Bell Canada's Misinformation About Throttling

rsax writes "Bell Canada's chief of regulatory affairs Mirko Bibic has been attempting to justify the throttling of the last-mile connection to independent ISPs. As is typical, Bell Canada is abusing people's confusion between issues around Network Neutrality and the last mile natural monopoly. If people continue to confuse these two related but separate issues, Bell Canada and other incumbent phone and cable companies will win this critical debate."

Small ISPs not entirely blameless...

[masamax (543884)]

Bell does make one valid point that the smaller ISPs are not speaking about, namely that they are purchasing bandwidth from bell wholesale. There is nothing stopping those ISPs from installing their own routing centres, even within Bell's infrastructure whereby the only must lease the lines, not the other stuff. Instead, they want to avoid such infrastructure investment. That being said, most of the small ISP's probably lack the capital to undertake such an endeavor.

Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless...

[by Anonymous Coward]

You're mistaken. Teksavvy for example does NOT purchase wholesale internet access, they have their own routes and peering agreements.

Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Being a Teksavvy customer, I cannot express how awesome their service is since they use their own bandwidth. Being routed straight through the Toronto Internet Exchange, a mere 6 hops from Google's GTA data centre, is nothing short of exquisite. I simply adore pinging 30ms to eastern seaboard game servers and 10ms to GTA area game servers. Not to mention their incredibly awesome tech support staff who don't even work from flow charts but just know their stuff. (all my calls have ended in under 2 minutes with them fixing the issue or getting back to me the next day with progress)

I was hoping somebody would reply "TEKSAVVY" to the parent and am glad you did. They are easily the best ISP I've used, even if they don't reach the top speeds provided by Bell or Rogers. (no, I do not work for them or have a relative that works for them or anything, I am just a fiercely loyal customer)

Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless...

[yani (50270)]

Mod parent up, this is a correct counter-example to the original post which seems to buy into Bell's rhetoric.

In fact Teksavvy even gives its customers a choice of which routing they would prefer, unlimited over Cogent or 100gb/month over Peer 1 (lower latency)!

http://www.teksavvy.com/en/resdsl.asp?ID=7&mID=1 [teksavvy.com]

Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless...

[Feyr (449684)]

you're confusing two types of bandwidth. the way bell's infrastructure work is this:

every lines terminate into a DSLAM.

then if the DSLAM is bell's they will either:
forward the entire L2TP(or ppp, same thing) tunnel over a dedicated line that they forced teksavvy to install and terminate it on teksavvy's equipment, at which point teksavvy can do whatever the hell they want with the traffic
or
bell terminates it on their own equipment and then sells "bandwidth" to the outside internet

both of these solutions can be thottled, and you'd still get the "choose your routing" part

there is another option for resellers, which is installing their own DSLAMs in bell's colo centers. it is expensive, and ill defined. any maintenance you might have to do is expensive as hell, bell charges you the full cost for whatever changes are to be made (including plugging in a customer's line into it).

some resellers use this type of colo, but usually they are geographically limited (you need dslams all over the place to physically serve every customer's lines)

Re:Small ISPs not entirely blameless...

[flyonthewall (584734)]

by masamax (543884) on Wednesday April 16, @08:00AM (#23088240)

You're mistaken. Teksavvy for example does NOT purchase wholesale internet access, they have their own routes and peering agreements.

If that's the case, they shouldn't be affected by throttling AFAIK

That is why this is so maddening. The throttling, as far as can be determined, happens on the GAS access, before it hits the first ISP(s) router. The data being shaped is not even considered internet traffic yet.

Just nationalize it...

[ArIck (203)]

The Canadian government should just nationalize the last mile cables and have a government agency responsible for maintaining and upgrading the lines. Bell has enjoyed its monopoly position with free right of way, government subsidies and floor pricing set by CRTC so Bell can not complain they made a loss by setting up the line in the first place.... their investment has been multiplied tenfold.

And for those skeptics who think they government would not be able to maintain it I would say this: If they could make our roads run in a decent way, the garbage collection in a decent way then the last mile cabling could be done in a decent way also. Ofcourse if required they could just contract the maintenance out to Bell Canada but then at least the government would be incharge.

Eventually

[Auckerman (223266)]

One day "the people" are going to learn the only thing a company is interested in is making money. They work for the consumer when it's more profitable to work for the consumer than it is to do something that isn't in the interested of the consumer. Network congestion is not solved by throttling, the only thing throttling does is make the internet slower. Which is supposedly the very thing it is supposed to solve.

Of course, that's what they say. Here's the thing, if those guys could figure out a way to charge people for calling me on my phone, they would. Oh, but you say they are already paying for phone coverage, well our phone network is getting over used, we need set priorities, so we are going to direct your call in 5 minutes while more important people (who paid extra) can make calls to out customers right now. Sounds stupid doesn't it. IT'S THE SAME THING THEY ARE PROPOSING.

