Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Bell irks ISPs with new throttling policy

MATT HARTLEY

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 9:51 AM EDT 28/03/08

Third-party providers finding service slowed as Bell moves to manage bandwidth-intensive applications ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Donald Wilson from Debert, NS, Canada writes: Several years ago I moved my ISP from Bell Aliant 's dial up service - it had long promised to bring in higher speed dial up , but that never happened in our area . Finally I got hooked up to the local Cable company's ' high Speed ' service . But I still can't get streaming video - so what kind of High Speed is that . Yet I'm paying for High Speed . The regulatory folks should look into this false advertising , and lower my rate to reflect the slowness of my service . It 's no different than paying 20.00 for gasoline but only getting 18.00 worth from the pump . Isn't that illegal ?
  2. Jerry Hung from Waterloo, Canada writes: This is what happens when it is a monopoly, especially the last mile being controlled by Bell, being the wholesaler and the user itself

    Comcast's Net Neutrality raised a big fuzz in States, how about Canada? I think eventually we'll have to take it, as nobody can and nobody will do anything, especially not CRTC

    Currently a TekSavvy user here, hoping it won't affect me
  3. Anthony Sandler from Toronto, Canada writes: This is getting ridiculous. I am personally affected by this, as my ISP uses Bell lines, and I have noticed a huge drop in speed this month. When I pay a company for 5Mbit/sec download, I assume I have access to that speed at all times. If I don't, then what am I paying for? If Bell can't handle the bandwidth requirements of their clients, then maybe they should not sell so much. If I sold more than I could provide in my business, I would be out of business very quickly.
  4. Zigg Zagg from Mistersauga, Canada writes: I smell a class action lawsuit brewing. Let's just hope the people standing up to the Bells and Rogers of the world have the deep pockets to mount and win a suit against these dinosaurs.
  5. barney miller from suburban Ulan Bator, Canada writes: anyone interested in why congestion is a problem (and how to address it) should do themselves a favour by reading http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1078
    :)
  6. A. Nonymous from Bandwidth Shaping, United States writes: I think bandwidth shaping is a great idea, since I do it too.

    I use filters to eliminate all flash ads, saving bell some bandwidth.

    Of course this eliminates Bell's ads, but then again, it's my bandwidth.

    I also block most cookies, ad trackers, ad servers, etc, so I must be saving tons of bandwidth.

    What's that? Content companies don't like that? Too bad, it's my bandwidth, I'll do with it as I please. Wanna play the shaping game, I can play it too.
  7. M.G. Stevens from Canada writes: The providers simply didn't account for P2P in how they built and sold their networks. While I don't exactly know the formula, the idea is that if you have 10 customers, only 6 are online at any given time, and half of those will be doing e-mail or a google search, etc.

    Now 9 of 10 are online, all watching YouTube with a mega download going in the background. The networks were always oversold based on usable capacity, and now those chickens have come home to roost.

    The latest reaction - and possibly the only one available - is to 'shape' the traffic, and endure the firestorm now, before the hungry 10 percent of users gobble up all the bandwidth. I can't imagine this getting better anytime soon. The technology exists to deliver the heightened traffic needed by today's power-user demand, but the legacy systems of the phone and cable systems aren't built for it. Thing is, that 10 percent - the folks downloading movies from 'pirate bay' - are really the authors of their own suffering. The rest of us would never notice the 'shaping' and thus really never care.

    If intense P2P traffic makes VOIP service fail, the needs of a wide range of premium-paying customers would be impacted by a small group of flat-fee greedmeisters who want, in effect, to 'share' material that is usually copy-protected and intended to be bought through conventional media channels. So, if net-neutrality means protecting someone's right to abuse the network - in practical terms - then we the citizens can protest all we want, business and government are going to side with the business case. That's pretty much the 'shape' of that picture.
  8. Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    I can see both sides of it ... It IS true that P2P traffic is choking the networks for a bunch of nerds.

    What they should do is charge MUCH more for those that exceed their bandwidth / usage requirements.

    Also, do the traffic shaping during peak hours, and off-peak allow the traffic at higher speeds.

    Thats fair to everyone. Lots of bandwidth pigs out there. Let THEM pay for the future expansion of the internet with THEIR dollars today.

    Some of us are trying to run home based businesses and stuff like that, and our research and engineering related info should not be slowed down by P2P garbage.
  9. Ron Hartlen from Canada writes: Interesting battle.
    Survival of the fittest (or whomever has the regulators on their side).
    The Dinosaurs versus the Maggots.
    Great stuff!
  10. Keith Duguay from writes: What bothers me most is that I chose to give my business to a small, independant ISP and NOT Bell or Rogers. Now Bell is acting like the monopoly that it is and interfering ultimately with the customers of the 3rd party ISPs it wholesales bandwith to. It's as if Bell is forcing me to be their customer and comply with their rules when in fact I am NOT their customer. Please support net neutrality in Canada. Bell Canada's move here is tantamount to censorship in the medium of communication that is the Internet.
  11. Joe Jose from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm starting to get really frustrated with ISP's these days. The only reason I have high speed internet access at home is so I can download things at HIGH SPEED. The most frequent source of these downloads is through p2p and bittorrent. I don't use the internet much for email, I don't use it to access social networking sites like Facebook - I use it for downloading. For this privilege, I have Bell's second fastest service plan (I can't upgrade or I'll be subject to transfer caps). I feel that my ability to download adds value to the internet that it wouldn't otherwise have. Having the ability to look something up at a moment's notice is great, but not that great. I don't need 10mbps service to read email and browse Facebook, or even for looking up information. A 1mbps connection would be perfectly adequate for that.

    Everywhere I turn, my ability to download is being restricted and I'm being called an 'abuser.' This is despite me being willing to pay for the privilege. I specifically left Rogers after being a customer for about 5 years because of their interference with bittorrent traffic. I would even be willing to pay more than I do now for completely unrestricted service, but most residential class services seem to be getting more restrictive, not less. They offer tons of speed so long as you don't use it for anything. I'm currently looking into business class accounts to see if they will meet my needs.

