Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone? in TekSavvy

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:35:24 EDT

puzz1ed : It's probably just as effective. As long as the data flow is disrupted at any point, both sender and receiver will slow the rate at which they attempt to send data. At the extreme, one or the other will eventually give up.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:11:59 EDT

Radar73 :

said by SmithCanada :

I've been looking at the diagram Bell supplied in its answer -- the one that shows where the various parts of the network are connected to each other.

From that diagram it looks like the traffic shaping is happening after the bulk of the network is traversed. Seems kinda pointless to throttle at that location.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:15:45 EDT

andyb : The day before stuff goes up between 11am and 2 pm the next day.Goverment hours ya know.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:09:07 EDT

Guspaz : It will be up tomorrow.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:29:19 EDT

mazhurg : So, today is the 24th, Business day is over. Where is the CAIP reply to Bell phantasmagoria's reply to the original complaint?

..

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:40:53 EDT

Taylortbb : I'm pretty sure each BAS serves multiple COs, at the very least if there is one in each CO it serves remotes that are run off that CO.

But adding more bandwidth there isn't that expensive. 95% of the cost of a fibre install is the labour, permits, etc. rather than the fibre itself. As a result whenever installing fibre companies install lots of extra, that way if your current pair fails you can just switch to another. Also because it's much cheaper to add capacity. The fibre is already there, they just need to add equipment on either end.
--
Taylor Byrnes
www.taylorbyrnes.org

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:39:02 EDT

SmithCanada : I've been looking at the diagram Bell supplied in its answer -- the one that shows where the various parts of the network are connected to each other.

One thing puzzles me, in part because it directly contradicts something I'd heard earlier. Bell's diagram draws the "central office" box *only* around the DSLAMs. The "aggregation network" and the "broadband access server" are both outside that box.

Does this imply that there might sometimes be long-haul connections between the DSLAMs in a central office, and the broadband access server in a more distant but central location? Or is this telco-standard speak -- only the DSLAMs are really part of the "central office" which is itself a telephone company concept - and the access server is always in the same building, but its not part of the "central office". (I had heard that BRAS were always co-located with the DSLAMs.)

The answer has implications for the effects of throttling on various portions of the network. In particular, it appears that without throttling, the third party ISPs could "outspend" Bell on the aggregation network by buying more AHSSPI interface bandwidth, literally starving Sympatico.

Adding bandwidth from one part of a building to another isn't too hard, but if that CO-to-access server link is long-haul, then that is relatively expensive to add.

More than ever, this would suggest that this is a problem of Bell's making. Either they inadvertently oversold the capacity of their network to third party ISPs, or - conspiracy time! - deliberately underprovisioned their network to create a crisis.

As before -- just trying to understand how this is usually put together.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:42:08 EDT

CanerisErik :

said by SmithCanada :

it is decided by the third party?

Yes

said by SmithCanada :

Then - does Sympatico have to purchase AHSSPI interfaces at tariffed rates just like a third party ISP?

said by SmithCanada :

Finally - if a company decided to co-locate its own DSLAMs for its customers, are they then obligated to offer phone service as well?

said by SmithCanada :

Can the co-located supplier force Bell to lease/rent/acquire its services in order to offer local phone service over the non-Bell DSLAM?

I believe the answer is No. An important point. I might be wrong, but I'm nearly 100% sure that non-Bell DSLAM -> unbundled loop.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:14:00 EDT

SmithCanada : Buried in this is a related question - how is the number of AHSSPI interfaces decided?

Is it a standard number based on the number of DSL circuits a wholesaler has under contract? That is - every third party ISP with 10,000 DSL customers will have the same AHSSPI bandwidth?

Or - it is decided by the third party? So, one ISP might decide to allow for 100kbps per DSL circuit, thus needing 1 Gbps interface per 10000 customers, while another might decide to use 5Mbps per customer, thus needing 1 Gbps interface for 200 customers?

Then - does Sympatico have to purchase AHSSPI interfaces at tariffed rates just like a third party ISP? Or is that all internal to Bell/Sympatico, even though retail ISP and DSL wholesale are different markets?

Finally - if a company decided to co-locate its own DSLAMs for its customers, are they then obligated to offer phone service as well? If I only have one phone line, I'm only going to have one DSLAM on the other end. In this case, what CRTC rules, if any, come into play? Can the co-located supplier force Bell to lease/rent/acquire its services in order to offer local phone service over the non-Bell DSLAM?

All in all - I'm trying to place both the CAIP submission and Bell's response into a context that includes many more factors.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:54:13 EDT

CanerisErik :

said by ShadPTR :

said by waterguy :

how about a more realistic analogy. In my town the city water supply is flat rate x dollars a month, the pipe suppling us is so big diameter. Not everyone can have full pressure at once but when I use it I get full pressure. Now a golf course sets up and uses gallons of water, placing stress on the supply but so far so good. Then some farmers hook up for irrigation more stress, then a water bottler shows up and starts bottling in a fancy green bottle and people can't get enough he is running 24/7 and all of a sudden my taps are flowing very slow. The main needs upgrade everyone yells, or at least the bottler, the farmer and the golf course owner. I think I should help pay for the upgrade NOT!!1

As much as I like how analogies get the point across with similar circumstances to make the person understand better, as someone said before, I think we should stay away from them for this particular subject, analogies are open to different types of interpretation (whether biased for or against). What we need here are cold hard facts to substantiate that what is being done is wrong.

Preach on, brother...

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:45:46 EDT

ShadPTR :

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:23:10 EDT

DSL_Ricer : I'm surprised no one pulled out this gem from the document. From paragraph 49:

quote:
The "GAS service
components" that CAIP refers to actually relate to bandwidth and the components needed by independent ISPs between the Company's central office and the ISP's location. These service components have nothing to do with the GAS Tariff.

AFAIK, Teksavvy and co. pay two different fees to deliver us service: the GAS tariff and the AHSSPI fees.
Thereby, from the above "the components needed by independent ISPs between the Company's central office and the ISP's location", we can deduce that it's not payed for by the GAS tariff. Thereby it must be the AHSSPI that pays for it. From the figure under paragraph 19 we also see that it is this component, in between the CO and the ISP, where the throttling happens.

This therefor means that bell has not correctly provisioned their backbone or aggregation network. Yet, they are still selling more bandwidth on it. For instance, Teksavvy recently added it's fifth(?) AHSSPI Gig-E connection. If bell sold it to them, I believe it would be reasonable for them to expect provisioned bandwidth to be at least in the 4Gbps range.Yet, Tekssavy is only using in the 2.5GBps range and is still subject to throttling.

Now, bell may claim that there simply isn't enough bandwidth with those fees and that the DPI boxes resolve this issue. Except, from the numbers in paragraph 21, they're seeing a 10% reduction in overall bandwidth usage at peak times (Teksavvy's graphs also seem to indicate a 10-20% reduction). However, if you consider that, from Cisco's recent quotes, the internet is growing at a rate of 35-45% a year, that simply delays the need to upgrade by 3 to 5 months, and simultaneously decrease costs by 10%, since the cost of equipment drops at the same rate). If the fees previously calculated were insufficient, wouldn't it be better for Bell to ask for a readjustment? That said, they were set in 2005. They should have seen a decrease in cost since then.
Also, this service is payed per Gbps delivered. The addition of the DPI equipment increases the cost per megabit. Wouldn't it be simpler, and more financially sound to not throttle? to "force" ISP's to purchase more AHSSPIs to be able to cope this growth, thereby increasing revenues?

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:19:33 EDT

anon : Geist questions Bells "apparant" Bandwidth Problem?

»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2844/125/

But this is stuff us users already pointed out i do believe.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:04:03 EDT

backness : the whole issue to me boils down to:

Bell is forced to share this infrastucture with the indy ISP's.

They are trying to take the teeth out of the CRCT decision by forcing ISP's to buy this infrasturcture that has been deemed by the CRTC as a shared asset.

jfmezei_ i work for the governement in public safety and i can tell you its not your fault. The people you are speaking to are not in a position to field the complaints you are making. The governement hires temps to man the phones or they put the lowest guy on the totem pole on it.

Best bet is to search GEDS (government directory) and find someone with an actuall title to communicate

link to geds:

with.»direct.srv.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/BE

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:58:22 EDT

phosphor : I'm pretty sure that with Primus's arguments and references to essential service and due process that they are perhaps hoping to use Bell's arguments against them in order to carve themselves a new chunk of last mile access.
Bell says that if ISP's want un-throttled access they should invest in their own infrastructure.
Primus says Bell already owns all the infrastructure, however they would be happy to take some it off there hands at a discount price as it is an essential service, and they are only helping alleviate Bell's great burden of managing this large infrastructure all by themselves.

Re: And Just HOw MUCH BW does DPI use?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:38:30 EDT

Arbalister :

said by Guspaz :

DPI doesn't require any bandwidth by itself. It's very likely that they perform everything at line speed, and so can effectively perform DPI on every single packet that goes through the BAS. It's all very spread out (hundreds and hundreds of BAS), so they probably just have to be able to throttle up to one gigabit (or maybe even only 100 megabit) of traffic per DPI box.

My question is...what do they do with the packets they are throttling. I've used traffic shaping on cisco hardware and it can be dangerous - when you slow certain packets, they have to sit *somewhere* until allowed to pass to the next machine. Typically, that's a RAM queue in the machine. Shaping is nice and safe and easy - until that queue overfills. That's when all heck breaks loose.

Or, another example - email. I maintain a box here for filtering incoming email, to remove some of the spam. It's not nearly as strict as I'd like to be, because the average time for it to pass through the machine increases with each additional operation. Its running about 300 milliseconds now. But now, picture an extra 300 ms on 1000 messages. An hour. It gets to the point where email takes a day to get to you. Somehow, somewhere, this throttling is going to have the same sort of backlash effect - you can't hold up 16.5% of Bells total traffic without creating a choke point somewhere, that will affect *everything*

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:15:22 EDT

Arbalister :

said by zachary1 :

Sewage and Bell should always be placed in the same sentence. Along with their corporate spokesagandists.

*I* thought it was an appropriate analogy. :-P

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:24:31 EDT

TobiasFunke : My favourite part is this:

it has contacted its ISP customers and encouraged them to come forward with any suspected problems and remains committed to working with them.

Committed to working with ISPs? Is this not the same Bell who applied to kill GAS entirely just two weeks ago??

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:32:24 EDT

ultracat : Yup, good letter. However I had a chuckle when I read this line from the letter:

No one can deny that “this horse is out
of the barn.”

Now THAT'S a legal assertion : )

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:07:32 EDT

Angelo_ : primus had it wrapped up nicely

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:01:31 EDT

andyb : Just read the pdf.Very nicely done by primus.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:28:23 EDT

jfmezei : >When did Primus add a comment to the CAIP's letter? This is >the first time I've seen this (didnt see this posted in the >forums yet). Here's a little blurb:

It was added either late on wednesday or very early on thrusday. The letter is dated April 15th which was some (unknown to me) deadline. I have a call into the CRTC and will try to get some explanation on the deadlines mentioned by the Primus document.

The problem with the CRTC is that it takes 2 days to reach anyone, only to be told that I should speak to someone else :-) (and you then wait another 2 days to get a call back from that person :-(

Also: the added a lot more "personal comments" overnight. One or two are different, the others are the standard text.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:27:39 EDT

SSP : When did Primus add a comment to the CAIP's letter? This is the first time I've seen this (didnt see this posted in the forums yet). Here's a little blurb:

============
1. Primus Telecommunications Inc. (“Primus”) has obtained a copy of
the above-noted Part VII Application, dated 3 April 2008, by the Canadian
Association of Internet Providers (“CAIP”) requesting that the Commission
issue certain orders directing Bell Canada to cease and desist from
“throttling” wholesale ADSL services and in particular, the wholesale
service known as Gateway Access Service (“GAS”). Primus has also
obtained a copy of a letter, dated 4 April 2008, from Vaxination
Informatique supporting CAIP’s application.

2. On 8 April 2008, Commission staff issued a letter splitting CAIP’s
application into two separate processes, establishing 15 April 2008 as the
deadline for submissions on CAIP’s request for interim relief. Pursuant to 2 section 60.(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, Primus
hereby submits its intervention on that portion of CAIP’s application.
Primus intends to submit a further intervention supporting and dealing with
the substance of CAIP’s application and why it agrees that Bell Canada is in
violation of its GAS tariff, once the deadlines in that further process are
established by the Commission
==============

Edit-Link: »www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/···5153.htm

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:14:10 EDT

mazhurg :

said by PPuck :

We need to contact and hire that guy to fight for CAIP:
»www.audioholics.com/news/industr···kes-back

:)

OT: All that for RCA connector?

Priceless.... :D

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:55:46 EDT

Yonsil : How's that an analogy?
Yes, true, that water supply to get stressed but guess what, it "depletes" while bandwidth "don't"
More and more Canadians are using Internet services and we expect market force to push in, making the way for affordable cost for all. However, this is not the intention of Bell.
Affordable, at same time, better internet services should be advised but prices rose and services degraded. To push the blame at so-called "5%" is absurd and Bell should be ashamed of their sinful conduct...blaming customers for their lack of ability to handle market demand.
Bell should spend more money building up better infrastructure for Canada, not these outrageous lawyers.

Analogies should be avoided, we should be thinking about logical ideas like why should corporations control the way we consume rather than the market force. Wouldn't people get annoyed and stop using Internet if it gets so slow?
In time, shouldn't corporations such as Bell and Rogers fix the issue slowly for long term benefit than this...short term benefit?

I don't really get it but, being part of that so-called "5%," I think I have my rights to choose a company that is willing to offer me money saving plans with better service.
But when other corporations interfere with ways of other competitors, yeah...something is really messed up.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:53:50 EDT

HiVolt :

said by PPuck :

We need to contact and hire that guy to fight for CAIP:
»www.audioholics.com/news/industr···kes-back

:)

Oh my, what a great story!. I absolutely despise Monster Cable, both for charging insane prices and their frivolous lawsuits.

They sure bit more than they could chew in this guy!
--
GOLF LEAFS GOLF!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:32:37 EDT

anon : I would love to be a fly on the wall when the guys at Monster get that letter :o

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:23:11 EDT

sbrook : Wonderful!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:10:14 EDT

anon : We need to contact and hire that guy to fight for CAIP:
»www.audioholics.com/news/industr···kes-back

:)

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:54:28 EDT

anon : how about a more realistic analogy. In my town the city water supply is flat rate x dollars a month, the pipe suppling us is so big diameter. Not everyone can have full pressure at once but when I use it I get full pressure. Now a golf course sets up and uses gallons of water, placing stress on the supply but so far so good. Then some farmers hook up for irrigation more stress, then a water bottler shows up and starts bottling in a fancy green bottle and people can't get enough he is running 24/7 and all of a sudden my taps are flowing very slow. The main needs upgrade everyone yells, or at least the bottler, the farmer and the golf course owner. I think I should help pay for the upgrade NOT!!1

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:19:00 EDT

Name96 :

said by jvaux :

The fact that certain protocols/applications other than p2p are affected is important, but don't you think Bell is just going to say, "Oh, X, Y and Z don't work while throttling is on? Whoops, we'll fix that. There, now those work while we throttle P2P. Sorry about that, your complaint has been dealt with. Have a nice day."

It's important to bring up other protocols in rebuttal because it undermines Bell's credibility. Bell's credibility on everything in their filing, including the "congestion" "issue," becomes a lot weaker if it can be demonstrated they can't get simple facts right.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:46:21 EDT

xdrag :

said by jvaux :

I can't help but think that people are getting off track.

