Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Prentice mum on ISP throttling debate

MATT HARTLEY

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 9:49 PM EDT 02/04/08

NDP question industry minister over government's stance on Net neutrality ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Derek Adams from Toronto, Canada writes: Conservatives lost my vote. They cannot be trusted to protect Canadians rights. They have been one disappointment after another.
  2. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: When Bell sells bandwidth to these third party providers, how dare they break in to the sold traffic bandwidth and start removing things?
    That's in essence what they're doing. They are removing things that they sold.
    ISP's MUST be able to buy straight connections to and from their customers. The service was deregulated for a reason - to allow for competition.
    I am convinced that Bell is breaking the rules all over the place. It is now just a matter of time before the lawyers figure out how to word things right, but Bell is going to be in for one major shock - and they deserve it.
    I wonder if Bell is going to have enough money left over after that to continue operating. That's too bad, I kind of like ExpressVu and my normal land phone line.
    I guess I'll have to switch to Star Choice and some sort of voip through some sort of wireless or (cough) cable. No, wait, not cable.
  3. Not right or left from Canada writes: This doesn't surprise me one bit that a Conservative government takes the side of big business over average Canadians. Bring on an election so we can throw these bums out of government. The last thing we need in this country is less competition in the internet market. It wouldn't surprise me if Bell and Rogers plan all their strategies together to try to limit real competition. Mr. Prentice wake up before you lose your job.
  4. Andrew E from Canada writes: Throddling, for the uninitiated, is a legitimate word used in IS circles to describe limiting bandwidth on specific protocols.
  5. Timothy Nessus from Somewhere, Canada writes: YES! I agree! Bell Canada should have the right to throttle (i.e. discard) any information they deem appropriate.
    On the same topic, I also agree that private curriers, do have the right to discard any package (paid, of course) that they may deem too big or too heavy or too ackward or whose destination is in a non-English speaking country. Furthermore, I fully support the idea that Canada Post has the right to toss out (i.e. into the bin) any (already paid) mail that they may deem appropriate since the post-people (let's be politically correct) may get tired. Furthermore, the critical lack of post boxes and the long distances that Canada Post must traverse give them the right to decide how much, which mail and when and where will they be tossing into the garbage! In addition, I am in complete agreement that phone companies must be allowed to determine the time of the day you are allowed to communicate and when you are not due to 'phone line capacity' issues. Got that! If you want to communicate, you should have to pay a 'business' rate for your phone line, mail and/or package. What the heck! Communication costs $$$ and companies MUST be profitable (i.e. VERY profitable) first, before they give you ANY service!!
    Lastly, I don't see why such companies should abide by the letter of the contracts, if everybody knows that no customer actually reads the contracts. Besides, it is a mute point because they are monopolies.
    So, let's be clear: Companies must have the right to treat the consumer like cattle! What the heck! A buck of profit is a buck of profit!
  6. Timothy Nessus from Somewhere, Canada writes: Oh... yeah... I forgot... the 'Estimates vary, but analysts believe this bandwidth-intensive applications account for as much as 90 per cent of Internet traffic and emanate from as few as 5 per cent of all users.' is NOTHING BUT PROPAGANDA from Bell. Check the REAL statistics taken by ISP's such are Teksavvy, which are actually in the eye of the storm. How much bandwidht are these 'leeches' ACTUALLY, REALLY using ? Well LESS THAN 5% of TOTAL CAPACITY!!!!
  7. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    Good on Dipper Charlie Angus for actually bringing up this important issue. It's something that does not get enough press time in Canada because most people don't really understand it and won't care until it's too late.

    Unfortunately it seems like Prentice is one of those that won't care until it's too late.
  8. Jason Fournier from Acton, Canada writes: Google has 196 hits total for 'throddling' -- while the article itself refers to 'throttling' traffic twice. Methinks 'throddling' is not yet a legitimate word -- until enough people in IS circles get used to misspelling 'throttling' . . .
  9. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:
    CTV GM practises censoring already!!!!! It is called Freedom from Speech!
    I use the word censoring as opposed to throddling ... excuse me.
    Me thinks the IS circles didn't do well in the 3 Rs.
  10. Metro Metro from Vancouver, Canada writes: If this was China, I wonder what the Conservatives might have to say then? Would they still like the term 'traffic shaping'?

    What do they call it when political decisions are made by and for the good of corporations? What's the correct term when government becomes conflated with industry?

    I'd google it, but they're 'traffic shaping'.

    Maybe it's time for another facebook group--tell this government who they really work for, eh? They seem to have forgotten. Or maybe, being the Conservatives, they haven't.
  11. Richard Killey from Hamilton, writes: as per Joseph Whistle's comments. This should become a legal issue. Why should the government step in. If there is a legal agreement, then let the lawyers work it out. If Bell is bad, then the lawyers and judges will slap them silly.

    personally, I think ISP's should have a volume surcharge. If you download movies 24x7, then you pay more. That extra money should be used to extend capacity. in what other industries do we have a unlimited volume for fixed fee situation. long distance is one. any others? in long distance I have a choice. pay for a single call, or buy a bundle deal for more money. that's a bit different than the internet problem.

    leave the government out of this. period.
  12. M P from Canada writes: Timothy Nessus from Somewhere, Canada writes: 'On the same topic, I also agree that private curriers, do have the right to discard any package (paid, of course) that they may deem too big or too heavy or too ackward or whose destination is in a non-English speaking country.'

