en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Awesome...
I'd say go and storm parliament hill in Ottawa.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
dsldude08
Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI | Now only if America would open their eyes. Sheesh. |
|
jessegr
join:2005-03-05
Gatineau, QC | ottowa
go ottowa! |
|
Devanchya
Smile
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Ajax, ON | Ottowa? Like Woshington?
It's Ottawa, but not that big of a deal.
This, will go no where. |
|
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
1 edit | said by Devanchya  :It's Ottawa, but not that big of a deal. This, will go no where. If it makes it to the evening news it will have accomplished its goal.
Edit - haha the typo is still there. Didn't they spell it as Ottowa in an article before, too? |
|
GKC
join:2008-03-07
Toronto, ON
| reply to Devanchya
It's all about Net Neutrality. Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its inception in 1995. Net Neutrality is about equal access to the Internet.
Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet Service Providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its sources, ownership or destination.
Canada's largest telephone and cable company Bell Canada and Rogers Communications Inc., want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which websites go fast or slow and which ones won't load at all. Instead of playing an even field, these companies want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services.
Net Neutrality allows all voices to be heard. The principles of Net Neutrality are important to ensure the Internet provides a real opportunity for all Canadians to speak with their own voices. The loss of Net Neutrality would end all opportunity for freedom of expression.
And if you care anything about Net Neutrality you'll sign my petition »www.gopetition.com/online/18706.html |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| said by GKC :The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its inception in 1995. The Internet (formerly Arpanet) was made available to commercial investment in 1988.
said by GKC :Canada's largest telephone and cable company Bell Canada and Rogers Communications Inc., want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which websites go fast or slow and which ones won't load at all. When did Bell and Rogers start acting on port 80 traffic? |
|
GKC
join:2008-03-07
Toronto, ON
| said by espaeth :said by GKC :The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its inception in 1995. The Internet (formerly Arpanet) was made available to commercial investment in 1988. said by GKC :Canada's largest telephone and cable company Bell Canada and Rogers Communications Inc., want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which websites go fast or slow and which ones won't load at all. When did Bell and Rogers start acting on port 80 traffic? Well, actually, the Internet has been in existence since 1969.
"The Internet was built by some clever folks at BBN Corporation for the Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA, now DARPA), part of the United States Department of Defense, and was mainly used by academics to share research through the end of the 1980's..." The World Wide Web came into existence in 1995. The Internet and WWW are concievably one-and-the-same, although they are two different identities.
In essence, Rogers and Bell want to dominate and dictate what their subscriber's can and cannot do on the internet. Rogers and Bell do not believe in Net Neutrality. The Internet is a free and open source for everyone that knows no boundaries. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by GKC :Well, actually, the Internet has been in existence since 1969. The network infrastructure that became the Internet started back in the 1960's, yes. It wasn't until 1988 that you, as a non-government or non-educational entity, could get connected to the network though. So if you want make arguments about open and free, let's settle on a date when it was a network that you, as a private citizen, could actually connect up.
said by GKC :The Internet and WWW are concievably one-and-the-same, although they are two different identities. Those two things are as different as cars and roads. Clearly they are related, but not exclusively.
said by GKC :In essence, Rogers and Bell want to dominate and dictate what their subscriber's can and cannot do on the internet. Rogers and Bell do not believe in Net Neutrality. Outside of throttling P2P traffic, what else is affected by current Bell and Rogers network management? |
|
GKC
join:2008-03-07
Toronto, ON
| You're looking for nothing more than a public argument. I'm not going to give it to you. Read up on Rogers and Sympatico Forum Boards to learn of the problem (s) that exist with both Rogers and Bell. All the best to you. End of discussion. |
|
lawrence171
Evilly Yours - Evilness
join:2001-12-24
Canada
| reply to espaeth
Independent ISPs "rent" a DSL line from Bell. This line connects the customer to Bell's COs which, provides the customer with the DSL sync.
Customers, then, using PPPoE, connects to the ISP's network.
Bell is throttling all the connections connected to the CO. Before a data packet is sent or received, to and from the ISP, the packet is inspected and "managed". Bell is arguing that they're running out of bandwidth, but I do not see how their arguments are holding up.
Rogers currently throttles ALL encrypted traffic (even HTTPS).
--
What I used to be I no longer am... God, why can't you freeze time for my sake? |
|
Quake110
join:2003-12-20
Ottawa, ON | reply to jessegr
Re: ottowa
Go Ottowa Senotors! |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to GKC
Re: Ottowa? Like Woshington?