The fact that certain protocols/applications other than p2p are affected is important, but don't you think Bell is just going to say, "Oh, X, Y and Z don't work while throttling is on? Whoops, we'll fix that. There, now those work while we throttle P2P. Sorry about that, your complaint has been dealt with. Have a nice day."

The issue is net neutrality. Can the Bell decide what goes down the wires when someone pays for bandwidth.

Unless I've misunderstood something, Teksavvy buys their internet from someone /other/ than Bell. All Teksavvy is doing is renting the connection to their internet provider via Bell.

Bell's got no right to modify the content they don't provide.

It's like the postal service saying, "I know you paid to have this 2kg package shipped overnight, but we looked inside and since it's just your rock collection we decided it's not really important so you should get it in 10 days instead."

Love the analogy. So true.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:39:19 EDT

jvaux : I can't help but think that people are getting off track.

The fact that certain protocols/applications other than p2p are affected is important, but don't you think Bell is just going to say, "Oh, X, Y and Z don't work while throttling is on? Whoops, we'll fix that. There, now those work while we throttle P2P. Sorry about that, your complaint has been dealt with. Have a nice day."

The issue is net neutrality. Can the Bell decide what goes down the wires when someone pays for bandwidth.

Unless I've misunderstood something, Teksavvy buys their internet from someone /other/ than Bell. All Teksavvy is doing is renting the connection to their internet provider via Bell.

Bell's got no right to modify the content they don't provide.

It's like the postal service saying, "I know you paid to have this 2kg package shipped overnight, but we looked inside and since it's just your rock collection we decided it's not really important so you should get it in 10 days instead."

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:09:22 EDT

theninjasqua : Here is admittance about Ventrilo being effected... »Those having probs with Ventrilo
--

-theninjasquad

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:59:53 EDT

HiVolt :

said by hellRaiser :

Hivolt you are such the hell-raiser.

I hope you forwarded your proof to Rocky.

if you haven't, then pls do.

Rest assured, I have. :)
--
GOLF LEAFS GOLF!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:48:16 EDT

Name96 : Based on prior forum posts, these are the effected protocols:

RealVNC
»Re: Well, now I cant get my work emails...
»Re: Update on Throttling: Part 2...

Cisco VPN (IPSEC)
»Well, now I cant get my work emails...
»IPSEC VPN Throttled!!!

SIP VoIP
»Re: Update on throttling issue...
»Re: Globe and mail request for people to speak to about issue
»VOIP in the presence of throttling
»Re: Users of VoIP

SSH
»Re: Update on Throttling: Part 2...
»Re: Teksavvy's throttling now? Just a vent, nothing is needed.

RDP
»Re: Usenet downloads affect by shaping?
»Terminal Services Wonky?

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:27:13 EDT

theninjasqua : We definitely need to start making a list of known protocals and apps that are being effected by this, especially ones that have been raised by us to Deadpool. I know for sure there are some threads in the Sympatico forum about this, including one made by Deadpool confirming issues with Ventrilo and saying that it was fixed. Might as well gather all this to include as part of the response, unless Bell went through their forum and deleted it.
--

-theninjasquad

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:11:48 EDT

anon : This article pretty much sums up why throttling/shaping is a bad idea. It is a bit US-centric, but it applies to every country. It's about 4pgs but a quick and excellent read and well worth it:

»arstechnica.com/articles/culture···ning.ars

Pleasant reading....

P.S.: I posted this in the "response to bell's response" thread too.

I would love to hear any carrier/ISP responses to this.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:00:29 EDT

nanook : Bell insists throttling Internet services necessary

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."

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:43:38 EDT

Candoo3 :

said by drjp81 :

said by jfmezei :

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

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.

If you have net based apps that are *essential* to you or your work, and they are being throttled, then you have a bitch. Not talking BT. :) Keep a log of the app's and when they are throttled. Bell states it *should* only be P2P that's affected. YOU should know if you're having problems.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:15:09 EDT

anon :

said by HiVolt :

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.

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

Hivolt you are such the hell-raiser.

I hope you forwarded your proof to Rocky.

if you haven't, then pls do.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:07:14 EDT

Radar73 : I thought independent ISPs buy bandwidth from Bell for the portion of their network they use. How can Bell sell Gig-E connections when theeir network is incapable of delivering what was paid for?

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:26:56 EDT

drjp81 :

said by jfmezei :

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

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.
--
Cheers!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:25:24 EDT

HiVolt :

I can definitely prove it, in my case. And Bell has the proof.
--
GOLF LEAFS GOLF!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:25:08 EDT

andyb :

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

I remember 95% also.I think it was one of laslo's first speels about this issue.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:22:50 EDT

jfmezei : >As I said, yes he will try. And perhaps he will get things
>fixed. For you and others. But when we read the response to
>the CRTC it is clear that whether Deadpool acknowledges the
>existence of a problem with their throttling technique(s),
>Bell does not.

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.

Bell's letter has one overriding message: there is a lack of any harm done.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:21:35 EDT

Radar73 : Bell's response criticizes CAIP's complaint for a complete lack of evidence. Bell's response bases their whole argument on network congestion, to which they also offer no evidence. It's a pretty big "network management solution" to reduce P2P to 94% of what it should be over peak hours to maintain a satisfactory experience for everyone. I wonder if that oversight was on purpose, because they can't offer any evidence for a congestion problem few if any experienced. CAIP has the last word before the CRTC makes its decision. I hope they include a ton of evidence to support their original claims.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:19:07 EDT

drjp81 :

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.

As I said, yes he will try. And perhaps he will get things fixed. For you and others. But when we read the response to the CRTC it is clear that whether Deadpool acknowledges the existence of a problem with their throttling technique(s), Bell does not. And that was more or less what I was driving at.

Sorry if that wasn't too clear.
--
Cheers!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:13:05 EDT

HiVolt :

said by drjp81 :

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.

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.

I have spoken to Deadpool about throttling of my non-p2p app, NetOP Remote Control which I use for work. It gets throttled exactly like torrents do, at the exact same time. He had the matter investigated very quickly, Bell acknowledged that it is a false-positive, and a fix is supposed to be in testing, to be deployed shortly. When it is fixed, I will let everyone know.

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.
--
GOLF LEAFS GOLF!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:52:23 EDT

jfmezei : There is a LOT to chew on. A lot of Bell's arguments are easy to destroy. But the job must still be done.

There are however a few arguments that need close attention, especially those refering to previous CRTC decisions that set precedents. It only takes one that gets the CRTC to side with Bell.

Remember that Bell now monitors those boards.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:51:27 EDT

drjp81 :

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:43:20 EDT

ftthz : wow... that's some major BS

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:47:13 EDT

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

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:41:57 EDT

the cerberus : I don't even get where Bell's proof is. They simply restated that there's such a thing as a bandwidth hog, even if tcp is considered part of the whole pppoe frame wheres the f$%*ing evidence that P2P negatively effects the users of their network? There's just too much double speak.

Again comparing it with mail is like a nail in the coffin, mail has a DO NOT SNIFF, DO NOT OPEN, DO NOT SEARCH policy in Canada, so that was one hell of a stupid argument.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:27:02 EDT

Taylortbb : That document is the biggest load of BS ever:

1) As they say, TCP has built-in congestion control mechanisms. There's no reason that one app should have priority over any other.

2) The GAS tariff does *not* reference TCP, it doesn't even reference IP! Bell is not contracted to deliver TCP packets, but rather PPPoE frames.

3) They claim they are simply looking at application headers, and then compare it to the postal system. I don't know about Bell, but I don't stamp the contents of my envelope on the outside. The only way for the postal service to determine if I'm mailing a letter, photos, a USB key, etc. would be to open the letter. DPI is no different.

4) Just because I open 100 TCP streams does *not* mean I get 100 times the bandwidth. I'm constrained by the speed on my local loop to 5Mb/s. All other users are constrained to the *same* 5Mb/s (unless your Sympatico, then it's 7Mb/s and you have an *advantage*). If someone else choses to not fully utilize their link, that's their business. It doesn't mean I should be slowed to the speed my neighbors are using.

5) What about TSI's bandwidth analysis graphs? Didn't they show P2P in second place? They CAIP should include them in their response, prove Bell's claims are bullshit.

6) What about encrypted traffic? If I've got BitTorrent encryption turned on they obviously aren't just looking at the header. The header is encrypted!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:23:26 EDT

anon : You must know however, that when you have a torrent application open... it does congest your own connection, since it has many open connections sometimes more than windows can handle ... and thus will have an effect on any other traffic on your machine.. HTTP / VOIP / whatever ... download something in HTTP large file while utorrent is open for a few minutes.. and then close utorrent .. watch how the HTTP jumps back up .. even if you weren't using up all the bandwidth ..

regardless, thats your own system, and you can configure it to meet your needs better, to handle those open connections... unlike Bell . =)

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:20:01 EDT

anon :

said by SSP :

Like I said in another thread, they went from 5% using 90%, to 5% using a bit over 50%, to finally 5% using 30%. Hard to believe any of Bells statistics.

You have the link where they said 5% use 90%?

ty.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:18:09 EDT

SSP : Like I said in another thread, they went from 5% using 90%, to 5% using a bit over 50%, to finally 5% using 30%. Hard to believe any of Bells statistics.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:13:03 EDT

SHARPSHARK : So Bell say there is congestion between their Backbone and the DSLAM? Hard to believe. I want proofs. I want numbers. :E

And yes, me too I seem to have troubles with my VoIP service. Especially if I have an active torrent at a very low speed of 10 KB/s of upload. No more I can download a new legal fansubbed anime episode and enjoy it in the same night and talk with my friends over Ventrilo and play online at the same time. D:
--
SHARPSHARK

Re: And Just HOw MUCH BW does DPI use?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:01:19 EDT

Guspaz : DPI doesn't require any bandwidth by itself. It's very likely that they perform everything at line speed, and so can effectively perform DPI on every single packet that goes through the BAS. It's all very spread out (hundreds and hundreds of BAS), so they probably just have to be able to throttle up to one gigabit (or maybe even only 100 megabit) of traffic per DPI box.

Re: And Just HOw MUCH BW does DPI use?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:53:14 EDT

chronoss2008 : And Just HOw MUCH BW does DPI use?
i know the wired report on the spying ability of 100MB lines is intense but the tech exists that can examine every packet at that speed, i am wondeirng that is it possible that the main reason they need ot shape 95% is that maybe 75% of the bandwidth required to spy er DPI is needed to effect the DPI.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:49:10 EDT

avernar :

said by moggy :

61 Granting CAIP's request would actually have the ~~perverse~~ effect of providing a~~n unreasonable~~ preference to switch to wholesale ISPs ~~customers and their~~ by our end users ~~who will be able to continue to use a disproportionate amount of available bandwidth during peak periods~~ creating a~~n unreasonable~~ disadvantage for Sympatico retail and business ~~customers~~ divisions. Furthermore, it would not be in ~~the public~~ our interest to allow the end users of wholesale ISP customers to continue to use the ~~freed up~~ bandwidth ~~resulting from the deployment of~~ they paid the Company~~'s traffic management DPI solution to its retail and business customer base~~ for.

Fixed that one for them.

Re: heres the proof ISPS are lying about net traffic

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:48:57 EDT

chronoss2008 : »www.dtc.umn.edu/mints/home.html
feel free to check the numbers but it looks otme that net growth in canada for last year only grew 3-4% total so why suddenly and you can see that if you look hard that even before the so called shaping the traffic is steady
and afterwards so what is BELL doing with 95% of the traffic?
note the problem is systemically almost 20 times worse in the USA at a growth of 40-50%
so if bell spends all this cash on upgrades and its found that a measly 100mill was spent ( note thats massive upgrade if you think of hardware ) why do they need to shape at all.
CAIP needs these stats to be brought forward and managed better for a non techy

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:47:53 EDT

jfmezei : >I've converted it all to PDF from the silly doc files.

My proprietary-microsoft-shit document viewer shows

"AUTONUM \* Arabic \s ." at the beginning of paragraphs.

If I look at your (or anyone) else's PDF conversions, would paragraph numbers be absolutely accurate ? When responding to this, it greatly helps when quoting a paragraph number, but one must be sure that tit is the right parapgrah that is being referenced.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:44:03 EDT

Angelo_ :

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDconwWM···=related

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:43:20 EDT

anon : hah this is great

(""The only users who are really inconvenienced by traffic shaping are the system abusers. All others use a paltry amount of bandwidth which is not throttled.""

Huh? You've got to be joking. People streaming endless YouToob garbage take up a 'paltry' amount of bandwidth? Large scale data transfers to co-located servers? VOIP applications like Skype? Just about any streaming application takes a significant amount of bandwidth and I suspect that you are aware of this.

The ONLY - your words - users who are inconvenienced are 'system abusers' (your own perjorative)? Here you have adopted the dishonest language of the money-hungry state-supported ISP's.

First off, I fail to understand how a customer who is using their service as advertised (X amount of throughput) can 'abuse' the system. Do they send endless amounts of SYN packet requests? Beat their modems and forget to send them birthday cards? What is your definition of abuse?

I certainly don't call it abuse if I pay 2$ to cross a toll road at a max rate of speed of 55 mph. Nor would I call it abuse if the toll road company offers to allow me 'unlimited' access to the road for 20$ a month, even were I to drive tour buses packed with people down the road, 24/7. If the toll road operator complained about the excessive traffic my bus was generating, they have two options: widen the road or amend the contract. They cannot simply shoot the tires as I pass by in my bus (and everyone else driving a bus), then tell everyone they have improved road service.")

Taken from »tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_···/0059214

We make a stronger case in these forums though .. but this was funny .

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:40:32 EDT

LittleStone : The most troublesome is they claimed they don't even have to have a congestion to manage the bandwidth, as long as the usage is not proportional. Which means, if TSI's total traffic is not proportional to that of their Bell Sympatico's, they can just throttle down all TSI's customers' usage.

Essentially, you can't be an ISP that focus to serve the higher usage customers, even if you are willing to pay for all the bandwidth to the backbone and Bell, unless you go for HSA. That's how Bell wants to dictate the competition.

I think Bell is misusing a clause in the tariff to screw the independent ISPs. I believe the clause in the tariff is giving Bell the right to manage cases like someone initiating DDNS attacks at the BAS level.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:39:17 EDT

Baihuigau : I think what bell is getting at is that they dont have the capacity alocated to serve all the traffic with the gas plan that they sell to wholesalers thing is though sounds like their hsa plan travels over the same network same fiberlinks

except it has more bandwith alocated to it in their internal pipe so their basically saying im sorry we dont want to increase our gas network pipe because that will take revenue away from the hsa pipe so well just slowdown

everyone and if they want untrothled conections we will just sell the reselers the hsa plan win win situation instant money. That whould make sence why they keep saying the network is congested just simply because they dont want to increase the virtual capacity for the traffic of the gas plan and take away from the hsa plan since they travel over the same network pipe.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:17:54 EDT

justsometech : well said

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:09:31 EDT

LittleStone : Hmm... That's tricky. Besides the lies, Bell is pushing in the muddy area of GAS tariff. You know, CRTC can't say Bell is full of shxt and ignore the tiny bit in the response that may be valid. IANAL, but what I think:

1. Bell didn't show actual evidence that the portion of BAS to the users have congestion solely due to a fixed group of users using p2p applications. The congestion claim has to have solid evidence, e.g. when, where, by how much each of the internet service (http, streaming, VoIP) being affected, how many other users reported services being affected? How did Bell measure it? Is there any independent evaluation?

