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."
Hurray! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
New Program: Free internet for all! Get it while it's hot!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They can even help themselves by selling a server or two to speed up the process.
"""
That's called fraud.
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Hurray! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the US nor is it the EU, it's Canada. And the CRTC is here to protect consumers, etc. And guess what. They actually do there job some of the time. Welcome to a country where corruption isn't total in government orgs (at least yet).
CRTC is a double edge sword, I can't legally get SciFi in Canada and Space sucks. I swear the Canadian production of Outer Limits, we control what you see and hear...had a certain inside meaning in Canada.
But I hear you on this one, I hope the CRTC nails Bell for discriminatory business practices.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I live within a few miles of the production studios for Stargate, Stargate Atlantis, BSG etc. Yet when I turn to TV I'm seeing "new" episodes a year, or even two, after they were aired in the US (and rest of the world too probably). It's laughable that I can download a current episode while my neighbour is watching the "newest" broadcast one which is from one or two seasons ago.
But yeah, I agree occasionally the CRTC does some good. Too bad we can't get Bell users to lay off the downloading for the
Possible Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Possible Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
If I was making 5mil a year and took a 2.5mil hit due to a fine, I'd be pretty pissed off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, it's far more fair than the current fine levels.
If I get a $500 fine I'll feel it, if someone making 5mil gets the same fine, they laugh and say "I spend that much on dinner".
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: (Score:2)
Also many people continue to believe this even when faced with evidence otherwise. Consider the way that politicans continue to be trusted even after they have been caught telling lies about virtually everything.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Really, really bad idea for Bell. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the Internet, for Pete's sake!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Insightful)
[2] d)
If their clever plan involves sitting around and waiting for the network to get saturated, they might be waiting for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hurray! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Individuals in Canada are restricted in the amount they're allowed to contribute to political campaigns. Corporations, unions, and other organizations are not allowed to contribute at all. The politicians still love to suck up to large corporations, but that's more of a Good Old Boys thing rather than a bribery thing.
Re: (Score:2)
However, doesn't matter.
Good little boys and girls will be rewarded - somehow, someway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Hurray! (Score:4, Informative)
Protecting your rights? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 psychologi
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Bell doesn't have a monopoly on internet access in Canada.
Correct, but they own the infrastructure and have been throttling the competition, which is effectively circumventing CRTC regulations requiring them to lease lines to competitors.
Ok, so when are Bell's competition going to start deploying their own infrastructure as was the original plan? The Baby Bell's (and really anybody with a few thousand dollars, some rack space and ambition) have been piggy-backing on Bell's infrastructure, directly competing with Bell for years and not actually deploying any major infrastructure of their own.
So Bell does all the heavy lifting and the little guys come in and ride their coat tails. Seems fair enough to me.
So back to the topic at hand; le
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So Bell does all the heavy lifting and the little guys come in and ride their coat tails. Seems fair enough to me.
It's not like it's a free ride. The ISPs are paying Bell a regulated rate for the use of their infrastructure. If their users use more bandwidth, the ISP pays for it. If the price being paid to Bell is not fair, then Bell just needs to demonstrate that to the CRTC.
In an ideal world, there would be free competition, but that's not the situation we find ourselves in. Why? Because Bell has a huge advantage as a result of the network that it built, over the last century or so, while operating a government-gran
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bell is paid by the 3rd party ISPs to carry this traffic and the amount they get for this is us
Re:Hurray! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say that you have no idea what you are talking about, and no idea what this whole matter is about. Here's what happened:
People who didn't want Bell's throttling read Bell's contract and decided they didn't want it. Instead, they went and got their internet service from a competitor. Unfortunately, since Bell owns the wires, every competitor in the DSL business has to rent bandwidth wholesale from Bell. At first, Bell didn't throttle the wholesale bandwidth, and the competitors could then offer contracts that had no throttling to their customers. Then, without notice, Bell throttles the wholesalers. So even though people read the contracts and refused to agree with throttling, they still get fucked by Bell even though they get their service from a competitor. Reference here [slashdot.org].
Repeat after me: People read their contracts, refused the throttling, went with a provider that didn't throttle, and got fucked anyway. Please... stop talking out of your ass now.
Re:Hurray! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ridiculous argument (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hurray! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bell rents the lines out by tunneling the pppoe connection right to the reseller isp so the isp can traffic shape if they want to. Bell has right to force business decisions on third party isps since they pay for all of the resources they use.
Re: (Score:2)
Bell rents the lines out by tunneling the pppoe connection right to the reseller isp so the isp can traffic shape if they want to. Bell has right to force business decisions on third party isps since they pay for all of the resources they use.
Except that's not what happens. In most cases, all that these other ISPs do is resell Bell's DSL. I worked for an ISP where all we did was pay Bell a certain amount each month for each subscriber (based on their plan, e.g. 5 megabits), and then call Bell to go install the lines and get everything set up.