    Unfortunately, so long as the networks are all privately owned, we will always have issues like this. I wish the gov't would build a fiber optic network that they retain ownership of. If they did, they could lease bandwidth to ISP's to sell to the consumer and we could finally have some competition.

    Go Teksavvy! Sue the crap out of Bell.
  12. mighty conan from Calgary, Canada writes: Instead of fixing their inadequate business model & infrastructure they ask their customers to 'suck it up'. Wrong answer... Bells poor planning isn't necessarily our problem. Someone else will come along & fill the gap if they don't figure it out soon. Rogers, Bell & all the others shaping traffic can have my unused crying towel whenever that happens.
  13. Jeff H from Kingston, Canada writes: Joe, well said. We pay for high-speed, we should be entitled to high-speed. If Bell is not willing to offer high-speed internet, then they should not offer packages that are labeled high-speed.

    They advertise it, but then backtrack with claims like 'up to' and 'not during peak hours'. This might be within the letter of the false advertising regulations, but it certainly seems against the spirit of them.

    Simple: if you offer high speed, then deliver it. If you can't deliver it, don't advertise it.
  14. Garemi Hussey from Nofreelunch, Canada writes: Apparently, the third-party entities have oversold their capacities.
    “This isn't a new policy,” he said. “Our agreements with wholesale ISP customers clearly include provisions regarding our rights to manage our networks appropriately to the benefit of all customers.” So that's it and I am glad of it! As a long-time Bell user, I believe I am entitled to an equal share of the property we all pay for. I'm glad to know my ISP is protecting (and securing!) our relationship. We can all pursue services better suited to our needs as required.
  15. Oakville Curmudgeon from Canada writes: For the most part the bandwidth hogs are downloading pirate copies of movies and music. Too bad someone is choking off their access.

    For legitimate users I feel they should be paying for usage over a predetermined maximum. Metering bandwidth usage and paying for bandwidth used would seem fair. Sort of like how we pay for hydro and water. The high volume users pay for high volume. Seems fair.

    But then fairness is a concept that doesn't clutter the mind of the self-entitled sorts that feel they are free to use as much of anything they want, when they want.
  16. brian bishop from Canada writes: I just finished the process of canceling all my services with Bell, satellite, residential phone service & high speed internet. As of today March 26 my last BCE service highspeed Internet via Sympatico is finished.

    I canceled all three services for various reasons, ExpressVu was a content based decision. Residential phone was a mobility issue, I didn't want to pay for both a mobile & landline phone service it just isn't economical. I place no blame on BCE for my decisions to cancel either of these services, they were excellent services & the cancellation was beyond their control.

    canceling my highspeed Internet with Sympatico was a culmination of numerous issues, peer to peer throttling, their move to MSN for email & the continual price increases which appeared to me a result of adding additional 'value' added products to their service as justification for price increases. Services I might add I neither want or require.

    I moved to TekSavvy for my highspeed Internet 'dry DSL' primarily because of their advertising & had already noticed the throttling this past week, this article has confirmed my suspicions. My move to another provider wasn't an easy decision, I'd been with Sympatico since late 1999 & never had an issue with their service until this past year.

    Now the complaints process has begun, I'll be filing several complaints with the CRTC & CCTS in the coming weeks. I now suspect after reading this article a lawsuit will be the eventual outcome of at least one of my complaints.

    BCE best rethink it's policies, whether I use HTTP, FTP, P2P, stream video, VOIP or any other protocol, throttling one while giving preference to others is discrimination & unjustifiable. If you don't have the bandwidth to sustain all equally as you claim, you better start throttling all equally before a lawsuit is launched!
  17. coprolite hunger from Vancouver, Canada writes: The article is somewhat misleading. It is not only P2P traffic that is being 'managed', but ALL encrypted traffic including, but not limited to, RDP, sIRC, sFTP, VPNs and sIMAP. These are not P2P technologies the the common use of the term, but they have been affected just as badly by this 'management'.
  18. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Damn Bell. Even when you aren't their customer, they STILL find a way to screw you over.
  19. george menzel from Toronto, Canada writes: 3rd party ISP's need to get a life! Bell/Rogers doesn't own customers' data, just like the Highway Traffic Dep't doesn't own the cars using the highways. In both cases, they merely regulate their speed to provide equal and fair service to all their users. It's the greedy, free-wheeling ISP's that need to tone down their sales hype to their customers.

    If any users feel they have been oversold, they can always switch ISP's. The free market will determine, in the long run, who are the honest brokers and who are the hucksters.
  20. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes:

    There is nothing in the article to support the charge that Bell is in any way appropriating any right whatsoever to the content of 3rd party ISP's data.

    All that is happening is that Bell is managing as best as possible the transport of all data through its networks.

    And no responsible systems manager would ever allow any particular operation to interfere with the entire transport system.

    The 3rd party ISP's may want to rethink their data handling policies.
  21. Raymond Conway from London, United Kingdom writes: I probably don't understand the whole issue properly, but it does seem to me that 3rd Party ISP providers shouldn't be able to have unlimited access to limited bandwidth. It seems to me that Bell needs to develop a better pricing model for 3rd party users, so that the more bandwidth they use, the more they pay!
  22. No No No Yes No from Ottawa, Canada writes: Typical! So both major ISP's in Ontario (if not Canada?) Rogers and Bell both throw out Net Neutrality in favour of restricting (through capping to unusable speeds) what people can access on the Internet.

    Yet in the States, Verizon was just congratulated for not implementing traffic shaping. Of course with FIOS, speed isn't that big of a deal huh?

