Taylortbb
Premium
join:2007-02-18
Waterloo, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Johnnycanuk
Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest?
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 |
|
Johnncanuk
@bell.ca
| 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... |
|
tertech
join:2008-04-12
Ottawa, ON
edit:
May 10th, @09:48AM
| 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? |
|
boltz
join:2000-12-06
Guelph, ON | reply to Johnncanuk
Are you saying that teksavvy should be installing their own copper into the home.
How can you even think that that is feasible. |
|
Johnnycanuk
@bell.ca | 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... |
|
Johnnycanuk
@bell.ca
| reply to tertech
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. |
|
tertech
join:2008-04-12
Ottawa, ON
| 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. |
|
Sean
The Great Divide
join:2004-01-23
Richmond Hil
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Johnnycanuk
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. |
|
Taylortbb
Premium
join:2007-02-18
Waterloo, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Johnncanuk
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 |
|
