CRTC Rules Bell Can Squeeze Downloads 245
pparsons writes "Bell Canada Inc. will not have to suspend its practice of 'shaping' traffic on the Internet after a group of companies that resell access to Bell's network complained their customers were also being negatively affected. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission today released a decision that denied the Canadian Association of Internet Providers' request that Bell be ordered to cease its application of the practice to its wholesale customers."
Why is shaping in "quotes?" (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how it's done.
There are good ways, and there are bad ways. This would be a "bad way".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it indicates that the process they call "shaping" is not actually "shaping" the traffic.
Re:Why is shaping in "quotes?" (Score:4, Informative)
Anon coward is right. Traffic shaping is perfectly legitimate way to make sure that your links are used fairly and efficiently without actually dropping packets. You hold a few packets back in long lasting streams to allow other low latency streams better service and then let them go later. What they are doing is best described as traffic limiting, even if they use traffic shaping to help with this and they are just avoiding calling it what it really is.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't use the term traffic limiting else it would not be an unlimited internet connection anymore ;)
Re: (Score:2)
What was that?
SOME of ye said over-the-air HDTV is no longer needed because we can just watch the internet...
Let it die ye said.
Hmmm. How am I supposed to do that if Bell-Canada is throttling me to 500 kbit/s or less? Last I checked that's not enough to carry a 1920x1080 HD video. I guess we DO need over-the-air television after all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
dont be stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Traffic shaping is a common word in the IT world.
Thats because "traffic shaping" is a "dirty" word in the IT world.
Re:Why is shaping in "quotes?" (Score:5, Funny)
The real question is "Why is the word "quotes" in quotes in your subject?".
P.S.: hmmm, do you \" the quotes inside other quotes in real english? Or just the programming one.
Re: (Score:2)
In english, it depends on the editing rules you've adopted, but usually modern publishers use single quotes inside double quotes to escape them:
I was all like, "She said, 'wtf?'"
I'm unclear on where the ? goes though. Usually punctuation goes on the inside of quotes "like this." ... but for double quotes like that I'm baffled.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why is that so loud?"
"What did you say?"
"I said, 'Why is that so loud?'."
"What?"
"I said, 'Why is that so loud?'!"
"Oh! Almost 2 o'clock, I think."
But then again, I'm not a writer.
Abolish the CRTC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've had enough I say we move to get rid of them once and for all.
I'm with ya brother!
...
So how do you propose we start the overthrow?
- John
Marketing the problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Abolish the CRTC (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. I don't think they've made a single decision in favor of consumers in the last decade. TELUS has also been granted many favors by the CRTC, all of which reinforce their monopoly position out west.
Specifically, their requirement that all downstream DSL connections be associated with a local phone number (provided only by TELUS) is nothing more than a money grab that prevents me from having a single network connection into my house. I don't want to give TELUS money, but the CRTC's inaction in many such cases forces me to fund the big monopoly in addition to the local ISP that actually provides what I want at a reasonable price.
Re:Abolish the CRTC (Score:4, Informative)
In Alberta at least, this has ended, you can order "dry pairs" now.
Re:Abolish the CRTC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In Ontario is well, but you're still paying Bell $6.95/mo for having a dry-loop in place...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah my internet was out for two weeks one time due to a problem similar to this, very frustrating.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I heard from my friend who worked for Telus, they are either lying or are deliberately misinformed. He quit a couple months ago in disgust.
Re: (Score:2)
I work for an ISP that offers ADSL. This is not the case.
You can have an adsl on a line with a phone number from any provider.
You can also have it with no phone line at all (dark adsl/naked adsl), but there is an extra monthly fee for that to cover the cost of powering the line, maintenance, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The CRTC's mission (Score:3, Informative)
"In response to the government's policy direction, we have launched a new market-oriented approach to telecom regulation. We are giving priority to market forces, and we will intervene only when market failure makes it necessary."
- Konrad von Finckenstein, head of the CRTC, June 17, 2008 speech in Toronto
Translation: companies - do whatever the hell you want. And customers - fuck you.
Sign me up on the "Abolish CRTC" campaign.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You ain't seen nothing yet. I'm in contact with the administrator of some small co-op telecom, and he told me wildly unsettling stuff.
Within the next 18 months, the CRTC will hold audiences regarding the regulation of the Internet, it's rationale being that since the Internet is being used to bypass the airwaves regulation the CRTC was originally setup for, it will have to lay down rules to establish what content gets sent over the wire, and how producers are compensated for it.