    WHO IS THE TRUE DEMOCRACY?!?!? Sure looks like the States to me.
  23. Ben Lucier from Toronto, Canada writes: I've held senior management positions with more than five Ontario ISPs since my career began 15 years ago and unfortunately, this is something that users of high speed Internet are going to have to get used to.

    If you look at it from the ILEC's point of view, they have a certain amount of network capacity across their network. When they plan this capacity, they take into account the average usage of an individual subscriber within a certain area. You simply can't build a network that assumes the bulk of your subscribers will be downloading illegal content (let's face it, that's what it is) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If they did, DSL service would be several hundred dollars a month, not $45.

    If you don't traffic shape high bandwidth users, it is only a matter of time before the network can't sustain itself and the average user is affected by the heavy user. You know who wants a heavy user on their network? Nobody. That's the reason Rogers cable implemented the PCUBEs to do inline packet shaping for P2P. People can complain all they like, the fact of the matter is, Rogers and Bell do not cater to these types of heavy users.

    That's why users have flocked to the independent ISPs. It was a temporary haven however, now that Bell has implemented the same technology from the same vendor as Rogers.

    The really unfortunate part about this packet shaping implementation isn't that Bell has begun to packet shape P2P traffic - it's that they care so little about their wholesale customers that they didn't consider it important enough to share the changes and potential impacts with their wholesale customers. How's that for a nice kick in the pants?

    But what they say is true I guess: Better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.
  24. Nathan Cool from Toronto, Canada writes: Where is the government? Hiding as usual.
  25. capt. peachfuzz from Canada writes: I would like to add my 2 cents to this topic.
    Firstly most P2P software available now has the ability to automatically limit bandwidth usage so as not to overload the server,it used to be manual,but since most people don't know what bandwidth is let alone how to set it.Secondly I pay over $50 per month for Internet usage,classed as unlimited high speed ,but have noticed that at certain times during the day it seems more like dial-up speed. The poster that mentioned techical reasons is right,the ISP's can't keep up with technology,files are getting bigger,programs that used to be 2 meg are now many times larger,streaming video,the list goes on and on. It seems that in a way P2P is the scapegoat,a large target. People think that P2P means illegal downloads,not my term,but is a file transfer service,that has many legitimate uses. I think everyone realizes that the whole thing behind this is money(profit),ISP's don't want to spend the money to keep up with rapid changes in technology,so lets place the blame for deteriorating service on someone else. My opinion anyway.
  26. Billy Bob from Bluder Bay, Canada writes: Bell can kiss my a$$.
  27. Chris from Toronto from Toronto, Canada writes: I'd like to suggest that Bell and Rogers customers 'shape' the speed at which their bills are paid. If you don't think that'll send the ISPs a message, consider the recent example of Amp'd Mobile. Yes, Amp'd was a cell phone rather than an Internet company but consider the following...

    To establish a foothold in the market, Amp'd marketed itself aggressively to teens. When the 80,000 bills went out in the mail, only a handful were paid and Amp'd died almost immediately.

    I wouldn't be so bold as to say that we'd put Bell and Rogers out of business but collectively withholding a bill payment or two might remind them who's holding the cards. So we'd incur a late payment fee of a few bucks. It could be worth it.
  28. Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: Since I get a 35% employee discount I utililze Bell Sympatico - otherwise I wouldn't go near this company with a ten foot pole.
  29. C. S. from Canadia, Canada writes: 'WHO IS THE TRUE DEMOCRACY?!?!? Sure looks like the States to me.'

    What does any of this have to do with democracy???
  30. The Wight from Canada writes: ' I've held senior management positions with more than five Ontario ISPs since my career began 15 years ago and unfortunately, this is something that users of high speed Internet are going to have to get used to.'

    Of course, they could also reduce the heavy users on their network by actually charging for, gasp, usage and get right out of the business of dictating which transfer method is acceptable and which isn't.

    At a simple $1/GB, my current usage would run about $30/mo. but the heavy gamers and downloaders could easily top $300/mo. How many are going to see bills like that and stay with their ISP?

    There you go, problem solved and you didn't have to play dictator with your customers. All you did was charge a fair amount for your product.
  31. C. S. from Canadia, Canada writes: george menzel from Toronto and Stude Ham from Outremont ... I could not have said it better myself.

    People want a free economy, but they have no idea what that means. It definitely does not mean 'everything for free'.
  32. Matt Goulet from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I'll be interested to see if there's a CRTC challenge when CBC begins the sharing of Canada's Next Prime Minister on torrents. Bell's throttling policy could be interpreted as impeding the mandate of the CBC, to be equally available to all Canadians.
  33. Mark Tilley from Brampton, Canada writes:

    Thanks Barney Miller for suggesting that we read

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1078

    Too bad most of the posters above don't appear to have done so.

    The problem is that P2P EXPLOITS the TCP congestion algorithm by opening multiple streams, thereby causing OTHER users' access to bandwidth to drop because other protocols are only using single streams!! Not exactly what you would think given all the talk about fairness.

    Check out the link - you'll understand. Until you do, you're only getting half the story.
  34. Jason Knight from Vancouver, Canada writes: Telus user here. I recently noticed my bandwidth take a dip in speed, so I called Telus. I spoke to a rep. in technical support and asked him out right if Telus employs packet shaping technology. He said yes and also mentioned they've been utilizing this tech for 14 months. The federal government has to step in here and push for Net Neutrality!
  35. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: I used to get 4-5 mbps from Bell, then it was arbitrarily cut back to 1mbps about a year ago. I cancelled my service and signed on with Cogeco. Now my download speed is 8 - 9 mbps everytime I check.

    PS. Bell called me and asked me why I cancelled. I told them it was because they cut my speed back. They immediately offered to increase my service to 5 mbps at no extra charge. I told them it was too late. I have also cancelled my home phone. I use vbuzzer VOIP at $2.75 per month, and I have a free New York City number for business from Stanaphone that rings in my house in Canada (all incoming calls are also free). My total VOIP phone bill for two phone numbers is about $7 - 10 per month.

