|
Bell now 'shaping' everybody's internet (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| phlog |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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
> |
wow i should be with teksavy... because i would probably pwn every n00b on their server |
|
|
| phlog |
in Bell's defence:
| quote: |
ROBERTO ROCHA, The Gazette
Published: Friday, April 11
The last few weeks haven't been kind to Bell Sympatico. The Internet service provider has been attacked from many sides by those angry with its traffic-shaping policy.
Like other Internet providers, Bell's network is strained by applications that use up a lot of bandwidth, like online video and peer-to-peer file sharing programs. Bell decided to ease network congestion by limiting the bandwidth of some applications during peak hours in the evening.
Bell had done this to its own customers, but recently extended this to its third-party resellers. These are companies that lease Bell-owned telephone lines to homes and offer their own Internet services.
These ISPs claim Bell is stifling competition and acting as an overseer of the Internet, which they feel should be free and unfettered.
Bell counters it's improving the experience of all users by limiting the "bandwidth hogs" that slow everyone down.
The Gazette asked Mirko Bibic, Bell Canada's chief of regulatory affairs, to defend its position and answer questions from third party ISPs and customers affected by its decision.
Why does Bell manage the bandwidth of its third-party resellers?
Those who are complaining aren't leasing lines from Bell. They are buying a white label service from Bell Canada which is essentially a wholesale product they resell. So they're not in control of the network. If they were to lease the lines that go from a house to our central office and install a simple piece of equipment in our central office called a DSLAM (Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer), which the CRTC allows them to do ... they can control their own Internet, have their own speed, and manage or not manage their traffic. They don't want to do that, because they don't want to invest in anything.
What they do instead is they buy a wholesale, end-to-end Internet product and put their brand around it. Then they don't have the ability to manage their own network. It's the same network shared between retail and wholesale. Those ISPs that bothered to invest in their own infrastructure, this problem doesn't affect them. The use of the term "leased lines" isn't quite accurate and I see that in a number of newspaper articles It's a very, very important point.
So if these ISPs run on the same network as Bell Sympatico's network, why was there a lag between the time Bell throttled its own clients' P2P traffic and those of the resellers?
What we're doing is implementing what we feel are objective network management initiatives which actually don't affect the vast majority of Internet users. So 95 per cent of users don't even use P2P and I suspect most don't even know what P2P is. So the hostages are the 95 per cent of users whose service gets deteriorated. We feel we have an obligation to ensure bandwidth hogs don't crowd out the overwhelming majority of users.
When you implement initiatives like throttling on the retail side we found that most users saw vast improvements in their service. But then that bandwidth that gets freed up gets used up again by the bandwidth hogs who are customers of those wholesale ISPs. At the end of the day, it's a real short list of people who are complaining about this.
So if it is these five per cent who are spoiling the party for everyone else, why not just limit them instead of making everyone suffer?
What we're doing is trying to take objective measures. We're not targeting particular people or particular content, we're directing these measures at a particular type of traffic. It's not slowing down peer-to-peer for everyone. ... It's actually the P2P by heavy users, whether or not they're on Sympatico or on the wholesale ISP. And at that, it's only during so-called peak periods. Those who use P2P to a reasonable degree are not affected.
Where is this congestion taking place? Are there regions where congestion is more of a problem than others?
This is not unique to Bell. Other ISPs is Canada are adopting network management practices. ... It's a long-term issue everyone in the industry is coming to grips with. There's the need to continue to invest in the network to match the pace of Internet growth.
Bandwidth just doesn't fall from the sky. There have been highly inappropriate allegations made by some people that Bell should simply go out and invest. We invested $2.4 billion on infrastructure alone. Bell takes investment very seriously. But at some point you have to recognize that there has to be a return on that investment.
Tell us about Bell's deep packet inspection system.
I know a little bit about it, but I'm not at liberty to share who uses it or how it works. ... I don't think we need to get into that kind of detail for the purposes of this interview.
But if you have this deep inspection system, doesn't it affect congestion, since the data has to be analyzed by a computer?
The technology we use doesn't add congestion. We manage to redistribute 50 per cent of traffic at peak periods so we free up capacity of the vast majority of online applications.
Are there problems with false positives? Are there packets that are not P2P but are flagged by Bell's system as P2P?
We reached out to wholesale customers and if they have any concerns or evidence of that, they should pick up the phone and speak to us and we'll examine it and investigate it and address it.
If a small, independent ISP can make a profit providing unlimited, unthrottled Internet access, why can't Bell?