2. It is also possible that Bell under-invested in the network capacity and created artificial shortage of bandwidth in ATM (I'm not sure the tariff of GAS has very detail specification on the capacity. Now Bell is going for the "up to" game again.) It could be interpreted as Bell intentionally get around the intend of GAS tariff.

3. Bell did not show there is no alternative method of traffic management. DPI is intrusive.

4. As technology progress, usage pattern changes. If it is the growing proportion of users using p2p that cause the said congestion, then it is the technological change of internet causing the congestion. This is not a fairness issue. It is an issue that providers could not catch up with the internet technology. It is only a fairness issue when a fixed group of users exhaust the network resources for service with no widespread usage.

5. BTW, Skype is a p2p VoIP application. Is it being "managed" too? If it is, then it's obviously not accurate to say no VoIP is being affected. If it is not, then it is some selective p2p applications being "managed"... unfairly as Bell's DPI sees fit.

6. The implication in Bell's claim that they are within their right to manage the TCP/IP traffics in the last mile to ensure fairness is troubling. In other words, even if all TSI customers switch to PPTP over PPPoE, Bell can simply "manage" all TSI PPTP traffic to avoid congestion in the last mile, as long as TSI used up a significant portion that Bell's GAS can't handle.

7. CRTC may accept the claim that GAS is always shared and so Bell is within right to manage (the higher tier HSA which Bell claimed they would not manage the traffics). That's the central problem in this whole fiasco. I think CAIP should make a point that there is no competition in GAS, independent ISP has no alternative.

8. Bell did not actually answer why they did not inform independent ISPs about the implementation of DPI in advance as required by the tariff.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:35:50 EDT

anon : So, it is basically out of our hands now.

The positive thing about this, is CAIP gets the last word in to the CRTC after Bells response, so they can clean up the mess and misdirection in that report.

Thats a good thing. CAIP can demand real proof, pick out all the wrong statements made in bells response " the same way Bell tried to do with CAIP " ..

while not being bullies like Bell was trying to be by saying " we do not understand how the internet works ... "

If CAIP doesnt know how the internet works.. I guess they shouldnt be INTERNET PROVIDERS then huh bell ...

Anyway ..

CAIP, TAke your time to pick out all the false lines in bells response which shouldnt be too hard ... finalize the real truth ... show CRTC that the public is NOT in favor of this crap ...

This should be good..

Rocky, get your ISP brothers together on this and help CAIP provide their case =)

...Teksavvy be praised....

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:25:48 EDT

mazhurg :

said by R0CKY :

said by sbrook :

caip now gets to make a response. Then the CRTC decides.

Exactly! ;)

:o

Bait and switch, or
Bait and Hook???

:p

inquiring minds want to know

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:25:47 EDT

ShadPTR : ^^ Err Repost?
You are taking up valuable pagewidth, spoiling it for the remaining 95% of readers!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:22:30 EDT

moggy :

Remove Spyware with AntiSpyware for Windows®

Archives

2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003

Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code
p2pnet - rss feed: »p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | p2pnet celebrities: »p2pnet.net/celeb.rss | Mobile? »p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

Bell Canada to small ISPs on traffic shaping

p2pnet news | Freedom:- Twelve days ago, CAIP (Canadian Association of Internet Providers filed a Part VII Application with the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission).

Subject?

Traffic shaping, aka traffic management and bandwidth throttling.

“We have presented a variety of arguments, not the least of which is Net Neutrality, and asked that the Commission order Bell Canada to cease and desist from their current traffic shaping practices,” Tom Copeland, president of Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), told p2pnet at the time, going on:

“The filing provides additional insights into Bell’s action - the throttling has reduced speeds by as much as 90 percent - and marks an important milestone since the outcome will provide a clear answer on whether Canadian law currently protects net neutrality or if legislative reform is needed.”

Bell claims P2P file sharing activities on the part of 5% of users force it to shackle bandwidth in the interests of the remaining 95%.

Bell’s response to the CAIP the demand?

‘Get knotted.’

Here it is in more detail >>>

Introduction

1 Bell Canada (Bell or the Company) is in receipt of an Application (the Application), dated 3 April 2008, made by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) pursuant to sections 7, 24, 25, 27, 32, 36 and 62 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules)requesting that the Commission issue certain orders directing Bell Canada to cease and desist from “throttling” wholesale ADSL services and in particular, the wholesale service known as Gateway Access Service (GAS). As part of its Application, CAIP also made a request for interim relief on an expedited basis requesting that the Commission issue an order directing Bell Canada to immediately cease and desist from “throttling” GAS. In a letter dated 8 April 2008, the Commission directed Bell Canada to file its answer with respect to CAIP’s request for interim relief on 15 April 2008 and that CAIP file its reply on 21 April 2008.

CAIP’s Application AND REQUEST FOR INTERIM RELIEF

2 In its Application and request for interim relief, among other things, CAIP alleges that the Company’s “traffic shaping measures” have “impaired the speed and performance of the wholesale ADSL access services … beyond recognition”, have “dramatically reduced the volume of traffic that independent ISPs are able to deliver to Internet backbone providers” and have “caused harm to independent ISPs in the form of threatened and actual cancellation of services contracts”.

3 Furthermore, in its Application at paragraph 1, CAIP states that its application is made on behalf of “those of CAIP’s members that provide retail internet access services”. However, the Company notes that some of its GAS customers have told the Company that they support its Internet traffic management solution and further, some of them have noted that they have adopted similar traffic management practices.

Overview of Bell Canada’s Position

4 To begin, there is no question that increasing traffic generally, and peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing traffic and video streaming content such as YouTube, is affecting the networks of Internet carriers across North America – as noted below, even BitTorrent has acknowledged that congestion is a problem. However, in order to continue to ensure a consistently high level of service for all of its customers, whether retail or wholesale customers, Bell Canada is required to manage its network in such a way that no customer, service or application consumes excessive bandwidth that may impede the use and enjoyment by other customers. As such, Bell has deployed its network management solution to P2P file sharing traffic.

5 This type of network management employed by Bell during peak periods (and described below) allows Bell Canada to deliver a more consistent and reliable experience to all its customers who use real-time sensitive applications like browsing, instant messaging and streaming. All online applications continue to be available to all customers. All customers can continue to use P2P applications at any time. However, they will simply not work as fast for some users during peak usage periods in order to ensure optimized service for all of our customers.

6 Before addressing the Commission’s test for interim relief (known as the RJR MacDonald test), it is important to clarify the facts. Rather than providing evidence of harm related to its Internet traffic management solution, CAIP’s Application is limited to unsubstantiated allegations and observations. When one looks at all the facts, however, the Company can confirm that:

* it is only applying its Internet traffic management solution to P2P file sharing applications during peak Internet usage periods;
* it is not applying its Internet traffic management solution to streaming applications such as YouTube or Internet radio;
* it has not been presented with any evidence that its Internet traffic management solution is having any impact on VPN or VoIP traffic;
* it is applying its Internet traffic management solution to its Sympatico retail and business customer base and to its wholesale DSL customer base who share a common network in the exact same manner and to the same extent;
* it is not applying its Internet traffic management solution to wholesale HSA traffic;
* it has not introduced its Internet traffic management solution to stem the tide of Sympatico customers to its wholesale competitors in the face of ongoing changes to Sympatico Internet access rate plans;
* it remains willing to work with any customer who is experiencing Internet service problems and in particular those believed to be caused by its Internet traffic management solution; and
* it has contacted its ISP customers and encouraged them to come forward with any suspected problems and remains committed to working with them.

7 Furthermore, the Company notes that the regulatory framework has already provided numerous competitive choices in the market. Internet service providers (ISPs) have other options than purchasing access under Bell’s GAS Tariff. They are free to lease unbundled local loops, to invest in co-location and Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs), to subscribe to wholesale Internet high speed access service from cable carriers through third party Internet access (TPIA) or to build their own networks. All of these options would avoid any traffic management activity by Bell. They can also purchase High Speed Access (HSA) which is not subject to traffic management.

8 Regarding its specific request for interim relief under the first prong of the RJR MacDonald test, CAIP has not demonstrated that there is a serious issue to be tried. First, the Company is not operating off-tariff. To the contrary, the Company’s traffic management measures are performed in a manner consistent with its tariffs and contractual obligations. Second, the Company is not unjustly discriminating against its wholesale ISP customers nor is it granting unto itself an unjust preference as it is applying its Internet traffic management solution to retail and wholesale customers using the same network in the same manner and to the same extent. Third, the Company is not affecting end-user’s privacy nor is it controlling the content of influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications. The Company’s use of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) as part of its Internet traffic management solution is such that it treats all P2P traffic the same, it only looks at the application header of the content but not the content itself, and it does not block access to any content or applications.

9 Further, CAIP has not met the second prong of the test regarding irreparable harm. It has adduced no evidence of harm that is clear and not speculative that is actually being suffered by its independent ISP members. Even if any of CAIP’s allegations constituted harm, in those cases where financial harm is alleged, it is money that independent ISPs would have spent in any event (i.e. if the interim order is granted they will still incur these charges) and therefore cannot constitute irreparable harm.

10 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.

FACTUAL ERRORS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS IN CAIP’S APPLICATION

11 There appears to be a large amount of confusion and miscomprehension about how the Internet works, what Bell Canada is actually doing to manage its network and the impact that it is having on Internet users. Customers generally, including the Applicants, are using unsubstantiated allegations as facts to then jump to certain conclusions. The Commission’s assessment must be based on facts, not unsubstantiated allegations. The following is a clarification of the facts.

Growth in Internet bandwidth use and increasing network congestion

12 A more detailed description of how traffic is routed on the Internet and how the Internet handles congestion can be found in Appendix 1. The Internet is generally a shared network that uses best efforts to route traffic. However, some traffic, such as web browsing and streaming audio or video, is more time sensitive and needs to be delivered quicker than other traffic which is less time sensitive, such as peer-to-peer file transfers for later use. Given the increased levels of congestion on the Internet, the Company has, as part of its ongoing normal network management and in efforts to better manage network congestion during peak usage periods, decided to apply its current Internet traffic management solution to peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic thereby redistributing this traffic to lower usage periods.

What is peer-to-peer (P2P)?

13 The following is a brief description of peer-to-peer file sharing applications. A more detailed description can be found in Appendix 1. P2P is the name of a class of file sharing applications, including the popular BitTorrent, which may run “unattended” in order to transfer large files in the background. Typical interactive applications such as web browsing send and receive a certain amount of data every so often, but most of the time the computer is waiting for user interaction. The unattended P2P applications, on the other hand, use as much bandwidth as they can the whole time that they are running. These P2P applications may use as many as 40 to 100 Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) sessions at the same time, while a web browser uses two to four. This difference is often increased by so-called heavy users who might chose to run P2P on 2 or more computers at the same time. So, the P2P application not only uses considerably more traffic volume in the long run because it runs for a lengthy amount of time, it also uses up a disproportionate share of the available bandwidth at any given point in time because it uses so many concurrent TCP sessions. Therefore, hundreds of TCP sessions generated by a single user will negatively impact the experience of many others.

What is Deep Packet Inspection (DPI)?

14 The following is a brief description of DPI. A more detailed description can be found in Appendix 1. Bell’s Internet traffic management solution uses network equipment that can perform DPI. DPI is used to examine each of the protocol headers that wrap the content in order to identify the type of application package being transmitted. This allows Bell to balance the delivery of different types of applications over a network similar to how a postal service needs to balance the delivery of time sensitive overnight packages and high volume bulk mail shipments. The postal delivery system uses identifiers on packages to identify different types of package content to balance the flow of time sensitive overnight packages with that of bulk mail shipments. In a similar way, DPI technology uses the communication protocol headers to identify the traffic type in order to balance the flow of web, video and other time sensitive traffic with that of delivery of high volume P2P traffic across a network at peak times. The actual content of the packet is not examined, just the protocol headers encapsulating the content. With the application identified, DPI can now balance the application traffic flows to manage the delivery of the real time traffic that can affect the user’s experience the most while still delivering all network traffic.

What is Bell Canada actually doing to manage its network?

15 After a period of technical trials, Bell Canada began the deployment of its current Internet traffic management solution to its Sympatico retail customer base on 28 October 2007 during peak periods of Internet usage that typically occur in the early evenings and end in the early mornings (i.e. 4:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.). While the Company will continue to ensure that its solution reflects the impact of network utilization and evolving traffic patterns, the current upload/download rate speeds for P2P usage are gradually decreased at the beginning of the peak period and then gradually increased towards the end of the peak period. After additional software upgrades and trials, Bell Canada began the second phase and applied its current Internet traffic management solution to its wholesale Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) customer base on 14 March 2008. As of 10 April 2008, the Company has applied its current Internet traffic management solution to wholesale to the same extent as retail. The Company has reached substantial deployment of aggregation sites in its network which handle the vast majority of wholesale and retail traffic, with the remaining deployment to take place over the coming months.

16 Bell’s Internet traffic management solution is intended as a mechanism to allow for a better allocation of bandwidth for all users that share a common network and is aimed at delivering a more positive and better experience on the network for all users during peak Internet usage periods. Bell Canada has restricted the application of its Internet traffic management solution to only P2P file sharing applications, including BitTorrent, which uses a well understood Internet protocol that is distinct from other types of Internet traffic such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). The Company’s Internet traffic management solution is being applied in the same manner to all P2P traffic on its DSL Point to Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE) network, including both retail and wholesale services such as GAS.

17 The Company’s GAS Tariff provides a broadband access service based on asynchronous digital subscriber line (ADSL) technology and enables a service provider to establish a high speed data access path between its end-user’s premises and a Company serving wire centre. GAS uses available bandwidth above the voice-band on the same local loop as the end-user’s Company or CLEC provided residential or business individual line. It includes logical paths to provide network connectivity between GAS Access arrangements and an ADSL Aggregated High Speed Service Provider Interface (AHSSPI) by aggregating traffic associated with each GAS Access served from groups of wire centres to a broadband access server (BAS) and subsequently aggregating such traffic from all Company provided BAS to the ADSL AHSSPI. Essentially, it also includes the backbone to transit traffic from the central office where the end-user is located to the nearest central office for the ISP’s point-of-presence.

18 The Company’s HSA Tariff is based on the same ADSL technology and enables a service provider to establish a high speed data access path between its end-user’s premises and a Company serving wire centre. HSA also uses available bandwidth above the voice-band on the same local loop as the end-user’s Company or CLEC provided residential or business individual line. However, HSA includes a dedicated Permanent Virtual Circuit (PVC) between the end-user’s premises and the AHSSPI located in the Company’s wire centre and is not aggregated via a Broadband Access Server (BAS). This dedicated channel can be used by the ISP to deliver features that require a permanent IP address, such as monitoring. This level of dedication is clearly reflected in the price of the service. Given this difference, HSA traffic is not subject to the Company’s Internet traffic management solution.

19 In Bell Canada’s network, a DPI device is located behind the BAS where retail and wholesale traffic is aggregated from multiple central offices. All traffic transiting through the BAS is subject to the Internet traffic management solution. HSA traffic does not transit through the BAS. As the following diagram clearly shows, GAS and retail traffic transit through the same path/equipment from an end-user up to and including the location where the Internet traffic management solution is applied. The Company’s Internet network management solution applies to both uploads and downloads of P2P traffic during peak periods.

Results of Bell’s Internet traffic management solution

20 Last fall, before the Company began deployment of its Internet traffic management solution to ease network congestion during peak usage periods, 5% of users were generating 60% of total traffic on the network and 60% of that traffic was P2P traffic, including BitTorrent. During peak periods, that same 5% of users were utilizing 33% of available bandwidth. In other words, 95% of Bell subscribers were being negatively impacted by a very small minority of Internet users primarily using P2P file sharing applications.

