Canadian ISP Ordered to Prove Traffic-Shaping is Needed

Sepiraph writes "In a letter sent to the Canadian Association of Internet Providers and Bell Canada on May 15, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) have ordered Bell Canada to provide tangible evidence that its broadband networks are congested to justify the company's Internet traffic-shaping policies. This is a response after Bell planned to tackle the issue of traffic shaping, also called throttling, on the company's broadband networks. It would be interesting to see Bell's response, as well as to see some real-world actual numbers and compare them to a previous study."

Hey what about common decency

[slysithesuperspy]

One thing that confuses the US net neutrality debate is that the ISPs have got massive subsidies in return for apparently better services, which have not occurred. If everyone bit the bullet and accepted they are not going to get them then everything could move on. They have wronged by handing out monopolies and they have wronged by subsidising them. Another wrong isn't going to fix the system. Just allow proper competition. (Yea sorry I didn't get to read this article but i want to go to bed now :) ) Anyway, there was blatantly no net neutrality in the first place.

Wrong evidence to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather have the CRTC ask Bell Canada to provide tangible evidence that the laws of arthmetic failed when they computed the bandwidth available to each customer.

Re:Hurray!

[ark1]

Even if Bell can not prove at the moment the network usage is saturated all they have to do is wait and do not invest a penny in new infrastructure. Eventually the network will be saturated and Bell will win. They can even help themselves by selling a server or two to speed up the process.

Re:Hurray!

[benad]

So you're saying (if you read the article) that Bell can find a way to saturate their bandwidth by the end of the month? I'd be really impressed if Bell can manage to stall the CRTC for much longer.

Re:Hurray!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except if Bell can be shown to be falling down with respect to deploying the _necessary_ infrastructure to support telecommunications, they might be penalized in subsidies or something.

They've been granted a (partial) monopoly in order to ensure the infrastructure gets built. If they say it's not big enough, then they're likely to look silly and be told to build more.

There actions are would still not be justified

[Cyko_01]

they made promises they can't live up to and now they are handling it by censoring the internet. I don't care if it is "necessary", they screwed up and it should be handled in a responsible way - by upgrading the network

It's a trap!!!111one

[eagl]

This is funny. If they can "prove" that traffic shaping is necessary, they have essentially proven that they are unable to provide the services they are charging people for. No matter what their proof looks like, they're hosed. Either they will be forced to quit traffic shaping and admit they don't need to do it, or they'll be open to class action lawsuits for failing to provide contracted services.

I don't feel too sorry for them... The telcos tear up the street every couple of years and I still don't have fiber to my house. To hell with them. The concept of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders has gone way too far, and it's time that service companies get a little legal protection when they choose to provide their customers with their contracted service instead of making an extra penny for their shareholders. Just look at the yahoo debacle... The company leadership might actually end up IN JAIL for trying to do the "right thing" for the company and their customers, because a couple shareholders are pissed they couldn't make a fast buck by selling out to Microsoft. That is a complete perversion of the concept of fiduciary responsibility, and our legal system ought to provide for companies that actually attempt to stay in business and fulfill their contracts with their customers.

Re:Really, really bad idea for Bell.

[spazdor]

You must have a source on the 200B story that doesn't cost $20 to read.

This is the Internet, for Pete's sake!

Re:Hurray!

[TubeSteak]

[1] a) Bell Canada states that 5% of users were generating 60% of total traffic and 60% of that traffic was P2P traffic...

[2] d) ... During peak periods before deployment of its traffic management solution, 60% of total traffic corresponded to 33% of available bandwidth. Commission staff notes that 100% of the total traffic would correspond to 55% (100/60 x 33%) of the available bandwidth. Provide a detailed explanation of why utilization of 55% of available bandwidth would require the use of traffic management to ease congestion.

I can't wait to hear their explanation for 55% utilization requiring throttling. At worst, they would have to throttle certain links

If their clever plan involves sitting around and waiting for the network to get saturated, they might be waiting for a while.

Re:Hurray!

[Darkness404]

That's called fraud.

Many things big businesses do are illegal, just look at MS, both the EU and US found them engaging in anti-competitive practices, MS just said what are you going to do about it and still continues to. Most ISPs can do the same thing, if you want high-speed internet, who else are you going to turn to other then those who offer it regardless if they throttle, overcharge and inject ads into your internet.

Re:Hey what about common decency

[Smidge204]

How do you allow "proper competition" in the ISP market? How many sets of wires will you run to every house? How many antennas will you have to erect and satellites to put into orbit? How many data centers and backbone hubs can you build?

Net Neutrality is based on the fact that, at some point, your data will have to flow through a competitor's infrastructure.

In the past, when the internet was still in its infancy, there was little need for net neutrality; bandwidth was simply another commodity. Today, there are data services - streaming media, VoIP, internet applications, etc. - and there is financial incentive to make bandwidth a resource. Companies are looking at converting their infrastructure from a simple toll road (pay for the privilege of using X bandwidth) into toll roads that discriminate on what type of vehicle and cargo you're carrying AND limiting your speed based on how much you've paid. Oh, and the same cargo from their own company gets a free ride, high priority.

