Canadian ISP Ordered to Prove Traffic-Shaping is Needed 177
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."
A fortuitious happenstance (Score:5, Interesting)
How convenient (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, really bad idea for Bell. (Score:5, Interesting)
They won't win by sitting on their hands and had better get moving. They tried that back in US back in the 80s and lost big time. It has taken ATT the last 20 years to lie cheat and steal their way back to government protected monopoly status and they are about to lose it all again. Your government is not the only one feeling redfaced about the pathetic network capacity they got in return for $200 billion and a lot of promisses [newnetworks.com]. The next monopoly break up is not going to leave pieces large enough to grasp - it's going to be spectrum liberation [reed.com], and that will be the end of all traditional broadcast and telcos. The more they piss their customers off, the sooner customers will realize what a fraud traditional telco is.
Still... (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not sure what the point is.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hey what about common decency (Score:5, Interesting)
Every now and then, Governments crack down on waste/fraud/etc, usually by making an example of someone. The only reason they don't do it more often is due to the sheer scope of the spending that goes on.
Personally, I'd rather spend all that wasted money on oversight than leave it to a for-profit company receiving handouts they shouldn't be getting.
Re:Hurray! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's a trap!!!111one (Score:3, Interesting)
The ISP is complaining that a minority of users are blowing the ratios out of whack and that they need to do something about it. We'll see what their numbers show.
Re:Hey what about common decency (Score:4, Interesting)
Common Carrier rules said that you, as the owner of the copper wire telephone infrastructure, are not allowed to deny a third party company from offering services over your lines and must offer consistent pricing for use of your infrastructure. This is why you could change your phone company and dialup ISP without a tech coming by and running a new pair of copper wires to your house each time.
With broadband, cable and fiber-optic, those rules don't apply. If I decide I don't want Verizon's FiOS internet any more, whatever I get can't use the fiber run to my house. That means my options are strictly limited to the infrastructure available in my area, each of which is monopolized by a particular company. In my case, it's Verizon vs. Cablevision.
If another company comes along and wants to offer fiber or cable data services, they will have to run their own lines or pay extortion fees to the existing companies (and there is no law requiring them to lease bandwidth to third party providers like there was with POTS)
That's also what Net Neutrality is about.
=Smidge=
Re:Hey what about common decency (Score:5, Interesting)
Because there certainly WAS net neutrality in the USA up until just recently, 2005 in fact, when the SCOTUS ruled that ISPs provide "information services" rather than "telecommunications services." [techlawjournal.com] The net effect was that the "tariffs" (fancy word for rules) that insure network neutrality on the phone network (aka a telecommunication service) no longer applied to ISPs. You'll note that it was in late 2005 - right after the ruling in fact - when all the ISPs started making noise about "google using our networks for free" etc, etc.
ISP's need to put up the S and P. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hey what about common decency (Score:5, Interesting)
There was an interview on the radio with a young girl from Bhutan who was visiting the US for the first time. While she was surprised by many things here (obese people, clean toilets, etc), she was positively amazed to learn that banks, phone companies and hospitals weren't run by the government.
She couldn't understand how private companies can be allowed to provide these services.
Your post reminds me of her. Just because you cannot think of a solution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Re:ISP's need to put up the S and P. (Score:3, Interesting)
They sold me "20 MB/s" cable service. That suggests to me (and the rest of the plaintiffs) that it should be 20 MegaBytes per second. VM claim (of course) that it's 20 MegaBits per second.
They then apply "STM" - Subscriber Traffic Management. The effect of this is that if you download anything for just 20 minutes in any day, your data rate is reduced to 25% of your rated speed...
Virgin Media have a monopoly on cable 'net connections in the UK, and ADSL simply isn't an option in most areas - we have the oldest telephone lines in the world!
Re:Hurray! (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that Bell are the scumbags in this story, but there may unfortunately be a problem... They may be able to pass at least some of the blame on to people that don't really deserve it - the downstream smaller ISPs.
1) Person looks at Bell's contract and decides he doesn't want his traffic shaped.
2) He then goes to a smaller ISP ('Small ISP Co') and sees that according to their contract, his traffic won't be shaped.
3) He signs up with them.
4) His traffic gets shaped by the upstream provider (i.e. Bell) of that small ISP.
5) Person complains about his traffic being shaped, when his contract said it wouldn't be.
6) Bell says "well, your contract is with 'Small ISP Co', take it up with them".
7) Person sues 'Small ISP Co' for breach of contract.
In the above scenario it doesn't matter that 'Small ISP Co' didn't shape traffic. They offered an unshaped service, and didn't provide it. The burden was on them to provide an unshaped service, and when Bell began shaping their customers, should have moved to another upstream provider that doesn't.