21 As a result of the application of its Internet traffic management solution, the Company has observed 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.

Allegations of problems caused by DPI

22 There have been several reports on various websites and in online forums, as well as allegations in CAIP’s Application (see in particular paragraph 103), that the Company’s Internet traffic management solution is affecting more than P2P applications, such as VoIP and Virtual Private Network (VPN) traffic, as well as online streaming traffic such as YouTube and Internet radio. The Company has investigated several of these reports and in each case has shown that traffic shaping was not the cause of the reported problem. Ongoing daily traffic reports and internal testing continue to confirm that VPN, VoIP and online streaming traffic such as YouTube and Internet radio are not being shaped or affected by the Company’s solution. In fact, the Company has observed that usage of these streaming applications tends to spike during peak periods when the Internet traffic management solution is applied to P2P traffic as compared to levels that were being reached before implementation.

23 In working with wholesale customers and their end users to troubleshoot their reported problems, the Company has thus far been able to confirm that network management has not been the cause of any of the reported problems. Some of the reported problems were actually due to various unrelated factors, such as a slow third party server, clients modified from normal configurations, reported problem occurring outside traffic management hours, internal wiring issues, and a recent third party software patch with default settings.

24 Regarding allegations about “drastic reductions in transfer speeds” of CAIP’s ISP members, the opposite is the case. Depending on the traffic mix, the Company has only observed a small drop in peak throughput as other types of traffic such as web browsing and audio or video streaming, previously impacted by congestion at peak periods, quickly filled the bandwidth made available through the use of Internet traffic management and therefore improved the customer online experience for such interactive and real-time activities.

25 While some wholesale ISP customers have been willing to troubleshoot their reported problems with the Company, unfortunately, there are a handful who to date remain unwilling to even discuss their alleged reported problem. Nevertheless, Bell Canada continues to encourage its wholesale ISP customers to bring to the Company’s attention any reports that our Internet traffic management solution may be affecting more than P2P applications or negatively affecting traffic volumes and remains committed to working with them to resolve any potential problems (see Appendix 2 - DSL Traffic Management - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) that was recently shared with wholesale ISP customers).

Fact vs. Fiction

26 Notwithstanding the alleged reports referred to above and the unsubstantiated “observations” contained in the CAIP Application, the Company can confirm that:

* it is only applying its Internet traffic management solution to P2P file sharing applications during peak Internet usage periods;
* it is not applying its Internet traffic management solution to streaming applications such as YouTube or Internet radio;
* it has not been presented with any evidence that its Internet traffic management solution is having any impact on VPN or VoIP traffic;
* it is applying its Internet traffic management solution to its Sympatico retail and business customer base and to its wholesale DSL customer base who share a common network in the exact same manner and to the same extent;
* it is not applying its Internet traffic management solution to wholesale HSA traffic;
* it has not introduced its Internet traffic management solution to stem the tide of Sympatico customers to its wholesale competitors in the face of ongoing changes to Sympatico Internet access rate plans;
* it remains willing to work with any customer who is experiencing Internet service problems and in particular those believed to be caused by its Internet traffic management solution; and
* it has contacted its ISP customers and encouraged them to come forward with any suspected problems and remains committed to working with them.

CAIP’s request for an interim order on an urgent and expedited basis

27 Among the numerous orders sought in the Application, CAIP has requested that the Commission issue the following interim orders “on an urgent and expedited basis”:

a)” … directing Bell Canada to immediately cease and desist from using any technologies to “shape”, “throttle” and/or “choke” its wholesale ADSL services;

b) … an order abridging the timeframes for the respondent to file its Answer to within four (4) business days of this Application and for the Application, CAIP, to file its Reply to within three (3) business days of Bell’s Answer;”

28 Before granting a party interim relief under section 61(2) of the Act, the Commission has required the party requesting the relief to demonstrate that it meets the criteria for interim relief set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110, as modified by the Court’s decision in RJR?MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. Known as the RJR-MacDonald criteria, these criteria are that:

a) there is a serious issue to be determined;
b) the party seeking relief will suffer irreparable harm if the interim relief is not granted; and
c) the balance of convenience, taking into account the public interest, favours retaining the status quo until the Commission has disposed of the issues.

29 In Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-38, Part VII Application by Bell Mobility Inc., Microcell Telecommunications Inc., Rogers Wireless Inc. and TELUS Mobility - Disconnection of wireless facilities at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, the Commission stated that “[a]n applicant for interim relief is required to establish that it has met all three of the RJR-MacDonald criteria.” [emphasis added] Each of these three branches of the test is considered in the following paragraphs.

30 It is well accepted that the granting of interim relief is an “extraordinary” remedy and should be granted only in those circumstances which warrant taking such a drastic and extraordinary step (see Kanda Tsushin Kogyo v. Covely [1997] O.J. No. 56 at para. 3-4; Airport Limousine Drivers Assn. v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority [2005] O.J. No. 3509 at para. 85). In this case, CAIP has limited its justification for its request for such relief to vague allegations with no facts or evidence to support them.

i) Is there a serious issue to be tried?

31 Turning to the first of the three RJR-MacDonald criteria, namely the requirement that the Application raise a serious issue to be determined, the Company recognizes that the Supreme Court decided that the evidentiary threshold required to meet this test was a low one; that an application should only be denied under this first prong of the test if it is considered vexatious or frivolous. The Company submits that CAIP’s Application fails to satisfy even such a low evidentiary threshold. CAIP has offered essentially three grounds upon which the Commission should grant its request. These three grounds are that:

i)Bell Canada is operating off tariff contrary to sections 24 and 25;
ii)Bell Canada’s actions constitute an undue and unreasonable preference granted upon itself and a disadvantage applied to independent ISPs; and
iii)Bell Canada’s actions violate the privacy of communications of its wholesale customers and their end-users and is controlling or influencing the content of telecommunications contrary to sections 7(i) and 36 of the Act.

The Company is not operating off tariff contrary to sections 24 and 25:

32 The GAS Tariff specifies the “maximum” downstream and upstream speeds that are available under the tariff. They are just that - maximum speeds - and the GAS Tariff clearly states that the speeds are “up to”. Similar to its Sympatico service, the GAS Tariff does not guarantee the maximum speeds at all times. The Company offers its DSL service on a best efforts basis and cannot guarantee that it will have sufficient bandwidth or capacity available through the entire shared network. For those who want dedicated and more consistent speeds, they can purchase HSA. Furthermore, while the average usage per end user has increased substantially over the last three years since the GAS Tariff was approved, as of yet the Company has not filed for rate increases in spite of increases in the rate in the retail market in Ontario nor introduced bandwidth caps or usage billing to reflect similar movement in the retail market. (However, the Company does note an outstanding GAS Service Charge restructure filed on 9 November 2007, under Bell Canada Tariff Notice No. 7081, resulting in rate reductions in the charges associated with service activation and also included an increase in speeds with no change in monthly rates.)

33 All Company tariffs, including the GAS Tariff, are subject to all applicable tariffs, including General Tariff – 6716, Part 1, Item 10 (Terms of Service). Section 8.3 of the Company’s General Terms of Service states that:

“Customers are prohibited from using Bell Canada’s services or permitting them to be used so as to prevent a fair and proportionate use by others. For this purpose, Bell Canada may limit use of its services as necessary.”

34 This fact is clearly stated in the Company’s Master Communications Agreement for Tariffed (MCAT) services that each ISP purchasing GAS must execute. Furthermore, agreements with the Company’s wholesale GAS customers typically include as an appendix Internet Use Policies that clearly provide that the customer agrees to comply with the Policies and to ensure that its end users comply with the Policies. Specifically, the Policies provide that the service may not be used “in a manner which is contrary to law or would serve to restrict or inhibit any other user from using or enjoying the service or the Internet.”

35 The Commission has recognized that the Company’s Terms of Service contain provisions that allow it to suspend or terminate service where a customer uses or permits others to use services so as to prevent fair and proportionate use by others. Given the existence of the Terms of Service, the Commission has stated that it is not necessary to include “network congestion” provisions in a specific Company tariff (see Telecom Decision CRTC 94-10; Telecom Order CRTC 94-1073). The Commission has extended this ability to cable carriers allowing them the right to suspend or terminate the service of an ISP’s end-user who makes disproportionate use of the service (see Telecom Order CRTC 2000-789).

36 The Commission has also found that the making of a very large volume of calls in a short timeframe was taking up lines that were not available for other customers thereby preventing them from making fair and proportionate use of such lines (see Telecom Order CRTC 2003-378).

37 The Commission also took the preliminary view in Telecom Order CRTC 2000-789 that the attachment by an end-user of a server at its premises would not be “fair and proportionate use” of the cable carrier’s access services. The purpose of a server is to serve content. In fact, P2P file sharing applications do behave like servers as they support the forwarding of content to other P2P users while receiving content. P2P file sharing applications actually allow external clients to connect via multiple sessions and download content, thus acting like a server.

38 Nevertheless, the Company has not fully exercised its discretion to “suspend or terminate” service of those wholesale ISP customers whose end users prevent a fair and proportionate use by others. Instead, the Company has made use of other technical options available, such as its Internet traffic management solution, that simply limit use of its service as necessary to ensure a fair and proportionate use by all its customers. In short, contrary to CAIP’s allegations, the Company’s traffic management measures are performed in a manner consistent with its tariffs and contractual obligations.

No unjust discrimination, undue or unreasonable preference, or undue or unreasonable disadvantage under s. 27(2):

39 As the Company has explained above, its Internet traffic management solution was first deployed to its Sympatico retail customer base and only recently did it begin the second phase with application to its wholesale DSL GAS customers who share the same network. Therefore, there has not been any discrimination, preference or disadvantage as between the Company and its wholesale GAS customers, let alone any unjust discrimination, undue or unreasonable preference or undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

40 Furthermore, while the Company, similar to any network provider, requires the flexibility to apply necessary traffic management solutions depending on the circumstances, the Company’s current Internet traffic management solution is applied only during peak usage periods to alleviate network congestion and is only applied to P2P file sharing applications to better manage the bandwidth made available for their use. All P2P file sharing applications can still be used, but they will simply be slower for some users when traffic management is applied so as to redistribute P2P traffic from peak periods to off-peak periods. However, even though all P2P traffic is subject to the same rates during peak periods, those users with low to moderate usage of P2P during peak periods will simply not experience the same delay in their level of use.

Not affecting end-user’s privacy nor controlling the content or influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications under s. 36:

41 As noted above, the Company’s use of DPI as part of its Internet traffic management solution is such that it treats all P2P traffic the same and it only looks at the application header of the content but not the content itself. As part of its traffic management solution, the Company does not block access to any content or applications. Therefore, the Company is not affecting end-user’s privacy nor is it controlling the content of influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications. As explained in more detail in Appendix 1, the DPI equipment used by Bell does not retain the information that it has reviewed from the packet headers and the content itself is not actually reviewed, analyzed or stored. Furthermore, it is also common knowledge that other Canadian ISPs also similar technologies in their networks to manage traffic.

ii) Will the Applicant suffer irreparable harm if the interim relief is not granted?

42 The second of the three RJR-MacDonald tests requires a consideration of whether the Commission’s refusal to grant relief could “so adversely affect the applicant’s own interests that the harm could not be remedied if the eventual decision on the merits does not accord with the results of the interlocutory application” (emphasis added). Where harm (if any) can be quantified in monetary terms, it is not irreparable. In addition, harm, to count under this prong, needs to be suffered by the applicant, not by third parties. Finally, while it is true that irreparable harm refers to the nature of the harm as distinct from its magnitude, the evidence as to irreparable harm “must be clear and not speculative” (see Ipsos Reid S.A. v. Reid [2005] B.C.J. No. 1674 at para. 84).

43 At paragraph 104 of its Application, CAIP outlines four elements of harm that independent ISPs have suffered as a result of the Company’s “traffic shaping measures”:

i)”Caused marked difficulty or rendered impossible for independent ISPs to properly manage the services that they provide to their end-customers;
ii)Dramatically reduced the volume of traffic that independent ISPs are able to deliver to Internet backbone providers. Consequently, they are paying for transit that they are not actually able to use;
iii)Forced ISPs to pay for GAS service components even though Bell is not delivering traffic at the volumes necessary to justify the cost or the need for these service components;
iv)Caused harm to independent ISPs in the form of threatened and actual cancellation of service contracts.”

44 While the Company denies that independent ISPs have suffered any such harm as a result of its traffic management solution, the Company submits that even if they did suffer any such harm, that it does not amount to irreparable harm under the second test. Furthermore, CAIP has not provided any facts or supporting evidence whatsoever to prove any of the alleged harm, let alone that the harm is irreparable, having limited its statements to “observations” and its “knowledge”. Not only is CAIP’s evidence (to the extent there is any) not clear, it is completely speculative.

i)Caused marked difficulty or rendered impossible for independent ISPs to properly manage the services that they provide to their end-customers.

45 In the CAIP Application, this ground is presented in a one line allegation and surely cannot constitute “clear” evidence of irreparable harm. Further, Bell notes that ISPs have other options than purchasing access under Bell’s GAS Tariff. They are free to lease unbundled local loops (or lease only the upper bandwidth portion of a loop through line sharing) and invest in co-location and their own DSLAMs. A number of ISPs have already done just that. If they do make these investments, ISPs have complete control of their backbone network and their traffic will not be managed by Bell Canada. In addition to unbundled loops and line sharing, ISPs can subscribe to wholesale high speed Internet access service from cable carriers through TPIA or can build their own access networks. All of these options would avoid any traffic management by Bell. They can also purchase HSA from Bell Canada which is not subject to traffic management. Given these options, the Commission found in Decision 2008-17 that GAS service was not an essential service.

46 But for many ISPs, GAS is the cheapest and thus the most economical solution. It is the most economical solution because it is designed to take advantage of the Bell retail network infrastructure (in contrast to the more expensive HSA service) by co-mingling its traffic with that of the Bell retail network. For this reason, ISPs cannot expect their traffic to be subject to preferential treatment on the shared network.

ii)Dramatically reduced the volume of traffic that independent ISPs are able to deliver to Internet backbone providers. Consequently, they are paying for transit that they are not actually able to use.

47 Regarding CAIP’s allegation of “dramatically reduced” volumes of traffic, since traffic volumes are indeed measurable, then it is incumbent upon CAIP to adduce such evidence when seeking such extraordinary relief. It has not done so. Furthermore, the Company has seen in the online forums a similar allegation of dramatically reduced volumes and can confirm that such is not the case and that indeed there was only a minor/small decrease in traffic.

48 Even if true, this is money that independent ISPs would have spent in any event (i.e. if the interim order is granted they will still incur these charges) and therefore cannot constitute irreparable harm.

iii)Forced ISPs to pay for GAS service components even though Bell is not delivering traffic at the volumes necessary to justify the cost or the need for these service components;

49 As explained above, the GAS tariff requires that a wholesale ISP customer pay on a per user basis – full stop. There are no other “GAS service components”. The “GAS service components” that CAIP refers to actually relate to bandwidth and the components needed by independent ISPs between the Company’s central office and the ISP’s location. These service components have nothing to do with the GAS Tariff. See ii) above for our comments regarding the allegation related to “volumes” of traffic.

50 Even if true, this is money that independent ISPs would have spent in any event (i.e. if the interim order is granted they will still incur these charges) and therefore cannot constitute irreparable harm.

iv)Caused harm to independent ISPs in the form of threatened and actual cancellation of service contracts.

