Why Canadian ISPs may be forced to throttle back your Internet traffic
Has your Internet connection been downloading things more slowly than you'd expect? There could be multiple reasons for that - a misconfigured access point, an inappropriate service plan - but it could also be that your internet service provider is putting the squeeze on your traffic. And here's the worrying part: depending on which ISP you use, it may have no choice.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission recently published a framework governing the use of Internet traffic management practices (IMTPs), which are the steps that ISPs can take to control how your Internet traffic reaches you. Examples of this include restricting the speed of certain types of traffic, such as peer to peer (P2P) traffic.
Why is throttling such a contentious issue? It's because traffic has historically flowed like water across the internet. There have been - at least theoretically, in democratic countries - no restrictions on the type of traffic that has flowed across the networks that make up the broader Internet. This doesn't take into account countries like China, which make a habit of blocking certain content that isn't acceptable to the authorities there.
But some Canadian providers argue that because the level of traffic crossing over their networks has increased so much in the last few years, it has left those networks congested at key points. To cope with this, they could invest more in their networks to make them run more quickly. But even this investment isn't always enough, they argue; sometimes, they need to throttle back certain kinds of traffic, such as peer to peer filesharing traffic, that takes up a lot of bandwidth. Throttling it back stops it interfering with other types of traffic, it's argued.
To a certain extent, these carriers have a point. P2P traffic is just one type of internet traffic that has dramatically increased traffic volumes. Streaming video and internet telephony, using services like Skype, have also added to the load. Suddenly, they're finding themselves constrained. But does that mean that they should throttle back your traffic?
The CRTC has said that they should be allowed to take these measures, as a last resort, if they can prove that there are no other ways to effectively reduce congestion on the network. But at least they now have to tell you exactly what they're doing, 30 days in advance.
Presumably, if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else, right? Well, it may not be that simple. Bell has been doing this for a while, and the framework published by the CRTC is the result of a kerfuffle between that firm and the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), which represents the smaller ISPs who buy wholesale Internet access from larger firms, and sell it on to their customers. CAIP argued that large ISPs like Bell shouldn't be allowed to apply these throttling techniques to secondary ISPs' traffic, because it stops the secondary ISPs from offering a competitive service. So, if your little mom-and-pop ISP buys services from the big boys, they may be forced to throttle your traffic by default. Suddenly, things don't look so great in terms of competition.
This is Not Cool. In any sector, when companies fail to plan properly for developing market conditions and penalise the customers as a result, customers are going to get a little irked - especially if they find other businesses forced to do the same because they all buy from the same top-tier firms.
With internet access, things become even more contentious. This is a foundational service, that supports a broad base of social, cultural, and economic development. The Internet is the channel along which innovation runs. Starting to throttle parts of it back because you say that your network can't cope is a dangerous road to go down. The US has been having a debate over the issue - known as net neutrality - for some years now.
The game isn't over yet. Now, the CRTC has launched a public process to examine the whole concept of traffic management. As with most government processes, that will be a long, slow grind, and we're not likely to see much in terms of results until the summer.
In the meantime, if you're given to downloading large files from BitTorrent, and you find your traffic moving a little more slowly than usual, you might now have a better idea why....
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Posted by: Voice of reason | Oct 28, 2009 10:07:41 AM
Danny, you've fallen into the trap that so many people who don't manage networks for a living end up in. You complain about the throttling and yet you offer no alternatives whatsoever, except investment, which you've already acknowledged won't help that much. The reason it's so hard to come up with an alternative is that very very few exist. It's like getting mad at the government for traffic jams. Yes they could widen the roads, yes they could put more toll booths in, there are lots of things they could do, but they all involve $$ and have all proven ineffective. But in London, England, the dealt with traffic congestion in the city by - you guessed it - throttling. They prevent most types of personal commuter traffic from entering the downtown area. Any time you're dealing with a limited capacity sytem and an almost (in the case of P2P) unlimited demand, you need to start deciding which traffic can be restricted without adversely affecting the experience for the vast majority of users. Since P2P is NOT a real-time technology (no one has a bad user experience just beacause their movie takes a little longer to download) you can slow it down. Not so with streaming video, voice etc., which is why ISPs are NOT throttling those kinds of traffic.