    This is a silly comparison and only indicates that you don't understand what throttling is or how it works. Comparing it to throwing away someone's parcel is ridiculous. No data is thrown away or permanently lost, it's only prioritized to ensure basic web functionality take precedence over file sharing.

    The bottom line is, internet bandwidth is a finite source and there is only so much of it to go around. A single hardcore file-sharer can easily use as much bandwidth as 100 people in his community. The net result is that everyone else in his area ends up with a slow connection because the file-sharer is hogging all the resources for himself.

    Why should a tiny percentage of hardcore downloaders be able to degrade the quality of service for everyone else?
  13. Sask Langer from Canada writes: Of course Prentice won't say anything. He's waiting for his talking points from the corporate lobby to be approved by the PMO. It's just a good thing he doesn't have the opportunity to his unscripted opinion, or we'd all find out that the Internet is like a series of tubes, you can't just dump all this data into the tube and expect it to all come out the other side.

    Election, Cabinet shuffle, whatever. Dump this lame duck from a portfolio he has no business being in. (Pun intended).

    --

    Richard Killey from Hamilton, writes: ...in long distance I have a choice. pay for a single call, or buy a bundle deal for more money. that's a bit different than the internet problem.

    No, it's not like that. Think more along the lines of 'I paid for a bundle, and afterward find out that there are unpublished restrictions on it'. To everyone who can't see the point of people who are against this, Do you enjoy seeing pictures on the internet? Do you like being able to load long, idiotic message boards like this? Because before the advent of broadband, it wasn't nearly this nice. Arguing for caps like this would be like arguing 10 years ago for speed restrictions. Nobody but downloaders needs that sort of speed, right? It's the advance of technology, and if you can't see how this 'excess' now will become 'standard' in the future, then leave the argument to the people who can.
  14. Sask Langer from Canada writes: M P from Canada writes: The bottom line is, internet bandwidth is a finite source and there is only so much of it to go around.

    Well said. The internet isn't just something you dump something on. It's not a dumptruck. You're the only one who understands those tubes can be filled, and if you put something in, it's going to be delayed by someone who puts in enormous, enormous amounts of material.
  15. I. Con O'Clast from Canada writes: Well, at least the Globe has not 'throddled' comment on this piece.
  16. Some Guy from Ottawa, Canada writes: I am not interested in losing 95% of my bandwidth to torrent hogs, but I dont like having MY traffic shaped. There is no easy way out of this. It is the fault of a poorly constructed TCP/IP protocol that favours those users who are on multiple connections (torrent users) over those users who are simply browsing a single page making just one or two connections. Fix the TCP/IP protocol, and stop shaping.
  17. gaetan diotte from ottawa, Canada writes: Point - Both Bell Sympatico and Rogers prevented me from accessing a legitimate Federal government service because I was using a recommended and legal software (BitTorrent) and by such use they deemed the content of that government data to be of illegal nature and therefore throttled my connection to the point of uselessness.

    This is the problem in a nutshell. A private company prevented me from accessing my government.

    What other government services will become unavailable because of using BiTorrent and other such P2P to download files?
  18. Tim Cares from Canada writes: M P from Canada writes: Timothy Nessus from Somewhere, Canada writes: 'On the same topic, I also agree that private curriers, do have the right to discard any package (paid, of course) that they may deem too big or too heavy or too ackward or whose destination is in a non-English speaking country.'...
    ...Why should a tiny percentage of hardcore downloaders be able to degrade the quality of service for everyone else?...

    Because that's what the advertisements say. Unlimited. High speed.
  19. Tim Cares from Canada writes: You know, if you don't like what Bell and Rogers are doing, remove as much of their services as possible.
    I have removed Rogers second tier of cable, I am going to switch ISPs and I bought my own PVR.
    My bill will go from over $300/ 3 months to about $100/ 3 months.

    Of course I will still be paying for the internet from another company but Rogers will get none of it.

    If everyone does this, maybe they will get the picture.
    How many people who complain about these companies still buy their products when they don't need them?
  20. A. Nonymous from Traffice Shaping Ville, United States writes: Traffic Shaping is a good thing, I don't understand why people are opposed to this?

    I use traffic shaping on my home DSL network. I 'shape' all ad servers to 0kb/s, by blocking them.

    I shape flash ads to 0kb/s, by blocking them using noflash for firefox.

    What's that? Advertisers don't like that? Networks don't like that because they are 'content' companies? Too bad, it's my bandwidth, and I'll do with it as I please.

    Want me to waste my bandwidth on ads? Compensate me.
  21. gaetan diotte from ottawa, Canada writes: M P from Canada - Ok Let's explain this in very simple language that you can, perhaps, follow.

    a: Gov't agency offers taxpayer funded information.
    b: Gov't agency recommends specific delivery method for dispersal of information.
    c: Private firm degrades any and all access to this information which uses government recommended delivery method.
    d: Private firm interferes with my access to government services.

