Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

CRTC orders Bell to prove Net 'shaping' needed

MATT HARTLEY

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 10:15 PM EDT 19/05/08

Regulator wants evidence that networks are congested in squabble over practice of slowing some Internet traffic ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. A. Rider from Canada writes: Let's hope the CRTC has enough backbone to make the right decision i.e. take Bell down a peg or two. With the kind of 'service' Bell has been giving its customers, you have to wonder how much longer it can stay in business. Take a look at consumer advocate site www.ellenroseman.com for more horror stories about Bell.
  2. Bruno K from Canada writes: Bell should also address to the CRTC why it has chosen to invade the privacy of individuals by restricting Internet usage to selected sites. Is this not a step backwards in Canada? It sounds more like practices used in countries such as China? What will be next?
  3. Craig B from Toronto, Canada writes: If the CRTC had a backbone that didn't bend automatically to the large companies that fill their pockets, it would force them to STOP Net Shaping until they can prove it's necessary.
  4. Hornsworth Portswiler from adanac, Canada writes: The article forgot to mention that many people are seeing critical corporate VPN, SSH and other encrypted traffic "shaped."

    Bell would like to set a precedent that any traffic they don't like can be shaped. That would mean good bye Internet as we know it. I remember a friend called Bell in the early 90s to ask about Internet access. Bell's response was "Internet? That's our competition."

    The next step will be that the file sharing networks make their traffic indistinguishable from VOIP and other traffic. And they should, P2P represents a very intelligent way of distributing files and should not be blocked.
  5. Crusty Curmudgeon from Ottawa, Canada writes: And by the way -- how much "slowdown" is caused by "deep packet inspection"?

    The answer is not "none".
  6. K Schode from Hamilton, Canada writes: the response should be "stop what you're doing until you can prove your claims", not the other way around.

    they're asking some of the right questions, but this lack of backbone doesn't bode well.
  7. m m from Canada writes: .
    Up Close and Personal:
    Bell charges $55/mo for the service my provider gives me for 19.99/mo.

    Sure Bell will try to "shape" them to death.
  8. Expert Eel from Canada writes: How can Bell Canada stay in business if they keep going to court to try to reduce their service?
  9. Some Guy from Canada writes: I have boycotted Bell after 10 uninterrupted years of patronage. The level of customer service for just the residential TELEPHONE was abysmal. What pushed me over the edge was their high-pressure telemarketing of other products that I expressly rejected over and over and over again. I even politely requested that they put me on their do-not-call list. Did they listen? The marketing calls continued for over a year before I canceled my Bell phone service. One Bell Sympatico telemarketer even boasted that he drove a Porsche to work when I told him to get a real job and leave me alone. I could care less if Bell went bust and their rude and apparently overpaid telemarketers became homeless. They are as bad as email spammers.
  10. Albin Forone from Canada writes: Actually I think Bell can effectively explain why it needs to "throttle" the precious few downloaders who use ten or fifteen times the average user's bandwidth - what Bell would have a lot of trouble explaining is why in spite of throttling abusers, Canada still has such poor down and up load speeds compared with international equivalents. Check Canada (and your own) speeds against other countries at the Ookla Speed Test site and then formulate the real question.
  11. Mark Tilley from Brampton, Canada writes:

    The last time this was in the news, a poster put up a link to a very interesting article that described how, in fact, it is the P2P traffic that is getting a free ride because P2P is essentially a TCPIP hack that reduces the effect congestion has on it vs. other protocols.

    The article also mentions that the real solution is to modify the TCPIP stack to accomodate P2P traffic and also provide for an equitable slowdown for ALL traffic during congestion. The current scenario gives P2P an unfair advantage.

    Sorry I can't remember where the article is.

    Cheers.
  12. james mcgillawee from Oshawa, Canada writes: Shaping of Internet traffic that contains Voip mode telephone calls maybe illegal as well as immoral considering the recent 911 call failure in Calgary. If Bell and Rogers and others can't get their acts together, then a serious case can be made for government intervention up to and including expropriation. For years in Canada outside of Ontario and Quebec our phone service was provincially owned and operated as a crown corporation with much consumer satisfaction and economy.
  13. Albin Forone from Canada writes: There is an interesting article on transmission protocols here:

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1078&page=4

    (concluding recommendations of a long piece on the technological issues)
  14. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: james mcgillawee from Oshawa, Canada writes: Shaping of Internet traffic that contains Voip mode telephone calls maybe illegal as well as immoral considering the recent 911 call failure in Calgary. If Bell and Rogers and others can't get their acts together, then a serious case can be made for government intervention up to and including expropriation.
    __________________

    Good afternoon Mr Mcfillawee.... Very doubtful that our government would intervene and ''expropriate'' MaBell and Rogers, no matter how much they ''scrooooo'' consumers... Bell promises the sun and the moon to attract customers and then they manage to do what they want especially with high speed internet service... Oh well, I'm glad I stuck with my faithful high-speed internet server and HDTV server, Videotron. Being a prudent person I kept my Bell landline phone service just incase..... We'll see what happens next.... However, let's make no mistake about it.... Cell phone, high-speed internet in Canada is far more expensive than anyplace in Europe or Asia...