One thing I don't get, why does something magically get confusing when the words "computer" or "internet" are used in the business discussion? Like somehow it's all of a sudden a debatable thing to talk about?

Oh, that article writer is an idiot. Net Neutrality needs to me set in stone by law, end of story. Networks are made faster by putting in more pipes, not by turning off/down some of them.

Re:Eventually

[Auckerman (223266)]

No, it is the same thing. I pay for my network access, you pay for your network access. I don't pay to access YOUR network to YOUR network company. The agreements between the companies take care of that. The internet functions identically to the phone network. Making ME pay your phone company to call you faster is the same thing as making me pay your internet provider to send you a page faster. They are both same exact thing and both not in the interest of the consumer.

People's confusion?

[Geak (790376)]

I think the issue lies with the fact that Bell itself is confused. Just remember that upper management doesn't know squat about techie stuff like internets and tubes and stuff. The CEO used to work for CN rail - a company he nearly ran into the ground by causing numerous safety issues, firing inspectors for mentioning things that needed repair. He probably just told the techies to "Make it cheaper for us using any and all means possible. Fuck the customers."

Natural Monopoly?

[Chris Acheson (263308)]

It seems kind of odd to claim that last-mile internet access is a natural monopoly, considering that it's subject to "public right-of-way" regulations and fees imposed by local governments.

Separate the infrastructure and the service

[cowwoc2001 (976892)]

The government should be in charge of laying out the infrastructure and lease it to all ISPs at the same price. What they do with it beyond that point is 100% their choice.

The problem with Bell is that they own both the infrastructure and the service, so when they sell the service they give themselves lower infrastructure leasing rates than 3rd-party ISPs and make it impossible for them to compete. By all other accounts Bell is *worse* than all other ISPs. Their own competitive advantage, price, is gained through illegal monopolistic practices.

The government should nationalize the infrastructure and fine the heck out of Bell for their practices.

Bell tactics

[Nesa2 (1142511)]

I switched from Bell in November as soon as they started throttling my traffic.

In March my traffic with TekSavvy was throttled as well due to Bell.

There is no other Internet provider that I can use and get Unlimited Internet usage package at speeds for ADSL or Cable.

Bell as singlehandedly brought their competition to same level of crappy service that they offer. I as consumer have no alternates. There is nothing I can do other than to write to all politicians in my areas, as well as inquire with all Internet providers as to what they are doing to keep me as a customer satisfied and fight Bell.

So far, politicians seem ignorant of the issues and web services all throughout GTA are promising to fight Bell.

While in Europe and Asia people are getting fiber coming up their doorstep, North America is tightening it's belt on innovation, and technology .

We used to be innovators and leaders. What happened here?

personal throttling?

[Znale (1010149)]

I don't understand this networking tech, last mile, independents, but I have personally seen throttling on myself in the last 2 months. I pay $50 a month for the unlimited high speed sympatico since June 2002. About once a week for the last 2 months my download speed drops in the middle of downloads. Last night it went from 400,000 bytes/sec to 40,000 bytes/sec. The only way I have been fixing this is power off the modem then router, waiting, disable/enable the connection and usually 30 minutes later I can be back up to normal, expected, payed for speed. Very annoying.

Wait a sec...

[starshinecruzer (192162)]

So are you saying that small ISPs are the victims here? If we wanted to maintain Net Neutrality, would it be best to petition them or the providers they get their bandwidth from?

Re:Shocked and appalled

[lazy_nihilist (1220868)]

I need an analogy to understand what's happening. :-)

Re:Shocked and appalled

[Itninja (937614)]

The only users who are really inconvenienced by traffic shaping are the system abusers.

So do 'system abusers' = 'people who do more than update their facebook page and read email'? You know there are a lot of legitimate torrents out there (like Linux distos). Not everybody surfxors the Interwebs for pr0n and MP3z you know....

Re:Shocked and appalled

[by Anonymous Coward]

How frequently would one need to download a Linux distro?

As often as I bloody-well please, thank you very much. Of course, the legal use of the protocol in question isn't limited to just Linux distros. There's a vast amount of perfectly legal files that I may wish to download, and as the owner of the bandwidth I use, it is my right to make use of my connection as I deem fit. I pay for a 6Mbps service, and assuming my modem and line are capable of such speeds, they have no right to limit my use of one particular protocol. Traffic is traffic, regardless of what protocol it's riding on. Hypothetically speaking, if I were to sit at my computer surfing the web all day every day for a month straight, saturating my connection the entire time, I likely wouldn't be penalized for such conduct. Why? Because it's all arriving via HTTP, and as far as I can tell, they're not throttling any sort of HTTP traffic. Bell's apparent policies on all of these matters DO NOT make sense, nor are they fair to those of us who utilize technology for things other than piracy.

