mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·MTS
| reply to shawnb6
Re: CBC TV request for people to talk on camera about this issue
Looks like the issue is back on /. again 
»yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=···/2217231 |
|
theninjasqua
join:2007-09-26
Oakville, ON | reply to shawnb6
Did anything become of this? Was there a news story on the air about this story and with anyone from here interviewed?
--
-theninjasquad |
|
KPaul
join:2007-02-08
| reply to shawnb6
hey CBC guy...
»digg.com/tech_news/Bell_Canada_r···Facebook
PLEASE show this around the office... this guy is a bell REP and he is calling you lemmings!?!?!
--
I hate rogers and their CRAP tech. support... But, MAJOR kudos to the TekSavvy team!
Al Bundy - "Six bucks is too much money to spend on any woman." it's too true sometimes  |
|
velcomrob
Premium
join:2006-11-28
Brampton, ON
2 edits | reply to chrish
I understand your concern Chrish and we are as much peeved off as anyone. I can only see one reason they're doing this, loss of customers.
We are working with several ISP's to try to come to a resolution on this matter as quickly as possible. We can't divulge to much information at this point (legal stuff).
But if worse comes to worse we will work very hard to find a way around this problem. First off Bell shouldn't be looking at our packets (data transfer) that occurs over our network. We have several scenarios we will pressure Bell. But in the end if they want to do child's play then be it. We ill possibly create some sort of application that sits on the clients side PC and that sits in the middle of our network that will scramble packets as they are sent to your side. The application will decompress the packet and thus rendering Bell's traffic shaper useless. I'm not 100% sure it can be done yet but we are investigating different possibilities. We are speaking to our developers about it.
The only limitation in this is data being transfered out to a recipient won't be encrypted. But your download speeds shouldn't be affected.
Let's hope its doable.
Again data being transferred our our network is private, so we will keep it private. |
|
cacruden
join:2008-03-18
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to KPaul
Actually, I sort of agree with the bell rep. Most reporters are lazy and really don't do investigations like they did in the old days. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC | Just because we might agree with him doesn't mean it's appropriate  |
|
matt_m
Premium
join:2007-04-07
Ottawa, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to velcomrob
Very cool that you guys are thinking of this and care enough to try to work around the Bell stupidity, but in the end you'd probably spend a wad of cash on development and QA, only to realize Bell found a way to detect a pattern in your scrambling that identifies in, and patches the shaper or some other firewall for it.
said by velcomrob  :I understand your concern Chrish and we are as much peeved off as anyone. I can only see one reason they're doing this, loss of customers. We are working with several ISP's to try to come to a resolution on this matter as quickly as possible. We can't divulge to much information at this point (legal stuff). But if worse comes to worse we will work very hard to find a way around this problem. First off Bell shouldn't be looking at our packets (data transfer) that occurs over our network. We have several scenarios we will pressure Bell. But in the end if they want to do child's play then be it. We ill possibly create some sort of application that sits on the clients side PC and that sits in the middle of our network that will scramble packets as they are sent to your side. The application will decompress the packet and thus rendering Bell's traffic shaper useless. I'm not 100% sure it can be done yet but we are investigating different possibilities. We are speaking to our developers about it. The only limitation in this is data being transfered out to a recipient won't be encrypted. But your download speeds shouldn't be affected. Let's hope its doable. Again data being transferred our our network is private, so we will keep it private. |
|
velcomrob
Premium
join:2006-11-28
Brampton, ON
1 edit | reply to chrish
I thought about that already. The client side application will check for updates on our side and allow us to change algorithim at any time. You have NO idea how HORRIBLY slow Bell is with doing ANYTHING. They'll patch their traffic shaper 3 months after figuring out what to do. It'll take us couple hours to apply an update.
its crazy but in this circumstance thank god they're slow
However we are still trying to resolve it outside this scramble patch. We're trying to figure out what to do in the meantime as a quickfix. |
|
heybirder
@velcom.ca | As a Velcom customer, I heartily endorse your idea! |
|
Grappler
join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
1 edit | reply to chronoss2008
Re: note true
said by chronoss2008 :not true in order to use a phone conversation you need to make hte party that you are taping aware that you are taping the conversation otherwise it is against the privacy act and someother laws, thats why at the beginning of bells automated crap they state that the call may be monitored ( taped ) for quality purposes ( that also means that other then quality it cant be used for anyhting else ) it does not mean i can just say Scott ( myself) im taping and not tell them. Thats against the law and the tapes are in effect not admissible in court unless its the tapes in question that are being the reason your in court. Which would prolly have most of you going woa if they ever are legally allows to be heard, be sad if my computer gets hacked wouldn't it. Almost messed up on this quoting thing. Just to clear things up a bit on taping of telephone conversations; I am recently retired from law enforcement and was quite involved in court orders, etc. regarding taping, video and the like.
The reason that Bell and other companies have to inform you of the recording is that the company, as an entity, is not present when the recording is being conducted. They are represented by the telephone operator only, who may or may not be around if needed, the company itself is not actively monitoring the call. As an individual, you are present and as you are physically there you may record the conversation, this also applies to any hidden microphones you may be using, as long as you are in the vicinity of the conversation and can hear what is being said. Note: this only applies outside your home. In home use is different as it is your domain and you are allowed to record, video and/or audio if you are present or not, hence the use of security cameras that record video and audio in the home.
