|
Bell now 'shaping' everybody's internet (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| lazy haze |
| i'm moving into a new apartment this weekend and was researching what internet to order today...then came across this shaping stuff. I ended up signing with Teksavvy, their CEO is the one leading the legal charge against Bell...but even if it does get resolved it will probably be years...but no money for bell from me (directly, i guess they will get some indirectly) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I'm not really buying the "bad for business" argument. Critical infrastructure shouldn't be hosted over a DSL line anyway, it should be in a secure hosting facility with several redundant, high-speed, high-availability backbones. Yeah, you might need a VPN to manage the servers remotely or occasionally deploy an application, but if there's truly a business need for much more bandwidth than that, you should have a private VLAN anyway. DSL lines, including business accounts, aren't even guaranteed to be up 100% of the time, let alone fast.
I don't like some of the implications for residential users (although I waste precious little time on torrents these days anyway), but it's kind of a joke hearing about how seriously it's going to impact businesses from those same residential users who generally have no clue how corporate IT infrastructure is set up, let alone have any firsthand experience with it.
Frankly, I happen to believe that Bell and any other ISPs are well within their rights to do traffic shaping. This has absolutely nothing to do with internet "freedom" in the freedom-of-speech context that the term is generally used to describe. Essentially it's just a special case of QoS, which has been around on the "free" internet since the internet existed and is commonly used today to maintain availability of VoIP services (to cite just one example). Yeah, it means that it'll take a little longer to get my pr0n on the weekends, but I sure as don't want our corporate web services timing out because the douchebags across the street are padding their game server with the newest Command and Conquer expansion packs.
I don't like Bell, and I don't like the ass-backwards telco monopoly system that the CRTC and the big three have forced us into, but this isn't the thing to be mad about. This was inevitable - they're doing what they have to do in order to keep the pipes flowing. |
|
|
| phlog |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Yeah, it means that it'll take a little longer to get my pr0n on the weekends... |
can't get any real on the weekends, eh? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by phlog
can't get any real on the weekends, eh? |
Here you go:
|
|
|
| patpicos |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I'm not really buying the "bad for business" argument. Critical infrastructure shouldn't be hosted over a DSL line anyway, it should be in a secure hosting facility with several redundant, high-speed, high-availability backbones. Yeah, you might need a VPN to manage the servers remotely or occasionally deploy an application, but if there's truly a business need for much more bandwidth than that, you should have a private VLAN anyway. DSL lines, including business accounts, aren't even guaranteed to be up 100% of the time, let alone fast.
I don't like some of the implications for residential users (although I waste precious little time on torrents these days anyway), but it's kind of a joke hearing about how seriously it's going to impact businesses from those same residential users who generally have no clue how corporate IT infrastructure is set up, let alone have any firsthand experience with it.
Frankly, I happen to believe that Bell and any other ISPs are well within their rights to do traffic shaping. This has absolutely nothing to do with internet "freedom" in the freedom-of-speech context that the term is generally used to describe. Essentially it's just a special case of QoS, which has been around on the "free" internet since the internet existed and is commonly used today to maintain availability of VoIP services (to cite just one example). Yeah, it means that it'll take a little longer to get my pr0n on the weekends, but I sure as don't want our corporate web services timing out because the douchebags across the street are padding their game server with the newest Command and Conquer expansion packs.
I don't like Bell, and I don't like the ass-backwards telco monopoly system that the CRTC and the big three have forced us into, but this isn't the thing to be mad about. This was inevitable - they're doing what they have to do in order to keep the pipes flowing. |
QOS for Voip or not, if I get an internet connection from anyone, I want my speed to be the same for everything i use my inet for. The fact the ISP has troubles providing good quality to VOIP for example is not my problem, they should have the infrastructure to support all their customers, anytime.