51 To begin, CAIP has not produced any evidence of actual lost customers. In paragraph 106 of its Application, CAIP also claims that independent ISPs will suffer harm in the form of loss of good will and permanent market share loss, over and above lost revenues. CAIP also claims that the Company’s “traffic shaping measures … directly curtails the ability of independent ISPs to compete in retail Internet access market.”

52 While the Company has received emails and viewed online forum postings in which commenters have said they will no longer deal with Bell Canada, there are virtually no known instances of ISP customers suggesting they will leave their ISP. However, there are numerous postings suggesting increased loyalty to their ISP. Furthermore, it is unclear where their alleged “lost” customers have gone given other network providers manage their networks similar to Bell or already have introduced caps or usage billing. There is therefore no proof that they will not be able to recover any lost revenues.

53 CAIP alleges that Bell intentionally and for anti-competitive reasons deployed its Internet traffic management solution on its wholesale customer base at the same time as it introduced retail Sympatico service changes. This allegation is simply false. The Company has had usage based retail plans since 2002 when its Lite and Basic Lite services were first launched. Since then, the Company has continued making changes to its retail Sympatico plans such as when it introduced various usage thresholds in April 2006 or when it stopped offering unlimited usage rate plans in August 2007 up to the “stop-sell” of unlimited usage add-on plans effective 12 March 2008. The existence of usage based billing on the retail side has not affected the Company’s ongoing need to continue to manage its network during peak periods for the benefit of all customers regardless of rate plan.

54 Finally, in paragraph 107 of its Application, CAIP also claims “that damage to the public interest in the orderly development of telecommunications and the privacy and inviolability of telecommunications carried by Bell, … cannot be compensated in damages”. As stated above, not only is this not harm suffered by the Applicants which is a requirement for the second test, but the courts have clearly stated that when considering the second test of determining “irreparable harm”, that any alleged harm to any one else other than the Applicant, including consideration of the public interest, should be considered as part of the third test under balance of convenience (see RJR MacDonald at p. 405).

Does the balance of convenience, taking into account the public interest, favour retaining the status quo until the Commission has disposed of the issues?

55 The final branch of the RJR MacDonald criteria requires the Applicant to satisfy the Commission that the balance of convenience, taking into account the public interest and any other special factors, favours granting the interim order requested.

56 There is no question that increasing traffic generally, and P2P file sharing traffic and video streaming content such as YouTube, is affecting the networks of Internet carriers across North America – even BitTorrent has acknowledged that service providers have to manage their networks somehow, especially during peak times:

“While we think there were other management techniques that could have been deployed, we understand why Comcast and other ISPs adopted the approach that they did initially,” Eric Klinker, BitTorrent’s chief technology officer, said in a statement (see BitTorrent press release, Comcast and BitTorrent form Collaboration to Address Network Management, Network Architecture and Content Distribution, dated 27 March 2008; see also letter from Comcast to the FCC Chairman dated 28 March 2008).

57 In order to continue to ensure a consistently high level of service for all of its customers, whether retail or wholesale customers, Bell Canada is required to manage its network in such a way that no customer, service or application consumes excessive bandwidth that may impede the use and enjoyment by other customers. This type of network management during peak periods allows Bell Canada to deliver a more consistent and reliable experience to all its customers who use real-time sensitive applications like browsing, instant messaging and streaming. All online applications continue to be available to all customers. All customers can continue to use P2P applications at any time. However, they will simply not work as fast for some users during peak Internet usage periods in order to ensure optimized service for all of our customers.

58 As noted above, 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.

59 Other providers in Canada and in the U.S. have implemented similar types of measures (see Comments of Comcast Corporation filed with the FCC on 12 February 2008 In the Matter of Broadband Industry Practices pp. 19-24). Even though Comcast in the U.S. has said they will stop shaping P2P and BitTorrent around year end when they will move to protocol agnostic shaping, they remain committed to managing bandwidth during congestion (see Comcast news release dated 27 March 2008; see also letter from Comcast to the FCC Chairman dated 28 March 2008).

60 While it is not appropriate to consider the harm that might be suffered by the Company and its customers should the interim relief be granted at the second stage of the RJR MacDonald test, it is appropriate to consider it at this stage when considering the balance of convenience (see RJR MacDonald at p. 405).

61 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. 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.

62 It is the Company’s view that the balance of convenience, taking into account the public interest, favours retaining the status quo until the Commission has disposed of the issues in CAIP’s Application.

Conclusion

63 For all of the reasons discussed above, Bell Canada submits that CAIP’s request for an interim order should be dismissed in its entirety.

64 All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of Bell Canada this 15 day April 2008.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:21:39 EDT

Gokuu : Rocky is preparing for battle!!

»youtube.com/watch?v=kgWP57cNNMM

said by ShadPTR :

said by R0CKY :

said by sbrook :

caip now gets to make a response. Then the CRTC decides.

Exactly! ;)

Stick it to them Rocky!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:18:54 EDT

ShadPTR :

said by R0CKY :

said by sbrook :

caip now gets to make a response. Then the CRTC decides.

Exactly! ;)

Stick it to them Rocky!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:17:37 EDT

Ikarasu : I believe it was said CAIP have a week to respond, then CRTC will make a decision. No idea how long it'll take CRTC to decide... usually they're slow, but they seem to be pretty fast on this issue.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:16:41 EDT

R0CKY :

said by sbrook :

caip now gets to make a response. Then the CRTC decides.

Exactly! ;)
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:13:24 EDT

sbrook : caip now gets to make a response. Then the CRTC decides.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:11:42 EDT

ultracat : So, out of ignorance: what happens next? I don't really know the CRTC processes. CAIP has made a complaint, Bell has now responded. What's next? What are the timeframes for a decision or further investigation by the CRTC?

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:57:18 EDT

anon : ps3 online gaming is suffering

i played a lot before and it ran smooth.
now when i play the same people that we create matches

it sucks, freezes etc

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:54:24 EDT

anon :

said by The Flash :

can someone post it here? I can't open zip.

its here also:
»www.p2pnet.net/story/15631

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:52:09 EDT

Angelo_ : linux iso's get angried when not downloaded!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:49:51 EDT

zachary1 : Sewage and Bell should always be placed in the same sentence. Along with their corporate spokesagandists.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:49:23 EDT

Guspaz : Sorry, my bad, I meant JF.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:47:23 EDT

anon : Bell bell bell.. let myself and others make it CLEAR to you that its not up to you to deside whats best for 3rd party ISP's. Its up to each and every 3rd party ISP's to deside whats best for them.. its there Choice not yours.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:36:05 EDT

DjEclipse :

said by DJ MASACRE :

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 .

lol @ door shaping.

Only let the skinny people in, the fatter people have to wait till 2:00am to avoid congestion....

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:34:25 EDT

JayMan :

said by Guspaz :

Pretend to be an ISP like JayMan and you too can file a part VII request :P

How did I get dragged into this. Thats not my submission on the CRTC site.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:34:04 EDT

justsometech :

said by Guspaz :

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.

Unfortunately we have to rely on CAIP lawyers to make that argument. It doesnt say much about our "Public system" that the public could not make such an argument.

And for those who are having VOIP and VPN issues, i would strongly suggest letting teksavvy know as it could help their case

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:24:13 EDT

anon :

said by BELL PR :

" 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.

NO WAI it was browsing, interactive or real-time! What you think web browsing was me downloading from Rapidshare and similar sites!

Or maybe it was Sympatico POP3 on port 995?

:D

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:24:01 EDT

matradley :

said by Angelo_ :

lol who said jayman isnt his own isp?

im pretty sure he services his house members free wifi!

Jayman is a network administrator too? lol :)

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:23:52 EDT

anon : Yes, we must behave.

1) we know CAIP made a real strong requesting report..

2) we know Bell has responded with their own nonsense.

3) if the CRTC is as good as the abbreviations sound .. they would have been monitoring enough discussion on this issue to come up with their solution

4) the ISP's must be doing all they can in the background, tahts why they are not responding to us right now...

5) Expect some defining moments to happen no later than next week but hopefully by the end of this week.

.....................

So everybody start praying .......

P.S Its still legal to post signs isnt it ? .. i can cover the building in FREE OUR BANDWIDTH signs .. how about that ?

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:21:08 EDT

Angelo_ : lol who said jayman isnt his own isp?

im pretty sure he services his house members free wifi!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:16:46 EDT

theninjasqua :

said by Guspaz :

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 ;)

He has been strangely quite around here the past week or so. Unless he is on holidays. Maybe he can't confirm anymore that the throttling is actually effecting other things since it would blow Bells case.
--

-theninjasquad

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:16:15 EDT

Guspaz : Pretend to be an ISP like JayMan and you too can file a part VII request :P

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:16:09 EDT

sbrook : There are about 40 ways to get out of that building!

Good luck even finding him!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:15:17 EDT

koreyb :

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..

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:15:12 EDT

JayMan : I've converted it all to PDF from the silly doc files.
--
»www.freeourbandwidth.com

080415 - CAI···pp 2.pdf
080415 - CAI···swer.pdf
080415 - CAI···tter.pdf

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:14:54 EDT

Guspaz : 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 ;)

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:13:12 EDT

anon : 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 =)

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:13:08 EDT

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. 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

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:12:17 EDT

Trisomy21 : Yeah if you're going to do that you might want to wrap it around a brick first.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:12:03 EDT

matradley :

said by cacruden :

I know it is in jest, but throwing it in his face would constitute assault :p

Mmm... Reminds me of Jean Chretien.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:10:27 EDT

cacruden : I know it is in jest, but throwing it in his face would constitute assault :p

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:08:51 EDT

anon : 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 .

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:07:59 EDT

derekm :

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.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:03:21 EDT

Guspaz : 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.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:54:48 EDT

Baihuigau : 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.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:52:53 EDT

anon : "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.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:51:07 EDT

derekm : 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?

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:45:58 EDT

daboom : 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 :)

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:45:48 EDT

Guspaz : 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).

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:42:46 EDT

anon : " 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 * .

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:39:17 EDT

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!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:37:46 EDT

Soiduts : 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.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:37:29 EDT

anon : So I hope in whatever way possible ... we voice these statements back at CRTC so they can obviously see this is BS.

But from the CAIP complaint... we demand proof and know there is no proof, and Bell has responded with no real proof... so it is their word against OUR PROOF and FACTS ..

so i cant possibly imagine CRTC allowing this since Bell did not bother to think they should make a real statement ... since they really cant... now they just think they own the internet ... good for them .. but bad for them as they will not be able to continue for very long..

MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD NOW ... HAMMER THE LAST NAIL INTO THEM =)

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:24:14 EDT

Angelo_ : lets help bell out with vocab
last mile : The last mile is the colloquial name for the section of cable between a local telephone exchange and the customer's premises. The last mile is the part of the telecommunications connection covered by either a dial-up or a broadband link.

encapsulation: In computer networking, "encapsulation" is to include data from an upper layer protocol into a lower layer protocol.This is a method of abstraction for networking by allowing different layers to add features/functionality.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:21:46 EDT

koreyb : I'm sorry... VoIP is being effected.

I have documented to the exact times that issues appear on my VoIP line provided by Primus that just appeared as This throttling started.

If my line is set on G711 codec (80kbps)

3:30pm, noticeable audio blips are noticeable on both sides of call.
4:00pm, Audio blips become more frequent.
4:30pm, Audio blips are at the point of making the line unusable, forced to switch codecs to G729.. (8kbps) G729 clears line 100%, but makes line only work for voice service.
2am, able to go back to g711 with some audio blips on both sides
2:30am Audio is 100% perfect.

I know a few Vonage customers who experience the same issues, so you tell me.. is this throttle effecting VoIP or NOT?!?!?!

If the VoIP service is encrypted(which most are for security) and Bell can't figure out it's VoIP.. It will be throttled.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:13:27 EDT

Arbalister :

said by HiVolt :

said by daboom :

This is bull%^&% I hope CRTC weighs in favor of the CAIP.

It is BS. Bell has not presented any proof themselves of widespread congestion issues. My area is throttled, and I have been on this remote for 5 years, and never, ever experienced any congestion issues while with Sympatico or TekSavvy.

Actually, they've proven that throttling hasn't fixed a thing. They stress, over and over, in that document, that "Other types of traffic quickly filled the space formerly used by p2p." Web traffic started to fill the 16.5% of bandwidth they got back. Streaming traffic filled it. Etc. All they've done is replaced one type of congestion with another. When will they decide that streaming video is the cuplrit and start throttling that, too? Oh, look, internet radio replaced streaming video...lets filter that too...

They state that this is a good thing. I state that when you pump sewage from 10 tanks at a time down a pipe, and shut the valve for one tank without reducing the overall flow, you've changed nothing. The congestion still exists.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:13:27 EDT

Angelo_ : perhaps we should show bell have encapsulation works??

tcp/ip is all fine and dandy but i feal they need a lesson in modern data comm. they seem to be a few centuries out of date

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:12:57 EDT

fourboxers : Another PDF version.

Bell.pdf

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:11:09 EDT

mazhurg :

said by Guspaz :

said by mazhurg :

Finally, Teksavvy provides HSA, or is it only from Bell?

TekSavvy offers HSA service. Installation fee of $250, cost is $99/mth.

And let me guess, Bell receives a bigger piece of the pie for the added cost, no? :huh:

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:11:07 EDT

matradley : After going through the document, it appears that Bell is mulling over the statements with generalized statements. In fact, they seem to be pointing the finger at us and denoting that we "do not know how the Internet works." In addition, they decided to provided how TCP/IP works at the end of their document. Personally, their allegations forming the opinion that DPI is not affecting VPN, RDP, NNTP, SMTP (encrypred), et al... is very annoying. We have shown that this is problem. As soon as DPI begins to analyze the packets, the latency goes through the roof!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:04:05 EDT

Guspaz :

said by mazhurg :

Interesting that the whole document (what I quickly read of) seem to indicate that the traffic to the internet itself, vice the so called last mile, is the issue that requires shaping while acknowledging that the traffic is quickly replaced.

And this while showing pretty pictures of the shaping being done *before* the internet really begins.

Also, how can they state that DPI is only inspecting headers when in reality it will stop (or throttle) applications masquerading with the same headers as other applications not being throttled?

Now, why have independant ISPs is an ISP is not free to buy, sell and manage their own network as they see fit? Really, if those other ISPs where mismanaging their own traffic it would only affect their users, no?

Finally, Teksavvy provides HSA, or is it only from Bell?

Bah, smoke and mirrors. Will read this thing again and more carefully when I have some time but so far it is not even worth the bits it is stored in.

TekSavvy offers HSA service. Installation fee of $250, cost is $99/mth.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:02:16 EDT

mazhurg : Interesting that the whole document (what I quickly read of) seem to indicate that the traffic to the internet itself, vice the so called last mile, is the issue that requires shaping while acknowledging that the traffic is quickly replaced.

And this while showing pretty pictures of the shaping being done *before* the internet really begins.

Also, how can they state that DPI is only inspecting headers when in reality it will stop (or throttle) applications masquerading with the same headers as other applications not being throttled?

Now, why have independant ISPs is an ISP is not free to buy, sell and manage their own network as they see fit? Really, if those other ISPs where mismanaging their own traffic it would only affect their users, no?

Finally, Teksavvy provides HSA, or is it only from Bell?

Bah, smoke and mirrors. Will read this thing again and more carefully when I have some time but so far it is not even worth the bits it is stored in.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:58:56 EDT

TemporalFlux : I am willing to bet that the CRTC sees Bell sending letters full of noting all the time..