So much for competition in that environment.
=Smidge=

Re:Hey what about common decency

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you allow "proper competition" in the ISP market?

Easy. You separate the entity that owns the wires (the distributor) from the provider of services (the retailer).

Distributor: I don't care who is buying my lines or for what purpose, as long as they give me my money.

Retailer: I'm in competition with 50 other retailers in this locale; I better provide competitive service or I lose my customers.

Re:Hurray!

[urcreepyneighbor]

Don't celebrate, yet.

Here's the deal: The ISP is going to produce a bullshit report that will be taken as The Gospel Truth from the Mountain that was Hand-Delivered by Moses Himself - by those that matter, anyway - and it will be used to justify each and every new attack on the proles.

Do you honestly believe that politicians, who need contributions to get re-elected, will bite the hands that feed them? American, Canadian, African - it doesn't matter.

The system is rigged to fuck us. Accept it and act accordingly.

Re:A fortuitious happenstance

[n dot l]

Bell insisted there was absolutely nothing wrong with the connection.

Heh. I know people that have bribed Rogers managers to get their connection fixed. No joke. A friend of mine, who grew up in the USSR, has a saying for this sort of thing; it's something to the effect of, "Each day a little of the old country follows me across the sea."

I hope Bell gets crucified.

Me too. In fact, I've got a big, old, rusty, railroad spike I'm going to save for just such an occasion.

Re:Hurray!

[Concerned Onlooker]

I'm sure people will start taking responsibility for their actions. Just as soon as corporations do.

Re:I want to see how Bell tries to answer this....

[Tuoqui]

Yeah anytime I try to do anything encrypted over the net (including bittorrent) my connection grinds to a halt.

The good thing about this is if they're forced to remove the throttling from wholesalers connections... They they will either be forced to remove the throttling from their own services or be relegated to merely a supplier of internet capacity. This is why they have went out of their way to throttle their wholesaler's connections because they were having to throttle their own connections.

Hopefully the CRTC wont eat the garbage they spit up infront of them and actually put their foot down and decree the Net Neutrality principles (or common carrier) as having precedence over their bottom line.

Re:Hurray!

[Gorshkov]

Repeat after me: People read their contracts, refused the throttling, went with a provider that didn't throttle, and got fucked anyway

And some of us who ARE with Bell, signed on with Bell years ago, when throttling wasn't even mentioned in the contract.

Possible Solution

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Crime amongst the wealthy is a considerable problem. Corporations (and other obscenely wealthy folk) commit these crimes because they can, and they know that even if they are caught, it becomes more of an inconvenience than a problem. Compare that to a middle-class home, who would be devastated by fines that the rich can simply take in their stride. It's a one size fits all approach, and it doesn't work.

I propose that we scale fines to the income of the guilty party. Give out fines as percentages of yearly income. You could take the income records from last years tax time and fine a certain portion of that amount. If you commit a particularly serious crime, you may be charged as much as 50% of your yearly income, which would be equally devastating for anyone, no matter how much money they have. Fines would become a deterrent for all. Suddenly, breaking the law routinely doesn't seem to be such a financially viable business strategy.

Of course, the deterrent factor becomes less reliable on the very bottom of the scale. If a person has no money, then there would be no punishment, and consequently, they could do what they want. It also wouldn't cover damages to specific parties. We wouldn't want a situation where the fine is less expensive than the damage of the act itself. Whatever the problems, though, I think this idea has potential.

Re:Hurray!

[compro01]

Explain to me how you believe that someone agrees to allow Bell to shape their traffic without having signed a contract with Bell.

Re:Possible Solution

[YttriumOxide]

I've given the idea a bit of thought before, but I don't see how it could work.

The problem is that there really is an "actual cap" on cost of living. I'm quite sure that losing "50% of one's income" is a lot more painful to an individual that earns $30000 a year compared to one that earns $5000000 a year.

Were I to earn $5000000 a year, I'd certainly live nicer than I do now on a little over 1/50th of that, but I really do NOT think I'd spend 50 times as much on normal life. A great deal would go in to "large" investments and the rest would probably just get invested by whoever I hired to look after my finances. Losing half of it would make me annoyed, but wouldn't greatly affect my lifestyle.

Re:Hurray!

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Corporations, unions, and other organizations are not allowed to contribute at all.

Actually I think they are only limited monetarily - they are allowed to donate as much labour as they want. Which can be considerable in many situations.

Re:Ridiculous

[compro01]

and allowing more lines will cause tons of money to magically appear to run new lines? the startup cost of running new lines is enormous. it would be impossible to compete when the other guy already has an infrastructure and you have to build one from scratch.

and it's not their property. a whole lot of the people's money was given to them to build that infrastructure, so you you think we should let them do what they like with practically public property, i would recommend you visit a competent psychologist.