I realize it's easy to get mad at big companies when they appear to be doing something that restricts what you can do, but instead of expecting them to wave a magic wand and make the problem go away, why not educate yourself on the technical challenges involved and then you might realize that throttling P2P represents the best possible solution at the present time.
Now, if you can avoid dimissing my comments as those of an ISP apologist, I'd love to hear your response :)
Posted by: Ian | Oct 28, 2009 1:35:48 PM
Perhaps the ISPs that are throttling should rethink their practices.
It would seem to me that streaming technologies and VOIP are essentially a peer to peer application as well and should be throttled.
VOIP is generally a phone call over the internet and could be considered peer to peer and since this is a more recent innovation than those that download and have paid for the high speed service, maybe the ones using VOIP should be charged more for access or get busy signals untill their applications connect. Streaming video and audio is also like a peer to peer in that it is a connection to specific computers as well and those that use the video/audio sites should also wait for their downloads, because it has to download to play on their computers. The major difference with the streaming technologies is that only a few larger companies profit from it like the ISPs affilliated with msn video or the like.
Let's be real, folks pay for a service and should be able to usei how they like and if the VOIP calls can't go through or you have to wait for a stream, it is because the network has been oversold by the ISPs!
All ISPs that throttle will get customer backlash in other areas of business.
I refuse to buy Rogers or Bell services because of their practices on throttling and I hope more people realize they can get television reception, phone and other services from others and sometimes even free.
I get 25 channels of HDTV, free, off the air, using a high gain uhf antenna and use a different provider for phone service, no need for cable or satellite service from the big throttlers, and internet through a secondary provider till an alternate is available.
They are hurting themselves as they hurt their customers!
Posted by: Danny Bradbury | Oct 28, 2009 4:39:30 PM
Hey Voice,
ISP apologist? On the contrary - it's nice to see such an intelligent and considered response! And you raise some excellent points.
I don't think it's all quite as straightforward as that, though. The big issue with this particular CRTC framework publication was the decision to allow the tier ones to impose the network management policies on the tier twos, and one of the reasons given by the primary ISPs during the consultation process was that they couldn't easily distinguish between their traffic and the tier two's traffic. I don't buy that at all, and neither would most network managers I know. Anyone with an OSI layer four-aware device in the core could do that. MPLS, anyone?
So, in that sense, this is about customer choice, and the CRTC decision rather mitigates that choice.
And there are investments that they can make. On the technical side, we haven't even gotten into local caching, which would be a smarter solution to a tough problem. I may be wrong, but I don't think Bell set itself up as a content delivery network, a la Akamai yet. Why not? Why not innovate your way out of a situation, rather than automatically penalising the customer? That way, it could charge the content providers a value-add. It already has the network, and the nodes. Bell's figures may be down, but it still hit nearly a billion in net profit last year. They're investing in revenue-generating
This is part of the problem with the ISP landscape. There are other business models that these guys could have plugged into, but telcos have been extremely reactive. They've allowed the over-the-top content providers to eat their lunch, and concentrated heavily on the pipe as a primary product, without looking to the future and its inevitable commoditisation. They must have seen this coming back in the mid-nineties, when some bright spark discovered wave division multiplexing and tanked the price of fibre overnight. They've had a long time to deal with this, and to plan. Internet traffic grew 43% between 2005 and 2008. They knew it was going to happen. Why so reactionary now?
And while I know I do it too (data flows around the Internet like water), you have to be careful about getting too complex when comparing the Internet to other physical systems. Sure, they imposed congestion charges in London, but then, you know, they did that to persuade people to use the whole alternative public transit thing. What they're throttling in the Canadian internet *is* the public transit thing. Where do customers retreat to? Chances are that eventually they won't be able to retreat very far, thanks to the CRTC's new wholesale IMTP policy.