Of course, this reeks of the
Sounds to me (Score:2, Interesting)
Like a bunch of middlemen whining because they want Bell to stop doing what it's been doing just because it hurts their already shoddy business model. Unless, of course, these are last-mile providers who extend the Bell network into areas it doesn't already service.
While I don't think that they should be traffic-shaping anyway, the fact is that they are, and asking them to stop doing it just for these companies is unreasonable. What they should be asking for is Bell to cease this practice altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Soo...
You truly believe that the _correct_ solution is to terminate competition in the market place, and give all the business to Bell?
Bell, the company that was heavily subsided by government funds in order to run the last mile of copper *everywhere* in the 70s?
Really? You think that's the right solution? Take a resource which was at least partially paid for out of tax dollars and hand it over to a single private company?
Are you on CRACK?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, but this isn't competition. Bell -owns- this infrastructure, and they shape all traffic going through their lines.
I -do not- agree with this practice, but I also don't see how these small-time resellers should be exempt just because they feel like it.
Somehow, I fail to see how any of that smacks of wanting to reduce competition. Really, I think all of the copper should be owned by government and treated as a community commodity, like power is (at least where I live).
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Bell has been bleeding customers to these small ISPs since they started shaping would definitely suggest they are trying to reduce competition by putting a ceiling on the services.
Re: (Score:2)
Right.
Sympatico (Bell-owned ISP) is bleeding customers not only because their service sucks. In order to keep costs under control, Sympatico tries to reduce bandwidth transit expenses by throttling. Throttling causes Sympatico to bleed more customers. So Bell throttles Sympatico's competition.
Let's phrase this in more slashdotty terms.
Microsoft makes MS-DOS and Windows. Windows runs on a DOS. Now a little guy named Digital Research also makes a DOS. Microsoft loses money on DOS sales to Digital Resear
Re:Sounds to me (Score:5, Interesting)
> Of course not, but this isn't competition. Bell -owns- this infrastructure, and they
> shape all traffic going through their lines.
But, they don't. That infrastructure was built with significant tax dollars. In exchange for the build-out money, the government retained certain rights. Which is why there was a CRTC hearing at all.
> Somehow, I fail to see how any of that smacks of wanting to reduce competition.
Well, you've stated that you believe that the company owning the last mile (and not the company leasing access to it) should be the one deciding how it's used.
So, what's your proposed solution? That each ISP run their own last mile? Then, should the taxpayers also help each ISP run the last mile to their house? Or should Bell have to give back the money they got from us? If they have to give it back, at what interest rate should we have loaned it to them? And how do we handle 50 competing companies all running wire-willy nilly? What if some of those companies go bankrupt? Who handles the line maintenance? It's redundant, so Bell won't do it. Will the taxpayers pay for removal?
Re:Sounds to me (Score:5, Insightful)
1. These guys are independent ISPs. They lease last-mile lines from Bell (Bell owns all the phone infrastructure.) to provide DSL and other services.
2. Bell started shaping their own customers months ago, and they started hemorrhaging customers to the smaller ISPs (A free market working properly) who didn't shape traffic.
3. Bell decided to start shaping the traffic from those smaller ISPs.
Re:Sounds to me (Score:4, Insightful)
OK.
I don't want to deal with Bell. Roger's terms-of-service are unacceptable. I'm a TekSavvy customer.
Find me the regulations that will even _let_ TekSavvy run a copper pair to my house for any amount of money. They can't, Bell owns the right-of-way for phone lines, and Roger's for cable lines.
They should do what they did to electricity and gas. If Bell wants to own the _wires_, they have to split off the company that provides _services_ over them. Or vice-versa; just have a company whose job is to maintain the wires to connect customers and providers.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that nexxia controls backbone lines, not last-mile.
Re: (Score:2)
What they should be asking for is Bell to cease this practice altogether.
And there is a separate hearing scheduled for next July to discuss precisely that.
Glad I'm not using Bell DSL (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm in a strangely unique environment; Bell Canada doesn't have a DSLAM at my local CO, yet a CLEC (actually an ILEC from a few miles away that bought an ISP a few years ago) decided that it was worthwhile installing one. Bell won't put one in because they think that WiMax is the "right" solution for Rural broadband. Feh.
I have far, far better internet than I ever did in the city, which I was buying resold Bell DSL from the same ISP. And this is with the exact same hardware at my end.
