TheOne85CA
join:2007-11-22
Burlington, ON
| reply to StEC
Re: Cogeco Bandwidth Throttling --MUST READ--
said by StEC  :Why Cogeco allows porn without restriction but limits music is beyond me but it's obvious they are looking at what is going through their pipes and picking and choosing what is acceptable to them and what's not??? Your wrong...we throttle porn too  lol
All jokes aside, Cogeco is a corporation run by geeks. Its technical staff are geek, much of its field techs are geeks and the people that would do the throttling...well lets not even go there! To put it bluntly; Cogeco doesn't perform TCP/IP resets. Those figures could have been caused by any number of things, not to mention interruptions in service caused by maintenance, upgrades or equipment failure. Like most of you have said, the majority of this 'evidence' is really not conclusive of anything. |
|
ilnexistepas
@artikel10a.at | HAHAHAHAHAHA
You must be joking. It is the only thing that could explain the BS. Unless, you are trying out for a public relations job for Cogeco. |
|
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| reply to TheOne85CA
said by TheOne85CA :All jokes aside, Cogeco is a corporation run by geeks. Its technical staff are geek, much of its field techs are geeks and the people that would do the throttling...well lets not even go there! To put it bluntly; Cogeco doesn't perform TCP/IP resets. Those figures could have been caused by any number of things, not to mention interruptions in service caused by maintenance, upgrades or equipment failure. Like most of you have said, the majority of this 'evidence' is really not conclusive of anything. We were told the same thing regarding bandwidth caps and the like, and we still got screwed over, be it by the "geeks" or the suits who command the geeks. This situation is no different. Sorry, but I don't believe a word of anything you just said.
--
I swear that I will faithfully and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. |
|
Cogeco Blues
@cgocable.net
| reply to QuickSurfer
I'm pretty sure Cogeco do some sort of bandwidth throttling that I'm occasionally can workaround with port forwarding, Still upload speed is way under 15-10KB/s.
Next problem is the stupid DL / UL Cap, I upgraded to the Pro and still get the damn warning towards end of the month that I exceeded my limit. This is really annoying for the price they charge (Over $60 per month) |
|
Gullible
@co.uk | reply to QuickSurfer
Good grief, is there still actual any kind of doubt that this is being done? |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
 ·BlueYonder Interne..
 ·Be There
1 edit | reply to TheOne85CA
said by TheOne85CA :Your wrong...we throttle porn too lol All jokes aside, Cogeco is a corporation run by geeks. Its technical staff are geek, much of its field techs are geeks and the people that would do the throttling...well lets not even go there! To put it bluntly; Cogeco doesn't perform TCP/IP resets. Those figures could have been caused by any number of things, not to mention interruptions in service caused by maintenance, upgrades or equipment failure. Like most of you have said, the majority of this 'evidence' is really not conclusive of anything. So the explanation for the results is that the network sucks rather than intentional throttling? Would you like a shovel?
I hope that people will happily believe no TCP resetting is done, that doesn't mean that there is no shaping however. Shaping can induce resets without actually setting the bits in the TCP header itself.
This is ridiculous, totally ridiculous. Just a 'yes we throttle' or 'no we don't' rather than playing the Comcast card of 'We don't perform TCP resets' as the official statement said would be good. Anecdotal evidence as repeated over and over again on this board, and with the Azureus plugin a very precarious but nonetheless present empirical evidence suggests that it's the case.
For a corporation 'run by geeks' this lack of transparency is shocking. |
|
hdtvguy
So Much For Subtlety
Premium
join:2003-11-12
St Catharines, ON
| 
WireShark on Cogeco | 
WireShark on Relakks |
said by Ignite :For a corporation 'run by geeks' this lack of transparency is shocking. As for shaping I don't have enough empirical data to state for certain that traffic shaping is the sole cause of our bitorrent woes. But after 6 months with a VPN provider I won't torrent directly through Cogeco. Every once in awhile I will run WireShark and I keep getting the results in the two photos I've provided.
It may be that Cogeco is being opaque here and though not directly shaping itself, but maybe one of its bandwidth providers is the culprit.