Finally, you mention P2P traffic. What guarantees do we have from anyone that it'll stop there? Significantly, Skype (which constitutes my entire business line) *is* P2P traffic that also competes directly with their long distance models.
South of the border, the FCC seems to be a lot more equitable than the CRTC has been. If they can rein in Comcast and force it to at least make an effort and start working directly with BitTorrent on neutral network traffic standards, why can't we do the same?
Posted by: justsomeguy | Oct 29, 2009 6:36:43 AM
One thing that upsets me the most is that people such as yourself Mr. Bradbury do not understand or chose not to understand the difference from Wholesale Internet and Wholesale "Gateway Access Service" . 3rd party ISP's buy "Gateway Access Service" (GAS) from Bell *NOT* internet access!!
There is a HUGE Difference!!! We the 3rd party customers connect to DSL Via the phone line. That then goes back to Bell's network (NOT INTERNET) and gets routed off to the correct 3rd party isp's router to then route you, the 3rd party isp's customer out to the INTERNET.
The Gateway Access Service 3rd party ISP's purchase is to backhaul you the customers traffic from your house, to your ISP'S router, once handed off there from Bell, your ISP then routes your traffic to and from the Internet.
I believe this is a key point that many reporters chose to ignore or flat out don't get.
If you want to educate the country and people about what is going on with the Bell/CRTC fiasco
I would hope you'd get your facts straight, ALL OF THEM.
Leading people to believe that Bell sells Internet access to 3rd party ISP's that then sell that internet access to customers is FLAT OUT WRONG and does more damage than good when it comes down to getting the FACTS out there..
So please, in the future use the correct terms and make sure your facts are right.
misleading the public with this nonsense is silly and flat out wrong. misinformation is worse than no information.. So please, STOP telling everyone Bell sells "Wholesale Internet" because they don't!! They Sell "Gateway Access Service" and ALL that does is connect the customer to the Bell Network!! Yes, The bell network IS connected to the Internet but it's NOT the internet itself, NOR does the Bell network EVER EVER connect the 3rd party ISP's customers data to the Internet. All the Bell network does is move out data from our houses to 3rd party ISP's Routers that then manage the internet portion.
Posted by: Plus One | Oct 29, 2009 9:58:01 AM
+1
justsomeguy got it right. I too, am quite weary of reporters not reporting the facts.
Part of the contentious issues raised by all of this, is that Bell is 'double dipping' in charging access fees for third party GAS, and in charging third party ISP's customers extra bandwidth charges, for simply using this internal network, *NOT* the Internet.
The access that third party ISP's pay for, in the context of GAS service, is routing on Bell's internal network, directly to the third party ISP's POP [Point Of Presence], which *THEN* goes out onto the Internet proper.
The Third party ISP's pay for all their own transit, for bandwidth used on the Internet, they also pay Bell for the internal routing from their customer to their own POP. GAS service is not wholesale Internet service. It's simply internal routing within Bell's network.
Posted by: Lame | Oct 29, 2009 12:04:28 PM
Re : Voices of reason
If only Bell was an ISP. It's a common carrier. Sympatico is the ISP.
If only P2P wasnt used already for live videos...<
If only Bell wasnt simply lying about the so called congestion they have, or play to have so they could use it for their video service...
Get your facts straight before posting such comments.
Posted by: Danny Bradbury | Oct 29, 2009 1:30:28 PM
@Justsomeguy: I understand the difference, but I believe you're missing two points.
Firstly, contrary to your statement, Bell does in fact offer Internet connect via its own POPS as a service layered on top of its gateway access.
Secondly, because ISPs are routing their traffic to the Internet (via either Bell's POPS or their own - they do both) - the throttling issue still applies, which was the fundamental point I was making in the blog post. The fact that Bell is providing backhaul doesn't make this go away.
But feel free to politely put me right (sans all-caps if that's ok?)
@Plus One - In the context of my blog post, whose POPS are being used to punch out to the net is something of a red herring, I think. The third party ISPs' traffic is still throttled in the process. Again, put me right if I'm missing something. That's what comments sections are for. You also make an interesting point about the double-dipping. I hadn't considered that. Must look into it.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | Oct 29, 2009 4:48:29 PM
@Danny:
Thanks for the response!