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:56:58 EDT

backness : They make many mentions of proof but offer none of their own

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:55:36 EDT

The Flash : I hope the CRTC has a BS detector, cause this one will break it.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:54:32 EDT

CanerisErik :

said by sbrook :

Full of the red herring of managing TCP/IP traffic!

Exactly. The distinction must be made that everything said in paragraph 4.2 and similar is completely irrelevant. They are not being paid to carry TCP/IP traffic. They are being paid to carry whatever wholesalers choose to encapsulate.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:46:52 EDT

ultracat : It's very long, very windy, and very wrong. I pray **PRAY** the CRTC will see this and not be blinded by Bell's lies.

I mean, there's lots of incorrect statement in there. I'm focusing on how the document tries to recast what CAIP said in a way that Bell can "answer" in such a way that is favorable to its own position in the matter. For example, the document goes on and on and on about P2P, congestion, blah blah blah and Bell justifies it's trottling based on that. Nowhere that I read does it explain how, with all these nice diagrams, etc. that this "bandwidth hog" user is not seperated out and treated any differently than a "regular users" who hops on a P2P appliaction even momentarily to do something. They don't address that because they've 'paraphrased' the CAIP filing. They are quite often in their response not even responding to the points that CAIP have raised, rather they respond to their own re-interpretation of what CAIP have claimed in their filing. Total BS. I just hope sincerely the CRTC sees through it.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:46:49 EDT

Trisomy21 : lol looks like someone else decided to post it.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:46:33 EDT

andyb : i'm sure it wont be long as soon as a mod see's it.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:46:23 EDT

The Flash :

said by Trisomy21 :

said by The Flash :

said by Trisomy21 :

uh...use winzip?

work computer...

Here's a link to the .doc file. Best I can do, it's really long and I'm not spamming the thread with all that text lol.
»download.yousendit.com/B2C8BA085871FB30

thanks, you can also upload to DSLR too.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:45:48 EDT

The Flash : Thanks, didn't know DSLR allowed such a long post.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:45:33 EDT

Trisomy21 :

said by The Flash :

said by Trisomy21 :

uh...use winzip?

work computer...

Here's a link to the .doc file. Best I can do, it's really long and I'm not spamming the thread with all that text lol.
»download.yousendit.com/B2C8BA085871FB30

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:45:19 EDT

gi1010 :

said by The Flash :

can someone post it here? I can't open zip.

BEFORE THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION
AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNET PROVIDERS

PURSUANT TO PART VII OF THE
CRTC TELECOMMUNICATIONS RULES OF PROCEDURE
AND SECTIONS 7, 24, 25, 27, 32, 36 AND 62 OF THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT

REQUESTING CERTAIN ORDERS DIRECTING BELL CANADA
TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM "THROTTLING" ITS
WHOLESALE ADSL ACCESS SERVICES

ANSWER
TO REQUEST FOR INTERIM RELIEF

BELL CANADA

15 APRIL 2008

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 CAIP'S APPLICATION AND REQUEST FOR INTERIM RELIEF 1
3.0 OVERVIEW OF BELL CANADA'S POSITION 1
4.0 FACTUAL ERRORS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS IN CAIP'S APPLICATION 4
4.1 Growth in Internet bandwidth use and increasing network congestion 4
4.2 What is peer-to-peer (P2P)? 4
4.3 What is Deep Packet Inspection (DPI)? 5
4.4 What is Bell Canada actually doing to manage its network? 5
4.5 Results of Bell's Internet traffic management solution 7
4.6 Allegations of problems caused by DPI 8
4.7 Fact vs. Fiction 9
5.0 CAIP'S REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM ORDER ON AN URGENT AND EXPEDITED BASIS 10
6.0 CONCLUSION 20

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1. Bell Canada (Bell or the Company) is in receipt of an Application (the Application), dated 3 April 2008, made by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) pursuant to sections 7, 24, 25, 27, 32, 36 and 62 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules)requesting that the Commission issue certain orders directing Bell Canada to cease and desist from "throttling" wholesale ADSL services and in particular, the wholesale service known as Gateway Access Service (GAS). As part of its Application, CAIP also made a request for interim relief on an expedited basis requesting that the Commission issue an order directing Bell Canada to immediately cease and desist from "throttling" GAS. In a letter dated 8 April 2008, the Commission directed Bell Canada to file its answer with respect to CAIP's request for interim relief on 15 April 2008 and that CAIP file its reply on 21 April 2008.

2.0 CAIP'S APPLICATION AND REQUEST FOR INTERIM RELIEF

2. In its Application and request for interim relief, among other things, CAIP alleges that the Company's "traffic shaping measures" have "impaired the speed and performance of the wholesale ADSL access services … beyond recognition", have "dramatically reduced the volume of traffic that independent ISPs are able to deliver to Internet backbone providers" and have "caused harm to independent ISPs in the form of threatened and actual cancellation of services contracts".

3. Furthermore, in its Application at paragraph 1, CAIP states that its application is made on behalf of "those of CAIP's members that provide retail internet access services". However, the Company notes that some of its GAS customers have told the Company that they support its Internet traffic management solution and further, some of them have noted that they have adopted similar traffic management practices.

3.0 OVERVIEW OF BELL CANADA'S POSITION

4. To begin, there is no question that increasing traffic generally, and peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing traffic and video streaming content such as YouTube, is affecting the networks of Internet carriers across North America – as noted below, even BitTorrent has acknowledged that congestion is a problem. However, in order to continue to ensure a consistently high level of service for all of its customers, whether retail or wholesale customers, Bell Canada is required to manage its network in such a way that no customer, service or application consumes excessive bandwidth that may impede the use and enjoyment by other customers. As such, Bell has deployed its network management solution to P2P file sharing traffic.

5. This type of network management employed by Bell during peak periods (and described below) allows Bell Canada to deliver a more consistent and reliable experience to all its customers who use real-time sensitive applications like browsing, instant messaging and streaming. All online applications continue to be available to all customers. All customers can continue to use P2P applications at any time. However, they will simply not work as fast for some users during peak usage periods in order to ensure optimized service for all of our customers.

6. Before addressing the Commission's test for interim relief (known as the RJR MacDonald test), it is important to clarify the facts. Rather than providing evidence of harm related to its Internet traffic management solution, CAIP's Application is limited to unsubstantiated allegations and observations. When one looks at all the facts, however, the Company can confirm that:

- it is only applying its Internet traffic management solution to P2P file sharing applications during peak Internet usage periods;
- it is not applying its Internet traffic management solution to streaming applications such as YouTube or Internet radio;
- it has not been presented with any evidence that its Internet traffic management solution is having any impact on VPN or VoIP traffic;
- it is applying its Internet traffic management solution to its Sympatico retail and business customer base and to its wholesale DSL customer base who share a common network in the exact same manner and to the same extent;
- it is not applying its Internet traffic management solution to wholesale HSA traffic;
- it has not introduced its Internet traffic management solution to stem the tide of Sympatico customers to its wholesale competitors in the face of ongoing changes to Sympatico Internet access rate plans;
- it remains willing to work with any customer who is experiencing Internet service problems and in particular those believed to be caused by its Internet traffic management solution; and
- it has contacted its ISP customers and encouraged them to come forward with any suspected problems and remains committed to working with them.

7. Furthermore, the Company notes that the regulatory framework has already provided numerous competitive choices in the market. Internet service providers (ISPs) have other options than purchasing access under Bell's GAS Tariff. They are free to lease unbundled local loops, to invest in co-location and Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs), to subscribe to wholesale Internet high speed access service from cable carriers through third party Internet access (TPIA) or to build their own networks. All of these options would avoid any traffic management activity by Bell. They can also purchase High Speed Access (HSA) which is not subject to traffic management.

8. Regarding its specific request for interim relief under the first prong of the RJR MacDonald test, CAIP has not demonstrated that there is a serious issue to be tried. First, the Company is not operating off-tariff. To the contrary, the Company's traffic management measures are performed in a manner consistent with its tariffs and contractual obligations. Second, the Company is not unjustly discriminating against its wholesale ISP customers nor is it granting unto itself an unjust preference as it is applying its Internet traffic management solution to retail and wholesale customers using the same network in the same manner and to the same extent. Third, the Company is not affecting end-user's privacy nor is it controlling the content of influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications. The Company's use of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) as part of its Internet traffic management solution is such that it treats all P2P traffic the same, it only looks at the application header of the content but not the content itself, and it does not block access to any content or applications.

9. Further, CAIP has not met the second prong of the test regarding irreparable harm. It has adduced no evidence of harm that is clear and not speculative that is actually being suffered by its independent ISP members. Even if any of CAIP's allegations constituted harm, in those cases where financial harm is alleged, it is money that independent ISPs would have spent in any event (i.e. if the interim order is granted they will still incur these charges) and therefore cannot constitute irreparable harm.

10. 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.

4.0 FACTUAL ERRORS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS IN CAIP'S APPLICATION

11. There appears to be a large amount of confusion and miscomprehension about how the Internet works, what Bell Canada is actually doing to manage its network and the impact that it is having on Internet users. Customers generally, including the Applicants, are using unsubstantiated allegations as facts to then jump to certain conclusions. The Commission's assessment must be based on facts, not unsubstantiated allegations. The following is a clarification of the facts.

4.1 Growth in Internet bandwidth use and increasing network congestion

12. A more detailed description of how traffic is routed on the Internet and how the Internet handles congestion can be found in Appendix 1. The Internet is generally a shared network that uses best efforts to route traffic. However, some traffic, such as web browsing and streaming audio or video, is more time sensitive and needs to be delivered quicker than other traffic which is less time sensitive, such as peer-to-peer file transfers for later use. Given the increased levels of congestion on the Internet, the Company has, as part of its ongoing normal network management and in efforts to better manage network congestion during peak usage periods, decided to apply its current Internet traffic management solution to peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic thereby redistributing this traffic to lower usage periods.

4.2 What is peer-to-peer (P2P)?

13. The following is a brief description of peer-to-peer file sharing applications. A more detailed description can be found in Appendix 1. P2P is the name of a class of file sharing applications, including the popular BitTorrent, which may run "unattended" in order to transfer large files in the background. Typical interactive applications such as web browsing send and receive a certain amount of data every so often, but most of the time the computer is waiting for user interaction. The unattended P2P applications, on the other hand, use as much bandwidth as they can the whole time that they are running. These P2P applications may use as many as 40 to 100 Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) sessions at the same time, while a web browser uses two to four. This difference is often increased by so-called heavy users who might chose to run P2P on 2 or more computers at the same time. So, the P2P application not only uses considerably more traffic volume in the long run because it runs for a lengthy amount of time, it also uses up a disproportionate share of the available bandwidth at any given point in time because it uses so many concurrent TCP sessions. Therefore, hundreds of TCP sessions generated by a single user will negatively impact the experience of many others.

4.3 What is Deep Packet Inspection (DPI)?

14. The following is a brief description of DPI. A more detailed description can be found in Appendix 1. Bell's Internet traffic management solution uses network equipment that can perform DPI. DPI is used to examine each of the protocol headers that wrap the content in order to identify the type of application package being transmitted. This allows Bell to balance the delivery of different types of applications over a network similar to how a postal service needs to balance the delivery of time sensitive overnight packages and high volume bulk mail shipments. The postal delivery system uses identifiers on packages to identify different types of package content to balance the flow of time sensitive overnight packages with that of bulk mail shipments. In a similar way, DPI technology uses the communication protocol headers to identify the traffic type in order to balance the flow of web, video and other time sensitive traffic with that of delivery of high volume P2P traffic across a network at peak times. The actual content of the packet is not examined, just the protocol headers encapsulating the content. With the application identified, DPI can now balance the application traffic flows to manage the delivery of the real time traffic that can affect the user's experience the most while still delivering all network traffic.

4.4 What is Bell Canada actually doing to manage its network?

15. After a period of technical trials, Bell Canada began the deployment of its current Internet traffic management solution to its Sympatico retail customer base on 28 October 2007 during peak periods of Internet usage that typically occur in the early evenings and end in the early mornings (i.e. 4:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.). While the Company will continue to ensure that its solution reflects the impact of network utilization and evolving traffic patterns, the current upload/download rate speeds for P2P usage are gradually decreased at the beginning of the peak period and then gradually increased towards the end of the peak period. After additional software upgrades and trials, Bell Canada began the second phase and applied its current Internet traffic management solution to its wholesale Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) customer base on 14 March 2008. As of 10 April 2008, the Company has applied its current Internet traffic management solution to wholesale to the same extent as retail. The Company has reached substantial deployment of aggregation sites in its network which handle the vast majority of wholesale and retail traffic, with the remaining deployment to take place over the coming months.

16. Bell's Internet traffic management solution is intended as a mechanism to allow for a better allocation of bandwidth for all users that share a common network and is aimed at delivering a more positive and better experience on the network for all users during peak Internet usage periods. Bell Canada has restricted the application of its Internet traffic management solution to only P2P file sharing applications, including BitTorrent, which uses a well understood Internet protocol that is distinct from other types of Internet traffic such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). The Company's Internet traffic management solution is being applied in the same manner to all P2P traffic on its DSL Point to Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE) network, including both retail and wholesale services such as GAS.

17. The Company's GAS Tariff provides a broadband access service based on asynchronous digital subscriber line (ADSL) technology and enables a service provider to establish a high speed data access path between its end-user's premises and a Company serving wire centre. GAS uses available bandwidth above the voice-band on the same local loop as the end-user's Company or CLEC provided residential or business individual line. It includes logical paths to provide network connectivity between GAS Access arrangements and an ADSL Aggregated High Speed Service Provider Interface (AHSSPI) by aggregating traffic associated with each GAS Access served from groups of wire centres to a broadband access server (BAS) and subsequently aggregating such traffic from all Company provided BAS to the ADSL AHSSPI. Essentially, it also includes the backbone to transit traffic from the central office where the end-user is located to the nearest central office for the ISP's point-of-presence.

18. The Company's HSA Tariff is based on the same ADSL technology and enables a service provider to establish a high speed data access path between its end-user's premises and a Company serving wire centre. HSA also uses available bandwidth above the voice-band on the same local loop as the end-user's Company or CLEC provided residential or business individual line. However, HSA includes a dedicated Permanent Virtual Circuit (PVC) between the end-user's premises and the AHSSPI located in the Company's wire centre and is not aggregated via a Broadband Access Server (BAS). This dedicated channel can be used by the ISP to deliver features that require a permanent IP address, such as monitoring. This level of dedication is clearly reflected in the price of the service. Given this difference, HSA traffic is not subject to the Company's Internet traffic management solution.

19. In Bell Canada's network, a DPI device is located behind the BAS where retail and wholesale traffic is aggregated from multiple central offices. All traffic transiting through the BAS is subject to the Internet traffic management solution. HSA traffic does not transit through the BAS. As the following diagram clearly shows, GAS and retail traffic transit through the same path/equipment from an end-user up to and including the location where the Internet traffic management solution is applied. The Company's Internet network management solution applies to both uploads and downloads of P2P traffic during peak periods.

4.5 Results of Bell's Internet traffic management solution

20. Last fall, before the Company began deployment of its Internet traffic management solution to ease network congestion during peak usage periods, 5% of users were generating 60% of total traffic on the network and 60% of that traffic was P2P traffic, including BitTorrent. During peak periods, that same 5% of users were utilizing 33% of available bandwidth. In other words, 95% of Bell subscribers were being negatively impacted by a very small minority of Internet users primarily using P2P file sharing applications.

