about the issue.

The only portion of Bell network that these companies rent (at regulated prices I might add) is the last mile, the copper to your house and the dslam is connects too. This is due to one simple fact, our government mandated that Bell do this, so as to provoke at least some competition because otherwise, we'd probably be in an even worse situation.

They also pay Bell more money for links with dedicated bandwidth to have that traffic transported to their central routers which turns it into actual internet traffic. At any point in Bell network, all the traffic is, is a simply PPPoE stream of data, which can technically be anything from phone service, internet, video on demand, etc.
st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA

2 edits

st7860

Member

Re: Ouch

said by ragingwolf:

said by st7860:

what the media doesn't tell you is that those companies whining about throttling are not using their own networks. they basically buy services from Bell Canada and resell them, providing only their own mail/news servers and miscellaneous backhaul here and there.

They are, in almost all cases NOT renting dry loops from Bell Canada, and in almost all cases NOT colocating any of their own DSLAMS with Bell Canada.

So then since they're basically just reselling white label ADSL with a few support services added, they are obviously subject to the host companies regulations and irritations, such as throttling and so on.
Obviously, you aren't familiar enough with Canadian internet. These so-called "resellers" are far from a white label'd Bell internet. You people in the US always seem to fly off the handle thinking you know it all, when you are absolutely clueless about the situation. Do some research before you post and maybe you'll see why Canadians are so infuriated about the issue.

The only portion of Bell network that these companies rent (at regulated prices I might add) is the last mile, the copper to your house and the dslam is connects too. This is due to one simple fact, our government mandated that Bell do this, so as to provoke at least some competition because otherwise, we'd probably be in an even worse situation.

They also pay Bell more money for links with dedicated bandwidth to have that traffic transported to their central routers which turns it into actual internet traffic. At any point in Bell network, all the traffic is, is a simply PPPoE stream of data, which can technically be anything from phone service, internet, video on demand, etc.
the government didn't mandate anything, except that bell provide various levels of resale, such as the white label ADSL services that companies in Ontario normally use.

Companies do have the option of locating equipmen inside a Bell CANADA central office to avoid any throttling, but most choose not to do so.

for over 7 years companies in Canada have been able to provide their own ADSL instead of white label bell ADSL, but most choose not to do so because it is expensive.

same thing applies with local phone service too. companies in Canada have been able to do so for over 7 years, but, most choose not to do so, instead opting for white label bell telephone service.

Bellus_1
@cia.com

Bellus_1 to ragingwolf

Anon

to ragingwolf
Actually, they only pay for dedicated bandwidth between the Bell aggregation PoP of their choice and their routers, so from a CO in Toronto to 151 Front in TSI's case. At $1700 per Gig-e circuit, that's what you get: increments of 1Gbps to link the Bell network to your reseller PoP where you host everything but the transport, aggregation, distribution and access networks, ie. internet transit, mail, DNS and webhosting.

You can't have a dedicated capacity provisioned in the GAS service because the end-user endpoints are so dynamic. There are dedicated ADSL services and Lan extensions, but they cost more because each circuit is provisioned end-to-end with a defined capacity up to the exchange point between Bell and the ISP, who then rents the $1700/month Gig-E circuits to haul it to their PoP.

JGROCKY
Premium Member
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON

1 edit

JGROCKY to st7860

Premium Member

to st7860
said by st7860:
said by fcisler:

The options of consumer internet in Canada seems horrible.

According to this, there's a total of 46 ISP's serving Ontario. Chatham apparently has 20 ISP's serving it. I can't imagine that the 20 ISP's cover 100%, but here's a breakdown:

18 DSL
2 cable
1 Sat/Wireless
(one company apparently provides cable and DSL, Altima.net)

Are ALL of those DSL companies resellers? Do any of them own their own copper or rent a dry loop and use their own DSLAM equipment? Do the two cable companies throttle/have caps?

Keeping in mind I've only been to Canada twice and know almost nothing of it - your internet options seem to suck. Horribly. I feel sorry you have to put up with that ()#$%)@!
what the media doesn't tell you is that those companies whining about throttling are not using their own networks. they basically buy services from Bell Canada and resell them, providing only their own mail/news servers and miscellaneous backhaul here and there.

They are, in almost all cases NOT renting dry loops from Bell Canada, and in almost all cases NOT colocating any of their own DSLAMS with Bell Canada.