That Bell claims they can't tell the difference between their traffic and GAS customer traffic is true: at least with the current infrastructure they have in place. Nonetheless, even were it not true, Bell's direct customers and GAS customers all share the same network. Bandwidth constraints affect everyone equally, at least in the world of consumer DSL. Much like there isn't a 'no-peeing' section in a swimming pool (sorry, couldn't help the real-world reference). So like it or not, throttling must be applied to everyone on the network, on the same basis, or it wouldn't be effective at all.
As for Skype being P2P and therefore possibly at risk b/c it competes with a Bell line of business: that's a slippery slope argument. And like most slippery slopes - there's theoretically no end to the potential abuses, right? Two counter-arguments: 1) competition is what would keep them from throttling Skype. If they did it, and Rogers or someone else didn't, they'd lose customers instantly. Why risk it? 2) Skype traffic is tiny even when you're using it, and more importantly, it's non-existent when you're not using it. So why throttle what doesn't need to be throttled? I know it's tempting to worry about the big bad company, but why don't we cross that bridge if and when we really need to instead of now, when it simply isn't an issue?
@Lame:
"If only Bell was an ISP. It's a common carrier. Sympatico is the ISP"
No, Sympatico doesn't exist: It's called Bell Internet. And it's a division of Bell Canada. Why are you splitting hairs?
"If only P2P wasnt used already for live videos...<"
Please cite which live videos use P2P in a way that the ISPs throttle... I know of none. See above comment re: Skype.
"If only Bell wasnt simply lying about the so called congestion they have, or play to have so they could use it for their video service..."
They aren't lying, they demonstrated that the congestion exists to the CRTC. If you're looking for lies, I suggest you re-read your own comment.
"Get your facts straight before posting such comments."
Good advice, maybe you should follow it instead of being a troll.
Posted by: mike | Oct 29, 2009 6:01:27 PM
@ Voice of Reason:
really? go google "bittorrent live video streaming". does it come up blank?
The ROUTE of all this is greed. If their stupid network is congested (which i believe it is not, DESPITE what they told the CRTC, which no1 can disprove/prove). The fact is that p2p (or Bit Torrent) threatens these ISP's other division called TELEVISION.
The fact that Bell Internet is a division of Bell Canada is EXACTLY the problem. Total conflict of interest.
If there was such a need for throttling due to congestion why is Bell:
1) increasing speeds.
2) opening video stores for online video contect.
3) opening Bell TV Online.
4) why does traffic need to be slowed down for 10hours, or nearly 1/2 EVERY SINGLE day. Maybe it should be a reaction to ACTUAL congestion. This is equivalent to killing a fly with an Atomic bomb, completely over compensated.
5) UBB, now they want money for their congested (supposedly) slow network ON TOP of the GAS fee's paid for by the wholesale ISP's?
6) advertising that their network is "never shared" and then whine when other people are affecting others experience??
Posted by: Fuel | Oct 29, 2009 7:19:46 PM
I don't know what these companies are crying about. They offer high speeds they can't actual give you and complain when people try to use it?
I deal with Eastlink who offers 15mb/s. Well, if I HAVE to pay for 15mb/s I SHOULD be allowed to use up to 15mb/s without any problem. If they limit me, they are not providing me with the 15mb/s we agreed upon. Shouldn't the CRTC see this as charging for a service thats purposely being denied? Shouldn't this be considered illegal? If they think some areas are too congested, they should either invest and make it more efficient, or lower their speeds AND charge less for less service.
Why Do I pay over $50 a month for a service thats being cut down 75% because I'm using what they offered me. Seems ridiculous.