Bell is the entity that is investing hundreds of millions in network infrastructure and is ultimately one of the underlying facilities providers in the country. We're faced with issue of managing exploding bandwidth use. It comes back to the first thing I said. If these folks build and lease a line, they'll have complete control over their Internet.
Now that Bell is offering a limited service at times, does this present a challenge in justifying rate increases?
I'll stick to the reasons we're implementing network management initiatives, and they're very compelling reasons: so that the 95 per cent of users who don't consume inordinate amount of bandwidth aren't held hostage.
This whole issue of throttling was brought to light when some customers who have the tools to measure their bandwidth noticed changes in their speeds. That's when the third-party ISPs brought it up. Why didn't Bell advise the ISPs of these changes?
The answer to that is in the letter from our senior vice-present of carrier services to his customers. I know that letter has been floating around in the blog universe.
But that letter didn't explain anything. It just apologized for not warning ahead of time.
Well, there's the answer.
But that's not an answer. It doesn't explain why they weren't notified.
The tariffs we have in place under which these customers buy services do say Bell is entitled to take reasonable network management initiatives to improve performance of the Internet. We're always open to having a dialogue with our wholesale partners, and we're having those.
|
As an employee and customer of Bell, I'm torn on this issue. I understand why they throttle but it still angers me that they're messing with my internet. Especially because I pay upwards of $70 a month for "unlimited" access. |
|
|
| Chris Allen |
Bell called me the other day to say that I was using an excessive amount of bandwidth (< 250gb in previous month). They asked what I was doing as they said they didn't see any, or very little torrent usage.
Some days I will download excess of 10GB of promo's and music files as many are WAV or AIFF. This is all legit music and all legit business work.
So I explained that to them, and they 'suggested' that I move up to a business account which would have a no usage cap, and faster speeds (10mbit).
To that I retorted with "Sure, I will move up to a business account, however you can only charge me for what I'm paying now. I'm supposed to be getting 7mbit, yet I'm only getting 5mbit. So if I move up to your 10mb, I should surely get what I'm actually paying for now!"
They promptly thanked me for using Bell and ended the call. |
|
|
| phlog |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chris Allen
Bell called me the other day to say that I was using an excessive amount of bandwidth (< 250gb in previous month). They asked what I was doing as they said they didn't see any, or very little torrent usage.
Some days I will download excess of 10GB of promo's and music files as many are WAV or AIFF. This is all legit music and all legit business work.
So I explained that to them, and they 'suggested' that I move up to a business account which would have a no usage cap, and faster speeds (10mbit).
To that I retorted with "Sure, I will move up to a business account, however you can only charge me for what I'm paying now. I'm supposed to be getting 7mbit, yet I'm only getting 5mbit. So if I move up to your 10mb, I should surely get what I'm actually paying for now!"
They promptly thanked me for using Bell and ended the call. |
If you're paying for 7mb and only getting 5, it's probably because your line can't sustain the higher speed (either due to noise, attenuation, distance from the CO etc..) If you want, pm me with the number assosiated with your dsl account, I'll bump up the speed if possible. |
|
|
| soupastah |
| quote: | Originally posted by phlog
If you're paying for 7mb and only getting 5, it's probably because your line can't sustain the higher speed (either due to noise, attenuation, distance from the CO etc..) If you want, pm me with the number assosiated with your dsl account, I'll bump up the speed if possible. |
but wouldn't that put you dangerously close to being a 'nice' guy?
just a thought... your world may cease to exist though. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by phlog
in Bell's defence:
|
was a very political answer to me.. let's see what happens
|
|
|
| Stilez |
In today's Toronto Star.
| quote: | CRTC to hold hearings on Internet regulation
Watchdog could seek levies to support creation of Canadian content
May 15, 2008 01:06 PM
CHRIS SORENSEN
BUSINESS REPORTER
Canada's broadcast watchdog will hold public hearings next year into the thorny question of extending its purview to the Internet, a medium that it deemed a regulatory-free zone nearly a decade ago.
The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission today released a final, 75-page report that summarizes research and stakeholder opinion on a wide range of issues, including Canadian content that's broadcast online or mobile devices, and the recent debate over Internet Service Providers who deliberately slow certain types of Internet traffic.
The report, a draft version of which was first revealed by the Star in March, was created amid pressure from some Canadian content creators who are concerned their work is increasingly being broadcast on the Internet, where it is free from regulatory oversight.