Again, this is another case where ISP's get pressure from bigwigs like RIAA and MPAA trying to curb piracy and so on by limiting the speed of the applications used to provide such content. |
|
|
| phlog |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Here you go:
|
 |
|
|
| patpicos |
| quote: | Originally posted by Möbius
Heavy web downloaders face broadband fees
Matt Hartley, The Globe and Mail, 2008-03-28
Bandwidth hogs who exceed their allotted limits on Rogers's networks will face service-fee penalties of up to $5 a gigabyte, to a maximum of $25 a month.
|
its just a money scam. When I was having troubles with cogeco for high bandwidth usage, i looked around and i stumbled upon Bell's insurance that if u pay for an extra fee so they dont ding you with an extra massive charge if you go over.
Rogers, as shown above is fairly lenient compared to other ISP's like bell. Bell would rip u a new one, past the $25!
I remember, 10 years ago, I was on DSL through a company named Sogetel in Quebec, it was costing me 30 bucks a month back then for 30gb month. One month, I transfered 80gb and threatened me with some $800 bill. Fortunately, that was the first of 3 warnings, then i slowed down lol
I am now on cogeco, SOHO starter plan which allows me 120GB a month for $60, not bad.
I still manage to get warnings and disconnections tho :( once at 110% usage, i get 1 warning, at 115% its a few hour disconnect, and at 120% its a 1 day disconnect.
good thing its end of month right now!! i have so much to download! |
|
|
| jesteraver |
| death to major canadian corporations |
|
|
| Dark_Archonis |
It's nice to see some MPs in Ottawa FINALLY raising the issue and for getting some discussion going. Now that this issue is out in the open in the Parliament hopefully the government will do something about it, and hopefully at least one of the parties continues to press this issue on Parliament Hill.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Frankly, I happen to believe that Bell and any other ISPs are well within their rights to do traffic shaping. This has absolutely nothing to do with internet "freedom" in the freedom-of-speech context that the term is generally used to describe. Essentially it's just a special case of QoS, which has been around on the "free" internet since the internet existed and is commonly used today to maintain availability of VoIP services (to cite just one example). Yeah, it means that it'll take a little longer to get my pr0n on the weekends, but I sure as don't want our corporate web services timing out because the douchebags across the street are padding their game server with the newest Command and Conquer expansion packs.
I don't like Bell, and I don't like the ass-backwards telco monopoly system that the CRTC and the big three have forced us into, but this isn't the thing to be mad about. This was inevitable - they're doing what they have to do in order to keep the pipes flowing. |
Traffic shaping has never been around on the internet to this extent.
People are paying the same, if not higher prices today for cable and dsl internet service compared to several years ago and yet they are getting WORSE speed and WORSE service than several years ago, and you claim it's totally their "rights" to use traffic shaping? Unless it's explicitly stated in their contracts, no they technically don't have the right to do that.
At least Bell is admitting to traffic shaping. For the longest time Rogers would not admit to using deep packet inspection technology in order to traffic shape. Even worse, Rogers has continued to refuse to admitting that they traffic shape ALL encrypted traffic. Try and get a Rogers tech to admit to that and they will explictly avoid the question altogether. Rogers is blatantly misleading it's customers by not admitting to slowing down encrypted traffic. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
whee!
|
|
|
| endless_summer |
I got this from TekSavvy few days ago.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:42 PM, wrote:
> Dear Customers,
> As many of you may have heard of late, there have been quite a few
> activities through Bell that have caused some negative performance on P2P
> and BT traffic for us and all other DSL providers in Ontario and Québec.
> TekSavvy is committed to fighting this injustice.
> For more details on this matter, go to:
> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/teksavvy for various discussions.
>
> In trying to bring a little bit of both humour and fun to this stressful
> week, we sat down and came up with a fun event to hold/get us through this
> challenging time!
> We'll be setting up a gaming server to be ready for Saturday morning.
>
> Saturday and Sunday will be practice time only, BUT, as of Monday, March
> 31st, 9AM, until Sunday, April 6th, 5PM, we will hold a TF2 gamers
> Challenge!
> Lets call it, as a first competition, "Throttle This! Battle at the Big
> Barn!". :)
>
> Rules and such are going to follow but, it will be for TSI DSL customers
> only and the winner at the end of the week will receive $1,000 for kicking
> A$$!
> More to come on this...
>
> To follow activities, rules and gaming details, go to
> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20...t-the-Big-Barn.
>
> Regards,
> Rocky
>
> |
|
|
|
|
