said by theninjasqua :

Part of the problem is that there are a lot of people claiming that the throttling is effecting other apps and protocols... but no one seems to be getting in touch with Deadpool or contacting TS for them to get in touch with Bell to investigate.

said by drjp81 :

That statement is not quite accurate in IMHO. I myself was with bell and had issues with my PPTP VPN connection. Explained the whole mess to Deadpool who said he would look into it. At the time, it was also affecting my browser speeds (per some downloads as microsoft's website).

But let's face it, he's just one man. There's just so much he can do. And for all that he has done and continues to do it still leaves most people frustrated with simply not getting what we pay for.

And I doubt that even if Deadpool did find something wring and got it fixed, that bell PR would admit they are screing around with the rest of the traffic going through their pipes.

said by HiVolt :

Bell may be a lot of things right now, and I realize people are pissed (I am too), but if you do have problems with legit non-p2p apps and you can prove it, talk to Deadpool and he'll do his best to help.

said by SSP :

Hmm, after looking around it was the so called experts who sated the 90% thing. I either got them confused or i cant find bell saying 90%, so I assume the former is correct, sorry. Still, they did change their tune on the stats.

link for unnamed experts calling 70-90% usage. Not that this matters since its not bell.
»www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/···ogy/home

said by jfmezei :

Not to diminish Deadpool's contribution here, BUT... At this point in time, you should concentrate on proving that Bell Throttling is negatively affecting you. Bell states A, if you can prove that A is wrong, then this needs to go to the CRTC with specifics. (aka: I am using application X and its throughput diminishes at 16:30 to below 30KB/s) type of message.

said by jfmezei :

At this point in time, you should concentrate on proving that Bell Throttling is negatively affecting you.

said by HiVolt :

I can definitely prove it, in my case. And Bell has the proof.

said by drjp81 :

I would love to put that in their face. But how exactly am I supposed to do that without an official statement from a bell employee saying, exactly that.

Technology expert Jesse Hirsch says Bell's argument before the CRTC is bewildering - and bad news for consumers. He says Bell is acknowledging it failed to anticipate the growth of the Internet, and is now penalizing innovative users who are turning to the web to swap TV shows and movies. "They say their service is at capacity, they admit that. As a subscriber and shareholder, you have to ask yourself, 'How did this come about?'"

The solution shouldn't be to curb innovative uses of the Internet by "savvy young people who are doing an end run around Bell ExpressVu and Rogers Cable," but rather invest more in infrastructure to accommodate these users. "Here we have an example of a company that, based on its historical monopoly, is now regulating the Internet in their own interest, against the interest of innovation, which is in the public good. That's why, from the beginning, the argument that the Internet is at capacity is total propaganda."