Among the more controversial proposals are raising a levy on Internet Service Providers to pay for the creation of new media content.
The public is also invited to comment on the issues at http://crtc.newmedia.econsultation.ca until June 15.
"New digital technologies and platforms are creating opportunities for the broadcast of professionally-produced Canadian content that simply didn't exist a few years ago," said Konrad von Finckenstein, the chairman of the CRTC, in a statement.
While von Finckenstein said the CRTC's intention "is not to regulate new media, but rather gain a better understanding of this environment," the report vaguely states that the regulator may decide to seek "ways to support Canadian digital content with tools that embrace the innovation and creativity of the new landscape."
Most Canadians accessed the Internet through pokey dial-up connections when the CRTC first issued its new media exemption order in 1999. That made viewing rich content such as streaming video or audio nearly impossible to enjoy.
Today, however, some 60 per cent of Canadian have broadband Internet connections and are increasingly using the Internet to watch video and other media.
Broadcasters, meanwhile, have been compelled to push more of their content online as they try to adapt to the changing viewing habits of their audiences, with advertisers following closely behind.
That has left Canadian content creators concerned about an industry shift from a regulated environment to one where few rules exist.
Should its exemption be reversed, the CRTC's mandate would likely be limited to potentially overseeing online content offered by TV networks or radio stations. So-called "user-generated content" - personal videos uploaded to YouTube, for example - would be unaffected by any policy change.
The CRTC also indicated in the final report that it plans to review the issue of Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, that are using special software programs to sniff out and slow down data packets associated with bandwidth-intensive services such as peer-to-peer file sharing.
While the ISPs say such practices are necessary to prevent a small number of heavy-bandwidth users from slowing down the entire network, critics argue that "traffic shaping" activities are a threat to the concept of "net neutrality," or the idea that all content on the Web should be treated equally.
"Generally, stakeholders indicated that ISPs should be encouraged or required to clearly state their traffic management policies to customers before they subscribe to the Internet service, and to inform existing subscribers of any changes ..." the report said.
According to the report: "Stakeholders indicated that with this type of information concerning their ISPs traffic management practices, consumers can make more informed decision about which provider and service offering best meets their needs.
"Disclosure of this information can also lead to more efficient use of the network by shifting consumers usage pattern from peak periods to non-peak periods."
The issue of Internet traffic shaping was recently put before the regulator after a group representing a number of ISPs who resell bandwidth on Bell Canada's network complained that the phone company had no right to apply its traffic-shaping policies to its wholesale customers.
However, the CRTC denied the group's request for an immediate injunction on Thursday, saying the ISPs failed to prove that they had suffered "irreparable harm." A full decision is forthcoming, the CRTC said.
The CRTC's final report also notes there are concerns that ISPs may seek to sell different tiers of service to Internet broadcasters, which critics say could discourage innovation on the Web by making it too expensive for new online companies to gain access to the bandwidth needed to deliver their services. |
SOURCE |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
^^^ holee smokes it's about time. I'd be suprised if they come to a decision soon. we'll probably have net neutrality in like 100 years knowing how slow the CRTC is to act on this kinda stuff..
|
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
On another note, as a Rogers customer my torrent traffic has been shaped and throttled and whatnot for almost 2 years now.
On a whim, I try it again yesterday, and lo and behold it works. Strange. |
|
|
| Stilez |
CRTC orders Bell to prove Net 'shaping' needed
| quote: | Regulator wants evidence that networks are congested in squabble over practice of slowing some Internet traffic
MATT HARTLEY
Globe and Mail Update
May 16, 2008 at 8:47 AM EDT
Federal regulators have ordered Bell Canada to provide tangible evidence that its broadband networks are congested to justify the company's Internet "traffic-shaping" policies.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) yesterday laid out the process through which it will tackle the issue of how Internet providers manage the flow of content on their networks and those they lease to third-party providers, setting up a summer of debate over so-called net neutrality.
In a letter sent yesterday to the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) and Bell Canada, the CRTC requested further information from both parties and said it plans to issue a ruling based on CAIP's complaint this fall.
In April, CAIP - an industry group representing about 50 independent Internet service providers - launched a complaint with the CRTC after its member companies discovered that Bell was slowing down the traffic on the network space it was leasing to them.
On Wednesday, the CRTC denied CAIP's request for interim relief, allowing Bell to continue to slow down or "shape" certain types of Internet traffic.