We need to step back and see the real issue. ISP's want to advertise they offer high speeds so they can charge more for it and get rid of the cheaper, slow alternatives. But they don't actually want to give you this speed they are advertising. They want to suck every single penny they can get out of the consumer and provide the least amount of service. They are for-profit companies so this is obviously how they want to work. But why should they be allowed to charge for services they refuse to give with the excuse that you "can" reach the advertised speeds. Sure I can reach about 12mb/s but if I'm doing anything that actually stays at this speed for more than a few minutes they then go "hey, he's using the speed we sold him, we can't have that" and throttle me into uselessness, unless I want to web browse... But who needs 15mb/s for web browsing? Anything over 1mb/s would suffice for that good enough. So where is the cheap 1mb/s option? Oh wait, that would require the companies to not make as much money, because if they force you into a higher speed connection, they can justify the high prices. Which brings us back to the problem we have here. They want to force high prices because they offer high speeds, but they don't have the infrastructure to sustain these speeds for all the people who were offered the speed so they will complain to regulators that they need to cut out the speed hogs.
It's about greed, plain and simple. There are far too many solutions for this problem than I can think of, but it would require the companies to spend money, or lower prices on lower products, which they don't want to do.
Greedy. Pure Greed.
Posted by: Cuckhold Don | Oct 30, 2009 12:09:04 AM
Of course they(internet providers) are going to slow our service--WHY--Because they can!!
It's all about them makeing MORE PROFIT & the fact that the CRTC has not got the Guts to enable(let alone allow any real compition!
The cable& phone companys have SOO much power that they can& do limit compition through thier FRIENDS inthe government burocricies!
Unless we(joe Q public) sceam a lot & VERY loud (to the media) things will get worse!
Cuckhold Don
Posted by: Cuckhold Don | Oct 30, 2009 12:25:20 AM
This is just another case of Huge corporatins(that allready make Massive profits) & (with the federal goverment) limit competion!--It's REALLY that simple!
The cable& phone companys have things locked up(check how close thier prices are)--So really there is no competion & the federal goverment(through the (useles CRTC) are saying to thier big bussiness "FRIENDS" Go ahead & Fleece Canadians as they won't complain enough to make a differance!---MAKE MORE MONEY-- ME Cuckhold Don
Posted by: Cobra | Oct 30, 2009 3:07:13 AM
Additionally, with the bandwidth limits now being imposed, this just screams “monopoly” as using legal movie services (i.e. NetFlix or CanFlix), television and VOIP is hindered so the public will be pressed towards cable or Bell for movies through their services – definite conflict of interest.
Television shows are available on many television network sites and can be legitimately downloaded or streamed and viewed – do the cable companies or Bell want this, of course not. These companies recognize this and that is why these rules (monthly bandwidth and download speeds) are coming forth.
Don’t kid yourself! These companies are looking 5 to 10 years into the future and they are setting the ground rules now. There are too many conflicts of interest with this current setup.
But allowing them to limit speeds and bandwidth is just corralling the public to use their television and movie services where much of this can be had over the internet at minimal cost, if not free. VOIP can be easily had over the internet, but is now being governed with the imposed monthly traffic limits.
Do not limit yourself to think only about today....think 5 to 10 years out. Television; voice; movies and internet can all come in together, but the direct competition to these providing companies will be the internet itself. So it would be in their interest to limit traffic, slow speeds and perhaps even restrict certain types of sites or services.
Food for thought: Why has neither Playstation3 nor Xbox released TV tuners or movie streaming services in North America? It would be great if they did, but if they do – they too will be governed under the monthly traffic limits from the providers.
These limits and rules need to be reviewed or technology advancement will be slowed or services will simply stay separated when we all know they can easily be amalgamated (i.e. current separate charges for phone, T.V. and internet).
Posted by: Voice of Reason | Oct 30, 2009 10:47:08 AM
@Mike:
- BitTorrent Streaming doesn't use P2P, it uses progressive HTTP. Not throttled.
"If there was such a need for throttling due to congestion why is Bell:
1) increasing speeds."
Because more speed is obviously better, so where they are able to roll out fibre-to-the-node or home they are doing so - this the investment in their network that everyone is complaining that they aren't doing.
2) opening video stores for online video contect.
because downloading individual videos (vs. sharing multiple, massive files) is not a bandwidth killer the way P2P is.
