Soiduts
join:2002-04-02
Ontario
 ·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to GearHead360
Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?
I don't see how Bell thinks they can blatantly lie to the public, government and CTRC and think they can get away with it. As many of us have discussed, most people haven't experienced any slow speeds while on Sympatico or Teksavvy till they started this throttling.
The evidence is overwhelming and I know many of us here have already complained. Hopefully the CRTC will realize that its in their best interest to back the consumer here and not big business. |
|
bacon612
join:2007-10-31
Etobicoke, ON | reply to koreyb
KBray. i personally think that it IS effecting VOIP I have 6 lines @ my business and get the same issues that you do. Keep documenting what you are noticing and let make a case of it! |
|
DJ MASACRE
@gc.ca
| reply to GearHead360
" As for the third prong of the test, the balance of convenience clearly supports the status quo. The Company has observed, as a result of deploying its Internet traffic management solution, a 50% reduction in total P2P traffic during peak periods and a decrease in the number of congested links. The Company has also observed that other types of traffic such as web browsing, and audio or video streaming, previously impacted by congestion at peak periods, has quickly filled the bandwidth made available through the use of Internet traffic management therefore improving the customer online experience for such interactive and real-time activities. Granting CAIP's request would actually have the perverse effect of providing an unreasonable preference to wholesale ISP customers and their end users who will be able to continue to use a disproportionate amount of available bandwidth during peak periods creating an unreasonable disadvantage for Sympatico retail and business customers. Therefore, the Company submits that since CAIP has not met the test for the granting of such an extraordinary remedy, that the request for an interim order should be denied."
Well no shit, you throttled the speeds on p2p enough for people to not even want to use the connection for anything anymore...
great job ......
thats like saying .. We cut down people's power, and now we see a 50% decrease in household lighting being used... what we did is a success...
since theirs less lamps being turned on .. * BECAUSE WE CANT TURN THEM ON * . |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to GearHead360
Bell makes a few good points here, but this document is full of so much BS, lies, and incorrect facts (and stuff taken out of context) that it's hard to take it seriously.
The problem is, I wonder if the people at the CRTC are qualified to KNOW that much of this is BS/lies/incorrect, or if they'll simply accept it all at face value.
I wasn't particularly pleased with the parts where they use DSLR against the CAIP, but I guess that's to be expected. For example, they use the many people declaring loyalty to TekSavvy during this troubling time in order to attempt to defeat CAIP's claim of loss of market share and goodwill. (to try to defeat one of the three requirements for an injunction, the irreparable harm bit). |
|
daboom
join:2001-12-16
Oshawa, ON
 ·Primus Talkbroadband
| reply to DJ MASACRE
Well I am sure as hell convinced that nobody I know has reduced this BT usage even during peak times. So they are full of it. The fact of the matter is anything thats encrypted and on non standard inet ports get throttled ie a remote session to a computer try BT and remoting to that at the same time it's not gonna happen cause ur stuck with just 30KB of traffic both ways it's totally useless.
--
Come join us on EFNET irc.dks.ca #teksavvy for live chat  |
|
derekm
join:2008-02-26
·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to GearHead360
This makes me: sick, angry, and depressed.
Here's a rant that everyone has seen, but makes it me feel better.
The only solution that I can see is if we can have encryption over Bell's network.
This takes the "type" of traffic out of the equation. They are using the type of traffic as a smoke screen to hide the real issue.
As everyone knows, the "type" of our communication is irrelevant, and none of Bell's business. We could be running IPX, NetBUI, AppleTalk or a home-grown protocol, saturating the pipes with *that* traffic, and they will be required to provide us the service.
That we are running TCP/IP is irrelevant and they should be looking at other traffic management solutions that is data-agnostic, if there is in fact a congestion problem (like fair-weight queuing).
In a fair weighted queuing system, so-called bandwidth hogs will have their packets dropped first, which will have the effect of slowing their TCP sessions down, thereby eliminating congestion, but still allowing speeds at capacity for everyone. This would affect any type of transfer, across protocols.
We know the problem here isn't one of capacity. If it was, fair weighted queuing is the way to solve it. So called DPI technology doesn't actually solve capacity problems. This can be shown by running a full speed HTTP download along side the download of the same file via BitTorrent. Try OpenOffice for example. There is capacity to support a HTTP transfer, but not a BitTorrent transfer? Give me a break.
The *real* question that we should be asking is: why are they using DPI at all?
It is not for eliminating congestion.
If they are so concerned about congestion, why aren't they peered at TORIX? |
|
DJ MASACRE
@gc.ca
| reply to GearHead360
"Furthermore, it would not be in the public interest to allow the end users of wholesale ISP customers to continue to use the freed up bandwidth resulting from the deployment of the Company's traffic management DPI solution to its retail and business customer base."