    There are a lot of ways to reduce your communication costs. Check out the magic jack (magicjack.com)
  36. Bobby Dang from Canada writes: full disclosure: I'm a TekSavvy customer, and I love its service. I recommend to anyone who's interested in switching.

    I was a Rogers internet customer for a decade, and shortly left after they started throttling (deep packet sniffing). In essence their routers will analyze deep inside your data packet for the kind of data you're transmitting. If it's a type of data they believe will 'clog' up their networks, they will roue your packets differently.

    The problem I have with this policy is they assume what I'm doing is nefarious. Furthermore it is a short term solution to the overall problem of network congestion. Rogers and Bell should be spending billions to upgrade their networks and infrastructure. They've made billions from customers over the decade being a near duopoly, but have put relatively little investments in their aging networks.

    A quick analogy--instead of repairing and expanding the roads in a city, they've put up toll booths. Not a very elegant solution.
  37. Dr. Winston O'Boogie from London, United Kingdom writes: Shame on Bell. Again.
  38. MAL MAL from Canada writes: ISPs complain over and over again that they dont have enough bandwidth. Yet they seem to find plenty only when it benefits them.

    Rogers has gone from 3mb to 5mb to now 7mb connections for 'free' and after all these years of complaining that p2p sharing and torrents are killing their networks they now offer 18mb connections for home users!

    For a company that claims to have no bandwidth you dont seem to have ANY trouble finding some when you can make more money off of it.

    Hooray for monopolies. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
  39. Erik Richards from Winnipeg, Canada, writes: Oakville Curmudgeon from Canada writes: 'For legitimate users I feel they should be paying for usage over a predetermined maximum. Metering bandwidth usage and paying for bandwidth used would seem fair. Sort of like how we pay for hydro and water. The high volume users pay for high volume. Seems fair.'

    You're missing the point. Most ISPs also have caps on the amount of material which can be downloaded. That's not what's at issue. If I'm allowed to download 100GB/month, I should be allowed to download up to that cap at full speed, not some restricted speed simply because I choose to use one form of downloading protocol over another.
  40. Not right or left from Canada writes: These companies need to start laying down fibre because its not going to get any better. When HD video becomes the norm people will expect to be able to download large video files.
  41. Dave Row from United Kingdom writes: The problem here is the fraudulent marketing of the ISP's.
    They claim a certain connection speed (rarely if ever achieved), and no limit on downloads. When this proves difficult to provide, they start weaseling out.

    Now if they charged a fee for connection speed (with a guarantee that, say, they would acheive this 75% of the time), plus a charge for Gb consumed, the problem would be solved.
    Heavy users pay more, light users pay less. No shaping or anything else required. When you go over your monthly limit, cut your speed back so you can still get important things like email, but nothing that consumes much in the way of resources.

    However they seem not to want to do this as they make more money lying to customers, with the connivance of the government.
    Might also be nice if they actually bothered to do anything about spam - after all, why should I be paying for the spam they are sending down to me?
  42. agesixracer _ from Canada writes: i just encrypt my torrent data and i don't have problems.

    if rogers and bell want to shape traffic, fine. it's their monopoly. but, i think they should be forced to advertise this in all their marketing materials so as not to mislead customers with 'high-speed downloads'.

    there is a restriction in the service they provide and i think they should be forced to make this known.
  43. Mark _ from Canada writes: ISP's are beginning to employ technologies that also slow down encrypted traffic, so that is not a solution either.

    I still can't believe that the government isn't getting involved to stop these bait-and-switch tactics. Also, why is there no legal challenges yet? This is the most blatant and widespread case of breach of contract that I've every heard of in Canada. You sign a contract for set level of bandwidth and are then told you are being cut back because you actually want to use what you pay for?

    Imagine if this was a cell phone carrier - you sign up for a plan with 200 minutes per month, after a week you use 50 minutes so they call you and say, 'sorry... you are on a pace to use all your minutes, we are cutting you back to 100 minutes per month because you are a high network user!' Nobody would stand for that, and we shouldn't stand for bandwidth throttling either.
  44. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: The solution is charge more to the 10%; not play arbitrary judge on what traffic is ok. While inherently a lot of P2P traffic is big media files, it is becoming increasingly used for legitimate means. If they 'normal' usage pattern is say 30G a month, then ok, the basic package lets you transfer that much. The 10% that abuse it pay 2x or 3x as much for their taxing bandwidth usage.

    I honestly don't know why it is so complicated, for cable and phone services this is how it has been for decades. Does the guy with the $20 cell phone plan get unlimited data transfers? No. Does everybody get all the channels? No.
  45. Nick Simmons from Ottawa, Canada writes: I don't know what type of deal TekSavvy has with Bell, but I assume that TekSavvy pays for a set amount of bandwidth per month from Bell. If this is the case, then why should Bell care what TekSavvy customers use this for? For example, if TekSavvy pays for 10,000TB per month, then it should be up to TekSavvy, and TekSavvy alone, to determine how this bandwidth is distributed to it's customers.

    CRTC, are you listening?
  46. Omnibot 2000 from Canada writes: Where is the competition bureau? Bell sells VOIP, and restricts VOIP traffic from other parties who use their lines. Think about it...
  47. Cowtown boy from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Keith Duguay from writes: What bothers me most is that I chose to give my business to a small, independant ISP and NOT Bell or Rogers. Now Bell is acting like the monopoly that it is and interfering ultimately with the customers of the 3rd party ISPs it wholesales bandwith to'

    This is your right Keith, but maybe you should tell your ISP to build their own network and then they can let you have as much bandwidth as you want. If you think that this is all simple to fix, then get out your cheque book and see what it cost's to deploy large scale fiber networks and routers accross the country.
  48. John - from BC Interior, Canada writes: I live in a one-horse town, and our only ISP buys its bandwidth from Shaw Communications. For $40.00 a month, I'm capped at 6 GB of data transfer per month with a maximum speed of 90 Kbs. That's a lotta bucks for next to nothing compared to the promised service that many here are talking about.

