Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20457686 en Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:12:21 EDT Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:12:21 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20464262 Taylortbb :
said by Johnncanuk :

If TekSavvy has their own infrastructure, they would not be throttled. That being said, I agree that Bell needs to be more upfront about how, when and why they are throttling.
You don't understand how this works. TekSavvy does have their own infrastructure. They don't own their own DSLAMs, but they do own infrastructure. TekSavvy pays Bell for a connection from TekSavvy's infrastructure to the user's house.

Building that TekSavvy network and getting traffic from it to the internet requires they invest in infrastructure. So although it is true they don't own all the infrastructure, they own enough they can truly understand how much bandwidth BitTorrent uses. They pay their tier ones to the 95th percentile for all the internet traffic their subscribers generate.

That covers the internet connection, but what about the TekSavvy network to customer connection that they subcontract to Bell? Well in that case the rates are set at cost + 15% profit. If Bell doesn't have enough bandwidth they should light more fibre to that CO (I assure you they have extra). Bandwidth is effectively an infinite resource; not to be confused with a free resource. There is no practical limit on how much you can have, as long as you're willing to pay. There isn't a global shortage of networking equipment. Bell's argument there isn't enough bandwidth is therefore total BS.

It's really quite simple, TekSavvy pays Bell for 5Mb/s, Bell should deliver what was paid for. The only way there can be congestion is if Bell sold bandwidth that wasn't there. I understand overselling and I don't have a problem with it, as long as they keep track of peak demand and keep capacity ahead of it. It's like ordering and paying for a large fries at a restaurant, then being given a small because a "large would cost too much to provide". If it's been paid for it should be provided, plain and simple.
--
Taylor Byrnes
www.taylorbyrnes.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20464262 Sun, 11 May 2008 04:03:00 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461028 Sean :
said by Johnnycanuk :

Definitely agree for the copper loop. The internet infrastructure, such as DSLAM, Core routing equipment, etc. was not. It was built on Bell Nexxia's dime and the return on investment flows through Sympatico. The argument could be made that wireline dollars funded that, but you could also argue that it was built after the CRTC opened up the market to competition.
Are you fuckin stupid?

Where did the "return on the dime" come from? Nothing would have happened without consumer tax dollars. They would not have the network to run their DSLAMs on without the network.

You can't seperate it. THEY MADE MONEY BECAUSE WE LET THEM. Just because they reinvest those profits, does not mean those profits were not the result of tax payer money.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461028 Sat, 10 May 2008 11:03:51 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460848 tertech :
said by Johnnycanuk :

It was built on Bell Nexxia's dime and the return on investment flows through Sympatico.
R.O.I. also flows through the $20/mo/customer that the 3rd party ISPs pay Bell for the leasing of those DSLAMS, core routing equipment, etc. I'm just guessing here, but I could imagine that more revenue is generated through just providing that leased pipe than would be generated by a Sympatico customer, given the additional overhead of Internet access and individual billing accounts.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460848 Sat, 10 May 2008 09:59:45 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460665 anon : Not the copper, but the equipment at the other end of the copper loop in the CO. DSLAMs, Core routing equipment, etc.

I would agree that saying they have to build out to every home would be WAY too extreme...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460665 Sat, 10 May 2008 08:56:08 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460678 anon : Definitely agree for the copper loop. The internet infrastructure, such as DSLAM, Core routing equipment, etc. was not. It was built on Bell Nexxia's dime and the return on investment flows through Sympatico. The argument could be made that wireline dollars funded that, but you could also argue that it was built after the CRTC opened up the market to competition.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460678 Sat, 10 May 2008 08:55:53 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20459637 boltz : Are you saying that teksavvy should be installing their own copper into the home.
How can you even think that that is feasible.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20459637 Fri, 09 May 2008 22:52:32 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20458890 tertech :
said by Johnncanuk :

nobody is willing to invest heavily enough to be competitive without using another providers assets.
Whose assets? I kinda recall the Canadian taxpayer funding those assets and entrusting them to Bell to maintain. In exchange for their services, Bell had a legislated monopoly for years. Now suddenly the infrastructure is theirs?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20458890 Fri, 09 May 2008 19:59:04 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20458352 anon : If TekSavvy has their own infrastructure, they would not be throttled. That being said, I agree that Bell needs to be more upfront about how, when and why they are throttling.

