Vuze Study Exposes P2P Throttling By Canadian ISP Cogeco 117
urbanriot writes "Despite a growing number of complaints on the popular North American consumer broadband site BroadbandReports, employees working for the Canadian cable internet provider Cogeco have publicly denied interfering with torrents on their network. However, a recent plugin put out by the Vuze team exposed Cogeco of being the second worst ISP globally, of those tested. So far, Cogeco has failed to respond to these findings, but recent coverage from the mainstream media and Michael Geist may prompt them to finally admit to their controversial practices."
The report by the Vuze team has some interesting information about other ISPs from around the world as well. Prior to this, Bell Canada was taking most of the flak in Canada for traffic management.
this is why we need competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad ISPs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this is why we need competition (Score:5, Insightful)
How to advertise.... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Tired of the internet pig next door downloading illegal movies next door and bringing YOUR service to a crawl?
Working from home and your work just sits there because the guy next door is sharing all of his music with the rest of the world?
The sex addict down the street is sucking up your internet - BUY FROM US!
We don't feed the internet pigs!
Sign up with us and get your work done!
(in mice type) we throttle P2P, bitorrent, etc...."
See, no probelm.
Re:this is why we need competition (Score:2, Insightful)
I know you're thinking "cables", but could it also mean the healthcare system? How about food stores? Clothing stores? Or perhaps the land that everybody sits their house upon? Maybe the houses themselves could be considered "infrastructure" and should be owned collectively by the government?
Ooops, I just used the word collectivism.
So much for free will of the individual.
"HISTORY has shown that Government is like fire: a troublesome servant & a DEADLY master. Never should it be allowed to trample upon the individual liberties we fought to secure." - George Washington. You can not have government control of the Infrastructure and individual freedom at the same time. When government is in control, it suppresses the individual to the will of the state, and imprisons or kills those who refuse to be trampled. Hence Washington's description of government as a "deadly" master.
It is a wiser course to pursue a "pro-choice" position that seeks to provide multiple choices, and places the power of decision in the hands of the citizen. i.e. A policy that empowers the individual.
Re:this is why we need competition (Score:2, Insightful)
Well it's still better than what happens when the companies have control. The government is somewhat forced to make it better for the people but companies have no interest in caring for their customers as long as they get the money. And considering the owners of the company are still people they have immunity over the will of the customers (unless they do something illegal but they usually are careful with that). That immunity is granted by the government, which in theory is the expression of the people. Now that is not right at all.
Incompetence v.s. Malevolence (Score:2, Insightful)
And having a mix of the two makes it even easier to hide behind plausible deniability. Because placing the right person at the right place, i.e. the worst net admin on the most loaded network might be just what it takes.
Re:this is why we need competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:this is why we need competition (Score:2, Insightful)
Utility and internet companies should own their own infrastructure. The only acceptable options are either:
a) One company delivering services to specific areas. This is a great way of securing personal liberty. Don't like the broadband provider for your area? Move house! Don't like the electricity provider in your new area? Move again! Wait, now you have a problem with your telephone provider? Move again, and this time do your research. Remember, market forces are the only thing these companies understand. When everybody leaves town, they're bound to upgrade the network.
b) Multiple series of cables running along the street. After all, what could be better than power and phone lines running down the street? Five sets! Who needs a footpath anyway? And what good is a footpath if we can't rip it up every time a new player comes to town? Pedestrians are chumps, too bloody lazy to learn how to drive, that's their problem.
Wait, no. Now that I type that, it starts to make a bit less sense.
I mean, what will we be advocating next? Putting roading into private hands? I don't even want to imagine that scenario.
I have to admit, I don't live in America, so I don't share your views on healthcare. I live in one of those really weird countries with universal healthcare. For some reason though, we still have medical insurance companies. How weird is that? Our central healthcare system is government owned and yet we have a choice in the provider of our medical care.
Anyway, I'm rambling now and I've started to forget the point I had in mind when I started writing. Bleh. Too late at night for a decent post. But I will say this: Government control is not the only option when it comes to public ownership. Utility cooperatives are one example. You seem to find the idea of a collective or cooperative scary though, for some reason. Think of it this way though, your infrastructure can be owned by:
1) A private company which is out for only one purpose, to make dollars. Any corners which can be cut will be cut, and no infrastructure upgrades will be rolled out until after they are needed.
2) The government. There aren't many governments which aren't bureaucratic, but if they aren't they tend to be totalitarian. Governments are very good at knowing what's best for you, which is an added bonus.
3) A cooperative owned by the people who are provided the service. Decisions on changes to the infrastructure are voted on by members. Can you imagine that? You telling the company what to do? How completely backwards that would be!
Right, right. Time to make my main point and then shut up. Your post does nothing to support choice. Allowing private enterprises to have monopolies and own infrastructure severely damages the ability for new players to enter the market. Remember that the monopoly is the antithesis of the free market, a monopolistic power crushes all competition.
Re:False advertising? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for contract modification, these are not "one-time" contracts but continuing agreements. You can terminate at any time and so can they. Where there is an equipment lock-in, then substantial changes should give you the right to terminate without payback. I doubt a court would disagree.
Flawed Study (Score:3, Insightful)