    Do you understand now?
  22. Dave S from Victoria, Canada writes: What is 'throddling'? Is this a new technical term? I'm surprised that it's sneaked up on me and stunned to see it come up many times on a Google search - can the Globe, as an arbiter of correct and defined English usage, define it for us? It does appear to be a new term that they are promulgating.
  23. Erika H from Montreal, Canada writes: I do wonder where they generate this '95% of bandwidth is used by 5% of users.' I know of a lot of average users who wander off to youtube on a daily basis, or stream sporting events (eg. hockey) over the internet. With Apple introducing movies (only in the USA so far) and TV shows on iTunes, it encourages grabbing large media files from the internet. Lastly, years ago people would set up impressive music centers either in their cars, or at home. Now, the latest trend is setting up a home entertainment system. As such, there already is, and I predict will continue to be simpler means of acquiring movies off the internet, etc. through the computer or gaming console used to control the media center.

    Do these telecommunications companies really think they'll be able to avoid hardware upgrades (ie. multi-gig/terrabyte broadband connections), and use the 'excuse' of traffic shaping in the future?
  24. Sask Langer from Canada writes: Okay MP, it's getting to be painfully obvious you don't get it, which would be okay, if you had decided to be smart about it and not blindly attack people who do get it. Erika gets it, for example. But since you're too thick to understand an argument, STFU for a minute and listen:

    You are not losing your connection speed due to 'downloaders'. You are losing your connection speed due to terrible contention rates on what is advertised as a 'high speed' connection. If 24 computers are trying to use the same 1 meg line, of course there's going to be slowdown, not to mention the fact that '1 megabit' is only a burst speed anyway, and you don't get that, regardless of what you're running (something anyone who downloads things already knows). You get something less than that consistently, even if your contention rate is low, or 1. Well before bittorrent or even Napster came around there was this issue. Users on high contention rates would regularly kick out at 5pm because everybody got home and tried to use the internet at the same time, and the connection just couldn't handle it.

    The problem comes when the ISP advertises this super high speed, and then doesn't mention that you're fighting with 24 or more other users for that. And that's not just downloading, that's web browsing, chat, VoIP, and huge botnets spamming it up the internets. Instead of providing the service they advertise, they unilaterally stop you from using any program that might actually use said advertised service, regardless of its purpose.

    So if you don't like how slow your connection is, pay for a contentionless connection. That's what the rest of us do, the only difference is we know a bad idea when we see it. Granted, this would imply you get a view of the problem without your colon blocking it.
  25. winston bharat from toronto, Canada writes: This has nothing to do with Bell being at capacity. Bell realized peopl were jumping ship to Teksavvy because of the lack of shaping, and thus decided to even the playing field. But guess what, Teksavvy is still only $30/mth, so keep switching everyone!
  26. Dan Thomas from Canada writes: Ok, here is how it works. One person pays for 150mb/s, they get 150mb/s (if they are lucky and are actually getting the speed they pay for. This is bits per second folks, all files are divided into pieces represented by bit ALL files NOT SOME BUT ALL. Now what they are saying is if they don't like the TYPE of file you download, they will only give you 50mb/s. You paid for a certain amount of data over a given period, they cannot go back and say hey we don't like this data so we won't let you have it at the same rate you paid for. Nothing excuses the practice of throttling. You can't download faster than what you paid for, YOU the consumer paid for that information in a bits per second format. What they are doing by throttling is saying 'sorry, you can download pictures from your aunt mary, 100M will take 15minutes, but if you download a movie (regardless of source, some of the LEGAL download sites use torrent technology) that is 100M it will take 6 hours because we don't like you using the bits per second we sold you in that manner.
  27. Dan Thomas from Canada writes: A nonymous, if a program on your computer is blocking ads then the bandwidth has already been used by you. All the webpage information was sent to your computer before noflash found the ads and prevented them from being displayed. Same with blocking adservers from your gateway, the information already arrived at the destination but was tossed in the trash on arrival. It's the same as finding unsolicited mail in your mail box and throwing it out without reading it but recognising it by a set of characteristics common to junkmail. You still recieved the junkmail but decided not to read it.
  28. Phil M from Toronto, Canada writes: Throttling is a goon-like, brute-force approach that indiscriminately punishes legitimate users along with bandwidth hogs. Users who have already signed contracts for a particular class of service. I'm always disappointed by cabmins and their teams who can't formulate some kind of opinion or policy without consulting the polls first. Not exactly the leadership I'm looking for. I'm also disappointed by headline writers who use words like 'throddling' ;)

    Let's face it, the bitorrent file transfer protocol is no longer the sole domain of the internet pirate; everyone from Linux distributors to the CBC is using it now. And the download-crazy users often mask their traffic by encrypting it. So tons of legit users downloading legit content in reasonable quantities are getting throttled. Which is BS when you think about it. And that's not even looking at the implications of an ISP actively snooping at your network packets and making determinations about whether or not your usage is up to their lofty standards.