    There's a P2P program I use to download older tunes from the 50s - 70s - tunes I can't find through services like iTunes or Puretracks. When I can use this P2P program, the maximum download speed is about 15 Kbs, but generally less. So, I'm not using that much bandwidth. At precisely 8:00 AM the transfer speed drops to 0. I know I can't use this program between 8:00 AM and Midnight, but I don't know when they turn the switch back on, so I can use it for a few hours before 8:00 AM. I would love to have the Bandwidth that Bell is still allowing their customers!

    My ISP claims they aren't packet shaping, so it must be Shaw. I honestly don't know who's shaping my bandwidth. But, when I'm paying $40.00 a month for 6 GB of data transfer and a maximum transfer speed of 90 Kbs, I sure as heck want that bandwidth available to me 24/7!
  49. Hornsworth Portswiler from adanac, Canada writes: With their control, the duopolists (Bell and Rogers, for example), who own the Internet networks (especially the 'last mile' from your neighborhood to your home) will drive prices up, making many current and future applications impractical. This will turn Canada, which is currently fairly innovative and consumer friendly, into a cartel controlled backwater, like it is for cell networks.

    Bittorrent (and other p2p networks) is currently used for a lot of quasi- or blatantly illegal content, but it is also and will increasingly be used for legitimate content, because it is a very efficient means of content distribution (let's not forget the internet was designed to be a 'peer to peer' rather than 'server to consumer' in design). Schemes will emerge to charge different rates for different kinds of traffic. They will destroy the internet as a source of innovation. It is better to have tiers of service, like Videotron offers, lite, regular, super, and superduper, from $20 - $100 per month, to support different kinds of users.
  50. No No No Yes No from Ottawa, Canada writes: C S: In the States, ISP's refuse to implement throttling because they know Americans won't accept ISP's telling them what they are allowed to download and how. Canadian ISP's however are free to do whatever they wish to Canadians because they know Canadians will bend over and take whatever they are given.
  51. Keith Duguay from writes: It's irritating to me all the people saying 'good, this is fair for everyone' and 'great, now these pirates are getting what they deserve'. Wake up, as one poster correctly stated this affects more than just peer-to-peer file sharing. It's affecting home business users like me who work in IT and connect to work with VPN and other tunneling protocols. This is LEGITIMATE use of the Internet people! I'm paying for an internet connection. I don't condone piracy, child porn, or any of that nasty stuff. Bell Canada isn't in any way targeting that, they are targeting an entire set of types of data transmission, irrespective of the use. And what's more, they are doing this to the customers of OTHER companies! I am not a Bell Canada customer, yet they are now imposing this on me indirectly. I've already contacted my MP and I will be writing letters to the Minister of Industry, the CRTC, and the Competition Bureau today. Sadly, the G&M and other mainstream media stories are reporting this story a little superficially. It's not just another 'ISP taking steps to limit piracy' story. Dig deeper.
  52. Cowtown boy from Calgary, Canada writes: 'It's affecting home business users like me who work in IT and connect to work with VPN and other tunneling protocols. This is LEGITIMATE use of the Internet people! I'm paying for an internet connection.'

    Keith, that's why they are doing this, so it doesn't affect people like you who VPN into their office. If they didn't then this would have serious consequences for all you home/office users. I'll bet the only one complaining here are the people who are trying to download 5 GB/day of music or movies for free. If you are a legitimate home/office VPN user then you have nothing to worry about as you won't be affected.
  53. Gordon Murray from Canada writes: It should hardly be a surprise for what claims to be 'tek savvy' that DVD downloads and streaming video at some volume of consumer consumption would present a serious problem and rationing would result.
    Perhaps some of the REAL experts have series of indexes/indices to share to illustrate the situation.

    For those that might be paying high-speed prices, and whimper about not having available even inexpensive VOIP 56k bandwidth during busy periods, allegedly due to peer-to-peer/DVD-download crowding, terms like 'shaping' and 'net neutrality' should suggest themselves as moot in future arguments/complaints.

    In The BIG PIPE scenario subject to fixed bandwidth maximum for all internet superhighway users, the promises of any number of provider sub-divisions might like to compare to a common index of suffering.

    Is the claim that Bell users are NOT suffering similarly over-all?
    Not materially at all suffering?
    For some range of high bandwidth consumption?

    Maybe claimed 'service provision abandonments' elsewhere in the world soon enough subject to court intervention will such indexes provide.
  54. zen rainbow from here there everywhere, Canada writes: Bell just keeps on disappointing.
  55. THE LAKEMAN from N.S., Canada writes: I guess there is two sides to this story, the people who have a slow down in moving their data and those who have experienced a faster internet due to Bell managing the flow. The overall problem is that Bell does not seem to have the resources to satisfactorily do the job that the CRTC has entrusted to them. So CRTC what are you going to do about it? Lots of Luck people if the CRTC is involved.
  56. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: You can get many types of service from telcos, you can buy guaranted bandwidth, which Bell should never shape as the ISP is paying for that bandwidth and has the highest priority, and they can buy best effort bandwidth, this type Bell should be able to shape as it is not guaranted bandwidth. If the ISP is buying best effort as it is cheaper then they have no valid complaint, if they are buying guaranted then their compliant is valid.
  57. No No No Yes No from Ottawa, Canada writes: Ummm...Cowtown: I can tell you for a fact that it disrupts VPN traffic. A major law firm I know was impacted by this. All lawyers connecting to Citrix servers over their VPN were suddenly very upset with the speeds they were obtaining using Rogers once they implemented throttling of all encrypted traffic. Of course, Rogers didn't bother telling anyone they were traffic shaping (denying in fact!)