So then since they're basically just reselling white label ADSL with a few support services added, they are obviously subject to the host companies regulations and irritations, such as throttling and so on.
Excuse me but you are passing judgement with only a portion of what you think is real. You can't strip TekSavvy's portion/responsibility and deliver internet access... you should try it one day. For proof of... When we test an account to see if it's getting to the DSLAM, or first hop, we do a "test@test" attempt. If this authenticates, this means the first hop is functional, but you can't surf with this as it has yet to pick up a routable world IP. Bell would have to then pass this account off to its own servers/routers (through Sympatico/Bell Internet), which it can't, as the client is not theirs. We then test to see if the individual is able to pick up a TSI IP, which is where it gets blatantly obvious that Bell is no longer involved.... If you get no IP you then know the problem is still within Bell's control, but if you pick up a routable IP, that means it has gotten to us (TSI) and is ready for the internet portion/delivery.

In other words, if we were a reseller, the IPs and Internet routing would all be Bell's, but in our case, we paid Bell, as a preferred (and only in this case) vendor to backhaul the various locations (in Ontario/Quebec) to Toronto, where their responsibility ends. Bell has "ZERO" to do with the internet portion... Did I say "zero" here, because I think I just did!

We do "ALL" the internet routing, "ALL" the IP routing, "ALL" the Internet authentication, "ALL" the internet technical support (only time bell gets involved is when they messed up the delivery to us or when there's a copper problem, related to phone service... before anyone complains about this part, I do realise I'm making this sound like it's a small segment, but I'm not as it's not, but we're paying the better of three quarter million per month to make sure things are ok...).

Ohh... did I say they have "zero" responsibility passed 151 Front Street in Toronto, where we co-locate with them, to aggregate all the DSL? So, we "DO" collocate with them, it's just a different configuration is all.... We had the choice to either co-locate in the Central Offices or co-locate with Bell in Toronto and have the various locations back-hauled to there, which was, in the end, what we chose! We had considered moving away from the aggregation in Toronto, but Bell gave us new tiers to make it worth staying through their one spot in Toronto. So, in the end, Bell created this version of collocation because it gave them more profits (which in turn gave us more flexibility... win-win!... gave us much more Transit flexibility and multi-homing capabilities).

We were, as a result, able to get better transit rates, which we passed on to our clients by virtue of increased caps and plans. We were also able to add such things as MLPPP and co-locations services and even allow some flexibilities for routing through TORIX.... All in all... these are all advantages and perks that are being threatened right now because of greed and ignorance!

....did I mention Bell has "ZERO" rights/responsibility past the 6th floor in 151 Front? Because they do absolutely nothing passed that point, which is a very important part to actually making Internet functional? I almost feel as though I'm repeating myself right now, but I hear repeating a couple times or more on TV/Radio/etc helps having it stick in people's minds.................

Rocky
st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA

2 edits

st7860 to fcisler

Member

to fcisler
its always interesting how the principals(and/or management) of an ADSL company spin it,

but the fact of the matter, in Canada, most ADSL companies buy what is in essence, white label adsl and provide bits and pieces of their own service, such as servers, support, and transit here and there.

any company in canada can choose to colocate adsl equipment in a Bell Canada office, and then pay for transit to their own offices, and not be subject to any throttling. But if they choose to only buy bits and pieces of what is in essence wholesaled white label ADSL, obviously they are subject to any throttling policies.

most companies choose not to colocate their own adsl equipment because it just costs too much.

for the simple people out there, a company can choose to:

a) pay for transit from a central point at bell to their office. which most companies do, which is cheaper, but then it means they are subject to throttling.

or

b) put adsl dslams(modems) into each bell central office in a city in toronto. and then pay for transit from each central office to their own office. this costs a ton of money, but then they aren't subject to any policies.

JGROCKY
Premium Member
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON

JGROCKY

Premium Member

Re: Ouch

said by st7860:

its always interesting how the principals(and/or management) of an ADSL company spin it,

but the fact of the matter, in Canada, most ADSL companies buy what is in essence, white label adsl and provide bits and piece of their own service, such as servers, support, and transit here and there.

any company in canada can choose to colocate adsl equipment in a Bell Canada office, and then pay for transit to their own offices, and not be subject to any throttling. But if they choose to only buy bits and pieces of what is in essence wholesaled white label ADSL, obviously they are subject to any throttling policies.

most companies choose not to colocate their own adsl equipment because it just costs too much.
It's always funny how some don't like to hear anything other then their own thoughts!

