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:

[Sark666 (756464)]

Just curious, How much of a latency difference does it make? I'm concerned with my voip account and some online gaming.

Also, I was glad to see them offer dry dsl (does anyone else offer that in Canada?). But what is bandrates? This is only listed for dry loop dsl. What's the difference from band a to g?

* Band Rates
Band A $7.25/mo.
Band B $9.10/mo.
Band C $10.22/mo.
Band D $10.98/mo.
Band E $15.91/mo.
Band F $16.20/

Re:

[Random Destruction (866027)]

The band depends on where you live.

And yes, bell offers dry dsl. And they don't even charge an additional fee. That's the only thing keeping me with bell right now. That extra $10 that I'd have to pay anywhere else is just enough to keep me.

Re:

[Sark666 (756464)]

Ok cool, I never knew bell offers dry dsl with no additional charges.

I guess someone paying rate g is far away from the dsl main line? 25 extra a month is pretty damn pricey.

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.

Re:

[Cliffy03 (663924)]

This GAS (Gateway Access service) access is the part that is regulated by the CRTC (tariff 5410). It is the term for "last mile aceess". Any DSL provider uses this service from the incumbent telco. From there they need backhaul bandwidth to their own Internet peering.

Re:

[gmack (197796)]

Not even close to true. In fact Smaller ISPs pay for the bandwidth used at two points:

They pay for the link based on size between their PPPOE authentication servers and Bell's ADSL equipment. If this link fills up it's not Bell that suffers it's the ISP. (I've seen it happen)

They again for outgoing bandwidth with whatever carrier they go with.

There is no performance reason for Bell to throttle the PPPOE connections going to other ISPs. If the other ISP mismanages it's network then either they pay extra o

Re:

[Qzukk (229616)]

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

There's nothing stopping me from forging my own parts from scratch and assembling a pickup truck myself, but that would not excuse Ford from delivering a Pinto when I ordered a F-150.

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.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I hate to agree with you here, I really really do. I think the government should be given as little power as possible and the idea of the government, worse a bureaucracy being in direct control of my net frightens me.

But teleco monopolies have jerked my chain one too many times, and the internet is widespread enough its practically an essential service just like electricity, and at the very least a government agency wouldn't be looking to pay a 7 figure salary to a board of directors so they might actually

Re:

[Pig Hogger (10379)]

But then again, look what the fucktards did to our hydro, so no, they'd probably fuck this up too.

You obviously live in Ontario (where the electric power was privatized during the Nonsense Revolution(TM), and rates tripled since then).

You should move to Québec then where the still-nationalized power is the cheapest in the world, and where the network doesn't crumble (it's the only northeast power grid that didn't go down during the 2003 blackout)...

What?!?

[Comboman (895500)]

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 ... then the last mile cabling could be done in a decent way also.

Where do you live? The roads I drive on are full of potholes and crumbling bridges. The excessive gasoline tax I pay (that is supposed to maintain transportation infrastructure) is siphoned off for other things. You really want the people running our roads to run our internet connections?

Re:

[nologin (256407)]

This isn't required...

The CRTC already has rules that would require Bell Canada to provide other ISPs with last mile access, since there is no viable competitive infrastructure options available. Bell Canada must also provide that last mile at cost to the ISPs as per the CRTC regulations.

Unfortunately, these rules don't appear to cover anything with regards to bandwidth throttling. However, I'm pretty sure that a case can be made with regards to the anti-competitive factors associated with this practice. Th

Re:

[BCGlorfindel (256775)]

The Canadian government should just nationalize the last mile cables and have a government agency responsible for maintaining and upgrading the lines.


Hmmm, in essence it would be nationalizing the internet. I hear Italy and Germany did great things by nationalizing newspapers some time back in the 40's. What's the worst that could happen by nationalizing the modern day equivalent?

Re:

[whisper_jeff (680366)]

You mean things like how well they maintain roads and overpasses in Canada? Kinda like the overpass that collapsed and killed people in Montreal? Yeah. Ok. How about we get them maintaining the fundamental things that can literally mean the difference between life and death well before we ask them to maintain the "extras" like cabling to our homes.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

This has already been done with electricity in Ontario. No one is going without electricity for weeks on end.