    -
  15. True North from Canada writes: CRTC is sharp on this file it seems - hope they keep their resolve up. Verizon in the US has implemented P4P on its servers, optimizing P2P traffic and freeing up significant network bandwidth. Bell's approach to putting its fingers in the dam is not sustainable.
  16. Andrew MacKinnon from Toronto, Canada writes: Now, can we do something about Rogers? They are equally as bad as Bell, if not worse.
  17. Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: Just an idea;
    Why doesn't Bell charge customers per amount of bandwidth used?
    They could even use a graduated pricing system such that the highest users pay the most.
  18. double mike from Canada writes: Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: Just an idea;
    Why doesn't Bell charge customers per amount of bandwidth used?
    They could even use a graduated pricing system such that the highest users pay the most.

    Back to the Future?
  19. double mike from Canada writes: Andrew MacKinnon from Toronto, Canada writes: Now, can we do something about Rogers? They are equally as bad as Bell, if not worse.

    Nothing is worse then Rogers.

    Can we do anything? Sure. We can just drop 'em.
  20. Brian Fisher from Ripon QC, Canada writes: L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Oh well, I'm glad I stuck with my faithful high-speed internet server and HDTV server, Videotron.

    Don't try do do a lot of P2P file sharing however. Videotron also owns Archambault Music, a seller of CDs DVDs etc. This creates a bit of a conflict of interest for them. They were the first to indicate that they would be quite willing to turn over information on their own clients if asked as a result of any lawsuits launched by the Canadian Recording Industry Association. (According to the law they hastened to add)

    If the Federal Government manges to pass its pro industry version of the new Canadian Copyright Law you may be monitored by dear Videotron.
  21. Hail to the Conservatives ! from London, Canada writes: If Bell is upset, open the damn boarders, and lets get some real competition in here.
  22. Matt The Good from Canada writes: prepare for "it's a series of tubes" to come back into the lexicon.
  23. michel proulx from Hamilton, Canada writes: I would like to hear directly from anyone who has had issues with Bell Mobility, as I am in the process building a class action lawsuit against Bell.

    thanks,

    michel.f.proulx@gmail.com
  24. 1 i from northish gta, Canada writes: I think it would be helpful for the debate if everyone, not just the network geeks, knew that you can't really slow down network traffic, but what you can do is to refuse to route, or pass on to the next gateway, a particular packet. This means that the packet must be re-transmitted, making some other node in the network consume more resources and be less efficient. For every bit 'saved' by trafic shaping, some other bit gets frakked in a decidedly zero sum game. Add in the OH of deep packet inspection, as noted above, and it looks like a negative sum game. I don't think the ISPs are being completely forthright about their motivations and concerns.
  25. Frank Castor from Babylon, Canada writes: At all costs avoid Bell, because they are a blood hungry corporation that will stop at nothing to rip off their customers.

    On top of this fact, their customer service personnel are horribly rude. This company is the worst.
  26. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Traffic shaping is motivated less by technical concerns and more by political concerns regarding copyright infringement and the control of information and open debate.
  27. Jeremy Broad from Toronto, Canada writes: "Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: Just an idea;
    Why doesn't Bell charge customers per amount of bandwidth used?
    They could even use a graduated pricing system such that the highest users pay the most."

    That is the funny thing. They already claim to do this. The more expensive packages offer faster speeds and higher monthly quotas for download limits. If you go over your quota you have to pay more.

    So they are now saying OK we sold you this package stating you can have these speeds, but our network can't really handle it so... we decided to start putting speed bumps on the all over the exprssway. We feel that will fix the traffic issues. Oh and we are happy to keep taking your money now that you are paying for something you'll likely not be using."

    As mentioned, their motivations for shaping are not likely as they claim. I would say they are motivated by competing internet media delivery mechanisms that are now, or may in the future be, cutting into other Bell divisions bottom line.
    VOIP vs land line.
    Video downloads vs. Satellite / PPV.
    WiFi VOIP vs Cellular.
  28. Spiffy Spiff from Canada writes:
    Coming soon: Superfast Internet
    April 6 2008
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3689881.ece
  29. John Warren from Canada writes: I am wondering, in fact for the last several days the interruption of my service has been driving me nuts. I admit to being a sucker and have been putting up with Bell for over 10 years.