This is false. There's absolutely no way to avoid Bell by collocating right now. Even if you place equipment in their Central Office, you still have to go through them for every single repeater as equipment, other than what Bell put in there, isn't doable.

Bell has strategically placed themselves in a position to not be circumvented. This is the beauty of a monopolistic environment. Wouldn't you like playing cards with someone, knowing they have a second deck they can chose from to "absolutely" ensure they win every time?

PS - we've already covered this in the past you and I... Find it funny that it didn't stick the first time.
st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA

1 edit

st7860 to fcisler

Member

to fcisler
you don't have to go through bell throttling if you put in your own dslam at the bell central office. you could then pay for a fibre cable from that office, to a nearby office of your own choosing and then not be subject to throttling. it just costs more money to do it that way.

JGROCKY
Premium Member
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON

4 edits

JGROCKY

Premium Member

Re: Ouch

said by st7860:

you don't have to go through bell throttling if you put in your own dslam at the bell central office. you could then pay for a fibre cable from that office, to a nearby office of your own choosing and then not be subject to throttling. it just costs more money to do it that way.
Ok, so lets look at the repeaters, who outnumber, in multiples, the COs... what then? Even if we are in all the available COs, we land up only being able to service about 1/3 our total (or potentially available) clients...

In the end, we still have to rent the copper from Bell....

Edit: almost forgot to mention the conditions to be in the Central Offices... For instance, you require $25M CGL insurance to go in there in the first place. As an ISP, just gettin $10M required major massaging. (Before you ask... no... it wasn't a price thing, it was an actual "can't give it to you" thing)...
st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA

st7860 to fcisler

Member

to fcisler
if its not really white label, then why, if a customer subscribes to adsl from two different companies, does it work if they switch user ids and passwords and it 'works'?

JGROCKY
Premium Member
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON

JGROCKY

Premium Member

Re: Ouch

said by st7860:

if its not really white label, then why, if a customer subscribes to adsl from two different companies, does it work if they switch user ids and passwords and it 'works'?
No... The Line card has to be enabled, which is done once TekSavvy requests it to be... This allows the tunnel to be opened for network/credentials requests...

The only reason changing logins works once a line card has been enabled is because the Central office has the database of accepted realm names, where it passes it on to wherever Bell agreed/contracted to. In order to do this you must have a collocated location which accepts and aggregates L2TP traffic. You can't just own a login per say and enable internet access as a wholesaler of GAS services.

By your definition Sympatico would be a reseller/white label too, which it isn't, as they have equipment they aggregate to also, in a variety of locations, even 151 Front Street I'm sure (guessing).

We all have to share the same backbone to back-haul through (as Bell is the incumbent in Ontario/Quebec for phone copper in the ground), so if you treat it the same as your typical network, for discussion-sake, we're talking VLANs essentially. One VLAN belongs to company X, the next VLAN belongs to company Y, etc, for delivering the login request... not the internet access!

Now... to take what you just said.... You've just identified something that is pretty major, as TekSavvy has purchased the rights to activate the Line Card in the Central office (which allows this user ID through for Gateway Access Service delivery requests). From there, if no one picks up the login or allows the request through to Toronto (or wherever it's aggregated to), there is no DSL. One needs the other to exist.... as a result this isn't a relabeling/white-label/resold anything.

Now... if you're talking about our Local Phone or Long Distance in Ontario/Quebec however.... Those are resold/relabeling/white-label things!

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to st7860

Premium Member

to st7860
said by st7860:

if its not really white label, then why, if a customer subscribes to adsl from two different companies, does it work if they switch user ids and passwords and it 'works'?
Well, when I push the big red button and only our customers go offline, how do you explain that?
sensualpoet
join:2004-09-19
Toronto, ON

sensualpoet

Member

Really? Rogers uses DPI? Parsons Doesn't Say So

The article states:
Rogers, Bell Canada, Shaw and Cogeco all admit to using deep packet inspection technology to slow certain types of Internet traffic. Those carriers admit they've been doing so for years in order to protect the network from "excessive" consumption. Telus, MTS Allstream, Saskatchewan Telecom and Primus Telecom definitively claim they do not specifically target P2P traffic. Much of the data filed in confidence with the CRTC and not shared with the public.