--
°°°The Canadian Slovak - 65 Years in Print°°° |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs: | OK and why exactly would a company that makes its' money selling bandwidth on a per Mbit basis shape its' customers so that they use less bandwidth?
Exactamundo... |
|
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| said by Ignite :OK and why exactly would a company that makes its' money selling bandwidth on a per Mbit basis shape its' customers so that they use less bandwidth? Ask Bell. |
|
ixiom
join:2004-06-30
Hamilton, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Ignite
said by Ignite :OK and why exactly would a company that makes its' money selling bandwidth on a per Mbit basis shape its' customers so that they use less bandwidth? Exactamundo... They make their money on the speed...and traffic shaping BT doesn't affect most of their clientele and the less usage, the less it costs them (sort of). |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
1 edit | said by ixiom :They make their money on the speed...and traffic shaping BT doesn't affect most of their clientele and the less usage, the less it costs them (sort of). You've never purchased IP transit, have you? Transit providers don't shape, full stop. Peers don't shape, full stop. If an ISP they might to their own customers but certainly not at AS edge / core level, it's stupid and the hardware around isn't good enough yet. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| reply to Snickerdo
said by Snickerdo :Ask Bell. Bell make their money selling retail DSL I imagine. The wholesale is an irritating distraction. |
|
ixiom
join:2004-06-30
Hamilton, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Ignite
Wasn't saying I agree with it, don't get all uppity!
Just saying that if they can limit the traffic from BT, it will cost their infrastructure less and therefore increase their bottom line.
I cancelled bell and switched to Cogeco. Haven't really seen any throttling as of yet. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| said by ixiom :Wasn't saying I agree with it, don't get all uppity! Just saying that if they can limit the traffic from BT, it will cost their infrastructure less and therefore increase their bottom line. I cancelled bell and switched to Cogeco. Haven't really seen any throttling as of yet. I wasn't getting uppity just stating the facts as I'm aware of them. The whole point of IP Transit is that the infrastructure is a relatively fixed cost and they seek to utilise it as heavily as possible. You have a 10Gbit ethernet port, you pay the same for that wavelength whether your customer is using 1Gbit or 10Gbit of it, while they pay say 40 bucks a Mbit/sec per month. Where's the sense in restricting how much they pay you, and adding more to your infrastructure cost in the hardware needed to shape?
The standard story on here appears to be that throttling is only done on upstream. |
|
ixiom
join:2004-06-30
Hamilton, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| said by Ignite :I wasn't getting uppity just stating the facts as I'm aware of them. The whole point of IP Transit is that the infrastructure is a relatively fixed cost and they seek to utilise it as heavily as possible. You have a 10Gbit ethernet port, you pay the same for that wavelength whether your customer is using 1Gbit or 10Gbit of it, while they pay say 40 bucks a Mbit/sec per month. Where's the sense in restricting how much they pay you, and adding more to your infrastructure cost in the hardware needed to shape? The standard story on here appears to be that throttling is only done on upstream. Hold on...I'm talking about Bell exclusively here, not Cogeco. I have seen no Shaping or Throttling on my Cogeco Soho Internet since I switched, Uploading or Downloading. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
3 edits | said by ixiom :Hold on...I'm talking about Bell exclusively here, not Cogeco. I have seen no Shaping or Throttling on my Cogeco Soho Internet since I switched, Uploading or Downloading. Sorry but what are you talking about? I think you've lost the plot somewhat here. Firstly this is the Cogeco forum so I'm not sure of the relevance of what Bell do or do not do on their retail or wholesale platforms. Second if you follow the thread it goes like this:
quote:
It may be that Cogeco is being opaque here and though not directly shaping itself, but maybe one of its bandwidth providers is the culprit.
quote:
OK and why exactly would a company that makes its' money selling bandwidth on a per Mbit basis shape its' customers so that they use less bandwidth?
Which I would have thought it's pretty clear refers to a bandwidth provider of Cogeco, an IP transit provider as Cogeco obviously do not use the throttled Bell DSL infrastructure. Google it if you don't know what transit is.
quote:
They make their money on the speed...and traffic shaping BT doesn't affect most of their clientele and the less usage, the less it costs them (sort of).