    I contacted Bell the beginning of April on a totally unrelated matter, I needed to replace my CD, and they offered to upgrade my bandwidth and increase my speed for no extra cost. The speed was noticeable for 2 - 3 days then slowed down though it still clocks around 7mb up from 5mb. But for the past week the interruptions are becoming more frequent.

    On another note, those damn beavers make me worse than cringe and when I see them on Bell's site with Emily popping up like a ho on speed I blindly click anywhere in the hopes that I can get the logout!

    This is surely grounds for a divorce or some kind of lawsuit.
  30. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: Bell, what a disgusting band of folks. They sell bandwidth to third party providers, and then fiddle, finnick, horse, screw around, and surgically slow certain things down. I can't transfer my home videos to my family because Bell thinks it's torrent traffic. Invasion of privacy.
    Charge by the bandwidth would completely fix it.
  31. h t from Canada writes: Jeremy Broad from Toronto, Canada writes:

    "As mentioned, their motivations for shaping are not likely as they claim. I would say they are motivated by competing internet media delivery mechanisms that are now, or may in the future be, cutting into other Bell divisions bottom line.
    VOIP vs land line.
    Video downloads vs. Satellite / PPV.
    WiFi VOIP vs Cellular."

    You are right indeed, its Bell.ca fear that their once monopoly driven services is at risk. So to combat this they have imposed restrictions to offer their inferior solution(s) at record high prices.

    Plus, with DPI and packet shaping they are intruding on they client(s) privacy. The last time I checked this was illegal in Canada for a private corporation to conduct without notice to its customer(s).

    I am presently waiting for my contract to end in a couple months and will decide to to my landline, internet and other services to another company. Sadly all the DSL providers are buying their service from Bell, so in some where or another Bell is still receiving income.

    Here is hoping for Power Line Communications (internet over electrical line)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerlinecommunication

    One line to the house, I can scrap everything else. :)
  32. Dean K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Part 1 Before reading my diatribe, I would like to first mention that these are my own personal views and thoughts on the matter and although this issue is very important, it is only the tip of the iceberg. What is at stake is the internet as we know it, and how the freedoms we have enjoyed of unfettered access to the internet are at stake. Net neutrality is the bigger part of this picture. The problem that is being foreseen both here in Canada as well as around the world is the fact that common carriers (those who supply the “pipes” to the internet) want to manipulate and control it to their corporate mandate rather than supply “dumb pipe” access. On with the show! Being acquainted with the whole Bell/Sympatico "traffic management" (throttling) from the very beginning, I would like to inject a bit of historical information that I think would bring to light some of the issues involved for those that need to be brought up to speed. I will keep the discussion stricly to the "traffic management" issue but other policies that were rolled out by Bell/Sympatico at the same time were sure to irk the knowledgeable internet user. IE: dropping or changing "unlimited" accounts to capped accounts, hard caps of 30 GB & 60 GB, invisible caps on "unlimited" accounts which lead to formal notice, possible and actual account suspension, etc... All of what I am posting dates back to September/October 2007 when Sympatico surreptitiously started testing and implementing traffic shaping on its own clientele. The historical record of fact can be found in Sympatico's own user discussion forums at www.supportcommunity.sympatico.ca and also in the Broadband Reports.com forums @ www.dslreports.com/forum/sympat (End of Part 1)
  33. Dean K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Part 2 A few months previous to October of 2007 many Sympatico members found strange problems occurring with their connections using different protocols. It was most likely that Sympatico was installing and testing their "traffic management" equipment at this time. As Sympatico was not forthcoming with information on this, we users (guinea pigs) were at a loss to explain why speed issues were occurring. Many of us wasted many hours trying to troubleshoot this issue. Sympatico's front line support was either unaware of the testing/rollout, or were told to keep mum on the issue as those users who called for support on the connection/protocol slowdowns were told their connections were fine and it was nothing on Sympatico's end. After many questions and much prodding, a not so official admittance that "traffic management" had been implemented was posted to the Sympatico forums by a Sympatico manager and a discussion forum administrator on October 31, 2007. To this day Sympatico’s customer base has never been "officially" notified of the traffic management implementation by Sympatico. Their present responses to questions about the throttling were the congestion issues and 5% of the users using xx% of the bandwidth. (xx% as Bell/Sympatico has continually changed the percentile of bandwidth used throughout this whole debacle, from what was 90% to the latest number in the CRTC filing of 60%. Also mentioned by Bell was that 60% of the 60% was P2P protocol usage) Non of which has been factually proven by Bell/Sympatico or been evidenced by most users in the forums online, or those that I have had personal discussions with. (End of Part 2)
  34. Dean K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Part 3 Due to the fact that other DSL internet service providers (3rd Party Providers) other than Sympatico were offering unfettered internet access, unlimited plans and more generous capped plans; many disgruntled Sympatico users opted to leave Sympatico for the greener pastures of these 3rd Party Providers. What the customer "churn" was and is for Sympatico, we will probably never truly know unless Bell / Sympatico releases the accredited numbers. From CAIP’s filing against the “traffic management” of 3rd Party Providers, “Bell noted that certain restrictions that it had placed on customer data transfers as well as a switch to usage-based billing could provide independent ISPs who offer unlimited usage plans or unrestricted speeds, a competitive advantage, “result[ing] in an increase in [Bell’s] Internet subscriber churn rate beyond… current expectations” ( Bell Canada Enterprises, 2007 Annual Report, page 42) So, along comes March, 2008 when some of the 3rd Party Providers clients started noticing strange speed issues with some protocols. Through questioning of Bell by the 3rd Party Providers, Bell eventually admitted that it had surreptitiously employed traffic management on the 3rd Party Providers as well, and that full rollout on the 3rd Party Providers would be completed by the second week of April, 2008. In my opinion; as well as many others, this was to quell the tide of users leaving Sympatico for the greener pastures of the offerings from these 3rd Party Providers. Due to Bells control of the wire entering your home or business, the CRTC has mandated Bell to allow wholesale access to the infrastructure, to attempt to allow for competition in the marketplace. Wholesale access for 3rd Party Providers, of which there are mostly two types which I will explain in the most basic terms. (End of Part 3)
  35. Dean K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Part 4 1)Those that re-brand, re-sell Sympatico services. (use Bell/Sympatico for access from the home/business right through to the world wide web) This traffic is end to end supplied by Bell. 2)Those that pay Bell for backhaul access to their clientele. This means that the transit is handed off to the 3rd party before it sees the World Wide Web. The 3rd party ISP then routes the traffic through its own pipes to the internet. Both types of 3rd party ISPs pay Bell/Sympatico a fee per customer/user based on the speed of connection, while the 2nd type defined also pays for specific rates of transit (or pipe sizes if you will) for Bell to transit the data to the handoff point of the 3rd party ISP. At question here is the fact that Bell (common carrier) and Sympatico (ISP) should be two separate entities. 3rd Party Providers that fall under the 2nd definition pay for a certain amount of data transit through the backhaul network. What right does Bell as a common carrier have to restrict or reduce the amount of data for this pipe if the pipe that is paid for by the 3rd party provider is not saturated (full)? As demonstrated through their actions, Bell (common carrier) appears to be under the influenced of Sympatico’s (ISPs) corporate decisions/actions with regards to this matter. The reasons for all of this have yet to be proven by Bell/Sympatico. I suspect; as do many others, that there are ulterior motives behind all of this. Do the common carriers want to have full control/ownership of the Internet? Some new cash cow that Bell/Sympatico wants to offer over the same infrastructure, but the existing services need to be hindered to allow its existence? Only the future will tell. I, for one pay for dumb pipe access and demand it. Anything other than this equates to an attack on Net Neutrality, and free and open access for all. Regards (End of Part 4)
  36. Dean K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Appologies for the sentence structure. I wrote this offline in MS word and although paragraphs and spacings appeared proper in the "Enter your comment" box when pasted, they did not translate to the posting
  37. Eric Kirkpatrick from Vancouver, B.C., Canada writes: Trouble for the CRTC is that they are an independent, arms length government (us) organization of professionals. That every time they do show their backbone this site is crowded by posters proclaiming that they can't tell them what channels to watch or to be made available, etc. and calling for their dismantling. Isn't it their task to make sure the limited band width available is put to optimum use for all Canadians not just a select business or demographic group?
  38. Christopher LaHaise from Ottawa, Canada writes: This entire 'we need a speed cap' thing is complete bull. I wound up talking with a friend with some know-how in the industry, and he mentioned how Japan's internet runs.

    Consider this: 1 gig high speed internet, and *7* gig satellite internet. How's that? And the cost? Approximately $40 a month. Or try this: In the US, for $40 a month? Unlimited text with your blackberry and cell phone.

    Why can't we get this kind of stuff in Canada? Bell and a few other ISPs complain about us clogging the bandwidth, when they could just up our speeds. And you know what? I bet if they do, they'll charge us through the nose for it.
  39. Tim Cares from Canada writes: I think Bell should refuse to sell to any new customers until it can increase its network capacity to the level where it can meet its promised level of service to existing customers.
    Maybe the CRTC can suggest this.

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.

Back to top