how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2008-11-20 09:23:40: Earlier this year, Bell Canada began throttling the traffic of wholesale competitors before delivering it to them, and without telling them. ..
|
 Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
| Dissapointed but not surprised Not surprised by this ruling, disappointed yes, but not surprised...
If CAIP's question to the CRTC was whether the throttling was discriminatory if applied to them equally as Bell Canada applied it to its own customers, then I can't see how the CRTC could have ruled any other way.
But if CAIP's question to the CRTC was whether Bell can breach the contract that was signed between Bell and the independent DSL ISP then this ruling would make no sense at all unless Bell had the foresight to insert language in the contract that said Bell had the right to "manage" their part of the network any way they saw fit.
My response to the CRTC's ruling? Calling one of Bell's competitors for *both* my ISP and phone service and switching them 
NefCanuck | |
|
approval from:
devnuller 
| CRTC Ruling or not, Bell's ignorance is the problem I think with this entire news item, most people seem to be assuming bell is a giant evil corporation.
The root of the problem in my eyes, is traffic. Bell claims there is too much, most of you state otherwise. As such, Bell has initiated a "throttling" procedure to reduce problematic bandwidth usage. Not only for their own customers, but wholesalers as well. The problem with traffic shaping as a whole is fairly obvious to most network oriented folks.
The Internet functions on a "Best effort" basis. What this means is that every packet is given the same priority when passing through a router. The flaw with this system is that routers can become flooded with packets, and their buffers fill up. In this situation any additional packets sent to said router are simply dropped. This results in poor "Internet performance".
The issue at hand involves throttling Peer-to-Peer connections. By the very nature of this protocol, a user must establish MANY times the normal amount of connections to the Internet. When one user is flooding a network with a disproportionate amount of connections it in effect "games" the best effort routing system. Since they are using 10-100 times the amount of CONNECTIONS (notice I do not say bandwidth, which is a separate issue) they are in effect given priority by their local router, and ISP. The amount of routing power needed to transfer 500 KB/s via one connection is significantly less than 500 KB/s via 100 connections. This is because 100 connections generate MANY times the number of packets that 1 connection at the same speed would.
Picture this:
Ted is torrenting the latest and greatest TV show from last night. His computer is currently connected to 100+ other peers and he is using 500 KB/s of bandwidth.
Ralph on the other hand is downloading the latest service pack for Windows Vista, at around 500 KB/s of bandwidth and one connection.
Since Ted is using 100+ connections and 500 KB/s of bandwidth and Ralph is using ONE connection and 500 kb/s of bandwidth, the math, and routing logic state that ted will receive 100 times the priority that Ralph will from the ISP routers.
IF EACH PACKET AND CONNECTION IS TREATED THE SAME, then a router AUTOMATICALLY gives priority to the person(s) initiating more connections.
If you wish to hear a more in depth explanation of this concept, I highly suggest you listen to this podcast, by Steve Gibson
»media.grc.com/sn/sn-139.mp3
It does a VERY good job of explaining why connections, not bandwidth is the issue.