3) opening Bell TV Online.
Same reason as above.
4) why does traffic need to be slowed down for 10hours, or nearly 1/2 EVERY SINGLE day. Maybe it should be a reaction to ACTUAL congestion. This is equivalent to killing a fly with an Atomic bomb, completely over compensated.
You're right, but since these are the peak hours for P2P, that's the part of the day they throttle. Shouldn't make any difference to most people... why not just set your downloads and then walk away?
5) UBB, now they want money for their congested (supposedly) slow network ON TOP of the GAS fee's paid for by the wholesale ISP's?
Not sure what you're refering to.
6) advertising that their network is "never shared" and then whine when other people are affecting others experience??
this is the one thing you've said that makes sense. They need to change their marketing message.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | Oct 30, 2009 11:00:39 AM
@Cobra:
The only reason there is no Netflix streaming on PS3 or Xbox is licensing. The rules are different in Canada than in the U.S. It's the same reason why it took so long for iTunes to open in Canada and why many U.S. services like Pandora, Slacker, Hulu and others aren't here. It has absolutely nothing to do with ISPs or bandwidth. Look for conspiracies elsewhere my friend.
Posted by: odis | Nov 1, 2009 4:05:30 PM
Half the problem is that the crtc is in bed with the telecommunications industry. For instance.. Leonard (Len) Katz "Vice-Chairman, Telecommunications " From his bio on the crtc site "Prior to assuming those responsibilities, he spent 17 years within the Rogers Group of Companies, where he held various positions in the regulatory, intercarrier services and business development fields of wireless and cable services." I understand that the regulatory body must be staffed with people who are familiar with the industry, but does anyone else agree that the "Revolving door syndrome" is alive and well here?
Posted by: moore | Nov 2, 2009 10:18:14 AM
MORE 4 YOU!
Posted by: Paying for what I don't get | Nov 2, 2009 3:58:16 PM
If only subscribers were allowed to throttle their payments in direct relation to the amount of data being throttled .... If that happened, then I'm sure bandwidth throttleing would be a thing of the past.
Posted by: RealityBites | Nov 2, 2009 4:01:33 PM
After reading most of the jibberish and tech jargon, in my opinion the throttling issue is simpler than you all make it out to be.
As a fellow techie, I understand the technical reasons for throttling. As a consumer I get pssd off and here is why....
When you sign up for a service you have OPTIONS.
Option 1 - Pay less because you only want to surf the web, email and maybe some chatting or social networking.
Option 2 - Pay a bit more because you occasionally like to watch news feeds or the stupid videos of the week on MSN, or you have a VOip and need a bit of bandwidth.
Option 3 - Pay a LOT so you can p2p, join in the week raids in WoW, VOip, and live you life on the internet.
The problem is that rather than throttling the user based on what they pay per month, they throttle EVERYONE. I pay almost $100/month for internet because I want the fastest speeds possible. And yet I don't get much more speed than Joe Blow paying $20/month just because I use the internet in a different manner than he does... which is why I AM WILLING to pay more and DO PAY MORE. And that is supposed to be the selling point of their service... so you CAN game faster, watch streaming video, etc. etc. They even SELL YOU in their advertising, pointing out their faster speeds TO DO THOSE THINGS and then they throttle you!!!
As for the congestion... well... there are 35 Million people in Canada and 350 Million in the USA and they have faster internet than we do in Canada... hmmmm... not to mention Euros who have even faster internet with many more users than we do in Canada.
If it smells like bullsh1t ... must be bullsh1t!
Posted by: dalani | Nov 2, 2009 9:30:08 PM
Stop it already: the technical details don't matter: It's inevitable
Bell will be(are)(have been) making backroom deals with other big players (Microsoft Xbox and MSN, Google paid advertsing, all the major Hollywood studios, etc...) to put their content on the fast lane and shuttle everything else in slow lane like your grandmas youtube videos she uploaded last week.
Eg. Look at the obvious Microsoft MSN/Sympatico alliance-did you seriously think they don't talk to each other?