This is how law enforcement gets around the requirements for a court order authorizing recording devices, the victim authorizes the recording as a first party consent rule.
Ray |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to shawnb6
Re: CBC TV request for people to talk on camera about this issue
My understanding is that in most of the US, a companies admission that they're recording (the whole "Your call may be monitored for quality and training purposes") instantly gives you the right to record the call as well. The whole idea is that, if they can record the call, it's fair game for you to record it too. They gave their permission to record based on the fact that THEY're recording.
Does it work the same way in Canada? It'd make sense if it did, it always seemed logical to me. |
|
Omr
join:2004-01-10
M1S-1B3
| reply to shawnb6
Simple thing is to make a HTTP Proxy/ or SOCKS type of connection with a client side application where all our chosen data/ applications on the client side are gzipped then sent over one port where at 151 front street would be the logical endpoint. There it can be decompressed and sent along as a normal packet ... Bell would never dare throttle HTTP. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC | PPTP seems to already be addressing this quite successfully. |
|
Grappler
join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :a companies admission that they're recording ...gives you the right to record the call as well. Does it work the same way in Canada? It'd make sense if it did, it always seemed logical to me. In Canada we have what is known as "first party consent", either of the parties can record the conversation without the others knowledge, as long as they are a part of the conversation. That said, calls initiated by a government agency, corporation (as an entity), etc must give notice. Note: 911 calls or calls to a government agency can be recorded without notice as they did not initiate.
There are many exceptions and protections regarding the above and what I said is just an extremely simplified version especially with regards to government and corporations, but for an individual it does apply.
Ray |
|
brain savvy
@rim.net
| reply to shawnb6
Anyone want to place bets on why Bell and Rogers are *really* limiting bandwidth?
I was thinking this over, and thought to myself "The internet is the same as it ever way. I never noticed a slow down, and the net as it is works just fine for me. In fact they are always upgrading it, usually on the publics dime via the government... and with the new HD on-line video being offered in Blu-Ray file sizes, how can there be a bandwidth issue"?
Then I answered my own question... With the new on-line Blu-Ray quality downloads, me thinks Bell and Rogers are either making extra bandwidth available for this PAY service, and effectively killing the competition (free content) off in the process. It also wouldn't surprise me if both Bell and Rogers either have a stake in the new on-line Blu-Ray content, or are getting paid for it's usage... So, kill off the competition citing bandwidth utilization concerns, then replace it with content that is 10X more bandwidth intensive, but is pay per use...
Wonderful country we live in where every single consumer and citizen knows this is garbage, but some how the corporations are still allowed to do it... something is rotten in the state of Canada...
I'm holding my breath for the day a single honest politician who talks straight comes to light so we can all vote for the "peasant wisdom" candidate and take this country back. We were founded as a country of the people, governed by the people, and look what we have now... What ever happened to the days when the population didn't like something, so the citizen elected government stepped in and said "Wait a second, the voters run this country and they don't like this. We best do our job and correct this problem" |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to Omr
>Simple thing is to make a HTTP Proxy/ or SOCKS type of
>connection with a client side application where all our
>chosen data/
Over in Canadian Broadband, I had started a thread about "Straight from the Ennemy" (or something akin to that). The second message has a link to a PDF document that outlines what those boxes' capabilities are, and they go to tgreat lengtsh to detect people trying to bypass their filters by using well known ports or using HTTP.
This is a cat and mouse game. If you switch you tactic, Bell will come back fairly quickly with new filters and block you again. |
|
Omr
join:2004-01-10
M1S-1B3
| reply to shawnb6
They may be able to, but throttling HTTP would need one hell of an explanation to throttle. To also use the DPI to read the packet opens even greater privacy issues ... a cat and mouse game worth playing because it cost's them a scale of thousands of dollars to play while for us it's a code change. |
|
djforumsguy
join:2004-10-03
Hamilton, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| said by Omr :They may be able to, but throttling HTTP would need one hell of an explanation to throttle. To also use the DPI to read the packet opens even greater privacy issues These privacy issues are real because they do open every packet, and as demonstrated by Rocky, the DPI does slow down HTTP. |
|
JWP
@teksavvy.com
| reply to shawnb6
Shawn,
Do not look upon this battle with Bell as a single issue – throttling. There is more to it than that…..
Bell has been losing customers to smaller ISP’s because of their business ethics and their off shore tech support. Rather than address the concerns of their customers they want to eliminate the competition. Take a look at the six month ratings for Teksavvy and Bell on dslreports for more insight.
Bell whines that they are forced to provide independent ISP’s access through their network structure and that the independent ISP’s should be forced to install their own network structure. The problem here is Bell’s network structure was bought and paid for over many years by the monopoly we the tax payers let them enjoy. Since we paid for it should be owned and operated by someone other than Bell and Bell should pay for access like every one else. |
|
Kokanee483
join:2007-02-23
Gloucester, ON | reply to shawnb6
Anyone else ever notice that these media type fellows always just make a post, but then never stick around for the feedback? There were quite a few well written responses that I fear will never make it back to the thread originator.... |
|