"CAIP looks forward to providing the commission with additional information regarding the impact of traffic shaping on our customers and the other types of applications that our customers have indicated are being negatively impacted," CAIP spokesman Tom Copeland said in a statement.
A spokeswoman for Bell, which is owned by Montreal-based BCE Inc., said the company is looking forward to dealing with the application and "getting the facts out on the table."
Canada's largest ISPs - including Bell and Rogers Communications Inc. - employ shaping techniques to manage the flow of data on their networks.
Shaping involves slowing down certain kinds of Internet activity - usually peer-to-peer traffic used for large file transfers - while giving priority to other data.
The companies say the large files clog their networks, which leads to slow connection speeds for other customers.
Other ISPs in the U.S. and Europe have faced a user backlash from "net neutrality" proponents, who say that traffic shaping violates the unwritten rule that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.
The CRTC has asked Bell to provide "full rationale and evidence" to support its claim that 95 per cent of its users were negatively impacted by peer-to-peer traffic and to describe where congestion is occurring, what other approaches the company considered as alternatives to shaping and to describe in detail its Internet traffic management practices.
Bell said it uses deep-packet inspection - a method of scanning and filtering Internet content - to scan for peer-to-peer traffic as a part of its Internet management strategy, but says that services such as voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) transmission are not affected.
The CRTC has asked Bell to clarify how it avoids shaping VoIP and online streaming traffic while CAIP has been tasked with providing information to support its claim that "all forms of file-sharing service and audio or video streaming services, such as Internet radio and YouTube" are affected by Bell's practices.
BCE (BCE)
Close: $38.95, down 3¢ |
SOURCE |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
more on the saga..
| quote: |
Cells are packets of information carried on the Internet. They can be temporarily held or lost if parts of the network are congested.
Bell defends 'shaping' Internet traffic
Tells CRTC rush-hour slowdowns of file-sharing community is for the greater good of 700,000 users
May 31, 2008
Chris Sorensen
Business Reporter
Bell Canada Inc. has submitted detailed information to regulators in support of its controversial practice of "throttling" certain types of Internet traffic, a move the phone company argues is necessary to relieve congestion on its network.
The filings, which provide a rare look at the shadowy practice of so-called "traffic shaping" activities in Canada, are part of a complaint that was brought before the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission by a group of independent service providers that resell Internet access over Bell's network.
While substantial portions of the documents have been blacked out for competitive reasons, the phone giant claims to have offered proof to the CRTC that sniffing out and slowing down bandwidth-intensive peer-to-peer file-sharing protocols is necessary to prevent a serious degradation in Internet service for some 700,000 users within less than a year.
"Peer-to-peer is by design a bandwidth-hogging application," said Mirko Bibic, Bell's chief of regulatory affairs.
He said peer-to-peer protocols, which are used by file-sharing services such as BitTorrent, were also singled out because they are used by a relatively small number of subscribers and tend not to be as time-sensitive as other applications.
However, critics have argued that subscribers who engage in legitimate file-sharing activities are being unfairly targeted.
It's the first time the CRTC has waded into an issue that falls under the banner of "network neutrality," which is based on the idea that Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, shouldn't be allowed to slow down or restrict certain types of online content or applications.
Bell began implementing traffic shaping measures for its own retail customers last October between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 2 a.m., which is when traffic on its network is highest. Its rival Rogers Communications Inc. also employs similar techniques.
Both rely on deep packet inspection technology to determine the protocol of individual packages of data as they speed across their networks, routing those with a peer-to-peer signature into the equivalent of an Internet slow lane.
While the practice has been a source of criticism for months among some subscribers, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers threw it on the doorstep of the CRTC after Bell decided in March to expand the policy to its wholesale clients.
The group, which represents independent ISPs, argued the Bell decision made the service offered by its members less competitive.
"They have received complaints from end-user customers regarding greatly reduced Internet access speeds, unreliability of their Internet access services and threatened or actual cancellation of their service contracts," the group argued in its original application for an immediate injunction. It was denied.
Bell argued in its filing this week that congestion occurs primarily on parts of its network that are shared by the two groups of subscribers, and that the company is within its rights to engage in network management activities.
While Bell acknowledges that the "most logical solution" to fix network congestion is building additional capacity, Bibic said doing so would be uneconomical since much of it would go unused during non-peak periods.
Bell said in its filings it has spent $3 billion on its high-speed Internet service since 2001 and plans to spend close to $500 million this year.
|
source:
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/434465
|
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| WE NEED OUR LINUX ISOS |
|
|
|
|