    Monthly bandwidth caps, as hated as they are, are a much more elegant solution to the problem of bandwidth hogs. But Bell already has those... hmm.... maybe this isn't about users abusing the network after all, but about 3rd party resellers stealing customers from Bell. Let's face it, Bell can and will do every dirty trick under the sun to drive small independent players out of the market; that's all this is really about.
  29. True North from Canada writes: Throttling is not the way to solve this problem. Verizon in the US recently implemented a system it calls P4P which actually optimizes traffic by routing P2P traffic to its closest point and made its network far more efficient than it was previously. Do a google search on "verizon p2p".

    There are a next generation of P2P applications emerging such as Sopcast which stream video in real time so ISPs like Bell and Rogers will be cutting your viewing off; not just slowing downloading of files.
  30. Carmen Branje from Toronto, Canada writes: I have a couple of comments regarding this issue:

    1) I have cancelled my Sympatico account and will be switch the Teksavvy. This wholesaler throttling won't last, and soon I'll be enjoying cheaper and faster internet.

    2) The internet, and communication in general in this country SUCKS. I was in France and Holland recently and they have connection speeds that blew me away, 2 and 3 MEGABYTES not bit a second. Cell plans are WAY cheaper. The reason we have to put up with bad service and high prices is because Rogers and Bell form a duopoly and no real competition exists in the industry.

    Please everyone, cancel your Sympatico account and go with Teksavvy, the only way to effect these large corporations is to cut off their life line, ie YOUR MONEY.
  31. Alexis Savanarola from Rockcliffe Park, Canada writes: A colleague of mine in Ottawa who is a retired Canadian government official is working with enforcement officials in Europe which are preparing a major anti-trust case against a group of giant multi-national corporations operating in the technology field. He was asked which Canadian agencies could be brought into the investigation. He warned them NOT to let any Canadian agenciy anywhere near their inquiry, because the present ideologically driven federal Government had no interest in prosecuting large corporations for offenses that harm consumers or stifle free trade.
  32. A. Nonymous from Traffice Shaping Ville, United States writes: "A nonymous, if a program on your computer is blocking ads then the bandwidth has already been used by you. All the webpage information was sent to your computer before noflash found the ads and prevented them from being displayed. Same with blocking adservers from your gateway, the information already arrived at the destination but was tossed in the trash on arrival."

    Note quite... I redirect the common adservers to 127.0.0.1, the request for the ad never goes out, it's blocking it before it hits the gateway.

    Noflash simply 'pretends' that I don't have macromedia flash capability, so the ad really never gets download, all I see is an empty frame in it's place.

    Surfing the net without download bitmaps also works wonders.
  33. David K from Guelph, Canada writes: "Mr. Prentice said the government was monitoring the situation and waiting to see how the issue unfolds" translation:- the Boss hasn't told me what to do/say yet.
  34. SN Dream from Canada writes: M P from Canada writes:
    "
    The bottom line is, internet bandwidth is a finite source and there is only so much of it to go around. A single hardcore file-sharer can easily use as much bandwidth as 100 people in his community. The net result is that everyone else in his area ends up with a slow connection because the file-sharer is hogging all the resources for himself.

    Why should a tiny percentage of hardcore downloaders be able to degrade the quality of service for everyone else?"
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Estimates vary, but analysts believe this bandwidth-intensive applications account for as much as 90 per cent of Internet traffic and emanate from as few as 5 per cent of all users. "

    M P,

    That statistic must be pulled from bell's axx, just Youtube traffics alone are way over 10% of the internet traffic. And I don't think youtube are used only by a tiny percentage of "hardcore" internet user. Maybe they should follow what Verizon in the US are doing instead of milking the consumer like cattle.
  35. Not right or left from Canada writes: "Presently, as a result of streaming audio and video in Web downloads, HTTP is approximately 46% of all traffic on the network. P2P continues as a strong second place at 37% of total traffic. Newsgroups (9%), non-HTTP video streaming (3%), gaming (2%) and VoIP (1%) are the next widely used applications."

    Source: Ellacoya Networks
  36. A. Nonymous from Traffice Shaping Ville, United States writes: How much bandwidth do ads take?

    Why should consumers have to pay for ads?

    We already pay for the bandwidth, it's not being subsidized by advertising, so why should we pay to see someone's ads?

    Want to show me ads? Compensate me, give me free services [gmail], or give me cold hard cash.
  37. Ramesh Fernando from Canada writes: M P what are you a mouthpiece for Bell. Bell and Rogers have duopoly for too long with Telus and Shaw in the west. Both the Liberals and Conservatives are in the payout of these crony companies and the CRTC is too buddy buddy with the company. Canada has such a crony systemh let talentless people like the Shaws and Rogers become billionaires without any real entrepreneurial challenge. Whatever Roger's fault I agree with download limits over controlling the protocols. Controlling what people download or what protocols people use and to force the 3rd party ISPs to follow when they rent the bandwidth is crazy. Bell has no right to shape third party iSP who rent the lines. I am firm believer in limited government, and letting market forces determine most efficient outcome. But this is a monopoly controlling access to the Internet. Some form of government action should be taken Canada has become a joke in the Internet industry. As some other posters have noted, France and Netherlands and especiallys South Korea have leapfrogged us in both high speed wire and wireless Internet access. Even the USA with Verizon's fibre to the home is leapfroging Canada. I would pay the prices Verizon is charging if I could get Verizon's Internet service. Bell doesn't want want to spend any money on infrastructure depending on their 20 year old copper wires to give slow speed service to consumers. And now with private buyout, I can guarantee you Bell will spend even less.
  38. David N from Toronto, Canada writes: If you want to learn what the Tory policy on anything is, just look on the US Republican party website. That's where they take their orders.
  39. one thinker from Canada writes: i'll repeat again "analysts believe this bandwidth-intensive applications account for as much as 90 per cent of Internet traffic and emanate from as few as 5 per cent of all users. " Who are this analysts and where do they get this stats ?