21. As a result of the application of its Internet traffic management solution, the Company has observed 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.

4.6 Allegations of problems caused by DPI

22. There have been several reports on various websites and in online forums, as well as allegations in CAIP's Application (see in particular paragraph 103), that the Company's Internet traffic management solution is affecting more than P2P applications, such as VoIP and Virtual Private Network (VPN) traffic, as well as online streaming traffic such as YouTube and Internet radio. The Company has investigated several of these reports and in each case has shown that traffic shaping was not the cause of the reported problem. Ongoing daily traffic reports and internal testing continue to confirm that VPN, VoIP and online streaming traffic such as YouTube and Internet radio are not being shaped or affected by the Company's solution. In fact, the Company has observed that usage of these streaming applications tends to spike during peak periods when the Internet traffic management solution is applied to P2P traffic as compared to levels that were being reached before implementation.

23. In working with wholesale customers and their end users to troubleshoot their reported problems, the Company has thus far been able to confirm that network management has not been the cause of any of the reported problems. Some of the reported problems were actually due to various unrelated factors, such as a slow third party server, clients modified from normal configurations, reported problem occurring outside traffic management hours, internal wiring issues, and a recent third party software patch with default settings.

24. Regarding allegations about "drastic reductions in transfer speeds" of CAIP's ISP members, the opposite is the case. Depending on the traffic mix, the Company has only observed a small drop in peak throughput as other types of traffic such as web browsing and audio or video streaming, previously impacted by congestion at peak periods, quickly filled the bandwidth made available through the use of Internet traffic management and therefore improved the customer online experience for such interactive and real-time activities.

25. While some wholesale ISP customers have been willing to troubleshoot their reported problems with the Company, unfortunately, there are a handful who to date remain unwilling to even discuss their alleged reported problem. Nevertheless, Bell Canada continues to encourage its wholesale ISP customers to bring to the Company's attention any reports that our Internet traffic management solution may be affecting more than P2P applications or negatively affecting traffic volumes and remains committed to working with them to resolve any potential problems (see Appendix 2 - DSL Traffic Management - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) that was recently shared with wholesale ISP customers).

4.7 Fact vs. Fiction

26. Notwithstanding the alleged reports referred to above and the unsubstantiated "observations" contained in the CAIP Application, the Company can confirm that:

- it is only applying its Internet traffic management solution to P2P file sharing applications during peak Internet usage periods;
- it is not applying its Internet traffic management solution to streaming applications such as YouTube or Internet radio;
- it has not been presented with any evidence that its Internet traffic management solution is having any impact on VPN or VoIP traffic;
- it is applying its Internet traffic management solution to its Sympatico retail and business customer base and to its wholesale DSL customer base who share a common network in the exact same manner and to the same extent;
- it is not applying its Internet traffic management solution to wholesale HSA traffic;
- it has not introduced its Internet traffic management solution to stem the tide of Sympatico customers to its wholesale competitors in the face of ongoing changes to Sympatico Internet access rate plans;
- it remains willing to work with any customer who is experiencing Internet service problems and in particular those believed to be caused by its Internet traffic management solution; and
- it has contacted its ISP customers and encouraged them to come forward with any suspected problems and remains committed to working with them.

5.0 CAIP'S REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM ORDER ON AN URGENT AND EXPEDITED BASIS

27. Among the numerous orders sought in the Application, CAIP has requested that the Commission issue the following interim orders "on an urgent and expedited basis":

a) "…directing Bell Canada to immediately cease and desist from using any technologies to "shape", "throttle" and/or "choke" its wholesale ADSL services;

b) … an order abridging the timeframes for the respondent to file its Answer to within four (4) business days of this Application and for the Application, CAIP, to file its Reply to within three (3) business days of Bell's Answer;"

28. Before granting a party interim relief under section 61(2) of the Act, the Commission has required the party requesting the relief to demonstrate that it meets the criteria for interim relief set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110, as modified by the Court's decision in RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. Known as the RJR-MacDonald criteria, these criteria are that:

a) there is a serious issue to be determined;
b) the party seeking relief will suffer irreparable harm if the interim relief is not granted; and
c) the balance of convenience, taking into account the public interest, favours retaining the status quo until the Commission has disposed of the issues.

29. In Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-38, Part VII Application by Bell Mobility Inc., Microcell Telecommunications Inc., Rogers Wireless Inc. and TELUS Mobility - Disconnection of wireless facilities at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, the Commission stated that "[a]n applicant for interim relief is required to establish that it has met all three of the RJR-MacDonald criteria." [emphasis added] Each of these three branches of the test is considered in the following paragraphs.

30. It is well accepted that the granting of interim relief is an "extraordinary" remedy and should be granted only in those circumstances which warrant taking such a drastic and extraordinary step (see Kanda Tsushin Kogyo v. Covely [1997] O.J. No. 56 at para. 3-4; Airport Limousine Drivers Assn. v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority [2005] O.J. No. 3509 at para. 85). In this case, CAIP has limited its justification for its request for such relief to vague allegations with no facts or evidence to support them.

i) Is there a serious issue to be tried?

31. Turning to the first of the three RJR-MacDonald criteria, namely the requirement that the Application raise a serious issue to be determined, the Company recognizes that the Supreme Court decided that the evidentiary threshold required to meet this test was a low one; that an application should only be denied under this first prong of the test if it is considered vexatious or frivolous. The Company submits that CAIP's Application fails to satisfy even such a low evidentiary threshold. CAIP has offered essentially three grounds upon which the Commission should grant its request. These three grounds are that:

i) Bell Canada is operating off tariff contrary to sections 24 and 25;
ii) Bell Canada's actions constitute an undue and unreasonable preference granted upon itself and a disadvantage applied to independent ISPs; and
iii) Bell Canada's actions violate the privacy of communications of its wholesale customers and their end-users and is controlling or influencing the content of telecommunications contrary to sections 7(i) and 36 of the Act.

The Company is not operating off tariff contrary to sections 24 and 25:

32. The GAS Tariff specifies the "maximum" downstream and upstream speeds that are available under the tariff. They are just that - maximum speeds - and the GAS Tariff clearly states that the speeds are "up to". Similar to its Sympatico service, the GAS Tariff does not guarantee the maximum speeds at all times. The Company offers its DSL service on a best efforts basis and cannot guarantee that it will have sufficient bandwidth or capacity available through the entire shared network. For those who want dedicated and more consistent speeds, they can purchase HSA. Furthermore, while the average usage per end user has increased substantially over the last three years since the GAS Tariff was approved, as of yet the Company has not filed for rate increases in spite of increases in the rate in the retail market in Ontario nor introduced bandwidth caps or usage billing to reflect similar movement in the retail market. (However, the Company does note an outstanding GAS Service Charge restructure filed on 9 November 2007, under Bell Canada Tariff Notice No. 7081, resulting in rate reductions in the charges associated with service activation and also included an increase in speeds with no change in monthly rates.)

33. All Company tariffs, including the GAS Tariff, are subject to all applicable tariffs, including General Tariff – 6716, Part 1, Item 10 (Terms of Service). Section 8.3 of the Company's General Terms of Service states that:

"Customers are prohibited from using Bell Canada's services or permitting them to be used so as to prevent a fair and proportionate use by others. For this purpose, Bell Canada may limit use of its services as necessary."

34. This fact is clearly stated in the Company's Master Communications Agreement for Tariffed (MCAT) services that each ISP purchasing GAS must execute. Furthermore, agreements with the Company's wholesale GAS customers typically include as an appendix Internet Use Policies that clearly provide that the customer agrees to comply with the Policies and to ensure that its end users comply with the Policies. Specifically, the Policies provide that the service may not be used "in a manner which is contrary to law or would serve to restrict or inhibit any other user from using or enjoying the service or the Internet."

35. The Commission has recognized that the Company's Terms of Service contain provisions that allow it to suspend or terminate service where a customer uses or permits others to use services so as to prevent fair and proportionate use by others. Given the existence of the Terms of Service, the Commission has stated that it is not necessary to include "network congestion" provisions in a specific Company tariff (see Telecom Decision CRTC 94-10; Telecom Order CRTC 94-1073). The Commission has extended this ability to cable carriers allowing them the right to suspend or terminate the service of an ISP's end-user who makes disproportionate use of the service (see Telecom Order CRTC 2000-789).

36. The Commission has also found that the making of a very large volume of calls in a short timeframe was taking up lines that were not available for other customers thereby preventing them from making fair and proportionate use of such lines (see Telecom Order CRTC 2003-378).

37. The Commission also took the preliminary view in Telecom Order CRTC 2000-789 that the attachment by an end-user of a server at its premises would not be "fair and proportionate use" of the cable carrier's access services. The purpose of a server is to serve content. In fact, P2P file sharing applications do behave like servers as they support the forwarding of content to other P2P users while receiving content. P2P file sharing applications actually allow external clients to connect via multiple sessions and download content, thus acting like a server.

38. Nevertheless, the Company has not fully exercised its discretion to "suspend or terminate" service of those wholesale ISP customers whose end users prevent a fair and proportionate use by others. Instead, the Company has made use of other technical options available, such as its Internet traffic management solution, that simply limit use of its service as necessary to ensure a fair and proportionate use by all its customers. In short, contrary to CAIP's allegations, the Company's traffic management measures are performed in a manner consistent with its tariffs and contractual obligations.

No unjust discrimination, undue or unreasonable preference, or undue or unreasonable disadvantage under s. 27(2):

39. As the Company has explained above, its Internet traffic management solution was first deployed to its Sympatico retail customer base and only recently did it begin the second phase with application to its wholesale DSL GAS customers who share the same network. Therefore, there has not been any discrimination, preference or disadvantage as between the Company and its wholesale GAS customers, let alone any unjust discrimination, undue or unreasonable preference or undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

40. Furthermore, while the Company, similar to any network provider, requires the flexibility to apply necessary traffic management solutions depending on the circumstances, the Company's current Internet traffic management solution is applied only during peak usage periods to alleviate network congestion and is only applied to P2P file sharing applications to better manage the bandwidth made available for their use. All P2P file sharing applications can still be used, but they will simply be slower for some users when traffic management is applied so as to redistribute P2P traffic from peak periods to off-peak periods. However, even though all P2P traffic is subject to the same rates during peak periods, those users with low to moderate usage of P2P during peak periods will simply not experience the same delay in their level of use.

Not affecting end-user's privacy nor controlling the content or influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications under s. 36:

41. As noted above, the Company's use of DPI as part of its Internet traffic management solution is such that it treats all P2P traffic the same and it only looks at the application header of the content but not the content itself. As part of its traffic management solution, the Company does not block access to any content or applications. Therefore, the Company is not affecting end-user's privacy nor is it controlling the content of influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications. As explained in more detail in Appendix 1, the DPI equipment used by Bell does not retain the information that it has reviewed from the packet headers and the content itself is not actually reviewed, analyzed or stored. Furthermore, it is also common knowledge that other Canadian ISPs also similar technologies in their networks to manage traffic.

ii) Will the Applicant suffer irreparable harm if the interim relief is not granted?

42. The second of the three RJR-MacDonald tests requires a consideration of whether the Commission's refusal to grant relief could "so adversely affect the applicant's own interests that the harm could not be remedied if the eventual decision on the merits does not accord with the results of the interlocutory application" (emphasis added). Where harm (if any) can be quantified in monetary terms, it is not irreparable. In addition, harm, to count under this prong, needs to be suffered by the applicant, not by third parties. Finally, while it is true that irreparable harm refers to the nature of the harm as distinct from its magnitude, the evidence as to irreparable harm "must be clear and not speculative" (see Ipsos Reid S.A. v. Reid [2005] B.C.J. No. 1674 at para. 84).

43. At paragraph 104 of its Application, CAIP outlines four elements of harm that independent ISPs have suffered as a result of the Company's "traffic shaping measures":

i) "Caused marked difficulty or rendered impossible for independent ISPs to properly manage the services that they provide to their end-customers;
ii) Dramatically reduced the volume of traffic that independent ISPs are able to deliver to Internet backbone providers. Consequently, they are paying for transit that they are not actually able to use;
iii) Forced ISPs to pay for GAS service components even though Bell is not delivering traffic at the volumes necessary to justify the cost or the need for these service components;
iv) Caused harm to independent ISPs in the form of threatened and actual cancellation of service contracts."

44. While the Company denies that independent ISPs have suffered any such harm as a result of its traffic management solution, the Company submits that even if they did suffer any such harm, that it does not amount to irreparable harm under the second test. Furthermore, CAIP has not provided any facts or supporting evidence whatsoever to prove any of the alleged harm, let alone that the harm is irreparable, having limited its statements to "observations" and its "knowledge". Not only is CAIP's evidence (to the extent there is any) not clear, it is completely speculative.

i) Caused marked difficulty or rendered impossible for independent ISPs to properly manage the services that they provide to their end-customers.

45. In the CAIP Application, this ground is presented in a one line allegation and surely cannot constitute "clear" evidence of irreparable harm. Further, Bell notes that ISPs have other options than purchasing access under Bell's GAS Tariff. They are free to lease unbundled local loops (or lease only the upper bandwidth portion of a loop through line sharing) and invest in co-location and their own DSLAMs. A number of ISPs have already done just that. If they do make these investments, ISPs have complete control of their backbone network and their traffic will not be managed by Bell Canada. In addition to unbundled loops and line sharing, ISPs can subscribe to wholesale high speed Internet access service from cable carriers through TPIA or can build their own access networks. All of these options would avoid any traffic management by Bell. They can also purchase HSA from Bell Canada which is not subject to traffic management. Given these options, the Commission found in Decision 2008-17 that GAS service was not an essential service.

46. But for many ISPs, GAS is the cheapest and thus the most economical solution. It is the most economical solution because it is designed to take advantage of the Bell retail network infrastructure (in contrast to the more expensive HSA service) by co-mingling its traffic with that of the Bell retail network. For this reason, ISPs cannot expect their traffic to be subject to preferential treatment on the shared network.

ii) Dramatically reduced the volume of traffic that independent ISPs are able to deliver to Internet backbone providers. Consequently, they are paying for transit that they are not actually able to use.

47. Regarding CAIP's allegation of "dramatically reduced" volumes of traffic, since traffic volumes are indeed measurable, then it is incumbent upon CAIP to adduce such evidence when seeking such extraordinary relief. It has not done so. Furthermore, the Company has seen in the online forums a similar allegation of dramatically reduced volumes and can confirm that such is not the case and that indeed there was only a minor/small decrease in traffic.

48. Even if true, this is money that independent ISPs would have spent in any event (i.e. if the interim order is granted they will still incur these charges) and therefore cannot constitute irreparable harm.

iii) Forced ISPs to pay for GAS service components even though Bell is not delivering traffic at the volumes necessary to justify the cost or the need for these service components;

49. As explained above, the GAS tariff requires that a wholesale ISP customer pay on a per user basis – full stop. There are no other "GAS service components". The "GAS service components" that CAIP refers to actually relate to bandwidth and the components needed by independent ISPs between the Company's central office and the ISP's location. These service components have nothing to do with the GAS Tariff. See ii) above for our comments regarding the allegation related to "volumes" of traffic.

50. Even if true, this is money that independent ISPs would have spent in any event (i.e. if the interim order is granted they will still incur these charges) and therefore cannot constitute irreparable harm.

iv) Caused harm to independent ISPs in the form of threatened and actual cancellation of service contracts.

51. To begin, CAIP has not produced any evidence of actual lost customers. In paragraph 106 of its Application, CAIP also claims that independent ISPs will suffer harm in the form of loss of good will and permanent market share loss, over and above lost revenues. CAIP also claims that the Company's "traffic shaping measures … directly curtails the ability of independent ISPs to compete in retail Internet access market."

