BELL allowed to continue throttling of internet

This pissed me off. GRRRRR

Bell.ca allowed to throttle internet

Net Neutrality FAQ In Depth

CRTC was supposed to Rule on the issue of BELL.ca throttling and has delayed it...no new date set as yet. "Sometime in November..." after more "study" has been made. GRRRRRRR.


The CRTC (Canada) has ruled so far, in favor of BELL being allowed to continue internet throttling. BELL claims that throttling (reducing speeds) is an attempt at dissuading users from downloading large files using P2P software.

Australia, is being censored, Canada is being choked.... as yet the USA remains neutral on the topic of the internet and actually SO FAR, insists that net neutrality is a must.

President elect Obama has already appointed 2 net-neutrality experts and advocates to monitor the situation in the states.

For those of us in Canada, the CRTC's current ruling is a scary precedent.

BELL has one of the largest networks in Canada next to Rogers and leases it's "lines" to hundreds of smaller ISPs.

The claim that throttling is to help reduce bandwidth "abuses" is absolutely ridiculous. BELLs network is comprised of primarily FIBRE OPTICS! With fibre optics there is a built in REDUNDANCY and throttling is absolutely not required. Even over standard network of CAT5 +/coax/copper/twisted pair... throttling is not required. The internet is comprised of PACKETS NOT a continuous seamless flow of data...throttling does not REDUCE the number of packets being sent and received it ONLY slows it down (dramatically). The idea is that slower downloads and uploads will suppress the P2P market is astoundingly STUPID. On a network as well protected and with an over abundance of redundancy "congestion" should NOT even be an issue.

Clearly this a precedent setting cash-grab. Pay the same or more but get less. Slower speeds overall mean the Canadian internet will NOT remain open and competitive (if this is allowed to continue and become standard practice). Canadian sites will take longer to load, there will be upload and download restrictions, real time transactions will suffer, and content providers will have to reduce their services and content to accommodate the changes. It's a choke hold!

They clearly count on consumers who know nothing about HOW their internet works and so far, the Canadian Gov. is all for it.

What if they implement a pay-by-packet net? Will the consumer understand what they pay for?

This affects home users, businesses, marketing and advertising, streaming sites and legitimate (non-torrent or P2P sites) from conducting large scale sales and services.

Personally I am thinking this is the beginning of the internet being "regionalized" and sold off to private markets.

The CRTC's approval of internet throttling is shameful to say the least.

Thankfully my ISP is NOT on the Bell network and I still enjoy my 300KB+ download speeds...if BELL is allowed to continue this practice, many others will follow suit. If you have BELL as your ISP, I suggest getting a new one and send them a letter stating WHY!

This is Canada's choke hold attempt on the internet. Backed by the CRTC - Canada's "content" watchdog and favorite Crown Corporation

maybe the Popeye Project is looking EVEN better now!!!!

Popeye Project - New Net!

Take a look at the Bell Network...

Do they really appear as though they should be having "congestion" issues???

Source






[edit on 11/21/2008 by justgeneric]

In the uk we suffer from something called Fair Usage policy...ie you pay for unlimited downloads...but if you download over a certain amount between 9am and 11pm for a month...they cut your broadband back from say 8mbps to 512kbps until it resets and the 7th of every month.If you get me,and im paying full price for unlimited! I heard they do this in australia to...

This is a HUGE mistake because, as you know, new smaller sized files evolve and the push is then on to maximize the compression & quality at the same time.

This is only going to lead to innovation in a way that will hurt hollywood even more. Pretty soon you'll probably be able to attach a movie to an email, in a small enough size to be feasible, if this keeps up.

Another thing is that you can alter the data via the client software to mask the packets as other data types. Appear as more legitimate traffic and there's a financial disaster waiting to happen for example, mask it as regular web or mail traffic leaving the ISPs to think their services need to be upgraded when they really don't.

It is a precedent they are setting alright.

They are setting up the industry for the biggest shot in their own foot EVER.

Let's keep in mind other nations are starting to launch satellites and will soon be able to deliver discounted internet anywhere in the world.

Right now (dedicated bandwidth) highspeed two way satellite services can be had for a little under $100 a month. It's only a matter of time before a price war begins in that spectrum! I'll be one of the first to switch!

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Atlantican]

Sat technology may seem the way of the future of the net but it still has a long way to go. There are numerous restrictions on sat technology, and competition is limited (to those corps with rockets). Space is regulated already.

There is an existing and MASSIVE infrastructure in place already on terra and sub terra. Hydro electric runs everywhere, cabling that could wrap the entire planet a hundred times over and enough wirelss (and new emergent wireless type tech) that are cheaper, more reliable, and work well with existing networks.

Sat tech is awesome if you're in the boonies or in the middle of the ocean. As yet they haven't made it mainstream available and thus the interfaces with current platforms/ and devices haven't gotten much attention.

Maybe it will emerge as the new tech, but I don't see it being a freely regulated resource. Likely it will be more heavily regulated than what we're dealing with here on the ground.

Just an example of how sat tech is not yet comparable - the speeds are often identical to what is currently the "norm". Not competitive enough for mainstream and the cost is still very expensive.

From a Canadian Sat ISP.

Requires a dish installed. Not portable (unless you have a portable Sat device and then it is limited to reception).

Source



And much pricier mobile internet example:

source


[edit on 11/21/2008 by justgeneric]

There has been a lot of stuff happening in this regard over the past year in particular.

A quick search showed that COMCAST was the first to attempt to implement this strategy for dealing with "broadband hogs". The FCC ruled against them, wisely. however it is not without repercussions.

Here's a few interesting reads on the whole idea of throttling:

Irony of Net Neutrality

Japan's NTT test - Net neutrality debate...

COMCAST appeals FCC ruling on throttling

Australia advises US...

Well for anyone who thinks throttling will help discourage piracy, I'd remind you that P2P file sharing began and thrived in an era before high speed internet was widely available. Less bandwidth speed is an inconvenience... not a deterrent.

well it also began in an era where files were generally smaller. MP3s are the same size, but DVD movies weren't pirated at all (on account of not existing), and all the video games were distributed as 300-500mB warez distributions, whereas now bittorrent is generally used to distribute DVD rips for both movies and games, which I'd reckon makes up at least half their traffic.

That's often a 12-18 times increase in filesize for files of equivalent purpose, plus it's hugely increased popularity.