    Until i get solid information on this then this quote is just a way to misinform the public and divide us against unfair practices from coorporations.

    PS: Government get elected to work for the people not for coorporations.
  40. Geriatric Personage from St. Stephen, Canada writes: Many posts recommend Teksavvy, unfortunately this is a very limited service available only in dense population areas. Most of Canada is at the mercy of Bell or Rogers both of which, by world standards, offer extremely poor (some would even opine incompetent) service
  41. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: OMG! I AGREE WITH THE NDP!

    Someone shoot me.
  42. Krusty G from Ontariario, Canada writes: .
    Andrew E, you didn't even spell throttle correctly. Doesn't exactly make you look like one of the 'initiated', does it?

    Besides, isn't your point kind of like saying 'laundering is a perfectly legitimate word used in business circles to introduce currency obtained from specific undocumented practices into the mainstream to give it legitimacy'?

    However legitimate the word is, the practice still stinks. Think about it.
  43. Marc Trepanier from shangri la, Canada writes: @one thinker: tell that to Jim Prentice!

    @P M: attitudes like yours hamper future progress. If your attitude prevailed, we would all still be operating at dial up speeds. How do you imagine that they were able to upgrade their dial-up service to DSL when everyone was paying $20/month or so for the dial up service?

    Bell offers at least three different levels of DSL service at different price points for each. If I'm paying for the higher level of DSL, I expect not to be throttled, and I expect that Bell should be using the funds generated in increasing their capacity to deliver ever increasing amounts of data, just like they did when dial-up was king.

    Until someone convinces me otherwise, my opinion is that Bell is sitting on their incompetent laurels, wanting to rake in as much $ as they can without having to continually improve upon their offered services.

    Personally, I'd prefer to see a future where broadband bandwidth increases to a point where I can download any content I like in realtime. Why shouldn't the internet provide me with the same bandwidth as cable or satellite TV? This is the future man, wrap your mind around it and demand it! I definitely do not want my ISP to throttle content delivery in which they are in competition with, ie voice delivery ie Bell vs VOIP; video delivery ie Bell expressvue vs CBC bittorrent. This behaviour delays the inevitable, which Bell is reluctant to face.
  44. Robert P from Canada writes: So many problems here. First, I'm all into free markets deciding but the problem is it is not an open & free market. How many companies could wire up a city and provide that last-mile access? Also, remember that the same companies own legacy media (ie: TV) so there is the possibility of worrying how it may affect current cashflows. This is why the government should at least say "watch out or we will come in". What is of most importance is they don't say where the bottleneck is (and if we would believe them). In the case of cable, is it in the problem in the head-end? Is there a problem in their per-home-passed ratios? Should they open up more channels for internet (DOCSIS allows for negotiation so not all homes on the same pass need use the same channels). If so, should they re-engineer the last mile? Is the problem in the last mile at all or in the core. In the core there are a lot of solutions (remember that IP networks work in a distributed environment so engineering can solve a lot). Or is the problem with thier peer interconnect? Actually, shaping is a good thing in a way if applied to things such as latency sensitive protocols (ie: Voice) or to reduce dropped traffic due to delay in acknowledgements (actually, a lot of traffic can be wasted in retransmits if packets are lost due to delay).
  45. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: Richard Killey: YES, we DO need the government to step in. The reason is they are using they monopolies to CHEAT! Monopolies are illegal for a reason. One of the dumbest things there is is that Conservative hands off let-it-sort-itself everyone-for-himself selfish approach. The world would because anarchy and only the fittest survive on the backs of the less fit.
    Stupid stupid stupid - and very very shortsighted.
  46. Sean Bryson from Toronto, Canada writes: The issue with traffic shaping, at least as I see it, is it becomes a slippery slope.

    While perhaps now it is primarily p2p application based, if this is left unchecked, what is to keep the powers that be from expanding this throttling?

    For example, both Bell and Rogers have a significant stake in home telephone service... so what if the throttling expands to VoIP to make it a less appealling option?

    Further, with both Bell and Rogers heavily involved and invested in television delivery, what of limiting access to streaming video and media, making their options more appealling?

    It seems that without any sort of check or balance the bandwith providers have an opportunity to artificially manipulate barriers to entry for possible next generation alternatives to their existing services.

    That does not seem right, fair, or in the spirit of competition.
  47. L H from Somewhere, Canada writes: "Internet carriers argue that peer-to-peer and torrent traffic gobbles up large amounts of bandwidth, clogging their networks, and causing slow connection speeds for the majority of their customers. By throttling traffic, they are able to provide an optimal Internet experience for all customers, they say."