All this company actually did, hardware-wise, was ship DSL modems out. Other than that, their money went into marketing and maintaining additional services (e.g. e-mail, web hosting, domain hosting, etc.).
A fortuitious happenstance (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A fortuitious happenstance (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey what about common decency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey what about common decency (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (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: (Score:2)
So, if Verizon is running fibre from their NOC out to neighborhoods, then out to houses, why should they have to? If I did the same thing, why would I have to? I mean, I would, but why should I HAVE to?
That said, if Verizon is leveraging the existing infrastructu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Distributor: I don't have to increase capacity because the retailers can't go anywhere else for lines.
Methinks it's time for the biggest eminent domain purchase in the history of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Methinks it's time for the biggest eminent domain purchase in the history of the country.
I've been screaming this ever since the net neutrality debate came up. Oh, and pretty much every time I see a stroy about a factory threatening to close up and move to Mexico/China/wherever if the city doesn't come up with multimillion dollar "incentive" programs.
Remember kiddies, your representatives can (and WILL) take your house to build a privately-owned strip mall, but are powerless to stop a factory that employs 10,000 people from closing or the infrastructure that modern communications require from
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...
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: (Score:2)
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?
As many wires that are needed. Satellites are already there. At least one antenna per home I suspect. Wireless in a mesh network makes the most sense.
The problem is no competition to access to the home. Impediments include city franchising right up to the CRTC itself. There is no reason 4, 8 or even 12 companies could not operate mesh networks if they had economical and legal access to the right of ways needed.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
How convenient (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is whether they're giving their customers the QOS they promised.
Wrong evidence to ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong evidence to ask (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I recall seeing Bell advertisements that DSL from Bell was better than cable, because there are "no slowdowns". I also recall advertisements, but I can't remember if they were specifically Bell advertisements, that your bandwidth was dedicated. I didn't really believe it then, and now it seems that neither does Bell.
Way to twist something out of context in the interests of karma whoring. My karma is quite strong so I can shed some light on the situation without fear of reprisal from the groupthink mods;
Bell's commercials stated that there was no effect of one's neighbors saturating bandwidth as there is with cable internet connection because the connection to the central office is dedicated to each home. The commercials have always been quite explicit, even the recent ones with Frank & Gordon (Bell's Beavers) w
Re: (Score:2)
Ridiculous Euphimism (Score:5, Funny)
Throttling conjures up a more accurate image. (I think of Homer throttling Bart.)
And if they insist on shaping my traffic, I hope they can shape it into things I'm comfortable with like hearts, moons, and stars.
Re:Ridiculous Euphimism (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
If she wanted clovers as well she would be a leprechaun. Would that make her a cereal terrorist?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, she definitely needs some watchin. (and now for the male sexist pig joke) Having reviewed the surveillance footage available through the original poster's sig, I have decided that she IS indeed dangerous, and will watch her personally... If I can clear an operating budget from my supervisor, er, wife...
Yeah, I'm not getting this assignment, am I?
Re: (Score:2)
There actions are would still not be justified (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
How much more are you willing to pay on a monthly basis for this proposed upgrade? Would you rather pay a flat fee, a speed surcharge or a charge per volume of traffic?
Please, don't tell me, tell Bell. While you're at it if you could draft up an agreeable schedule that would allow them to collect additional money from the disproportionate bandwidth users which would, in turn, permit them to upgrade their infrastructure, that would be great.
In the meantime quit crying. The world isn't free and it does
It's a trap!!!111one (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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.
Or maybe we won't... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what the point is.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
About the only way they could possibly do anything about this is if they put in more cable and fiber so that no other ISP would ever have to depend on Bell or the others that traffic-shape.
ISP's need to put up the S and P. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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 effe
Re: (Score:2)
This is just another reason why canada rocks... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful what you wish for
Would Be Nice (Score:2)
Sounds good, but... (Score:2)
The CRTC has a long record of sitting on its bureaucratic ass and doing nothing while ownership of Canadian media has concentrated to a degree most nations would find frightening, while telemarketers began entering peoples' homes to prey on the elderly and vulnerable, and while it became more and more difficult for average people to obtain redress for outrages inflicted on them by cable companies and telcoms.
I doubt whether they will ultimately require any more of Bell than a statement saying "There's co
Backbone Bandwidth not issue, $$ peering is. (Score:2)
Sigh..... (Score:2)
"If you can't deliver it, don't advertise it. If you won't spend money on your infrastructure, then don't complain that you can't deliver it".
The problem is obvious: ISPs are spending more and more money advertising services they can't (or can barely) deliver (further depleting the amound of bandwidth available per customer), INSTEAD of upgrading and maintaining infrastructure to support the needs of their current consumers. Insteadt, they spend massive amounts of money a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t