Vuze Study Exposes P2P Throttling By Canadian ISP Cogeco

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.

Keep pushing.

[Thanshin]

I wonder what will businessmen of the future think when they read about how full encryption came to be, taking into account it's speed and complexity problems.

False advertising?

[fastest fascist]

It seems to me that when an ISP states they do not throttle traffic and secretly do so anyway, they are giving their customers a false representation of the product they sell. Probably their EULA gives them the right to throttle traffic, but does it give them the right to lie about it?

I believe traffic shaping is ok...

[graymocker]

... when it's transparent and disclosed. If ISPs believe that traffic shaping is a legitimate cost management solution that most customers wouldn't mind, then fine, make the legitimate case: use traffic shaping and disclose the existence of traffic shaping in your plans the same way maximum bandwidth is disclosed, and we'll let the market decide. Personally, I believe that enough customers wouldn't mind traffic shaping, bandwidth throttling and caps, etc. that in the future we might see different priced "tiers" of internet service, which is fine with me as that would make service pricing more representative of internet use. My ISP wants to bandwidth cap my internet service? Fine, if they disclose these caps at the time that I sign up. Then I'd be free to negotiate with another provider or sign up for a better plan. It's the fact that ISPs today advertise one thing and then deliver another that's truly offensive.

The sneaky underhanded meddling with the service of customers that have existing contracts just undermines the ISPs' case and suggests to regulators and customers that they aren't interested in honestly selling a service.

Was anyone as surprised as I was ...

[NotBornYesterday]

... when they read the networks with the worst median reset rates from the appendix of the report?

UIUC - University of Illinois - 90.69%
WN-AZ-AS - Arizona Tri University Network - 89.33%

I'm not saying there is anything nefarious going on there. These networks were only sampled for a short time by a small set of users. The results gathered might not be generally representative of those networks. But it does make you wonder. Are they are blocking / shaping traffic, or do they have a massively overwhelmed network? Other?

Re:False advertising?

[DragonTHC]

There has been a sense of security about the eula. I happen to believe that burying a clause in the eula that completely contradicts the open advertisement should be actionable. It's a violation of good faith trust that I had unduly placed in the company. I also happen to believe that placing 'future-proof' clauses in eulas and other such contracts and agreements is unconstitutional. basically those clauses that state, "we have the right to change anything in the contract without notice at any time" is stating, we can do what we want and you can't do anything about it. I believe that is essentially agreeing to waive your rights. We know from our founding documents that certain rights are inalienable. The right to have a fair and stable contract is one of them.

Re:this is why we need competition

[erroneus]

Without question. If fact, I would go so far as to say that there should be laws written about infrastructure ownership.

We, the people, should own ALL things "infrastructure" and allow companies to use it for providing services. AT&T can't be allowed to own the wires and switches any longer. Comcast can't be allowed to own the cables any longer. And rather like patents and copyrights, these monopolies should be allowed for only a specified amount of time but should not exceed the time it takes to recoup the costs of building the infrastructure. After that, they lose their monopoly. (And to add incentive to these parties, they can extend their temporary monopolies any time they upgrade the infrastructure...say by putting fiber at EVERY door.)

They have gotten away with cherry picking and raising prices without improving services for far too long. Their regional monopolies demonstrably harm the consumer. I find it amazing what they have been getting away with.

Re:this is why we need competition

[electrictroy]

>>>"has'nt history already proven that competition naturally drift towards monopolization?"

No. On the contrary history has shown that IF a company becomes a monopoly and starts "raping" its customers with outrageous prices, then another competitor will rise-up to provide cheaper alternatives:

- Itunes replaced the CD cartel
- Dish television broke the back of local cable tv monopolies by offering cheaper service
- And now FiOS is providing another form of competition

- The railroads had monopolized passenger travel in the 1880-90s... until someone invented a steam car, and then a gasoline car. Now the railroads don't have a monopoly.
- Standard Oil has a monopoly on PA/Ohio oil fields... until somebody discovered oil in Texas and broke the back of Standard Oil.
- And on
- and on
- and on.

A monopoly can not long exist in a natural state - it will soon be faced with other competing companies. The only monopoly that exists long-term is the type of monopoly that is in collusion with government. (Such as the DeBeers Company that has been granted monopoly in Southh Africa by the government.) If the government would step-aside, then real competition would return.

Which is why I've said many times, the government should allow 3-4 cables to run in parallel to each person's home, thus providing a real choice amongst Cable/Internet providers.

Re:this is why we need competition

[mmurphy000]

I know you're thinking "cables", but could it also mean the healthcare system?

A neighborhood can only have so many buried cables before they start conflicting with each other, with water/sewer/gas lines, etc., particularly since each cable must reach each house. Talk to a civil engineer sometime about the royal PITA known as "Miss Utility" or "OneCall" or the equivalent.

The same neighborhood can have many healthcare providers without similar conflicts. Healthcare is far less a natural monopoly than is sewer service, or roads, or cables.

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.

In the abstract, you'll get no complaints from me. The question, though, is where the competition lies. Just because some portion of the service is community-owned (e.g., roads) doesn't preclude competition at other levels (e.g., package delivery services). Just because the city owns the water and sewer lines doesn't preclude competition among Roto-Rooter and similar home plumbing franchises. Similarly, just because a town decides to own the physical cabling would not preclude competition among firms wishing to use said cabling to provide communication services.