    What a blatant lie. Speeds were fine, until they pulled in this throttling business
  48. Pete Kauchak, Green Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: L H from Somewhere, Canada writes: "Internet carriers argue that peer-to-peer and torrent traffic gobbles up large amounts of bandwidth, clogging their networks, and causing slow connection speeds for the majority of their customers. By throttling traffic, they are able to provide an optimal Internet experience for all customers, they say."

    What a blatant lie. Speeds were fine, until they pulled in this throttling business

    You can bypass their throttling by encrypting your P2p traffic. Most Bittorrent clients support this.
  49. Ross Currie from Ottawa, Canada writes: Folks, this is only the beginning.
    With monopoly (or duopoly) control of the last-mile we in for battle after battle to keep out Internet connections fast and open.

    It is time to reclassify our Internet infrastructure as public infrastructure.
    Private companies would still own and operate the Internet as they do today. But we could break the monopolies by owning the physical connections to our homes ourselves.

    The economics make sense. Just as with our roads we could create a common infrastructure upon which Canadian companies could provide innovative and lucrative services including Internet, television and phone services all in a highly competitive and level playing field.

    We absolutely CAN do this if we have the guts and the vision to invest in our future.
    Fiber to every home in the country. An investment in knowledge and freedom of information for ourselves and for our children!
  50. noneofyour business from Canada writes: It's either a lie or they are being extraordinarily incompetent about how they apply the throttling. I don't use p2p except for distributing patching software. I don't do monster down/uploads of movies, tv etc. - not that there's anything wrong with that if you paid for a service which claims to be for just that sort of thing. I'm still being throttled.

    The most noticable effects of the throttling are to a. disconnect me from the work metaframe when working at home in the evenings (I work for the federal gov't, so am looking into finding a way to send a complaint through our IT people) and b. make gaming online impossible. Given that I pay for the high-end DSL that was advertised as being FOR high-bandwidth users, including online gamers, and which should be able to handle my work metaframe load with ease, I find the word "fraud" coming to my mind a lot these days. It isn't an "optimal internet experience" when messing with data packets causes metaframe disconnects or so much noise and jitter in a game that it isn't playable. Cut it out.

    My ISP? Sympatico. >< Is Bell planning to argue that THIS is a "wholesaler" that they need to protect themselves from?
    Bell needs to stop throttling altogether or find a way to do what they claim to do - target the few high bandwidth users that they claim are the problem. It's clear from the number of complaints that they are using a shotgun approach to this and affecting "normal" users as well. Hint to Bell: people using their DSL connections for the activities that you used to advertise the service are NOT abusing the system and are not creating the problem - YOU ARE.

    Call them - be polite - and talk to your MP.
  51. SM4RTR TH3N U from shangri la, Canada writes: from http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html?id=4ac678a5-38e7-40dc-8d80-80e6e8e01aeb&p=2

    "In the U.S., peer-to-peer throttling is a major issue that is receiving Congressional attention. A bill was introduced in February in the House of Representatives to order the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to investigate the practice."

    If Jim Prentice was so keen on bringing the US's "digital millenium copyright" to Canada, why shouldn't the CRTC do the same with Bell?

    I wouldn't be surprised if good ole Jim didn't whisper into Bell's ear, hey, sorry I couldn't get that legislature introduced, but how 'bout you limit what the US music and movie industries don't like by a thing called throttling....

    Or perhaps bell is making more room for their new fibre to home clients? Or will they have fibre and be throttled? Or perhaps Bell plans on selling TV via their fibre and don't want competition for that...

    All these scenarios would go away if only net neutrality was a given. Without regulation, a class action lawsuit or even real competition, nothing will force Bell or the cable companies to be neutral.
  52. L H from Somewhere, Canada writes: Like Geist says: "Hands-on Interference and Hands-off Regulation" is a recipe for disaster (to paraphrase)
  53. L H from Somewhere, Canada writes: Encrypting your Bittorrent traffic does not work. This is because previous attempts to throttle were ineffective because everyone did just that. Bell has decided to throttle all traffic that is encrypted, unless it flows over a few select ports, and I'll leave it at that.
  54. Ryan O from Alberta, Canada writes: I guess this means that the Federal Government is powerless to stop corporations from lying to people in advertising.

    When it's acceptable for "Unlimited Broadband Internet connection" to be used to describe a service that is throttled and limited, what's next?

    "*LANGLEY CIGARETTES ARE GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH!*"

    Well, it's not the Federal Government's duty to regulate false advertising, and Langley Cigarettes are delicious! Anyways, time for me to go take my "donation" from the company. Langleys. Mmm, mmm, good!
  55. jimmy holiday from Summerside, Canada writes: "analysts believe this bandwidth-intensive applications account for as much as 90 per cent of Internet traffic and emanate from as few as 5 per cent of all users. "

    Ha Ha Ha...

