how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
899 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| |  A question no one wants to ask - is there a need to throttle
If there truly is congestion conditions(and why would Bell Canada put themselves thru the negative publicity if there wasn't), then maybe what they are doing is justified.
Of course they can start massively upgrading their network, but given current economic conditions and prospects it would certainly be reasonable to put off those expenditures for 8 to 12 months.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|   powerhogStinkin' up the jointPremium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK | Re: A question no one wants to ask - is there a need to throttle If they "NEED" to throttle, then they've obviously over-sold their capacity and need to stop adding to the problem by taking on new customers... don't you think? | |
|  mazhurgPremium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
 ·MTS
| I could see the need if the data was shared. However there is no sharing of data. Couple of facts:
1) Independant ISPs (IISP) buy transit from BCE (or Bell Nexxia); not from Sympatico. The only common point is at the DSLAM level (last mile). IISP then provide their own networking, configuation, routing and load management.
2) Since Sympatico started to stealth throttle their users, Bell has lost a lot of users to the smaller ISPs, so many that I would not be surprised to see a net drain.
3) The throtling being done to the independant ISPs is similar to what Sympatico is doing to it's own users as it appears to be done at the last mile (it's the only place of commonality). This in turn imply that a common carrier is actively looking at and segregating data based on content. E.G. NOT a good thing.
4) The throttling is also not very accurate and will target just about everything encrypted (in addition to P2P), This means that VPN, and other encrypted network and services are affected. As a matter of fact, it now appears that several companies linked via TS are being affected, even tho they have business class connections to TS. Want to bet that if those companies where connected via Sympatico they would not experience "Issues"?
No, this is noting but a brazen attempt at killing off competition. The P2P is only the excuse. | |
| | |
yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON | No they don't need to. People were happily downloading full speed on Teksavvy until this happened. If the lines Bell resells to Teksavvy were congested then people would be seeing slowdowns which wasn't happening. This is total BS by Bell and anti competitive. Should be illegal as well and hopefully some company takes them to court. | |
|  sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| said by fAcEtIOUs:1 thing that no one seems to be addressing in this discussion is whether there exists a "NEED to throttle" based on congested networks. I doubt it - a temporary "need" perhaps, but this is *the phone company*. Unlike cable, they do not have that pesky last-mile bottleneck that's a technological limitation forcing them into portioning out tiny bits of upstream traffic. If they're congested, it's the fiber from the COs into the core ATM network, or the ATM network itself. Considering they are the phone company and they ultimately already have gobs of interconnect that they own between all their COs and tandems, they are not at the mercy of some third party when they need to expand capacity. If the fiber is full, then they need to mux more colors of light... however we know that the telcos do understand capacity planning very well. They are never going to just pull a few strands to a CO and then put more in later.
It all sounds a bit fishy to me. If the network were congested, users would be seeing that and complaining about it, no?
I'd wager that since regulation is a bit tighter up there this will be resolved shortly and in favor of the competitive ISPs/consumers, especially if it's clobbering non-P2P usage (see comments in this thread re: VPN breakage). | |
| | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Re: A question no one wants to ask - is there a need to throttle said by sporkme:I'd wager that since regulation is a bit tighter up there this will be resolved shortly and in favor of the competitive ISPs/consumers, especially if it's clobbering non-P2P usage (see comments in this thread re: VPN breakage). If so and Bell knew, then perhaps they were throwing in VPN just to test the limits and get whatever anticompetitive advantage they could while it lasted, and never expected it to last forever. Perhaps they wanted the delineation of the rules for everything more quickly asserted.
Just think: Anything you don't successfully protest now, Bell can do with impunity for the next dozen to two dozen years, give or take. Perhaps they wanted the fight, just so that P2P throttling (of other carriers' traffic) can be more quickly legitimized (and/or designated unfair territory for snooping). Who really knows. It all seems strange. What an odd reaction to P2P traffic. (To me it would seem a business opportunity: find out what they're P2Ping, and then offer quality legal products aligned with the interests of the less illegitimate P2P users, swinging them and the market in favor of a more appropriate cost model. Witness the success of Comcast VOD as a sort of partial example (with failings in the ease of access aspect (user interface difficulties compared to P2P).)) | |
|
| | Please ....
Don't you think those fat dividends for decades could not have fixed this situation ? Do you really think that Bell should continue making fat profits on technology we have paid for 100 times over (copper lines) ?
Don't you think they should have re-invested in bandwidth improvement during this time ?
Let's face it .. .they got caught with their pants down .. just like IBM did when it gave PC technology away to Bill Gates.
The mammoth has been caught in the middle of the street with it's eyes wide open ... most likely by the headlights of an oncoming vehicle at full throttle (no pun intended).
BELL BOTTOMS. | |
| | | Unfortunately, you assume that someone at bell knows how to run a corporation...
Likely bell's plan is to put off those expenditures for 8 to 12 YEARS! | |
|
| |
|