As for the whole Bell vs. Net Neutrality, please remember that Bell is not the only one doing this... I think you have it right by saying there are probably too few players, but nobody is willing to invest heavily enough to be competitive without using another providers assets.

I also think TekSavvy is playing this one a little too hard. Rocky is playing the victim card to it's most. I can't blame him, but them if I don't, I have to give Bell a pass too... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20458352 Fri, 09 May 2008 17:41:24 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457828 Taylortbb : Actually I'm not going to tell I'm using BitTorrent exclusively for Linux ISOs. I download movies and music, I admit it. I also use BitTorrent fairly often for "legit" purposes (Linux ISOs mainly), it probably represents about 30% of my use of BT. I say "legit" in quotes because in Canada sharing copyrighted material privately is legal, as it should be.

The problem here is that Bell is throttling TekSavvy. It's one thing for Bell to throttle their own customers, it's another thing entirely to throttle people who use wholesalers. I chose TekSavvy specifically because it isn't throttled. Market forces work, if there is demand for unthrottled internet it will be profitable for someone to offer it. The problem is Bell/Rogers are a duopoly and it's gone to their head. They have forgotten that competition exists and rather than compete fairly they wish to strong-arm their competitors out of business.

TekSavvy also isn't simply a "white label" service. TekSavvy has their own routers and their own connection to the internet. TekSavvy fully understands the expense of providing unthrottled connections, they can look at their before and after bandwidth graphs to see the difference in traffic. Bell's congestion claim is BS, the bandwidth is paid for by TekSavvy. Even if there is congestion, that's why TekSavvy pays Bell over 500k a month, so they can provide the service TekSavvy pays for.
--
Taylor Byrnes
www.taylorbyrnes.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457828 Fri, 09 May 2008 15:47:22 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457772 tertech :
said by Johnnycanuk :

I would love to know what percentage of the people complaining about this are actually using P2P for legitimate reasons.
If it were only P2P that would be a different story. In their surgical sledgehammer approach, they are apparently throttling all encrypted traffic - like the VPN connection I use to work from home. They deny doing that and expect everyone experiencing such problems to report it on a case by case basis.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457772 Fri, 09 May 2008 15:37:35 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457700 anon : But the ISPs are using the same network infrastructure. If they were simply leasing the local loop, I would agree with you. Until the day the reseller ISPs invest in their own network and have to manage the load, I have to say I don't mind having my P2P throttled at peak times of day. Quite frankly, it doesn't bother me that the song I am downloading takes a few minutes. I just queue a few up and go play a game.

I would love to know what percentage of the people complaining about this are actually using P2P for legitimate reasons. I am sure they will all respond that they are not just downloading movies and music and games, but NEED the bandwidth to share their scientific findings at 2am and everyone wants to watch the latest CBC uber-hit, the Next Great Prime Minister. Yeah, those are real mainstream applications. (/sarcasm)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457700 Fri, 09 May 2008 15:23:34 EDT Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457686 mlerner :
said by sherman10570 See Profile :

I believe that Bell Nexxia is doing something much worse than violating any "Network Neutrality" principle. They are deliberately crippling their competitor's ability to provide a certain level of service. Is this not an unfair trade practice (punishable by law)?

- Sherman
This could very well fall under competition laws but this particular type of case has never been challenged, at least in Canada. The CRTC (Canadian version of the FCC) is still deciding whether a stop order can be issued and then it will deliberate whether it is legal.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457686 Fri, 09 May 2008 15:20:23 EDT How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457644 sherman10570 : I thought the term "Network Neutrality" referred to the treatment of traffic used by a customer outside of their ISP's network. For example, a Verizon FIOS customer downloads a movie from Amazon. Verizon's respect of "Network Neutrality" would be to not degrade or otherwise impede the flow of that traffic (outside of their normal network practices). Am I incorrect?

The Bell Nexxia (Bell Canada's wholesale division) situation appears to be much different. In this situation, the independent ISP is leasing a direct connection to the customer (think buying a cell phone without service). Nexxia is now shaping the traffic that flows from the customer to their own ISP (before it even reaches the internet).

I believe that Bell Nexxia is doing something much worse than violating any "Network Neutrality" principle. They are deliberately crippling their competitor's ability to provide a certain level of service. Is this not an unfair trade practice (punishable by law)?

- Sherman]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457644 Fri, 09 May 2008 15:11:18 EDT