52. While the Company has received emails and viewed online forum postings in which commenters have said they will no longer deal with Bell Canada, there are virtually no known instances of ISP customers suggesting they will leave their ISP. However, there are numerous postings suggesting increased loyalty to their ISP. Furthermore, it is unclear where their alleged "lost" customers have gone given other network providers manage their networks similar to Bell or already have introduced caps or usage billing. There is therefore no proof that they will not be able to recover any lost revenues.

53. CAIP alleges that Bell intentionally and for anti-competitive reasons deployed its Internet traffic management solution on its wholesale customer base at the same time as it introduced retail Sympatico service changes. This allegation is simply false. The Company has had usage based retail plans since 2002 when its Lite and Basic Lite services were first launched. Since then, the Company has continued making changes to its retail Sympatico plans such as when it introduced various usage thresholds in April 2006 or when it stopped offering unlimited usage rate plans in August 2007 up to the "stop-sell" of unlimited usage add-on plans effective 12 March 2008. The existence of usage based billing on the retail side has not affected the Company's ongoing need to continue to manage its network during peak periods for the benefit of all customers regardless of rate plan.

54. Finally, in paragraph 107 of its Application, CAIP also claims "that damage to the public interest in the orderly development of telecommunications and the privacy and inviolability of telecommunications carried by Bell, … cannot be compensated in damages". As stated above, not only is this not harm suffered by the Applicants which is a requirement for the second test, but the courts have clearly stated that when considering the second test of determining "irreparable harm", that any alleged harm to any one else other than the Applicant, including consideration of the public interest, should be considered as part of the third test under balance of convenience (see RJR MacDonald at p. 405).

Does the balance of convenience, taking into account the public interest, favour retaining the status quo until the Commission has disposed of the issues?

55. The final branch of the RJR MacDonald criteria requires the Applicant to satisfy the Commission that the balance of convenience, taking into account the public interest and any other special factors, favours granting the interim order requested.

56. There is no question that increasing traffic generally, and P2P file sharing traffic and video streaming content such as YouTube, is affecting the networks of Internet carriers across North America – even BitTorrent has acknowledged that service providers have to manage their networks somehow, especially during peak times:

"While we think there were other management techniques that could have been deployed, we understand why Comcast and other ISPs adopted the approach that they did initially," Eric Klinker, BitTorrent's chief technology officer, said in a statement (see BitTorrent press release, Comcast and BitTorrent form Collaboration to Address Network Management, Network Architecture and Content Distribution, dated 27 March 2008; see also letter from Comcast to the FCC Chairman dated 28 March 2008).

57. In order to continue to ensure a consistently high level of service for all of its customers, whether retail or wholesale customers, Bell Canada is required to manage its network in such a way that no customer, service or application consumes excessive bandwidth that may impede the use and enjoyment by other customers. This type of network management during peak periods allows Bell Canada to deliver a more consistent and reliable experience to all its customers who use real-time sensitive applications like browsing, instant messaging and streaming. All online applications continue to be available to all customers. All customers can continue to use P2P applications at any time. However, they will simply not work as fast for some users during peak Internet usage periods in order to ensure optimized service for all of our customers.

58. As noted above, 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.

59. Other providers in Canada and in the U.S. have implemented similar types of measures (see Comments of Comcast Corporation filed with the FCC on 12 February 2008 In the Matter of Broadband Industry Practices pp. 19-24). Even though Comcast in the U.S. has said they will stop shaping P2P and BitTorrent around year end when they will move to protocol agnostic shaping, they remain committed to managing bandwidth during congestion (see Comcast news release dated 27 March 2008; see also letter from Comcast to the FCC Chairman dated 28 March 2008).

60. While it is not appropriate to consider the harm that might be suffered by the Company and its customers should the interim relief be granted at the second stage of the RJR MacDonald test, it is appropriate to consider it at this stage when considering the balance of convenience (see RJR MacDonald at p. 405).

61. 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. 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.

62. It is the Company's view that the balance of convenience, taking into account the public interest, favours retaining the status quo until the Commission has disposed of the issues in CAIP's Application.

6.0 CONCLUSION

63. For all of the reasons discussed above, Bell Canada submits that CAIP's request for an interim order should be dismissed in its entirety.

64. All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of Bell Canada this 15 day April 2008.

How is traffic routed on the Internet?

Internet applications, such as email and web browsers, are used to communicate and share content over the Internet, typically between two end points. These network applications typically conform to a set of standards commonly known as the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol suite (TCP/IP).

The TCP protocol is designed to ensure delivery of the data unless the communication path between the two end-points has completely failed or is severely congested. TCP is also responsible for congestion detection and avoidance and thus will try to use as much bandwidth as the communication path can offer, without dropping packets. The IP protocol defines a set of identifiers or header information, such as IP addresses, that would allow the network to appropriately switch or route the data traffic (packets) to the intended recipients. Network equipment deployed in an ISP network, typically called a router, examines IP protocol header information, primarily the destination IP address, of each data packet and makes the necessary switching or routing decision to forward the data packet towards the receiver. These routers are also designed to efficiently route the traffic, handling failures by re-routing around parts of the network that have experienced communication failures.

In addition to the TCP and IP protocols, each Internet application supports its own application specific protocols. For example, email applications will conform to specific protocols that describe how email should be delivered or formatted. Web browsers and web servers will conform to specific protocols that describe how web pages should be transferred and displayed. Peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing protocols (such as BitTorrent) will specify all the necessary file transferring characteristics of each file transfer. These application specific protocols are described via a set of protocol headers that are typically transferred at the initial setup phase of the communication between the two end-points. To use the postal analogy, these protocol headers are the digital equivalents to the address label, content declaration and postage on a package handled by the postal system.

To exchange content, the sender application will first exchange a set of "setup" messages or "protocol headers" with the receiver before the actual content will be exchanged. In the case of P2P file sharing, there also will be a set of messages exchanged before the content is shared.

How does the Internet handle congestion?

Essentially, congestion occurs when the network receives more traffic from its users than it can transport to its destination. Internet routers deal with congestion by simply removing or dropping excess packets that it cannot deliver. Lost packets, therefore, are an indication of congestion. TCP therefore has congestion control algorithms that make sure packets are not sent too fast or too quickly, and that it slows down when it thinks there is congestion. All properly configured TCP applications incorporate the use of the congestion detection and avoidance algorithm known as TCP Windowing.

The goal of TCP is to maximize throughput. Each individual TCP session will try to use as much bandwidth as the communication path can offer without dropping packets. When TCP detects congestion it will scale back the transmission rate. Since each individual TCP session behaves and uses the same scale-back algorithm, each session will get a fair share of the bandwidth. This seems fair for applications that behave the same way on the network. But what happens when applications behave differently, such as P2P?

What is peer-to-peer (P2P) and how does it work?

Peer-to-peer networking does not have the notion of client and server nodes (computers), but only equal peer nodes that simultaneously function as both "clients" and "servers" to the other nodes on the network. P2P applications create numerous sessions to transfer pieces of the data from multiple end nodes, reassembling it upon successful receipt of all the pieces. The emergence of applications using Peer-to-peer networking across the Internet by consumers has created a dramatic change in network traffic behaviour, moving from a predictable flow based on interactive "query - response" sessions serving individual applications to "always on" background P2P multi-session activity which is only bounded by the available network capacity.

There are two ways that P2P file sharing applications unfairly use bandwidth compared to other non-P2P applications. First, a P2P application, rather than opening up only one stream or session, will open up 40 to 100 TCP sessions in an effort to transfer data as fast as possible using multiple sources and can therefore grab dozens to 100s times more bandwidth than a traditional single-stream application such as email or Internet banking applications (see the diagram below). By initiating more and more P2P applications on powerful computers, the user will continue to expand the number of active streams eventually consuming all available bandwidth. To further compound the bandwidth demand, some users will employ multiple computers on the same Internet connection.

Source: Fixing the unfairness of TCP congestion control, George Ou posted 24 March 2008
»blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1078&page=1

Second, once all the available bandwidth is being consumed, the P2P applications will use a queuing technique for additional requests until more bandwidth becomes available. The P2P application queuing of multiple requests combined with inherent application persistence of P2P enable it to sustain a continuous maximum network traffic load, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year, as long as there are queued requests.

What is Deep Packet Inspection or DPI?

The Internet traffic management solution that is being applied by Bell Canada is based on network equipment that can perform Deep Packet Inspection (DPI). Deep Packet Inspection is used to examine each of the protocol headers that wrap the content, in order to identify the type of package being transmitted. It is called "Deep Packet Inspection" because it looks beyond the routing addresses, deeper into the packet headers, to determine the type of package or application that is communicating. The actual contents of the communication exchange are not examined, just the protocol headers encapsulating the content. To continue the postal analogy, DPI can look at other identifying characteristics of the envelope, but not inside the envelope (see figure below).

Furthermore, there is evidence that some P2P file sharing applications traverse the network using TCP characteristics to look like web traffic in order to disguise their use. DPI therefore looks for protocol headers, commonly referred to as signatures, that properly identify the traffic as a P2P application regardless of how the application declares itself.

Therefore, before the introduction of DPI, network equipment or routers only looked at the destination IP addresses to make switching or routing decisions. With the use of DPI, it is now possible to properly identify P2P file sharing applications from other applications such as VoIP. Once the P2P file sharing traffic is properly identified, the DPI equipment implements a selective traffic shaping function on the identified P2P traffic. The DPI equipment does not retain the information that it has reviewed from the packet headers and the content itself is not actually reviewed, analyzed or stored.

Traffic shaping is therefore a relatively simple traffic management technique and could be described as a bandwidth allocation system. During peak periods, P2P traffic is given a certain bandwidth allocation (per hour or per second). If there is more P2P traffic than the allocation allows, the extra P2P traffic is queued up for later delivery. In severe congestion situations, similar to normal traffic behaviour, packets may be dropped. The other non-P2P traffic continues to be processed normally on a first come first served basis. During off-peak periods, when there is no congestion, no bandwidth allocation is applied to any traffic and the network will deliver as much traffic of all types as possible.

As noted above, in congestion situations, routers typically queue or drop packets indiscriminately, including interactive, time sensitive, packets causing degradation to these application sessions. When the network is congested or busy, it is therefore desirable to slow down, but never block, bulk traffic (lower urgency) in order to meet the demands of time sensitive traffic, such as web browsing, Internet banking, web access to Government services, audio or video streaming and VoIP.

Essentially, the Company is using its Internet traffic management solution during peak periods to apply an allocation to the amount of bulk packages being handled and redistributing the excess load of the bulk packages to off-peak periods thereby ensuring reasonable performance for other normal interactive and more time sensitive applications such as web browsing, Internet banking and audio or video streaming. During off-peak periods, all traffic, including bulk P2P file sharing traffic, would continue to maximize the use of all available bandwidth.

NOTICE

This answer is made by Bell Canada, c/o Mirko Bibic, Chief, Regulatory Affairs, 110 O'Connor St., 14th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1H1.

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to section 61 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, the applicant is permitted to mail or deliver or transmit by electronic mail a reply to this answer to the Secretary General of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Central Building, 1 Promenade du Portage, Gatineau (Québec) J8X 4B1, and to serve a copy of the reply on the respondent by 21 April 2008.

Service of a copy of the reply may be affected by personal delivery, by electronic mail, or by ordinary mail. In the case of service by personal delivery, it may be affected at the address set out above.

*** End of Document ***

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:42:33 EDT

The Flash :

said by Trisomy21 :

uh...use winzip?

work computer...

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:42:17 EDT

GearHead360 :

said by HiVolt :

said by daboom :

This is bull%^&% I hope CRTC weighs in favor of the CAIP.

From what I saw (I might be wrong). Bell didn't refer to a SINGLE ACT!!!

Just a a bunch of blah blah blah... we aren't doing anything bad... blah bla blah... we are shaping traffic for wholesalers (since they are a part of our network) WHICH IS A LIE!... blah blah blah

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:41:04 EDT

Trisomy21 : uh...use winzip?

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:40:49 EDT

HiVolt :

said by daboom :

This is bull%^&% I hope CRTC weighs in favor of the CAIP.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:40:31 EDT

The Flash : can someone post it here? I can't open zip.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:36:20 EDT

daboom : This is bull%^&% I hope CRTC weighs in favor of the CAIP.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:36:18 EDT

Trisomy21 : Bell Canada is required to manage its network in such a way that no customer, service or application consumes excessive bandwidth that may impede the use and enjoyment by other customers.

We're the Self-Appointed Internet Police. Downloading is bad and other protocols and individual users are clearly at risk as well.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:35:52 EDT

Tenar : Okay here is something I don't understand. Bell keeps saying that if ISPs have their own "Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs)" and that doing this "would avoid any traffic management activity by Bell"

I thought Teksavvy did in fact have that. So why are they being traffic shaped?

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:32:15 EDT

HiVolt :

said by sbrook :

And just who are the wholesalers that approve of this action by Bell????

I'm sure there are some that are loving this, because it will keep their bandwidth costs down.
--
GOLF LEAFS GOLF!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:31:37 EDT

GearHead360 : 4.7 Fact vs. Fiction

26. Notwithstanding the alleged reports referred to above and the unsubstantiated "observations" contained in the CAIP Application, the Company can confirm that:

- it is only applying its Internet traffic management solution to P2P file sharing applications during peak Internet usage periods;
- it is not applying its Internet traffic management solution to streaming applications such as YouTube or Internet radio;
- it has not been presented with any evidence that its Internet traffic management solution is having any impact on VPN or VoIP traffic;
- it is applying its Internet traffic management solution to its Sympatico retail and business customer base and to its wholesale DSL customer base who share a common network in the exact same manner and to the same extent;
- it is not applying its Internet traffic management solution to wholesale HSA traffic;
- it has not introduced its Internet traffic management solution to stem the tide of Sympatico customers to its wholesale competitors in the face of ongoing changes to Sympatico Internet access rate plans;
- it remains willing to work with any customer who is experiencing Internet service problems and in particular those believed to be caused by its Internet traffic management solution; and
- it has contacted its ISP customers and encouraged them to come forward with any suspected problems and remains committed to working with them.

BELL IS LYING TO THE CRTC!!!!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:30:24 EDT

sbrook : And just who are the wholesalers that approve of this action by Bell????

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:29:49 EDT

Trisomy21 : Basically.

Bell: "If you don't like it, build your own network"
Oh and apparently this isn't affecting VPN or VoIP or any other experience.

Finally

For all of the reasons discussed above, Bell Canada submits that CAIP's request for an interim order should be dismissed in its entirety.

So the Ball is in the CRTC's court now? How long do they have? I'm guessing it'll take them a year.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:27:37 EDT

HiVolt : What a bunch of hogwash.
--
GOLF LEAFS GOLF!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:23:03 EDT

Angelo_ : bell clearly said they don't care

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:20:55 EDT

andyb : Its just more double speak by bell.

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:20:23 EDT

sbrook : Full of the red herring of managing TCP/IP traffic!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:12:58 EDT

Etheric : Thanks andyb!

Re: No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:12:41 EDT

andyb : just posted to thier site

»www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/···5153.htm

I converted the doc to pdf because this site zips doc files.Hope it converted ok.

080415 - CAI···swer.pdf

No response from Bell to CRTC? Anyone?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:06:08 EDT

GearHead360 : So the response date has come and gone. So whats up? Is Bell trying to ignore the complaints & hope they go away?