    People, this is a crock. Think of all the benefits of a high-speed infrastructure can bring to Canadians...Go ahead, be Canadian and support the ISP's while other Countries embrace higher speeds and freedom on the Internet. Let's see if this Internet-thing will be important 10 years from now! Of course, by then, we Canadians will be in the stone-age and other Countries will have Fibre to the door across all major metropolitan areas.
  58. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: THE LAKEMAN from N.S. - The CRTC doesn't currently regulate ISP's or the Internet.
  59. No No No Yes No from Ottawa, Canada writes: Erik...You really don't appreciate how much guaranteed bandwidth (called CIR) costs, do you?
  60. Adebisi TheGamer from CommonSenseTown, Canada writes: If I go to a salad bar that is advertised as all you can eat for a set price, and they put a 3 peice limit on the shrimp, I would speak up, and so would all of you.

    That is exactly what Bell and many others have gotten away with for years. Bell advertises unlimited bandwidth at 5MBPS, and thats what we should get for our money.

    This whole situation is not a technical problem, but by a need to cover up deceptive business practices. Bell and the others oversold their capacity, and now when we ask them to pony it up, to give us what we paid for, they pull out the fine print.

    Bait and switch.

    Pure and simple.

    Lets stop the calling it anything less.
  61. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: To No No No Yes No: I do appreciate how much it costs, but when you buy best effort, you are essentially in a sharing scenario, and then if you hog, you should expect to get shaped, as best effort is oversubscribed and works on the assumption that not everyone uses their maximum bandwidth. You get what you pay for.
  62. K Kloet from Hamilton, Canada writes: bell has a monopoly on the phone lines, the different cable companies across ontario do not compete with each other... our regulatory bodies do nothing about it.

    we're 10 years behind asian and european countries in fiber roll-out. what reason does bell have to spend on modern network infrastructure?

    the easy money is in old infrastructure and nefarious network traffic shaping, all the while selling the public on 'high-speed' and 'unlimited'. is anyone suprised that a monopoly is taking the easy profit route? who's going to stop them?
  63. THE LAKEMAN from N.S., Canada writes: Brian Bishop if you look really hard you will find it difficult to determine exactly just what the CRTC is responsible for. That is their out and the reason why they are quite useless. I have communicated a couple of times with them on at least two separate topics and that is there favorate response, Sorry that is not our area of responsibility unless....unless this, this and this has occurred.
  64. Luke P from Vancouver, Canada writes: barney miller: Thanks for that link. It really did open my eyes and realize that ISPs aren't being left with much choice.

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1078

    To the readers posting here: read this article. It highlights the REAL problem. The problem isn't the infrastructure - the basic connection 'rules' are simply out of date.
  65. Henry Egan from Cyberland, Canada writes: Just do like I do.

    When the aggravation builds up to a certain level, just call up Sympatico and after about an hour, when they answer, plug your phone line into an electrical wall outlet.
  66. Luke P from Vancouver, Canada writes: That ZDNet article, BTW, shows the flaw inherent in conclusions like Adebisi TheGamer's. According to the article, when you are using P2P programs like BitTorrent, you have, say, 10 TCP connections open at a time. If you have a 5 mbps connection, the currecnt TCP protocols dictate that you actually have ten 5 mbps connections open at once, for a total bandwidth of 50 mbps.

    So actually, you're paying for a 5 mbps bandwidth but getting 50 mbps bandwidth. Does that make any sense to you?

    Note: someone please make sure I read the article correctly.
  67. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: I hate Bell. I grew up in a 'Bell family' - ie. my grandmother, several aunts, and my mother all worked for Bell at one point in time. Couldn't have been prouder at the time. Now they've all moved on to other companies because they were dissatisfied with Bell, and none of us have any services through Bell.
    Their loss. And they'll continue to lose customers as long as they feel that they are untouchable, and hence can do as they please.
    I hate Bell.
  68. The Wight from Canada writes: Gordon Murray:

    'For those that might be paying high-speed prices, and whimper about not having available even inexpensive VOIP 56k bandwidth during busy periods, allegedly due to peer-to-peer/DVD-download crowding, terms like 'shaping' and 'net neutrality' should suggest themselves as moot in future arguments/complaints.'

    The issue with VoIP won't be moot at all unless the current providers start being 100% truthful with regards to why they filter VoIP. As you have implied in your post, the raw bandwidth demands for VoIP phones is minuscule when set in comparison to, for example, streaming video. Both require RT delivery, too. And yet, VoIP is filtered and downgraded but video streaming is not.

    There is no believable explanation for this except that providers are using specious 'excuses' to degrade the performance of their competitors to entice you to their own VoIP products. If this is indeed the case, then it really doesn't matter how much bandwidth truly gets freed up by packet shaping all those bittorrent users ... they won't take the packet shaping off of VoIP because bandwidth was never the reason for putting it on in the first place.
  69. Keith Duguay from writes: 'Keith, that's why they are doing this, so it doesn't affect people like you who VPN into their office. If they didn't then this would have serious consequences for all you home/office users. I'll bet the only one complaining here are the people who are trying to download 5 GB/day of music or movies for free. If you are a legitimate home/office VPN user then you have nothing to worry about as you won't be affected. ': Ugh....this is exactly what I'm talking about. This viewpoint is simply not factual. Look, head over to DSL Reports forums. That's where this story was originally broken BY THE CUSTOMERS. Teksavvy wasn't even aware Bell was doing this until enough users complained. Yes, you will find people there admiting they pirate dvds etc. but you will also see lots of business users complaining about how the traffic shaping is affecting their VPN, VOIP, etc. services. THEY PROVIDE HARD PROOF! They had to, because they were trying to convince Teksavvy that this was happening (because Bell didn't tell Teksavvy or any other companies they wholesale bandwith to they were doing this, they just went ahead and did it!) Finally Teksavvy was conviced something was up and they contacted Bell who FINALLY acknowledged they were doing this. Teksavvy has 21,000 customers roughly but ALL of Bell's 3rd party resellers are being affected Acanac, etc. other small ISPs. I'm sad this story is being lumped in with the 'Internet piracy' stories. The news story doesn't say it all and readers of course are just lapping it up. Pirates are the bad guys, Bell is the good guy. Easy right? There's PROOF of what Bell is doing that the G&M didn't dig deep enough to put in their story. Fact: VPN, VOIP, gaming traffic, etc are all being wrongly affected by this traffic shaping. Please don't feed me back the PR line that only the bad guys will be affected when we have dozens of real users providing data proving what is happening.
  70. The Wight from Canada writes: Luke P:

    'So actually, you're paying for a 5 mbps bandwidth but getting 50 mbps bandwidth. Does that make any sense to you?'