What are we invisible?
Who is the public they speak of .. Bell employees ?
or actual subscribers ... how can a lot of this statement reflect the "public interest" ...
He is building imaginary fairytales in his head. |
|
Baihuigau
join:2008-04-16
Canada
| reply to DJ MASACRE
This has been a pretty interesting issue and I have been following it closely bells response was hilarious I have never seen a person come up with a document with so much writing that does not actually answer anything basically after reading it heres what they said
1. P2P uses a customers connection to its fully capability we have sold them those connections expecting it to not be fully used
2. We have the bandwith in our internal pots network if you want to use your full connection but you have to purchase our hsa service as I understand of a pvc it means its a dedicated direct line with a static ip from the customer straight to the co essentially what business users get in a way and bypasses any other equipment in the network like bas server but hey guess what they charge more for that offcourse
3. They actually dident provide any documents or actuall stats from a utility that measures the traffic on the network to reflect what their saying about p2p network consumption
Basically in short they have said stuff it, if you want something better build your own network or pay us more, and have showed no proof whatsoever of network congestion why because like they said the bandwith is there but if you to
pay more for it if you wanted it untrouthled by purchasing the hsa service, or deploy your own dslams etc no way a small isp is able to compete with that so they just burried all that within the document lets hope the crtc is smart enough to see it. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to GearHead360
Key flaw in all of Bell's argument: They pretend that the GAS service is TCP all the way. They ignore the fact that TCP is invisible to Bell (aggregated into a single PPP/L2TP link) for the entire period that it's on Bell's network.
As far as Bell is concerned, there is no difference between a user with one 500KB/s connection versus a user with a THOUSAND 0.5KB/s connections. To Bell, it all appears to be simply a single 500KB/s (plus overhead) PPP stream. Which they then take and wrap L2TP around. |
|
derekm
join:2008-02-26
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by Guspaz  :As far as Bell is concerned, there is no difference between a user with one 500KB/s connection versus a user with a THOUSAND 0.5KB/s connections. To Bell, it all appears to be simply a single 500KB/s (plus overhead) PPP stream. Which they then take and wrap L2TP around. *Exactly* my point. Thanks for making it simple. |
|
DJ MASACRE
@gc.ca
| reply to GearHead360
I just realized that I work ONE BLOCK away from that Bell Building on O'conner, where Markic Bibic is ...
Shall I print this report out , go there, and throw it back in his face ?? .. who will come protest with me .......
Im there every day .....
we can stand in the doorway and not let him leave and tell him we are door shaping, to allow the public to get in more effenciently.. or something, lol . |
|
cacruden
join:2008-03-18
Toronto, ON | I know it is in jest, but throwing it in his face would constitute assault  |
|
matradley
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Ontario
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| said by cacruden :I know it is in jest, but throwing it in his face would constitute assault Mmm... Reminds me of Jean Chretien.
 |
|
Trisomy21
join:2006-04-27
Kingston, ON | reply to cacruden
Yeah if you're going to do that you might want to wrap it around a brick first. |
|
theninjasqua
join:2007-09-26
Oakville, ON
| reply to GearHead360
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. How else can you show Bell that their throttling is effecting other things if no one brings it to their attention? It has been openly stated that they will work to resolve such cases if they arise, but so far there hasn't been much movement on that end.
--
-theninjasquad |
|
DJ MASACRE
@gc.ca
| reply to GearHead360
oh poo .. so then what ..
stand outside the building .. and shake my fist profusely ? .... i wonder how long it will take with me holding a sign .. FREE OUR BANDWIDTH in front of that building .. until a news person comes to take a picture =) |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to theninjasqua
I got in touch with Deadpool about some odd throttling behaviour last week, but have not yet heard back from him.
Of course, my DSL line is dead at the moment (no sync), so I appear to be fully throttled  |
|
JayMan
Whoot
Premium
join:2002-06-05
Earth
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to GearHead360
I've converted it all to PDF from the silly doc files.
--
»www.freeourbandwidth.com |
|
koreyb
join:2005-01-08
Etobicoke, ON
·Primus Talkbroadband
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to bacon612
said by bacon612 :KBray. i personally think that it IS effecting VOIP I have 6 lines @ my business and get the same issues that you do. Keep documenting what you are noticing and let make a case of it! I've tried... Apparently I can only complain to Teksavvy about it cause the CRTC says I can't.. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | reply to DJ MASACRE
There are about 40 ways to get out of that building!
Good luck even finding him! |
|