All of this being said, I've already cancelled my Bell Sympatico residential service earlier this week, to become effective on May 14th. I had previously been a Sympatico customer with the same account for over 6 years. I am sure I am not the only person who's taking such action. Paying good money for a connection capable of 600+ KBps, yet only allows me to achieve 30KBps for torrents, is like me burning my money. Maybe another company will value my cash more than Bell seems to. We shall see, I suppose...

Re:Shocked and appalled

[chrish (4714)]

Torrents aren't just for Linux distros and media piracy. Jamendo [jamendo.com] distributes music via torrent and World of Warcraft updates are torrents, for example. Jamendo might be a small fish, but you probably know at least one person playing WoW.

Managed torrents (like WoW updates) would be an excellent way to distribute operating system patches and updates.

Re:Shocked and appalled

[SpeedyDX (1014595)]

Actually, that's not even remotely true. Rogers used to throttle BT bandwidth. There were legitimate things that I wanted to do with BT that I couldn't. I am a hobbyist photographer, and I sometimes share stock photos with my buddies. I wish I could've used BT to share those huge RAW files, but I couldn't. I also have to download Linux distros, and WoW updates. Those are legitimate actions that I couldn't engage in because of the throttling. Does engaging in those activities make me a "system abuser"?

As far as I can tell, Rogers doesn't throttle anymore since I've experienced up to 10Mbps for some of my BT transfers, and they've actually offered HIGHER throughput since they stopped throttling (from 8Mbps to 10Mbps). They now put, and enforce, an advertised bandwidth cap on all their plans. My particular plan, the highest available, has 95GB of transfer. They also notify you when you reach 75% of your capacity. If their current practices are any indication, I think that "this neutrality business" is actually a very simple thing to solve. I'm getting exactly what they tell me I'm paying for, a 10Mbps line with a 95GB cap. No draconian laws or heavy oversight. The cure is simple. It's to give your customers what you tell them you will. Instead of advertising "unlimited" or "unmetered" bandwidth, offer different bandwidth caps and different throughput levels at different price ranges.

I have to applaud Rogers for doing this. They've gone about it the right way, and I am now a very, very satisfied customer.

Re:Shocked and appalled

[by Anonymous Coward]

If its a good deal or not really isn't the issue (yet).

If my ISP wants to throttle my connection to a specific speed, or only of specific protocols, they can. But goddamnit they NEED to tell me this BEFORE I sign up, so I know what I'm buying.

If I purchase an "unlimited" plan at 10mb's, I expect unlimited usage of that 10 mb like because well shit thats what I'm paying for isn't it?

If my ISP does not want to invest in infrastructure to support growing traffic demands thats their business (a poor decision I think but hey I'm not a stockholder) and therefor can no longer deliver unlimited plans, they need to own up to that. If my ISP can't give me unlimited they need to advertise what they are giving me.

The GP noted he was a happy customer because there was no bullshit, he pays a certain amount and he knows exactly what hes getting.

He didn't sign up for an unlimited plan at 15 mb and find out it drops to 2 mb after the first 10 minutes, he's not getting cut off with no notice because of some sketchy rule in the ToS that lets his ISP decide hes misbehaving, certain services aren't slower than others. He's got a net connection, its got a limit (though if you need more than 95 gigs a month clearly its time to cut back on the pron), but he knows exactly what those limits are.

Sounds fairly decent to me.

Finally it should be interesting to note, since his ISP is selling him throughput, not the connection it self, that it actually provides the ISP incentive to make sure his connection is as fast as possible. A faster connection means hes more likely to go over his limit and incur an extra surcharge, in this case they WANT your BT to work well because if you go nuts on it they make more money.

Re:Shocked and appalled

[besalope (1186101)]

I, for one, am shocked and appalled that a monopoly would abuse its position. Shame on you Bell Canada!

I'm sorry, that's a lie. I just can't get too excited about this type of thing. The only users who are really inconvenienced by traffic shaping are the system abusers. All others use a paltry amount of bandwidth which is not throttled.

The tumult over this neutrality business is boring. The only way to solve this is to enact and enforce draconian laws and heavy oversight to make sure that net neutrality is maintained. The cure is more expensive than the disease.

Makes me sleepy... zedzedzed...

It's more a matter of principle. If I pay over priced rates for X-Level of service, I expect that said ISP meet their legally bound obligations and provide X-Level of service. e.g. If I'm paying for a 10Mb/1Mb then damn well better have a constant 10Mb/1Mb connection, not a 10Mb/1Mb in off hours and a 5Mb/.5Mb during the prime hours.

