Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to Johnncanuk
Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? 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 |