    And anyone can make up statistics to prove anything, %75 of all people know that.
  56. jimmy holiday from Summerside, Canada writes: "Internet carriers argue that peer-to-peer and torrent traffic gobbles up large amounts of bandwidth, clogging their networks, and causing slow connection speeds for the majority of their customers. By throttling traffic, they are able to provide an optimal Internet experience for all customers, they say."

    Right because I'm always hearing about high speed subscribers having long waits for their email to download and that google keeps timing out when they search anything. This is just blatant bullshit.
  57. M P from Canada writes: gaetan diotte from ottawa, Canada writes: "M P from Canada - Ok Let's explain this in very simple language that you can, perhaps, follow."

    Or, you could try doing it in language that's honest and makes sense. What government service is exclusively available via BitTorrent? Name it.

    Even if there were a service the government only provided via BitTorrent, your points are still irrelevant as shaping only restricts the SPEED at which you can receive the information, not whether or not it can be received. Furthermore, it would be the responsibility of the government to provide the information in a manner that is accessible to its citizens, not the responsibility of internet providers to ensure people are able to receive it.

    You are a flat-out liar.
  58. Keith Duguay from Teksavvy-land, writes: Canada's Next Great Prime Minister was officially distributed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation via Bittorrent. Welcome to last week. So, let's get back to the real issue. Bell (and more silently as of late, Rogers) together own and control pretty much the entire consumer and small business Internet infrastructure in Canada. That would be ok I guess, except they seem to be colluding to pretty much fix prices and service levels in this country. So, for the person asking why the government should get involved, that's why. Anti-competitive behaviour is not good for the economy or citizens of this country. Unless all you want to do is surf the Web 1.0 and check your Outlook Express, you need to get on the right side of this issue. The future is here. Streaming, IPTV, VoIP, encrypted VPN connections, there's lots of really good and important things you COULD do with an Internet connection if Bell/Rogers would actually give you the one you paid for. Instead, the fix prices (rather...continually RAISE prices) while using simple marketing*** tricks to make people think they are improving service. The only speed increases they have given anyone in the last few years has been theoretical or limited in use (and guess what, they never said up front what those limitations were). Demand Net Neutralit NOW!
  59. Graham Howell from London, Ontario, Canada writes: Once upon a time, in a land not far, far away, there was no bittorent.
    When bittorrent has been thobbled, tribbled or trumpled on, there will be another method of communication, that as usual, Bell will be 4 years behind.
  60. Canada Forever from Canada writes: Can someone please recommend an ISP in Toronto that does not commit netcrime like Ma Bell and Mr Rogers?

    It is a big joke to blame downloaders for the ISP bandwidth. They are using old copper wire ala Bell to send data. If youre paying 30 a month for the net, how much more do you need to spend, 50? 100? 200? Ridiculousness.

    The reality is the companies want to charge you more for less and are using people who extensively use the net as a scapegoat for their own problems.

    Internet charges have risen dramatically, but the service is getting worse. They are just shoving more people down this old copper wiring and telling you to like it.

    We live in a Coporatocracy and it sucks.
  61. Chuck the Canuk from the east, Canada writes: leave our stinking internet bandwidth alone. if i pay for an advertised speed from these yahoos, that's what i should damn well get. throttling should be against the law, and a class action suit should be started. bell and rogers are not God, and as such should NOT be allowed to sniff packets to see what we are downloading, nor should they be allowed to slow our speeds down at their discretion. remember, we are dealing with greedy, money grubbing, business ceo's here who have been overcharging for their services for years to start with. lets sue them in a class action, and hit them in the only place they understand: their fat wallets. the governments are doing nothing to stop this, so you all know whose palms have been greased.
  62. M P from Canada writes: Keith Duguay from Teksavvy-land, writes: "Canada's Next Great Prime Minister was officially distributed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation via Bittorrent. Welcome to last week."

    1) Canada's Next Great Prime Minister is not a government service
    2) It is not available exclusively via BitTorrent
    3) Traffic shaping did not prevent anyone from downloading it

    Anyone who thinks having to download an episode of Canada's Next Great Prime Minister at slower speeds is even remotely comparable to Gaetan's claim of "a private company prevening me from accessing my government" is delusional.
  63. Pete Kauchak, Green Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: L H from Somewhere, Canada writes: Encrypting your Bittorrent traffic does not work. This is because previous attempts to throttle were ineffective because everyone did just that. Bell has decided to throttle all traffic that is encrypted, unless it flows over a few select ports, and I'll leave it at that.

    Hmm I never noticed a reduction in speed but maybe that is because I'm using the "right" ports? If Bell is doing what you say they are then they are going to get an earful from me: I have VPN access at home for work (which is also encrypted).
  64. Pete Kauchak, Green Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: The issue is when a ISP says you will get a certain download speed, you should GET that speed regardless of the kind of traffic. Bell should be forced to comply or be taken to court for fraud.
  65. Someone using this line to make some dumb ass comment. from Toronto, Canada writes: MP From Canada, should stop making comparative value judgments and name calling. The fact remains that if one buys something of a certain value then one should get it.

    Apparently Conservatives prefer that big brother corporations interfere in our lives than their perceived boogyman of big government.

    As long as their CEO friends are getting nice bonuses, I guess that's all that matters.