Re:Shocked and appalled

[malinha (1273344)]

you right, if they can't delivery what they sell, don't sell that much. It's like buying a car that the vendors says it goes to 300km/h but... only gets to 100km/h because you are "abusing" the car you payed for...

Re:Shocked and appalled

[lusiphur69 (455824)]

"The only users who are really inconvenienced by traffic shaping are the system abusers. All others use a paltry amount of bandwidth which is not throttled."

Huh? You've got to be joking. People streaming endless YouToob garbage take up a 'paltry' amount of bandwidth? Large scale data transfers to co-located servers? VOIP applications like Skype? Just about any streaming application takes a significant amount of bandwidth and I suspect that you are aware of this.

The ONLY - your words - users who are inconvenienced are 'system abusers' (your own perjorative)? Here you have adopted the dishonest language of the money-hungry state-supported ISP's.

First off, I fail to understand how a customer who is using their service as advertised (X amount of throughput) can 'abuse' the system. Do they send endless amounts of SYN packet requests? Beat their modems and forget to send them birthday cards? What is your definition of abuse?

I certainly don't call it abuse if I pay 2$ to cross a toll road at a max rate of speed of 55 mph. Nor would I call it abuse if the toll road company offers to allow me 'unlimited' access to the road for 20$ a month, even were I to drive tour buses packed with people down the road, 24/7. If the toll road operator complained about the excessive traffic my bus was generating, they have two options: widen the road or amend the contract. They cannot simply shoot the tires as I pass by in my bus (and everyone else driving a bus), then tell everyone they have improved road service.

Re:Shocked and appalled

[gmack (197796)]

This isn't really a debate about network neutrality. This debate is about Bell throttling traffic on OTHER People's networks.

Bell has no legitimate business interest in how third parties run their network since said third parties have to pay for any resources used.

This is about Bell wanting to raise prices for it's own customers but needing to make sure theres no competition for them to jump to first.

Re:Shocked and appalled

[rubberglove (1066394)]

I am fairly inconvenienced by the fact that my VOIP service has suddenly turned to shit from 4:00 pm to 2:00 am because of a change in Bell's (NOT my ISP's) policies.

Granted, this only happens if I am running bittorrent. However, throttling P2P is one thing, but turning my phone service (which competes directly with Bell's offering) into an echo-y, choppy mess is a whole other ball of wax.

And, yes, I know how to set up QOS on my router to give VOIP priority over BT, but during the throttling period, this doesn't work anymore. That effectively means that during that time I cannot use ANY P2P services, since I haven't yet mastered the ability to predict when other people will call me, or I will urgently need the phone. Furthermore (I could go on all day), it's not even enough to simply stop Bittorrent when someone calls - there seems to be some 'settling time' before my connection gets back to normal, and usually I have to hang up and call back.

I've asked this before: what happens if I need to call 911 suddenly? I know it's probably not the best idea to rely on VOIP for that sort of thing in general, but my phone service has been working great (P2P or not) for the past two years.

And all this without giving any advance warning to the third-party ISPs. They've still yet to explain why that was necessary.

Re:Shocked and appalled

[sabernet (751826)]

CBC(our national broadcaster) has podcasts for many of their shows and is trialing a bittorrent based video distro service.

Now go troll elsewhere, this bridge is too small for you.

Re:Anonymous Coward.S

[MoonlightSeraphim (1253752)]

Actually u are missing a point. Yes they can not provide unlim. to every customer and it is beyond the budget. But no, they can NOT and are NOT allowed to limit my bandwidth just because they advertised unlim. bandwidth plan and I've signed up for such.

That's the spirit!

[NickFortune (613926)]

I, for one, am shocked and appalled that a monopoly would abuse its position. Shame on you Bell Canada!

I'm sorry, that's a lie. I just can't get too excited about this type of thing.

Just out of curiosity, when did we decide that monopolies, and the abuse of power were to be encouraged? Did I miss a memo, or something?

All right everyone, move along, nothing to see here. Free market capitalism is SO Twentieth Century. Everybody move along ...

Re:Shocked and appalled

[Cliffy03 (663924)]

The problem is that any use of DPI is a problem to all. VOIP, VPN and gaming gets caught up in this. And if the majority of people don't get excited about these kind of things, then what is stopping the telcos from doing more to our connection. Replace ads in websites? throttle YouTube? How about blocking sites/services that compete with their own? Start getting excited!

Re:No, you're full of it

[yabos (719499)]

It doesn't matter how much data you transfer per month, YOU ARE ALWAYS THROTTLED. A grannie that tried to download a single torrent that uses 2GB per month is throttled. A person who uses 500GB a month is also throttled. They are not just throttling heavy users. The chance of a grannie downloading a torrent is pretty low but their throttling is also affecting legitimate encrypted traffic such as VPNs.