Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
 ·Colbanet
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Anti-competitive
Other ISPs in Bell's service area (Videotron's cable service in Quebec) are not throttled.
Bell is, in effect, preventing wholesalers from effectively competing with unthrottled providers like Videotron.
This is similar to a big store selling stuff below cost to drive other smaller stores out of business.
Bell introduces throttling, Videotron doesn't. Bell loses a few customers, but they have many and can afford it. Also, they lose mostly the less profitable customers. Bell survives.
The wholesalers, though, they're small. They can't really afford to lose many customers, and their core user base tends to be much more affected by the throttling. They can't afford to take the hit, and go bankrupt.
End result? Even though Bell is throttling their own customers, Bell drives the wholesalers out of business by offering them up to the wolves (Videotron). Unable to effectively compete in the marketplace, and unable to take the hit of lost business due to their size and different customer demographic, the wholesalers tank!
If all ISPs throttled, this would not be the case. But since some major ISPs do not throttle, Bell is preventing the wholesalers from competing against non-throttled ISPs. That is anti-competitive. |
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy  :I don't understand that part of Karl's editorial. If Bell is throttling the bandwidth they retail, how is it anti-competitive if they do the same thing to their wholesale market? They're doing the same thing to others that they do to themselves, right? Mark BCE, the parent of Bell (telco), Bell Nexxia (wholesale network operator), Symaptico (ISP), and CTVGlobeMedia (content creator/provider/TV network/print publisher/newspaper), generically "Bell"
The ISP's are purchasing Gig-E pipes from Bell with guaranteed throughput between the DSLAMs and the NAP. This is in effect a 'leased line' in the old parlance, or PVC - a private virtual circuit.
Bell has no legal right to throttle the circuit under the terms of service.
Moreover, they are using DPI equipment to inspect each packet on the PVC, which is akin to the USPS illegally opening your mail, reading it, and then deciding how long to delay delivering to you based on the content, ranging from no delay through to never delivering. Bell is doing this without a warrant.
The throttle/DPI is occuring from 4pm - 2am, which is prime television viewing time. It is widely thought that Bell is implementing this throttling to create 'space' for their own imminent IPTV launch.
The CRTC (same as your FCC) has mandated through various 'tariffs' that all telco's and cable operators provide wholesale access to any ISP in order to foster a competitive internet access regieme in Canada. There is noting in the tariffs which permit a wholesale provider to delay or inspect traffic on these 'leased lines'.
Imagine for a moment that Bank of America had a similar network provided by ATT and configed similarly as one of the ISP's - branches connected via DSL to the local telco central office (CO), thence via leased capacity to a NAP and then on to BofA's datacenter.
Imagine that ATT did DPI on all the capacity between the CO and the NAP and delayed or dropped all encrypted traffic. Imagine dropped or seriously degraded banking or stock trading.
Imagine that BofA used Vonage for voice traffic over the same DSL link (implausible I know, but bear with me), and VoIP calls had so much jitter as to be unusable or 911 calls could not be connected.
Imagine that authorized BofA employees could not get connected from home or hotels via the corporate VPN due to the discarding of encrypted packets.
What do you think BofA would do to ATT?
All the above is happening in Ontario and Quebec to low millions of both individual and SME business customers because of Bell's actions. Do you get it what the issue is now? |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :That's not what Karl's editorial says. "prevents competitors from offering a superior product to Bell's throttled Sympatico service." That's why it didn't sound "anti-competitive." Ok think of it like this. Let's say the only grocery store in town is a small, run down dump with high prices, bad service, and poor selection.
You decide you're going to open a much better store in town. Modern, spacious, well lit, huge selection, good prices, friendly service. That's called competition.
So you do it...
... but then your competitors at the old Sleazy-Mart use their influence and power at Town Hall to pass a law that says your store has to be the same exact size, design, carry the same products, and have the same service as theirs. You don't want to, but you have to because they control the laws.
That would be anti-competitive, and while an analogy, it sorta fits what bell is doing to the wholesalers.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :I don't understand that part of Karl's editorial. If Bell is throttling the bandwidth they retail, how is it anti-competitive if they do the same thing to their wholesale market? They're doing the same thing to others that they do to themselves, right? Bell began throttling their users. Their users, hated it, and were pissed off, so (rightly so) they left Bell and went to third party competitors like TekSavvy. Bell, faced with a massive loss of customers, decided the way to nip this in the bud was to throttle the last mile they control between the customers and the wholesale ISP's. Result is they made everyone else's ISP service as bad as theirs.... No longer a reason to leave, if they are all throttled the same, eh? Yes, it's VERY anti-competitive.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
roymustang
Premium
join:2002-01-12
Oxford, MS | reply to nasadude
Fortunately?  |
|
adisor19
join:2004-10-11
·Velcom
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Radioactif
·Videotron
·Look Communications
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by En Enfer :said by amigo_boy :If Bell is throttling the bandwidth they retail That's the thing. They don't. That's not what Karl's editorial says. "prevents competitors from offering a superior product to Bell's throttled Sympatico service." That's why it didn't sound "anti-competitive." Mark Umm, what exactly is not clear here ? Bell Sympatico service is throttled. This is bad. Their wholesale service was not untill recently when Bell decided to throttle it because they saw their Sympatico client close their accounts and move to third party ISPs. Those 3rd party ISPs are no throttled so their service is as bad as Sympatico.