We know the network congestion excuse for throttling is a smoke screen that the CRTC bought into hook,line and sinker.
We can stop this cold with class action suits, throwing CRTC into public scrutiny and giving SERIOUS thought about pushing for more open access to auctioned wireless frequencies or alternative methods to bring in new players into the market.
Posted by: Cobra | Nov 4, 2009 6:47:11 AM
** Dalani - Thank you for driving some of my points home....
Maybe CRTC can get jobs at the OLG, win big and we'll replace them with some free thinkers!
Might work?
Throttle to the floor!
Posted by: Voice of Reason | Nov 4, 2009 9:44:13 PM
@RealityBites:
There is only one type of traffic being throttled by Bell (I can't speak for any of the other ISPs): P2P.
It is only throttled at certain times of day. For all non P2P traffic (and even P2P during non-peak hours) you are getting exactly what you've paid for. Trouble is, you probably don't know what you're paying for. Why don't you a) check the wording of the product you pay for b) make absolutely sure your gaming and other apps are being throttled (I suspect you're just running into good old fashioned congestion). I get mad when my Skype doesn't work the way I want too, but since it isn't a problem ALL the time, how can it be the ISP's fault?
Posted by: Voice of Reason | Nov 4, 2009 9:49:54 PM
@Dalani:
I know it's tempting to think that all of these big companies are colluding to make things worse for the little guy, but nothing could be further from the truth. Ask anyone who is familiar with Google, or Hollywood - these guys wouldn't dream of paying Bell to do anything. They're far more likely (and in fact they do) to attack Bell over the issue of throttling. Check out Google's official position on it. Would they be doing that if they were in cahoots with Bell? I don't think so. If you still think something is amiss, let me ask you this: Is the risk of getting caught doing something like this worth the supposedly extra $$ that Bell would make? Can you imagine the penalty they'd face? Not to mention the damage to their brand. Just doesn't make sense.
Posted by: mikethenetuser | Dec 9, 2009 12:38:50 PM
I'm not much of a techie in knowledge, but i am a user of the internet. While i like games, movies and stuff like that online, I don't use Bittorrent to do anything at all and I still experience a large slowing effect in available up and download bandwidth at certain times of day, (about 2:30 pm to about 11:10 pm weekdays and different longer times on weekends). I don't have a problem with service providers doing what they can to make everyone's internet experience balanced among the whole, I DO however have a real big problem with how they are doing this in the aspect that they do in fact charge customers for a certain service and then go ahead and diminish that service or fail in it without the knowledge, consent or remuneration of the customer. This is in effect defrauding people of their funds for services paid for and not provided. If there is anything we as people should do, it is to protest in writing en-mass to the government for allowing this to continue unchecked, and if they do not act in the best interest of the people over the best interest of fictitious non-living vampiric capitalist entities then we must hold them, as public servants, accountable for breaching the public trust. It up to us to provide government with knowledge of what we see as our best interest and if we do not, then they will do what they are told is best by companies and people who are biased in the industries. It has always been in our hands and our alone. thank you for allowing my expression =-)
Posted by: T-Duff | Dec 14, 2009 3:39:09 PM
Two things that have to be done with the internet in order to stop all of the crime that it is resulting in.
1. Emails should be restricted to text only, no attachments , no hyper links , a plain text only mode only type of service. There is enough available systems such as myspace or facebook available to allow for the transfer of files between friends. This would eliminate almost all of the issues of virus or phishing that emails result in.
2. The ability of a direct IP to IP connection between computers should be blocked with the usage of a NAT type server. Only connections between a home user and legit registered DNS address should be allowed. Again , facebook , msn , and other types of services would allow for a client to server to client connection to continue. By doing this , most hacking by port probing. trojan horses etc would not be possible if all the end users are behind a NAT.
There is way way way too much crime , being a user of the internet for 20 years + , its has turned into an absolute ghetto compared to when it first started. Theres more time wasted with this thing with virus checking , reinstalling, security updates that really is costing society a fortune.