Misleading article (Score:5, Informative)
after a group of companies that resell access to Bell's network complained their customers were also being negatively affected
That's a misleading statement. Bell resells access to its DSLAM- the "last mile" of copper to users. Generally Bell does not provide a backbone internet connection to independent ISPs. Bell is, in essence, altering the traffic of users and ISPs because Bell is the middle-man, and they want to reduce the differentiation between their internet service (Sympatico) and competitors. As I understand it, Bell has not produced any evidence as to what it costs to have traffic crossing their DSLAM.
An example of how this works (at least how I understand it) is via the company Teksavvy. Teksavvy buys bandwidth from ISP backbones, and resells it to consumers. In order to get a DSL line to the consumer, Teksavvy has to go through Bell because Bell has a de facto monopoly on the installation and maintenance of copper lines. Bell connects the copper line at the user's residence to a Bell DSLAM, which in turn is a network switch that connects to Teksavvy's network (and then on to the backbone). Bell manipulates the traffic crossing their DSLAM from consumers to Teksavvy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's more or less how I understand it, as well.
A couple more detail points
- Which ISP traffic is routed to depends on domain after @ in pppoe auth name
- Traffic is routed through some magic private WAN. Probably ATM but I don't know for sure.
- This private WAN is Bell's
- I'll bet that's where the congestion they're trying to shape away is
- OTOH, they're Bell, they could light up some dark fiber if they wanted to
- But they don't want to, because of your excel
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The real problem is, the shaping isn't reducing traffic where Bell claims to have a congestion problem.
If they drop X% of my BitTorrent traffic between the DSLAM and my ISP, then I'm still SENDING that much traffic. In fact, I'm probably sending _even more_ to make up for the lost packets.
So my _ISP_ sees _less_ traffic from my account, but Bell sees _more_ traffic from my _DSLAM_. They don't have a DPI box connected to each DSLAM.
(Except I've got a workaround so mine isn't throttled any more.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't, strictly, cost them. However, they do need to buy more and more hardware to manage the bandwidth, and aren't able to oversell their network as much. This costs them money, both potentially earned money, and money to upgrade their hardware.
That doesn't make right their shaping, but I do see, having worked at an ISP, that it does cost money to provide service, in one way or another. When you're talking multi-gig speeds, you're not talking cheap hardware anymore. Go price out a 6500 with 10 gig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In most cases, the session is transitting Bell's network to an interconnect point, wherein it's handed off to the third party and terminates an on LNS.
Generally, the third party doesn't have fiber going to each CO and interconnecting directly to the DSLAM.
Re: (Score:2)
Bell doesn't have a de facto monopoly. They have a legislated monopoly, courtesy of your government.
Two Options (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Expand the network capacity by laying new line, enabling higher throughput of the entire system. This method will incur great cost, but will not create new customers, nor lose customers, nor will it increase profits over current offerings.
2) Throttle network usage to fit current utilization into current infrastructure in a more manageable fashion. This method will incur significantly lower costs than option 1 (lawsuits included), but will not create new customers, nor lose customers (as we are the only provider available to them), nor will it increase profits over current offerings.
What say ye, shareholders?
Re: (Score:2)
And if "johnny-come-lately ISP" wants to join the fracus, if they have to lease from Bell, then Bell can harm their business, dampen/choke any market competition, and continue to screw their customers. The CRTC has missed the boat on this. As long as they can force competition's customers to suffer the same as they force their own customers to suffer, then Bell has no competition other than what lip service can be provided by those resellers. With the CRTC and government types firmly entrenched in their sta
Re: (Score:2)
They already deployed everything to offer 25Mbps to every house in all major cities, ready to offer multiple streams of high definition video on demand. The installation was done for my apartment 2 years ago, and it still isn't activated. The fastest I had been able to get unlocked was 8Mbps while they were offering only 5, from a third party ISP for that time, and now they've recently decided to unlock 16mbps.
Also, to answer a previous post, it's a very bad affirmation to say that everything which gets sha
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Blizzard uses BitTorrent for their WoW updater, IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, but how is it illegal to update my WoW game ?
Solution (Score:2)
Is class-action lawsuit. Its been done before, and it will be done again. Lets put these teleco's in their place.
This is only part of the story (Score:5, Informative)
The ruling here was simply that Bell Canada isn't doing anything different for their resellers' customers than what they're doing for their own customers. Basically, the question before the CRTC was, is Bell hindering their resellers' customers in an unfair way? And the answer was, no, they treat their own customers the same way.
