cables
join:2007-12-20
Vancouver, BC
| reply to R0CKY
Re: Update on throttling issue...
said by R0CKY  :... An easy analogy would be a landlord, who is managing an apartment, gives himself a key to come in and out as he pleases and on top of that decide which tenants friends they let in! I'm not sure about you, but I'm fairly certain, one; the tenant would call the police, but two; you'd land up with a very big black-eye! ************************************************************************** Rocky wow, that sounds a lot like living in the basement of a 'vancouver special', with your landlord living in the main floor. |
|
Kdee
join:2005-08-26
Etobicoke, ON
| reply to justsometech
You're famous now  :
»itnerd.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/···ell-sue/ |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
1 edit | reply to sporkme
>I'm just puzzled because if they do give you layer 2, how the
>hell are they actually examing the traffic at the ATM level?
PPPoE packets are broken up into multiple ATM packets to get through the ugly kludge that ADSL is. But at some point within the opaque Bell cloud, those PPPoE packets are re-assembled so that the BAS can look at the PPPoE header and route it to the right ISP.
From what I read, Bell is trying to re-assemble those packets back into ethernet packets as close to the DSLAM as possible. Once you get an ethernet frame with a full PPPoE packet inside, it becomes easier to look further inside to look inside the TCPIP packet and inside the TCPIP packet, you find the payload and decide if you like that type of data or not, and if you don't, you slow the packet down.
Once the packet is back into a single ethernet frame, it becomes easy for Bell to ship it to the ISP over WAN ethernet links instead of breaking it all up into silly ATM backs to be shipped to ISPs. (the conversion to ethernet as the link to ISPs is recent on Bell territory (I think it was done last year if I am not mistaken) |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to R0CKY
Hey Rocky,
I'm a bit lost on how they're doing this to you. In the US, both the bells and the DLECs like Covad and NewEdge hand their wholesale traffic to their ISP "partners" as a layer 2 ATM connection. Is it done differently up there? I noticed you mentioned gig-e, which, unless they're doing some funky vlan-per-customer thing sounds like they are giving you a layer 3 connection. I'm just puzzled because if they do give you layer 2, how the hell are they actually examing the traffic at the ATM level? |
|
Mersault
join:2007-10-26
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt :I just had a t-shirt idea...  I would buy that for a dollar! |
|
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18 | reply to robertfl
 |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL | reply to HiVolt
you do understand that there is already a bt client in the works that will override this bullcrap. don't know where or when it will be released but it will be available.
-rob |
|
HiVolt
29
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
clubs:
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Riplin
I just had a t-shirt idea... |
|
Riplin
join:2002-05-13
canada
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Angelo_
Rocky in transit |
|
|
Radar73
join:2008-01-20
Ajax, ON | reply to Angelo_
LOL!!! |
|
HiVolt
29
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
clubs: | reply to Angelo_
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA ANGELO!!!!! |
|
GKC
join:2008-03-07
Toronto, ON
| reply to newSymp
said by newSymp :This is tactics of a business that knows is in trouble for losing customers, and clients, from people switching to other services, and thus will do anything. Exactly! |
|
NeoStylez
Cheers
join:2008-02-10
Peterborough, ON | reply to Angelo_
lol |
|
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18
1 edit | reply to newSymp
gl Rocky
 |
|
newSymp
join:2003-11-06
| reply to R0CKY
as you can see this is a marketing and monopoly trick that bell is conducting.
In the response from Bell the statement states
quote:
Network carriers such as Bell argue that bandwidth-intensive applications, such as peer-to-peer file transfer programs clog their networks, which results in slow connections for the rest of their customers,
Basically beyond their own traffic they are saying that 3rd party DSL is affecting the quality of BELL customers.
SO they ( MONOPOLY ) are thinking that if they throttle others neetwork ( teksavvy ) that their issues ( BELL's ) will be solved.
This is a tactic that they are using to blame the third party DSL because bell is losing customers and peopl ehave the option to go to 3rd party DSL for much lower costs for the same service or bell ( Teksavvy ).
The terms MONOPOLY POWER are not clearly pointed out, but reread the globe article and it is Clearly Printed.
Also yesterday someone posted an add from bell displaying the "Fastest Internet Available" - - - - well it can be faster then anyone else cause they might remove their throttles and throttle 3rd party dsl customers and make the 3rd party internet slower the the MonoPOLY hold that bell has.
This is tactics of a business that knows is in trouble for losing customers, and clients, from people switching to other services, and thus will do anything. Example the thread started out blamin gteksavvy with throttling, but in the end it was really bell. |
|
justsometech
join:2003-05-08
h3h4h4 | reply to justsometech
and Rocky, and really the company as a whole, i hope you have already been talking to a legal team... |
|
justsometech
join:2003-05-08
h3h4h4
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to blackdragon1
here is what i have done, i hope all of you in the forum are putting action to words:
emailed my federal and ontario MP
filed a complaint with the competition bureau here:
»www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/epic···60e.html
emailed the public interest advocacy center:
piac@piac.ca
as well as the minister of industry:
Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca
I would have filed a complaitn with CCTS but it said if comp. bureau is handling the complaint they wont work it, so i will wait and see how that goes.
i hope you guys do the same |
|
blackdragon1
join:2007-06-16 | reply to R0CKY
Wow. Thats actually a perfect example.
Bell needs to stop acting like control freaks and start co-operating with other ISP's and customers better... |
|
j3richo
join:2007-12-08
Gatineau, QC | reply to R0CKY
that's good to here, hopefully this will make it easier for 3rd party ISPs to rape Bell in court. |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
1 edit | reply to Comment
Here's the thing gang... (I was going to leave, but I wanted to post this last bit first!).
In this particular article ( »www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/···ogy/home ) I think I might have realized where the major flaw is Bell's thought process!
**************************************************************************
Based on Laszlo's comment on the ability to do what they want to the network. This is the exact problem and where Bell doesn't get it. TekSavvy and all third party ISPs are paying for a "slice" of this network, so no, it's not Bell's at that point. They're paid to make sure the infrastructure remains in good shape, but they're not paid to police it! The flaw in Bell's thought is in their not understanding that we've paid for the right to this space... We've paid for multiple Gig-E connections for the data to flow back to; we've paid for the DSL aggregation interface (AHSSPI) and we're also paying on a per user basis (approx $20/month) to have the data relayed directly back to our main point of Interconnect.
So, in short, no, they don't have rights to this network segment... An easy analogy would be a landlord, who is managing an apartment, gives himself a key to come in and out as he pleases and on top of that decide which tenants friends they let in! I'm not sure about you, but I'm fairly certain, one; the tenant would call the police, but two; you'd land up with a very big black-eye!
**************************************************************************
Rocky
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