    Of course it doesn't make sense. When I read the post above that this is based on, I shook my head.

    Bittorrent works by a) making use of ALL the bandwidth available to a given user, including reserved upload bandwidth that typically goes unused and b) sharing the load for any given download across the network of users working with that file. It is a fantastic way of spreading the load out as evenly as possible and thereby reducing the odds of a spike in network activity slowing everyone down.

    You do NOT get 5 times the bandwidth just by using bittorrent. My bittorrent client tops out at about 300KB/s under optimal conditions, which is almost exactly the 5 Mb/s limit of the line I'm sold by my provider.

    The entire point is that I can download a large file like a Linux distribution using standard http and it is unfiltered by my provider. That exact file, downloaded with bittorrent, WILL be filtered and download considerably slower as a result. The actual bandwidth costs for that file are identical and bittorrent would actual spread the load a bit more evenly than a typical http download ... but my ISP penalizes the METHOD and not the ACT. Bittorrent is a technology that every overextended network should be embracing, but ...
  71. Adebisi TheGamer from CommonSenseTown, Canada writes: Luke, your modem will only transmit at 1MBPS if you are very lucky.

    Luke, your modem will only download at 5MBPS if you are very lucky.

    This hard number does not change regardless of how many connections you open.

    Also, Bell can constrict you to 5MBPS no matter how many connections you have open.

    You cannot possibly download 50MBPS on your DSL modem at home.

    If you open 10 ports and download 10 differing files, one on each, they have to share your 5mbps connection. Your ISP has allocated you that much, and thats what you get, even if you have a million ports open.

    Also pay attention to the language in the article and read it with a critical eye. I am tired of spoonfed armchair techs telling people they are wrong every time they read something in some blog.

    The article clearly states those using 'Exploits'. It goes on to say that this is the case on a congested internet link.

    Quote: Simply by opening up 10 to 100 TCP streams, P2P applications can grab 10 to 100 times more bandwidth than a traditional single-stream application under a congested Internet link.

    Well guess what? If the networks were built and sold at the capacity advertised, this would not be an issue and would not be a congested internet link.

    Yes by opening more connections you can get a higher download rate in total then your neighbor, but you won't exceed the 5MBPS you were sold.

    Also, if the ISP you buy from has a congested backbone, and you take steps to ensure that you get what you paid for, how is that cheating anyone? Your ISP should upgrade their backbone. Stop letting them lay this off on consumers already.

    You are being confused by what I am sure technical mumbo jumbo.

    And for the record, I don't even download movies, I just know crap when I step in it.
  72. Mark Hudson from Canada writes: First, G&M it's Megabits, not Megabytes per second (large difference).

    Secondly, shame on bell for not telling their wholesalers before hand.

    Thirdly, bell (and all other ISPs) are completely within their right to use traffic shaping on the network THEY own. For some reason people feel it's their god given right to have unlimited downloads for $50/mo. It isn't, If you pay what an actual company pays (dedicated Internet) for bandwidth that is unlimited, or of equal or greater speed you are typically charged hundreds of dollars more (possibly into the thousand(s)) per month.

    Your residential Internet account provides you access to their network, as they see fit. You don't own their network because of this, and you have no right to say what happens to that traffic the second it leaves your house. By all means, as a customer you can complain to your ISP, but I'd recommend reading your Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy first (it's that piece of paper you likely tossed out when you had the service installed), that outlines very clearly what you're paying for and how it can be used.

    There are a surprising amount of people who download upwards of 450GB per month (most of which being illegal) and have their connection going 24/7 (and in some cases their neighbor's too via, unsecured wireless networks). Faster speeds does not equal more usage, it's suppose to be the same usage in less time. Therefore in many ways, actually reducing overall bandwidth needs.

    The problems with torrents, and the way most 'novice' computer (see reckless) users have them configured is to be running 24/7 with a queue of downloads set to use all available bandwidth. In many cases, set to download things they don't even want (duplicates, incomplete torrents). People don't think before they click, and since they assume somehow that bandwidth is limitless and magically comes from no where that there are no problems with it.
  73. Adebisi TheGamer from CommonSenseTown, Canada writes: Mark, we have every right to expect unlimited bandwidth at the list speeds when every Bell TV ad and website pushes those as reasons to sign up in the first place.

    If I rent a Hotel room and promise people they can have unlimited showers, then kick them out for doing so, I may be in my rights as Hotel owner, but it is still unethical.

    Just because you have the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do to your customers.

    Stop advertising unlimited downloads when you limit them. Its really that easy. If Bell were 2 years old I was say 'Now little boy, stop fibbing'

    Amazing the logic is so hard to grasp.

    Be honest, admit you can no longer offer unlimited monthly bandwidth, and give people new options. Do not sneak in the back, turn off their pipes, and hope they do not notice.
  74. wawa dave from The other side of the road!, Canada writes: This is simple Cor-pirate greed and gouge scheme !1 Down grade a service slowly get all the Conned-sumers used to far far less serviceable band width then open up more slots to be sold the the conned-sumers. This is just Cor-pirations and the need for greed. Exercising their true Cor-pirate rite to rip you off how ever when ever they see fit. For the Cor-piration By the Cor-piration Because of the Cor-piration For them only does the government stand!!
  75. Globe Reader from Canada writes: Surely Bell owes it to their customers (including the ISPs that resell internet access provided by Bell) to provide them information about any measures taken in managing traffic that may affect the quality of service. It seems pretty basic and logical, and it should be part of policy rules enforced by CRTC.