As to whether "traffic shaping" should be occurring at all, whether with respect to their own customers or their reseller's customers, that is still to be discussed in a separate hearing that starts next July.
To summarize: this really has nothing to do with "traffic shaping". That hearing is yet to come.
Screwing the customer (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically what happens is:
Bell's solution: Our customers are leaving to 3rd-parties because they're tired of getting screwed by our messed-up policies and cruddy service. But wait, we control a small part of the lines that 90% of the competition uses. So, in order to not lose customers, as opposed to fixing the issues, we'll just give everyone the same problem and to make their customers' connections suck too.
Sorry, but the "we're screwing everyone equally" answer doesn't add up.
It's plainly anti-competitive, all you have to ask is:
If Bell didn't have the ability to interfere with 3rd-party connections, would this issue exist, and would the other ISP's gain customers. If the issue wouldn't exist, or the other ISP's would gain customers, then Bell is abusing their control of the lines and monopoly therein.
Re: (Score:2)
MOD UP Parent!
Re: (Score:2)
If Bell didn't have the ability to interfere with 3rd-party connections, would this issue exist, and would the other ISP's gain customers. If the issue wouldn't exist, or the other ISP's would gain customers, then Bell is abusing their control of the lines and monopoly therein.
Bell doesn't have "the ability to interfere with 3rd-party connections". Bell offers a service to resellers, and that service is whatever they decide it is. The issue is, given that Bell has monopoly power, and effectively competes with its own customers, are they abusing that power by offering their reseller customers different service than their direct customers.
Therefore, there are actually two separate questions being asked: First, is Bell abusing their monopoly by offering inferior service to resellers
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so Bell has an unfettered connection to the rest of the internet. Its competitors have a shaped-traffic connection to the internet. The latter is inferior to the former. Bell abusing their customers shouldn't be relevant.
What you're missing is that this isn't over yet.
That's the point I was making. There are two parts to this issue, and only the first part has been addressed so far.
Basically, to go with your analogy...
Obviously, all cars would be black, and all cars would remain as horrible as the Model T. Customers would be abused in a very fair and egalitarian way.
...this decision was only interested in whether or not customers are being treated in a fair and egalitarian way. As you stated, and the decision agreed, they are. The next decision deals with whether or not that fair and egalitarian treatment is, in fact, abuse. You think it is. I agree. In July we'll see wh
Re: (Score:2)
So, as I understand it, ISPs like Teksavvy are hooking their backbone up to Bell's DSLAM and renting last-mile access. Now, Bell doesn't like Teksavvy's offers and is restricting the connection at the DSLAM? The only way I could find that acceptable in the least is if Teksavvy's traffic is maxing out the DSLAM and affecting Bell's own customers. In that case, Bell ought to prioritize their own traffic over Teksavvy's, but allow Teksavvy to take up all that's left over. They should also give Teksavvy the opt
Misleading topic (Score:5, Informative)
CRTC has other problems (Score:2)
There is Workaround (MLPPP) (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
An Unbroken Record (Score:2)
In the history of its existence, the CRTC has never once missed an opportunity to prove it's composed of a bunch of fat-assed, conscienceless douchebags who unfailingly screw the Canadian citizens they're supposed to protect. I'd say I wished the whole crooked, honourless pack of pricks would die of cancer, but there's some things not even a disease should have to do.
The Full Decision (Score:2, Informative)
In case anyone wanted to read through it. I didn't see a link from TFA.
Re:Tag this story (Score:5, Interesting)
I would think it would be. If you're selling something to someone, and you change what you're selling them, then you've just broken your contract.
It doesn't surprise me at all that Bell would do such a thing, though. I've got a Bell cellphone w/3 year contract. They've added charges left, right and center since I've got it. So I'm tied in, but they're not. I'm going to bitch like hell about this month's bill, though, as the extra charges alone are almost twice what my original contract was for.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't seem to have a problem doing that, either. They (and Telus) changed the rules for text messages back in August when they started charging 15 cents for every message received unless you went on a plan.
Telus also informed us back in August that their new billing policy was to charge for the following month's Internet service in advance, effective immediately. So our bill for that m
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you are in Ontario (I haven't research other jurisdictions) you are free of any contract you may have had with Telus.
