Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are throttling BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, your traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at DSLREports.com:
"They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by April 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the Fair Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Rick Innis <rick.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are throttling > BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means > that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, your > traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at > DSLREports.com:
> "They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full > throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by April > 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are > allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the Fair > Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
Then do something... complain to the CRTC... We can all just do
nothing or we can say that it is unacceptable for Bell and Rogers to
determine which bits are good and which are bad. They want common
carrier status so they aren't liable for content on their lines but
throttle traffic because they don't want to invest in infrastructure.
Jon
On Mar 26, 2:26 pm, "Jordan Christensen" <thebi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just moved into a new place and have Teksavvy set to start in 2
> weeks. I have to say, I'm a little pissed off here.On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Rick Innis <rick.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are throttling
> > BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means
> > that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, your
> > traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at
> > DSLREports.com:
> > "They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full
> > throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by April
> > 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are
> > allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the Fair
> > Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM, jon....@gmail.com <jon....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then do something... complain to the CRTC... We can all just do > nothing or we can say that it is unacceptable for Bell and Rogers to > determine which bits are good and which are bad. They want common > carrier status so they aren't liable for content on their lines but > throttle traffic because they don't want to invest in infrastructure.
> Jon
> On Mar 26, 2:26 pm, "Jordan Christensen" <thebi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just moved into a new place and have Teksavvy set to start in 2
> > weeks. I have to say, I'm a little pissed off here.On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Rick Innis <rick.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are throttling > > > BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means > > > that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, your > > > traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at > > > DSLREports.com:
> > > "They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full > > > throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by April > > > 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are > > > allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the Fair > > > Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
Kudos to Teksavvy for their positive actions in favor of network neutrality. They have raised the alarm - not it is up up to others to also complain not only to the CRTC but also to MPs
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rgue...@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
On 26-Mar-08, at 2:40 PM, Jordan Christensen wrote:
> I definitely plan to. Not having a choice for unthrottled consumer > internet in Toronto is bordering on absurd.
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM, jon....@gmail.com > <jon....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Then do something... complain to the CRTC... We can all just do >> nothing or we can say that it is unacceptable for Bell and Rogers to >> determine which bits are good and which are bad. They want common >> carrier status so they aren't liable for content on their lines but >> throttle traffic because they don't want to invest in infrastructure.
>> Jon
>> On Mar 26, 2:26 pm, "Jordan Christensen" <thebi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I just moved into a new place and have Teksavvy set to start in 2
>>> weeks. I have to say, I'm a little pissed off here.On Wed, Mar 26, >>> 2008 at 12:02 PM, Rick Innis <rick.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are >>>> throttling >>>> BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means >>>> that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, >>>> your >>>> traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at >>>> DSLREports.com:
>>>> "They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full >>>> throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by >>>> April >>>> 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are >>>> allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the >>>> Fair >>>> Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
I think the most interesting angle from a CRTC point of view is that
throttling could potentially lead to less competition in the telephony
business. i.e. are Bell and other ISPs throttling VoIP phone
companies like Vonage?
Seb.
On Mar 26, 2:39 pm, "jon....@gmail.com" <jon....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then do something... complain to the CRTC... We can all just do
> nothing or we can say that it is unacceptable for Bell and Rogers to
> determine which bits are good and which are bad. They want common
> carrier status so they aren't liable for content on their lines but
> throttle traffic because they don't want to invest in infrastructure.
> Jon
> On Mar 26, 2:26 pm, "Jordan Christensen" <thebi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just moved into a new place and have Teksavvy set to start in 2
> > weeks. I have to say, I'm a little pissed off here.On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Rick Innis <rick.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are throttling
> > > BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means
> > > that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, your
> > > traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at
> > > DSLREports.com:
> > > "They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full
> > > throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by April
> > > 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are
> > > allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the Fair
> > > Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
I'm quite disappointed by many of the statements made in this thread.
The Internet is not an unlimited free resource, and pretending that it is allows the few to ruin it for the many. If you're not familiar with the phrase "the tragedy of the commons", please look it up.
And if you're a heavy user and don't think you should have to pay any more than a light user, please don't present selfishness as part of some noble cause.
Is it not the case that most if not all ISP's do offer several tiers
of service to accomodate these heavy users? Are you suggesting that
those who already pay for premium access should still be penalized for
the sake of those who chose "lite" broadband connections? Or do you
advocate some means of billing for both quality and quantity of
bandwidth?
As an internet veteran your views on these issues would be most
welcome.
On Mar 28, 1:42 am, "Rohan Jayasekera" <1...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I'm quite disappointed by many of the statements made in this thread.
> The Internet is not an unlimited free resource, and pretending that it is
> allows the few to ruin it for the many. If you're not familiar with the
> phrase "the tragedy of the commons", please look it up.
> And if you're a heavy user and don't think you should have to pay any more
> than a light user, please don't present selfishness as part of some noble
> cause.
Hmm, evidently I should clarify. Neither of my two comments was against net neutrality, nor in favour of throttling, nor in favour of ISPs' charging more to those who already pay more for premium access. I'm just getting really sick of hearing cowboy tactics and selfishness and dreaming in Technicolor wrapped up in the flag of the worthy goal of having the Internet as a friendly and accommodating resource. Most or all of us in TorCamp share a certain ideal for the Internet; let's work toward it in a principled and realistic way. This may take some self-discipline when people are getting penalized for perfectly reasonable activities, but I think it's worth it.
> I'm quite disappointed by many of the statements made in this thread.
> The Internet is not an unlimited free resource, and pretending that it is > allows the few to ruin it for the many. If you're not familiar with the > phrase "the tragedy of the commons", please look it up.
This is some kind of joke, right? You are aware that every single internet user is paying for services? To companies like Bell Canada whose revenue was $4,500,000,000 (not a typo) in the last three months?
> And if you're a heavy user and don't think you should have to pay any > more than a light user, please don't present selfishness as part of some > noble cause.
Yes, it's utterly selfish and tragic that someone who has paid for a T1 connection should actually be able to upload and download at 1.544 Mbps. Why, if they actually use the full capacity of the line, they're just a bunch of thieves. In fact, any T1 client who uses it more than once a week to drive to church on Sundays is just a low-down scoundrel, and if they complain that the line doesn't actually deliver 1.544 Mbps, it's pure selfishness.
Bell, on the other hand, who sold you that T1 line, shouldn't be held to actually deliver what they sold. That's not how business works! They should able to sell T1 lines to everyone without bothering to provision for it, and just slow down the end-user as necessary to make sure that the 500 T1 lines they sold to clients don't exceed the capacity of the one T1 line they use as an upstream connection. That's just good business practices, nothing shady in there at all.
Rohan, I'd like to sell you a new car. It will have up to 4 wheels and up to one engine and up to 4 seats inside. Also, I get to revise the deal any time after you've purchased the car. I might revise it to have fewer seats or engines or wheels, but the amount you paid for the car will not be revised downwards. Don't complain if I revise it though; that's just selfish. Keep making your monthly payments and STFU.
Not everyone in Canada is familiar with the product offerings in the rest of the world regarding broadband. In most industrialized nations, you can get a broadband connection ten times as fast as anything offered in Canada for half the price, with no throttling. Canadians are paying monopoly prices (high!) for monopoly levels of service (low!). You can either do something about this situation or you can be like Rohan, "Thank you sir may I have another beating?"