Page 24 of Parsons' synopsis is particularly of note -- Rogers claiming they utilize DPI throttling to prevent their network from becoming "the world’s buffet." Cogeco admits they started throttling back in 2001 instead of moving to metered billing, which they claim "would not dissuade ‘abuses’ of the network."
I don't see any admission at all that Rogers uses DPI. There is nothing of that sort claimed on pg 24 or anywhere else in Parsons document. If I'm not mistaken, Rogers has in the past specifically stated it does NOT use DPI. You may or may not like how they run their Internet business, but that's no reason to make bald faced claims and cite sources that actually don't support them but that pretend they do.

cpsycho
join:2008-06-03
Treadeu Land

cpsycho

Member

Re: Really? Rogers uses DPI? Parsons Doesn't Say So

They actualy do, I have run tests to prove they do.
mythos1453
join:2008-11-13

1 edit

mythos1453

Member

Great...

when everyone is advancing we're heading back.

I used to live in Greece for a few years, and 7years ago the best you could get was ISDN. I traveled there in the summer and guess what? Now you can get a 24mpbs unlimited connection for 2/3 of Bells price of 7mpbs, 60GB internet usage, throttled connection...I also noticed that the government is planning to invest $3bil for fiber optic to the last mile.

After some research i realised most developed countries are planning the expansions of their networks or are already expanding to FTTH. Look at USA (Verizon), Sweden etc. Yeah i know Bell sais they give fiber optic connections too, but they are not, in fact thats what i had before i switched to Teksavvy.

I am so frustrated by this situation... the world is moving forward and we are moving backwards. Bell whats next?

Oh i almost forgot, the cable lines of 50mpbs that are capped at 30GB!(videotron) No worries, it's only $10 for every extra GB!!!!!!

Leathal
Premium Member
join:2002-02-09
Richmond Hill, ON

Leathal

Premium Member

..

I think Rocky will just have to buy Bell Canada, like Teacher did and are now backing out of; or is it Bell backing away from Teachers I can't remember now.

But to solve anything someone is going to have to be bought

Leathal
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

This article makes several false assertions...

...but the most egregious are that ISPs want to "avoid having to invest in infrastructure upgrades" or do not want to admit "the limitations of their networks."

The fact is that ISPs throttle back bandwidth hogs because they cannot afford to allow users to consume so much bandwidth that they cost the provider more than they are paying. No one can reasonably expect ISPs to operate at a loss. Some ISPs, including myself, pay hundreds of dollars per megabit per month for Internet bandwidth. Can we afford to let P2P suck it all up for nothing? No. If a user wants to saturate a connection with P2P, he or she should expect to pay for the full bandwidth of that connection -- at our wholesale price plus a reasonable markup. Want 2 Mbps of continuous P2P? That's fine, but expect to pay us at least $225 per month. It's only fair; we have to stay in business.

grabeck
join:2003-07-17
Calgary, AB

grabeck

Member

Re: This article makes several false assertions...

These are the type of statements I just don't understand. I'm not sure if ISP's "want their cake and eat it to" or not.

You promote your product by marketing 2 things... Speed and Cap! and yet ISP's say it's unfair when users complain that the speed they advertise is not what they are receiving via P2P. Now I'm talking strictly D/L here, when I'm throttled to a faction of my advertised speed to D/L a WoW patch, or even play a game on-line how is this is you say "fair"?

Just a question Super(and Rocky too I guess), Do you refund customers who use only a faction of the bandwidth they are allotted to use every month?

Simple Example:
- I pay for a internet package that allows me 100GB/month
- I use 30GB of the bandwidth
- Another customer pays for the SAME package
- He/She uses 300GB/month

- WE are BOTH restricted the same way and pay the same fees

So ISP's... IS THAT "FAIR"?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to SuperWISP

Premium Member

to SuperWISP
quote:
this prevents competitors from offering an unthrottled, superior alternative to Bell's Sympatico service, and it throttles any P2P competitors to Bell's video store
Translation: P2P Competitors really means movie thieves / pirates(oops, have to be politically correct here - copyright infringers)

Imagine Bell wanting to prevent infringers from ruining their business - the unmitigated gall.