Changing the prices definitely constitutes a material change.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_02c30_e.htm [gov.on.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of your contract, do like I am doing right now:
go for this: $10/mo 100 min and you still get Voicemail, Call Display, etc
http://www.virginmobile.ca/vmc/en/rates/rate-plans-prepaid-by-the-month.do?lang=en [virginmobile.ca]
You cannot call it breach of contract... (Score:2)
...without actually reading the contracts. No doubt there is some sort of service level agreement in place, but I remember seeing agreements for these sort of things (well, sort of--commercial internet connectivity and colocation agreements) make statements about uptime--you get reimbursed if there are 'x' minutes of outage. However if there are any throughput or bandwidth statements they are quite a lot of weasel statements about numbers indicating maximums, not typical, etc. If your speed slows to dial
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except, in this case, these aren't all resellers. Many of the companies complaining lease last-mile (backhaul) bandwidth, and have their own pipe to the 'net.
These companies are not reselling Bell services, they are supposed to be getting 5Mbit/sec per customer of BACKHAUL (from the phone jack to their routers) bandwidth. Again, they supply their own pipe to the 'net.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In the US (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's recognized that they need to break up monopolies abusing their powers to prevent competition from being established or surviving. Monopolies that exist because no other competitors are willing or able, absent market manipulation by the company with the monopoly, to enter the market are okay.
These are rare, however, they exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>It's recognized by even the most free market-fanatic economists that the government has a responsibility to break up monopolies.
>>>
If the monopoly was CREATED by the government, then yes. But in a truly free market a monopoly only exists for a short time, because new companies or technologies introduce alternatives. Like when MP3s replaced the CD monopoly. Or when Satellite services, or Verizon FiOS, or internet websites provided cheaper, better alternatives to the Comcast television
Re: (Score:2)
This statement is blatantly false, not "insightful". First, the responsibilities of governments are a political matter, not an economic one. Second, plenty of economists consider aggressive monopoly-busting to be a net loss rather than any sort of public good. Inform yourself. [mises.org]
Anyway, if the government really had a responsibility to "break up monopolies" it would have to start with itself, as government -- in all its forms -- is the biggest and most destructive monopoly in existence.
Canadian Roadblock To Communications (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to be the guy that nitpicks over something trivial, but phone systems are designed to give constant bandwidth to a phone call, so the quality can neither improve nor degrade... That's why you occasionally get "The network is busy, please try again later" messages when you try to make a call... the phone system can't establish a circuit for you.
But to comment on "Do they also listen to my phone calls", I'd have to say "yes and no". Phone companies monitor their networks, and may monitor calls carrie
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
since legally there is no expectation or indication of privacy from the network owner, and that legally they can do pretty much whatever they want to the packets on their network (assuming no breach of contract or misrepresentation of services has occurred).
Since you appear to know the law, it would be helpful if you gave a reference to any evidence you have to this statement. In Canada our privacy laws have always been rather strict (as compared to the US for example). I personally doubt that phone companies can listen to phone calls or Internet sessions at their whim. However if you provide some evidence to this it may change my perceptions (and I'm talking about actual laws or legal precedents and not just possibly illegal EULAs or inadvertent listening do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Employers may monitor employees' phone calls [privacyrights.org] and location [privacyrights.org] (using cell towers or GPS).
I'm talking about telcos here and not employee/employer relationships.
Cell phone companies are required by the FCC to have the ability to track your location to within 100 meters for the purposes of 911 calls.
Not really relevant to what I was asking.
Telephone company employees may listen to your conversations when it is necessary to provide you with service, to inspect the telephone system, to monitor the quality of telephone service or to protect against service theft or harassment.
That's what I already presumed and stated in my earlier comment; as I've stated I was more interested in knowing whether the telco had unlimited access and liability to listen in whenever they wanted (as was your original statement of facts).
Note that the above paragraph gives telephone companies free license to listen to phone conversations
That's your interpretation. As I've stated I was looking for specific laws or precedent and not legally dubious loop-holes.
Unfortunately all of your examples a
aaaah its not wild west (Score:2)
internet affects A LOT of things. leave aside entertainment, a lot of services that are serving vital functions of the society ranging from companies serving in security areas to health industry, even many local and national government organizations run a lot of services for performing the daily tasks they are responsible with.
no, internet, no part of it can be anyone's backyard, anyone's 'own property'. its VERY vital and VERY public, VERY S
Citation needed (Score:2)
in modern countries, you cant buy more than a certain defined area of land.
Have you any citations from North America?
Re: (Score:2)
Prince Edward Island, a province of Canada, has limitations on the area of land owned modulo activities carried out on that land (farming, leasing, e.g.).