    For many people, internet access is important for their work and for their life, and 'best effort' service that sometimes work and sometimes doesn't is no longer acceptable.

    But I have noticed that Sympatico is in the habit of introducing changes in their services without any publicity and without prior warning. If there were a real competition in the market, they wouldn't be able to get away with it for long.
  76. Ziad Fazel from Calgary, Canada writes: Luke P, good question on Barney's excellent contribution.

    At the risk of oversimplifying something I am learning myself: When your P2P client takes 10 TCP connections v another user's 1 TCP connection, you are not getting 10 times the bandwidth. Let's say it is just the 2 of you going through a particular bottleneck in the system. You are getting 10/11 of the bandwidth while they are only getting 1/11.

    The ISP can spend tons of money on infrastructure and other upgrades to open up one bottleneck after another, but the problem will simply move to the next one. For cable ISPs, the limited uplink and shared use of the neighbourhood coax present mighty bottlenecks to overcome, compared to DSL or fibre networks designed/adapted for data.

    Some would say that is the cable ISPs problem to manage, since they are adding the 2-way data revenue stream to profit from a network built for 1-way TV delivery. And operating in a near-monopoly from TV rules administered by the CRTC. But those are other cans of worms.
  77. The Wight from Canada writes: Globe Reader:

    'If there were a real competition in the market, they wouldn't be able to get away with it for long.'

    And there's the rub.

    There are so many ways we could potentially get Internet access to our homes, from cable to telephone to fibre to 802.11 wireless to WiMax to the current cellular network. We can even run traffic over the power line in addition to the power already traveling down it.

    The ONLY thing we need as a solution to this problem long term is to a) maximize the number of avenues to obtain service and b) make sure those avenues are owned by different providers.

    In both of these, Canada fails miserably. The WiMax frequency auctions are done and, surprise, surprise, the big wired providers outbid everyone else. So, you have a choice of Rogers through the cell network, Rogers through landline or Rogers through WiMax. Yay. Thank goodness the CRTC saw some light and allowed new providers reserved space in the upcoming bandwidth auction for the soon to be vacated TV spectrum.
  78. Ramesh Fernando from Canada writes: As usual there are folks like Ben Lucier who make excuses for Bell. Well of course there will be problems with bandwidth if Bell doesn't invest in infrastructure. Bell is cheap, Verizon is investing in putting fibre to the home. Where's Bell. Canadian telcos are money hogs who don't invest in anything. Rogers and Shaw are one family companies who have been given monopolies because of political connections and the old boy's network with the CRTC. We need real competition more WiMax from others than Bell and Rogers, which many people don't know are working together on their WiMax offering. As usual whose to blame, the toothless CRTC which allows Bell and Rogers to have monopolies in Ontario along with Telus and Shaw in the West and Videotron and Bell in Quebec. After saying that, should Bell and the telcos be allowed to raise prices for higher bandwidth users. I think so since they use more bandwidth but packet controlling is too much.
  79. Gordon Graham from Toronto, Canada writes: Gee, let's all criticize Bell for messing with somebody else's data. Funny, but I imagine most of what's exchanged on the torrents is 'somebody else's data' like music or movies. Of course, nobody likes to be slowed down. But for people sharing IP they never paid for, I say tough bananas.
  80. Keith Duguay from writes: Yes, and tough bananas for all the people who are affected and NOT sharing intellectual property they never paid for! Bell's wide net is snaring people who are doing absolutely nothing wrong, legally or otherwise.
  81. Globe Reader from Canada writes: Gordon Graham from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Gee, let's all criticize Bell for messing with somebody else's data. Funny, but I imagine most of what's exchanged on the torrents is 'somebody else's data' like music or movies. Of course, nobody likes to be slowed down. But for people sharing IP they never paid for, I say tough bananas.'

    Nice try. Straight from Sophistry 101: 'If you dare to criticize me then you must be doing something illegal.'

    So let's all agree that unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is bad, and get back to the issue at hand: There are people who use internet access perfectly legally, and who rely on and pay for high-bandwidth access. Bell, because of insufficient competition, is getting away with altering the quality of service for these customers, without warning.
  82. Hornsworth Portswiler from adanac, Canada writes: Mark Hudson, it would be simple if it weren't simply Bell's customers, but Bell has been given an exclusive right to run one of the main networks in Canada, which they've been able to do because they've had a government endorsed monopoly for a long time. It's simply not practical for every ISP to run their own wires. The agreement was for individual ISPs to be able to access the Bell network (and help pay for it), but the relationship clearly puts these ISPs in an inferior position. Remember Bell's slogan from the 90's - 'we'll earn your business.' Well, it's really 'we'll own your business,' and it is anti competitive for this situation to exist. There should be ways for ISPs to distinguish themselves, including higher bandwidth offerings. There should be more flexible ways for ISPs to provide their own bandwidth over DSL.
  83. Cowtown boy from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Estimates vary, but analysts believe peer-to-peer and torrent traffic accounts for anywhere from 70 to 90 per cent of online bandwidth use, but emanates from as few as 5 to 10 per cent of all users.'

    This is why they are shaping. If the small ISP's don't like it then they have a choice of who they buy their bandwidth from, Bell & Rogers aren't the only providers, Telus or MTS Allstream will gladly sell bandwidth to an ISP. Even if they have to use a Bell Tail circuit to deliver it, it's just simply a pipe and shouldn't be affected by Bell or Rogers. There's also wireless companies like Tergo who will also gladly sell you a pipe. So you see people, there are lots of providers to provide competition.