Do you see now the anti-competitive and hair raising move by Bell ?
Adi |
|
adisor19
join:2004-10-11
·Velcom
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Radioactif
·Videotron
·Look Communications
| reply to En Enfer
said by En Enfer :said by amigo_boy :If Bell is throttling the bandwidth they retail That's the thing. They don't. Umm, ya they do. Sympatico is throttled. That's their "retail".
Adi |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to amigo_boy
it's not so much anti-competitive as ILLEGAL/a breach of contract, since TSI's SLA's with Bell have no mention of p2p throttling, therefore they (Bell) have no right whatsoever to touch TSI's traffic. Over in the US, that'd be akin to Verizon implementing a Sandvine-like throttling technology on my wholesale Gig-E or metro ethernet line, and telling me it's to fulfill 'reasonable network management'. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by En Enfer :said by amigo_boy :If Bell is throttling the bandwidth they retail That's the thing. They don't. That's not what Karl's editorial says. "prevents competitors from offering a superior product to Bell's throttled Sympatico service." That's why it didn't sound "anti-competitive." Mark A superior product would be a product that is not throttled. Not sure how the dots aren't connecting on this for you.
Here:
Unthrottled Internet > Throttled Internet
Hope that helps. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :It still seems like an overstatement to me. If Bell didn't throttle its own service I could understand a claim of anti competition (like MS using unpublished APIs to give itself an edge). But, they're doing the same thing they do to themself. ... Mark see if this helps:
* the original market = nobody throttles anything, all equal
* next stage = Bell throttles their retail customers for their own (not very good) reasons, but wholesalers do not; wholesalers can use "we do not throttle" for competitive advantage
* terminal stage = Bell throttles everyone, including wholesalers; they have just taken away the ability of wholesalers to offer a better service, which is anti-competitive
fortunately, we don't have this problem in the U.S., as the FCC has destroyed the wholesale market. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to amigo_boy
Exactly... when you run and sell both parts of the infrastructure, you're not tempted to make profit off one for the other... you want it all.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to The Flash
Exactly...
ISP has its own pipe to the internet, which is currently being underused because of the throttling by Bell Canada at the point where the traffic is collected for both Bell Canada AND other ISP's. Bell believes that since this is part of their infrastructure (i.e. leased wholesale), they can throttle it, along with the competition because its their network, even though its leased out wholesale.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to en102
said by en102 :I guess you could see it that way... Forced baseline competition... I.E "We won't allow competitors to have less restrictions than we impose on ourselves", forcing the playing field to the lowest common denominator. 'Real' comptition would allow the competition to make use of their purchased bandwidth, and not compete at the throttled level (ie. sounds more like the days of regulation to me). I agree. The anti-competitive angle may be that Bell is involved in both wholesale and retail. If they weren't involved in retail they'd have more incentive to provide higher bandwidth on an open market (without concern for the effect it would have on their retail activities).
But, a lot of businesses do that. Apple comes to mind. It's almost impossible to find deep discounts on iPods. If Bell is being anti-competitive for forcing its retail interests onto the wholesale market, I think *a lot* of businesses would be guilty of that.
If Bell has an exclusive on Canada's network infrastructure that would make it different than the Apple example. It would be a question of whether it should be a public utility (which could be worse).
Mark |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to amigo_boy
I guess you could see it that way...
Forced baseline competition... I.E "We won't allow competitors to have less restrictions than we impose on ourselves", forcing the playing field to the lowest common denominator.
'Real' comptition would allow the competition to make use of their purchased bandwidth, and not compete at the throttled level (ie. sounds more like the days of regulation to me).
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to En Enfer
said by En Enfer :said by amigo_boy :If Bell is throttling the bandwidth they retail That's the thing. They don't. That's not what Karl's editorial says. "prevents competitors from offering a superior product to Bell's throttled Sympatico service." That's why it didn't sound "anti-competitive."
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to gaforces
said by gaforces :By making it so they cannot provide superior service than Sympatico, like they used to. It still seems like an overstatement to me. If Bell didn't throttle its own service I could understand a claim of anti competition (like MS using unpublished APIs to give itself an edge). But, they're doing the same thing they do to themself.
If they're supposed to provide more to the wholesale market than they do to themself, then *anything* would be anti-competitive. If they don't upgrade to the latest equipment, etc.
Mark |
|
The Flash
You don't win friends with salad
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Toronto, ON | reply to amigo_boy
Bell is throttling a regulated relationship with it's wholesalers... The service the wholesalers buy from Bell is what comes before it becoming the internet. |
|
En Enfer
This account has been compromised
join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC
·VIF Internet
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :If Bell is throttling the bandwidth they retail That's the thing. They don't.
--
"I unofficially declare Beaver Hunting Season is on!" (© DR_JAYMAHDI) |
|
CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA | reply to amigo_boy
They are using deep packet inspection to throttle traffic from another ISP. This is not their traffic, but that of the ISP. |
|
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
It is anticompetitive because by throttling their wholesale market they are taking away the choice of their resellers to throttle the traffic or not. The fact of the matter is what the ISP resellers buy they own. It shouldn't be up to the wholeseller how the reseller buys and markets their product to the customer. It's all fine and good what bell does to their retail market because the customers have a choice to use their service or not, but when it comes to a wholeseller telling the reseller what is good for the market, then you will run into problems because not all retail markets are the same. That is where a lot of our friends in the north are really getting pissed about.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within |
|