Ted Turner owns well over a million acres (Score:2)
Prince Edward Island, a province of Canada, has limitations on the area of land owned modulo activities carried out on that land (farming, leasing, e.g.).
Apparently so [irac.pe.ca]. But PEI != the rest of the world. Ted Turner owns nearly two million acres [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
If there are limits, it must be only on contiguous areas. There are several people in the US that own hundreds of thousands of acres. I believe Ted Turner owns(or used to) nearly 2 million acres.
There are limits on ownership of land that receives irrigation from government owned sources, I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
so to prevent this, laws were made. in modern countries, you cant buy more than a certain defined area of land.
And so, God created the corporation to overcome this puny little hurdle.
Common Carrier duty & Monopolies (Score:2)
Why does the government regulate the business of a utility? In principle you could say that if the utility tried to shaft its customers, they would switch to the competition. In practice, there are three main issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the ISP & the backbone has to prioritize traffic when they are using much of the bandwidth of a pipe. And then traffic shaping might even make customers happy (prioritizing VoIP over eDonkey makes sense, right?) But whatever they do, they should do it in the open.
The trouble with this is that some asshat is going to idiotically make an edonkey that indentifies itself as voip and then brag about how fast it is, and customers will soak it up because all the reviews and benchmarks will gleefully
Re: (Score:2)
The fundamental problem with telecoms is they were once a luxury, but today they are a commodity. Pretty much everyone in the civilized world has one or more connections, be it via phone, internet or wireless link. By that virtue, it would make sense to socialize the telecom industry. We all use it, might as well own it!
The math is deceptively simple: Figure out how much it costs to maintain the network, divide that by the number of consumers, and if the result exceeds what you pay over that same period,
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, the right would be based in the fairness of contracts. From my opinion, the entire argument was backwards in the first place. Traffic shaping isn't bad in and of itself but when it is being used to defeat terms of a contract then the government has every right to intervene and force the company to honor it's contracts even if they are implied by advertising and statement's made by the company. If you purchased a corvette from a dealership after reading that it had a powerful V8 motor in the sa
Re: (Score:2)
Shaping traffic to ensure the overall health of the network is fine
I don't have a major philosophical argument against this statement. The problem arises when:
a) There are not formalized and published rules about the shaping
b) Shaping isn't done discriminately (i.e. favouring one protocol over another, like VOIP over Gnutella for example. Telling customers which protocol is more important to their network is discriminatory. So if I wanted to develop a completely legal and exclusively p2p network over the DSL lines I would be SOL here for any type of consistent service I co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
P2P is not (yet, as far as I know) illegal in Canada. At any rate ISPs should NOT be policing the Internet (because, among other reasons, LAWS are arbitrary and bandwidth is neutral). I wish I could just say I'm going to drop Bell Canada as an ISP but I am not using Bell Canada, I am using a far cheaper and more net neutral ISP. Unfortunately Bell Canada has an infrastructure monopoly which is supposed to be regulated to prevent abuse.
The CRTC has become a corporate pawn (notice the introduction of Fox News
Re: (Score:2)
What right does the government have to tell a company what to do with it's own property?
Are you in denial about the current economic state of affairs? Companies should not necessarily enjoy the same rights and priviledges with their property, or other peoples property, as individuals should.
And one of the reasons is that a big, nasty company can fuck a whole lot of individuals. And frankly, I don't think our governments enjoy that kind of competition.
Re: (Score:2)
First and foremost, those backbones and wires and capital were primarily paid for by taxpayers. Bell Canada is a government-created monopoly -- we needed phone service and we wanted good nation-wide phone service, so the government paid for the massive infrastructure necessary to get them going instead of having dozens of tiny incompatible services.
So while Bell Canada has a monopoly on national wiring it is ONLY because taxpayers paid for it, and as a result they are required to follow certain rules in th
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases, the network was built with taxpayer dollars or the company was granted a monopoly by the government. All of a sudden they are more than a private corp trying to make money. They are now a private corp serving the public interests, and that brings a large chunk of accountability.
Note: IACLC (I am a Classic Liberal Capitalist)
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on where you live, there may be options.
- Does Rogers lease access to their cable lines to competing ISPs? I know Cogeco does.
- There are some pretty good wireless solutions deployed. Mostly in semi-rural areas. I had a full-duplex 3Mbps connection for a while from a local mom-n-pop. I was pretty good, except during lightning storms, but often unsuitable for VoIP (too much jitter)