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

When is CUPE not on strike?

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.

It's simple economics

[Colin Smith (2679)]

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.

No, that's precisely what happened. Those who could afford a home telephone, had one installed, paid through the nose per minute and were able to connect instantly to whomever they chose. Everyone else used a payphone. What're you, fifteen or something, we've only had ubuiquitous phone coverage for about 30 years.

Areas where flat rate is the norm will inevitably see infrastructure investment stagnation, bandwidth caps, throttling etc etc. With flat rate, there's really no incentive for ISPs to invest in mo

Re:

[Auckerman (223266)]

So you're telling me that you used to have to pay your phone company AND the phone company of the person you were calling in order to make a phone call or the receiving company just might not even put the call through? I couldn't even imagine all the phone bills you got back then.

Metered prices is different than what these guys are doing.

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.

Re:

[Phil246 (803464)]

we do?
that's news to me, having never had to pay to receive a call either on a landline or on a mobile....

Re:

[Gimble (21199)]

I don't think so.

For far too many years to remember, I have never ever paid to receive a call, either via landline or mobile (cell).

We have always paid to make calls, any "free" minutes your package may have, are of course included in the package price.

The only time you have to pay to receive a call is when the caller reverses the charges (call collect), but even then you have the option of whether to accept the call or not.

The only other thing I can think of that may be close to what you're talking about i

Re:

[Gideon Fubar (833343)]

I know this happens with some providers in the US, but i'm not sure about the UK.. it's certainly not universal.

Also, your sig rocks. Space Dinosaurs ftw.

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.

Re:

[dadragon (177695)]

SaskTel just upgraded their Saskatchewan infrastructure. They upgraded 10 cities in the province, with a total population of around 600K people. It cost them ~$300 million.

You want to invest $500 per person? With no guarantees about ROI? That's 600K people who also could use a competitor's service.

It's safe to say that the barrier for entry is pretty high.

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?

Re:

[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:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

I hate when people bring up the Linux distro argument. Even if you were to download a DVD sized Linux distro every month (which would be quite odd) I'm sure they still wouldn't have a problem with it. If that's all people ere doing, there would be no problem. If it was just people downloading MP3s, they probably wouldn't complain either. What they are complaining about is the people who download 2 or 3 movies every day. These people exist, and they put a real strain on the network. If you want 300 GB

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:

[Danse (1026)]

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?

That's the issue isn't it? The question is did you actually purchase an "unlimited" plan, or did you purchased an "unlimited*" plan? There is a difference.

Re:

[Qzukk (229616)]

So you like being ripped off by Rogers. Not surprising.

At least they're not lying to their subscribers, unlike Bell. He's making an informed decision, instead of being defrauded like everyone else.

Re:

[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:

[Danse (1026)]

dude...

that is the lamest car analogy EVER

Not by a long shot. Actually, a speed governor on a car that is capable of much higher speeds is a very apt analogy in this case. Better than most other analogies I've seen.

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:

[earthforce_1 (454968)]

Unfortunately, they can and do put in "traffic calming" infrastructure downgrades which is analogous to what Bell is doing. But that is a gripe for another day...

I'd certainly like to get what I pay for

[phorm (591458)]

Yes, all I have to say to the grandparent is *screw you*.

I run a small webserver through my account with Teksavvy, which leases lines from Bell. In the last while I've noticed that my encrypted traffic (IMAPS in particular) when connecting to home has been shit during the day, but fine during the night. From various things I've read online it appears that the times for this coincide nicely with the periods when Bell likes to mess with traffic.

It's not just torrents that Bell is messing up, there is coll

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

What if you were transporting wide loads down the toll road at 10 KM/H and ruining the use of the road for everyone else. The road can only be so wide. Only so many cars can fit on that road at any time. If you are downloading at full speed 24/7, then you are using up bandwidth that others can't use, and ruining their experience. Granted, I don't think that any ISP should ever offer unlimited service, as it is impossible for them to provide. But saying that just because they don't specifically say you

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:

[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.

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 ...