    If they were to be true to their free market philosophy the consumer would be dictating what the market wants and gets, since we live in a monopolistic society with a small market, consumers only get screwed.
  66. Fake Name from Canada writes: "Mr. Prentice said the government was monitoring the situation and waiting to see how the issue unfolds. “We have a well advanced Internet system in this country. It is not publicly regulated,” he said. " If competition among the market players is as much of a farce as it appears to be, maybe its time to threaten a bit of regulation.
  67. Keith Duguay from Teksavvy rules!, writes: M P from Canada writes: 1) Canada's Next Great Prime Minister is not a government service 2) It is not available exclusively via BitTorrent 3) Traffic shaping did not prevent anyone from downloading it Anyone who thinks having to download an episode of Canada's Next Great Prime Minister at slower speeds is even remotely comparable to Gaetan's claim of "a private company prevening me from accessing my government" is delusional. 1) Canada's Next Great Prime Minister is a government service. It is produced and distributed by the CBC, an agency of the Ministry of Heritage. 2) Who said exclusivity had anything to do with anything? 3) Traffic shaping did prevent people from downloading it. MP - I'm going to give you $100. I promise. This is a legal promise you can hold me to. Here's the catch. I am going to go to the bank and withdraw 10,000 pennies (10,000 x $0.01 = $100). Now, if you give me your mailing address, I am going to mail you 1 penny every year for 10,000 years (future generations will have to help I suppose). Now, it's going to take 10,000 years for you to get your $100, but you will get it I promise. Understand? Get the analogy? You can't say I'm not giving you $100. Clearly I am. Would any reasonable person agree that I am giving you $100. Probably not. This is your throttling argument. Looks pretty dumb huh? To paraphrase you, if I give you a file and it takes 4 weeks to download at terribly slow speeds, then that's OK by you. The service has been "delivered". Problem with that is that just about any reasonable person will say that, in effect, you are not giving me the file because it it totally unreasonable to wait days or weeks to download it at a highly throttled speed.
  68. Don Wells from Canada writes: How about pressuring the ISP's to get rid of the spam--uses much more bandwidth than P2P
  69. Barry Turner from ottawa, Canada writes: So you can't depend on Bell or Rogers to be fair in their dealings with their clients and the bandwith resellers - they're out to make a buck after all and Bell, especially, is desperate to look profitable because of its upcoming takeover by Teachers Pension Fund and its partners. You can't rely on Jim Prentice to back you up because he is afraid to make a decision that will offend his boss and big business. (See the MDA Radarsat sale for the same indecisive Jim Prentice at work). So transfer your internet accounts to the resellers like Teksavvy and others. You will still have your bittorent downloads throttled but otherwise your service will be the same or better (as in tech support) and you will have the satisfaction of taking profit away from Bell and giving the much richer resellers far more clout in their legal battles with Bell. and maybe giving Teachers some doubts about going ahead with their deal. Vote with your feet, as they say. Too easy.
  70. Dave S from Victoria, Canada writes: The Globe should be more gentle with us when introducing new terms such as "throddling" - once you start to do this all bets are off - "Prentice mum on ISP throddling debate" - hmmm I guess throddling means throttling - now that we're guessing... did they forget the apostrophy "s" after Prentice too? Should it read "Prentice's mum on ISP throttling..." I'm sure she'd like to weigh in on this too, or is the leading "Ap gone too? Should it read "Apprentice's mum on ISP throddling..." if the Globe would just use standard words in a standard way, and read what they write - that would make it so much easier - I understand they do have a Stile Guide...
  71. gaetan diotte from ottawa, Canada writes: Hey MP - Here it is in black and white. My bold characters.

    Telecommunications Act Section (36) . Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not CONTROL the content or INFLUENCE the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.

    27 (2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

    Here is one more point. Many gov't committees are looking at using P2P to assist them in broadcasting committee meetings in full, along with Question Period and Senate deliberations.

    Bell, Rogers and Videotron would degrade access to these.

    Now do you get it?
  72. Beaverton Bob from Beaverton ON, Canada writes: You have to be a really old Senior to understand about doddlers. It's a simple spelling mistake. The word is dawdlers.

    Getting back to the past the "Best Before Date" , I can move mentally (and physically) very easily from Doddlers to Toddlers.

    Everybody wants to drive in the Fast Lane, me too!
  73. R F from Montreal, Canada writes: You're all just POed because this hinders your pilfering of illicit software, movies and music :p

    You knew it was bound to happen one day. The party is over now quit your whining!
  74. Joe V from Canada writes: If you pay for X amount of bandwidth at Y speed, you should expect to receive it, regardless of what you're downloading.

    Of course, that will no longer be relevant, since soon our oligopoly telecom companies will explicitly add traffic shaping to their service agreements. And because of the government-enforced restrictions on competition, there won't be any alternative for consumers to go to.

    They can all go to hell. The government and the telecoms.
  75. Major Pain from Canada writes: People who use P2P file sharing systems should be throttled or charged more in my view. These systems have the capability to easily plug a network and make it all but impossible for others to use their fair share of the available bandwidth. Those who complain about the idea that we should have unlimited bandwidth simply don't know how the system works.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.