Is nothing at all to do with transit, which is charged on usage, with an assured minimum charge.
You either totally lost the sequence of the thread when Bell were mentioned, or have no idea what you're talking about, or possibly a bit of both. Either way Bell and what they do or do not do are totally irrelevant to Cogeco's network and any possible throttling. Your service personally is of course not indicative of the entire Cogeco network any more than my service is indicative of every subscriber of my ISP... |
|
ixiom
join:2004-06-30
Hamilton, ON | You're a very angry person aren't you?...To make you feel better...yes, you're entirely right, I'm completely wrong and probably a lunatic... |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
4 edits | said by ixiom :You're a very angry person aren't you?...To make you feel better...yes, you're entirely right, I'm completely wrong and probably a lunatic... So again you can't actually answer any of the points in the post but persist on painting me as some kind of emo kid for disagreeing with you. Your prerogative and I guess it's at least better than talking total irrelevance about some third party whose policies have no bearing at all on the Cogeco broadband internet service. |
|
jsmaster
join:2008-03-16
Montreal, QC
·Videotron
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to T9
said by T9 :
Well, they've told me in the past, when I asked, that they do not throttle. I was clear, and the response was clear, and I didn't get the impression that he was lying. The data is questionable, so it needs to be looked into further, but Cogeco has been the best ISP I've seen so far (in my area anyway), so I'm really hoping they're not throttling.
From wich sources it is ? I don't think it is a reliable test or something. It's like an hidden marketing process |
|
ixiom
join:2004-06-30
Hamilton, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Ignite
said by Ignite :Sorry but what are you talking about? I think you've lost the plot somewhat here. Firstly this is the Cogeco forum so I'm not sure of the relevance of what Bell do or do not do on their retail or wholesale platforms. Second if you follow the thread it goes like this: quote:
It may be that Cogeco is being opaque here and though not directly shaping itself, but maybe one of its bandwidth providers is the culprit.
quote:
OK and why exactly would a company that makes its' money selling bandwidth on a per Mbit basis shape its' customers so that they use less bandwidth?
Which I would have thought it's pretty clear refers to a bandwidth provider of Cogeco, an IP transit provider as Cogeco obviously do not use the throttled Bell DSL infrastructure. Google it if you don't know what transit is. quote:
They make their money on the speed...and traffic shaping BT doesn't affect most of their clientele and the less usage, the less it costs them (sort of).
Is nothing at all to do with transit, which is charged on usage, with an assured minimum charge. You either totally lost the sequence of the thread when Bell were mentioned, or have no idea what you're talking about, or possibly a bit of both. Either way Bell and what they do or do not do are totally irrelevant to Cogeco's network and any possible throttling. Your service personally is of course not indicative of the entire Cogeco network any more than my service is indicative of every subscriber of my ISP... Fine. The relevance is that someone said 'ask bell', and that's where I entered the conversation. That's the relevance of talking about bell...Also, basically anything to do with Shaping right now has to do with bell or a comparison to bell.
Yes I know what IP Transit it, it just doesn't apply to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Bell and Cogeco, neither of which are buying wholesale if I'm not mistaken. If I were talking about Teksavvy then we could talk about IP Transit and what it has to do with everything. I'm not. Bell, and Cogeco unless I'm mistaken, make their money from their subscribers' fees. If 90% of their subscribers only use 5 gigs of usage a month...that's a whole lot of available bandwidth they can continue to sell before upgrading hardware to handle additional load. But some BT users use a TON of bandwidth...but still only pay the same month fee (because of their 'unlimited' subscription...So the ISP is forced to buy costly hardware and upgrade their physical infrastructure before they want to. So throttling is very beneficial and cost saving to them.
I don't know if Cogeco has their own Link to the net or buys off of someone else. If they do, fine, you can continue your tirade on IP Transit until you're blue in the face. I was under the assumption that they were connected to the net in the same (general) way Bell (Sympatico) is. Rather than freak out, why don't you just ask what I mean or what I'm trying to say if you don't get where I'm going. |
|