Absolutely -- I demand that my ISP stop filtering ports on my service, including 1433 (SQL TCP), Netbios (135,137-139, 445) and all the other nonsense that fills up firewall logs.  |
|
Warez_Zealot
Rural land of the rising sun
join:2006-04-19
japan
| reply to lawrence171
said by lawrence171 :Independent ISPs "rent" a DSL line from Bell. This line connects the customer to Bell's COs which, provides the customer with the DSL sync. Customers, then, using PPPoE, connects to the ISP's network. Bell is throttling all the connections connected to the CO. Before a data packet is sent or received, to and from the ISP, the packet is inspected and "managed". Bell is arguing that they're running out of bandwidth, but I do not see how their arguments are holding up. Rogers currently throttles ALL encrypted traffic (even HTTPS). The problem is they REALLY want to put a value on data transfers like long distance calls. They would be really happy if they could charge XXX Amount for kB, MB, GB, etc... |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
2 edits | said by Warez_Zealot :said by lawrence171 :Independent ISPs "rent" a DSL line from Bell. This line connects the customer to Bell's COs which, provides the customer with the DSL sync. Customers, then, using PPPoE, connects to the ISP's network. Bell is throttling all the connections connected to the CO. Before a data packet is sent or received, to and from the ISP, the packet is inspected and "managed". Bell is arguing that they're running out of bandwidth, but I do not see how their arguments are holding up. Rogers currently throttles ALL encrypted traffic (even HTTPS). The problem is they REALLY want to put a value on data transfers like long distance calls. They would be really happy if they could charge XXX Amount for kB, MB, GB, etc... i will sue
there is about 5GB (permonth)worth of unsolicited traffic
on cable modems |
|
rossh
@nikor.net
| reply to jester121
Yes, good point... be careful what you wish for. ISP's filter off a ton of crap and dangerous stuff, and you really do not want to get any of these problems forwarded. If you really want unfiltered connections, then it will be a lot more work for every user to stay clean. |
|
chronoss2008
Premium
join:2008-03-29
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to jester121
add to fact that Mr Geist is now saying that minister prentice is going to bring the american DMCA to canada
in a few weeks that protest in ottawa on 15th could be come a real rally about both issues that i see really are about OUR freedoms in canada and how the ailing CONservatives in th emidst of scandals are trying to make friends before getitng the boot from office
if liberals have guts and they defeat them on this count on not only my vote but me volinteering to help!!! |
|
Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to espaeth
said by GKC :The Internet and WWW are concievably one-and-the-same, although they are two different identities. Those two things are as different as cars and roads. Clearly they are related, but not exclusively. |
|
goHabsgo
@5foq.com
| reply to espaeth
"Outside of throttling P2P traffic, what else is affected by current Bell and Rogers network management?"
By implementing DPI which is currently enabling them identify and throttle P2P traffic they have opened the door to being able to identify the destination of HTTP traffic as well.
Plans were/are to streamline augment connectivity to Bell owned sites (movies, music etc..) and possibly degrade similar connectivity to other non-Bell owned sites. The other possible scenario is that they would continue to collect and charge for bandwidth going to the non-Bell sites and possibly identify and waive the bandwidth usage if the user destination was a Bell 'approved' site.
Whatever the net result is, the act of sniffing, identifying and imposing a 'call to action' based on an HTTP destination is seriously bad news and an massive invasion of privacy IMHO. |
|
root9
join:2005-04-08
Kitchener, ON
| reply to rossh
said by rossh :
Yes, good point... be careful what you wish for. ISP's filter off a ton of crap and dangerous stuff, and you really do not want to get any of these problems forwarded. If you really want unfiltered connections, then it will be a lot more work for every user to stay clean.
BTW: Last time I checked Rogers doesn't filter malicious content to users, and neither do many others. It's the users "choice" and responsibility to have anything filtered, not the ISP's. As a matter of fact Rogers suspends accounts when users try to protect themselves and or try to complain to offending user ISP.
I've spent enough time stripping off Norton [bad due to scripts and misses lots] and McAfee [just outright garbage proggy] and installing comprehensive security per user to help users get their systems back to operating and safe state.
All an ISP is is an "Internet Service Provider", this means they provide the basic connection to Internet at a prearranged best price and speed. Nothing more and nothing less! It is NOT a cop, spy agency, judge, jury or any other regulatory body.
Many developers / users use their accounts to test warez which many ISP's in turn suspend or kill their accounts. Many users trade information about all sorts of things which the large Telcos would love to stop. How would you like it if Bell, Rogers and others filtered DslReports, similar sites and anything they didn't like you doing?
It [disgusting Bell, Rogers and any throttling / spying ISP] IS a Tyrant to be reigned in as we see fit.
--
Fight for your rights or loose them! |
|