I thank you for reading this, and apologize if this is a tad off topic. I just don't see anyone mentioning any of the above information
Regards Raff | |
| | | | Re: CRTC Ruling or not, Bell's ignorance is the problem said by Raff :I think with this entire news item, most people seem to be assuming bell is a giant evil corporation. The root of the problem in my eyes, is traffic. Bell claims there is too much, most of you state otherwise. As such, Bell has initiated a "throttling" procedure to reduce problematic bandwidth usage. Not only for their own customers, but wholesalers as well. The problem with traffic shaping as a whole is fairly obvious to most network oriented folks. The Internet functions on a "Best effort" basis. What this means is that every packet is given the same priority when passing through a router. The flaw with this system is that routers can become flooded with packets, and their buffers fill up. In this situation any additional packets sent to said router are simply dropped. This results in poor "Internet performance". The issue at hand involves throttling Peer-to-Peer connections. By the very nature of this protocol, a user must establish MANY times the normal amount of connections to the Internet. When one user is flooding a network with a disproportionate amount of connections it in effect "games" the best effort routing system. Since they are using 10-100 times the amount of CONNECTIONS (notice I do not say bandwidth, which is a separate issue) they are in effect given priority by their local router, and ISP. The amount of routing power needed to transfer 500 KB/s via one connection is significantly less than 500 KB/s via 100 connections. This is because 100 connections generate MANY times the number of packets that 1 connection at the same speed would. Picture this: Ted is torrenting the latest and greatest TV show from last night. His computer is currently connected to 100+ other peers and he is using 500 KB/s of bandwidth. Ralph on the other hand is downloading the latest service pack for Windows Vista, at around 500 KB/s of bandwidth and one connection. Since Ted is using 100+ connections and 500 KB/s of bandwidth and Ralph is using ONE connection and 500 kb/s of bandwidth, the math, and routing logic state that ted will receive 100 times the priority that Ralph will from the ISP routers. IF EACH PACKET AND CONNECTION IS TREATED THE SAME, then a router AUTOMATICALLY gives priority to the person(s) initiating more connections. If you wish to hear a more in depth explanation of this concept, I highly suggest you listen to this podcast, by Steve Gibson » media.grc.com/sn/sn-139.mp3It does a VERY good job of explaining why connections, not bandwidth is the issue. I thank you for reading this, and apologize if this is a tad off topic. I just don't see anyone mentioning any of the above information Regards Raff Raff, this is nothing new that we havent already discussed in these forums ..
1st of all thats not happening according to Bell's numbers.. they dont add up to anything.
2nd of all, throttling customers rather than improve their service is not the way to go
and throttling does not make service better, the customers done Lie, Bell does.
If your trying to tell us that torrenting is a problem, then you have missed the whole point through this battle.
This digs a lot deeper than connections at this point. | |
|
| | Sad. :( Sad. Manifesting in the cold won't be... cool.
--
SHARPSHARK | |
|
2 edits | CRTC is Corrupt Contact the CRTC now with the complaint form in the link and tell them that they all need to be fired immediately.
Something simple like "The CRTC should all resign immediately. Signed the Canadian people".
»www.crtc.gc.ca/RapidsCCM/Register.asp?lang=E
Use 'Other' on the second page of the form, as your complaint window.
And send a carbon copy to......
Contact the Prime Minister of Canaduh.
pm@pm.gc.ca
And Global TV consumer news complaints.
sos@globaltv.com
Stop being such sheep you freaking Canadians. Stand up for your rights now or forever shove them in to the toilet.
| |
|  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
1 edit | Hmm.. I wonder if there's a way to setup a Point-to-Point link between the U.S. and Canada..
Here's a grocery list (2 or more of these):
Linksys WRT54G v1-4 routers w/latest DD-WRT Firmware
12v Deep Cycle Batteries
Solar Cell powerful enough to keep the battery topped off
Cantennas
..then do some research and have fun.. Oh wait, is this legal?
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|Mine[P4HT 3.2GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,WinXP]|Wife's[P4 2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,WinXP]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo] | |
| |  root9
join:2005-04-08
Kitchener, ON | Re: Hmm.. that's not bad, u need more parts and equipment though
- tower high enough for "line of sight"
- preferably cantenna with satellite dish combo or other high gain antennas to get range of more than 10 km
- 100 to 300 Mbps card, also for range and quality
- fully working AP server so u can admin them and watch for nukes, not just simple routers
- weather protection
u don't need legal crap as u are not a biz
--
Please engage eyeballs and retain functional brain before operating fingers. | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Another big F- You to the people, and Power to the SuperCorp All worship Money, the Almighty Money, our God, Superhero.
Heads they win, tails, you lose. | |
| | | CRTC he, he The CRTC put me in a pail and i pulled out a whale. Well i've given up on the bittorents i'm off to buy some pirated dvd's from the local Chinese mall. | |
|
| |
|