Of course, the entire scenario outlined above is ridiculous - 'Small ISP Co' has no choice in their upstream provider, and so were completely unable to fulfil the promise of their contract no matter how much they wanted to. What this means, is that there is a monopoly, and that that monopoly may be abusing its power. The action taken (ordering them to prove they need to shape traffic) seems entirely sensible to me given that if they are unable to prove it, they must immediately stop doing it (and preferably make reparation to companies or individuals that have been hurt by it, but I unfortunately can't see that happening)
Now, here's an interesting question... sure, Bell are scumbags, but exactly how MUCH is 'Small ISP Co' to blame as well? I think a lot of that depends on their contract with Bell as an upstream provider. If Bell MAY shape traffic according to that contract, then the promise made from 'Small ISP Co' to the customer for unshaped traffic is not a promise that they have any way to keep. This is quite illegal in most countries I know of (I don't KNOW if it is in Canada, but I guess it is)
And lastly, the usual disclaimer at the end here: IANAL, so I might just be talking out my arse.
The only equitable answer (Score:5, Interesting)
So you need in a corporation, the CEO and the Board put on selection for jail time for malfeasance of the corporation. Then the people in the chain of command down to the one that did the deed needs to be up for jail time. And if someone is fingered for having told the noob to do this, they get put toward it too. If the CEO/Board can show that they were being deliberately misled despite their best efforts, then their jail time is commuted down to the person they have as the one doing the flim-flam (if the court and/or jury buys it).
And employment of people jailed should be followed at each level. So if your grunt can't get employed after a jail term, neither can the CEO.
Fines should come from these people and no bonuses should be allowed for those the court deem responsible for those fines.
Re:Hurray! (Score:2, Interesting)
Open up the access (Score:5, Interesting)
And the same thing happened in the US with companies like Rhythms [thestandard.com]. In a nut shell the people who owned the wire tripped on power cables, disconnected networks by accident. Always took day to fix and harassed Rhythms out of business. And I can say, they had good service until the games with SBC. It was good while the government assured it was fair, but decayed immediately when the government left the scene.
The real solution is to say the home owner owns the wire and _anyone_ to the pole can use it for no charge. Take away the dominance and open up competition. Make it illegal for any city to limit franchise access to less than say 4 companies. Allow wireless to the pole for rapid deployment. Make it easy to compete against these Bells and Telus companies. Maybe even broaden this up and include Rogers and Shaw.
I knew of a case in a small community where Telus said internet, ISDN was $250 mo. plus a hefty install charge. They stated they couldn't do it cheaper. Some entrepreneurs did high speed for $79 month. All of a sudden Telus could do it for $29 and put them out of business. The rates are now back up to $79 in that community. A typical story in this business. It is also why savvy investors don't invest in alternatives, they know Bell/Telus/MTS in their regions are monopolies.
If I tried to offer US satilitte TV and a wireless Internet in my neighborhood with a mesh network, how long would it be before I needed a good lawyer?
Re:Hey what about common decency (Score:4, Interesting)
Step 1: The government and private organizations continue to fund it. From the major hub cities, data is run out to other communities (e.g. from Calgary to Edmonton, Vancouver to Victoria, etc).
Step 2: In the major hub cities, lines are run out to each household. Now everyone has government-owned FTTH.
Step 3: Existing 'infrastructure companies' like Telus, Rogers, Shaw, Bell, and so on no longer have to maintain their own networks. They sell their current infrastructure, or parts of it, to the project (this can be done as part of Steps 1 and 2 as well).
Step 4: Existing 'service companies' like Telus, Rogers, Shaw, Bell, and anyone else with content to push, provides their services over this line, paying an access fee to help maintaint he network.
Example use: Each endpoint is a unique node ID. Phone numbers are mapped to node IDs, so existing phones will continue to work for people who don't want (or don't understand) fancy new technology. New phones, however, can take advantage of far more advanced directory services. If I meet someone at a party, I can look them up in the directory, but only be aware of them. If I want to contact them, I can make a request to do so (like making a phone call).
I can also add the phone number to my 'phone book' (which I can transfer to my computer, cell phone, and so on). The person on the other end knows who I am, and can choose to block me if they don't want to talk to me (e.g. harassing phone calls). People still have the option of making 'anonymous calls' (which can be enabled by default), but some 'contacts' won't allow anonymous calls (e.g. myself), and some will always be anonymous (e.g. the various social services hotlines for abuse, teen pregnancy, depression, etc).
Cable companies move from infrastructure maintainers to content aggregators. Suddenly, anyone and their dog can pay the system access fee and opt to provide a service to customers, but if HBO and NBC and CBC don't want to do it themselves, they sign contracts with Rogers, Shaw, etc. who make packages for consumers to provide these 'channels' (or even just pure 'content').
Theoretically, you could get the movie channels through Shaw, regular channels through Rogers, and a 'sports package' through SportsNet so you can watch every hockey game of the season.
The new digital infrastructure allows certain rules for each content provision. For example, SportsNet could allow you to go back and watch any game in the current season; an additional fee allows access to previous seasons. Shaw's movie channels package might let you choose from any movie that's made available for as long as it's made available ('Oh, Ghostbusters 2 is on the movie network this week, let's watch it on Thursday'). Rogers' package might include the major networks, and let you go back to watch any of the season's episodes of Lost, Grey's Anatomy, and Stargate.
Oh, if only I were in charge of the world...