jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| Simple document to help explain the issues
I've written a simple 4 page document that describes who does what in the ADSL system (aka: ISPS are not reselling a white label Bell internet service).
I did this because so many people and government employees have no clue on how it works and it is important that people can see through Bell's PR efforts to mislead people into thinking what Bell is doing is acceptable.
If you know someone who would benefit from this document, feel free to distribute it.
it is at :
»www.vaxination.ca/crtc/ADSL_intro.pdf
Get it quick and disseminate before I get cease and desist order from Mister and/or Mrs Deadpool  |
|
nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| I like it, especially the analogy. That is something that a non-technical person can understand. You might also want to expand that analogy by pointing out that Bell inserts those "beeps" in something like 9 out of 10 sentences, making it almost impossible to carry on a conversation.
quote:
CONCLUSION
When Bell agrees to a 3 year contract to supply a certain amount of capacity to an ISP, Bell must do whatever it takes to deliver that capacity. Any inability to provide the bandwidth for which an ISP has paid must be solved by Bell adding capacity to its internal backbone to rectify the situation. The nature of the ADSL service prohibits Bell Canada from looking inside and modifying the PPPoE packet payloads. Nothing inside the PPPoE packet payloads belongs to Bell's network and Bell has no right to manage those contents.
What Bell Canada is doing is tantamount to listening to telephone conversations for specific words, and sending a "Beep" to disrupt a conversation whenever such word has been detected, forcing the person to repeat a sentence. The precedent, if allowed to be set, is very serious and would undermine the concept of a trustable common carrier in Canada.
|
|
UT_CK
Premium
join:2008-01-28 | reply to jfmezei
Nice document. Great job on the explanations.
we should send this stuff to MP's and Prentice.
Regards,
CK
{:(B) |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC | Already sent to some politicians |
|
HiVolt
29
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
clubs: | reply to jfmezei
Very nice explanation. Still a bit techy for the average joe to understand though.
--
GOLF LEAFS GOLF! |
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei  :I've written a simple 4 page document that describes who does what in the ADSL system (aka: ISPS are not reselling a white label Bell internet service). Good one JF.
Stretching the document past 4 pages runs the risk of it not being read, but I would add that Bell could be building a database, without anyone's knowledge or consent, of private information about individuals who are not their customers - the purpose or intent of which is unknown.
A couple of days max. would be all it would take to start building databases and sifting through it - whether it was Bell for their own purposes, or on CSIS's behalf. |
|
anonagain
@candlelight.ca
| reply to jfmezei
With the greatest respect, I think you may be mistaken.
Having read the tariff (filed with the CRTC and pretty close to the bible in any dealings based on a tariff structure) carefully, it looks like the tariff actually describes AHSSPI as being a "burstable" service.
Quote: "1000 Mbps (Burstable up to 1000 Mbps) per service provider / 1000 Mbit/s," is the language in the tariff.
Since "burstable" generally translates to "oversubscribed" in network-provisioning-speak, is it not actually possible the Bell has been caught with their pants down and really does have a problem with congestion at the core network level with AHSPPI?
Please consider »www.bce.ca/en/aboutbce/regulator···20%20%20
Just a thought, as it seems like there is a lot of discussion about what should be rather than what is actually printed on the tariff that Bell is bound by.
I would be very interested to hear Rocky's point of view here as it certainly seems to me that Bell has all kinds of wiggle room to justify their congestion argument, frivolous though that argument may be.
George |
|
bgw
@teksavvy.com | reply to jfmezei
Now linked to on the ehmac.ca forum. |
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com | reply to anonagain
It would all depend on what Rocky's contract stated. |
|
anonagain
@candlelight.ca
| Just so.
And that would likely depend on when it was signed, and perhaps what the tariff language was at the time. I have no idea what would rule in court, the tariff or the contract.
I see that DS-3 and OC-3 are fixed rate, but all the Ethernet delivery options are burstable.
To my mind, that's a potential issue.
George |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to anonagain
Quote: "Quote: "1000 Mbps (Burstable up to 1000 Mbps) per service provider / 1000 Mbit/s," is the language in the tariff."
There are no descriptions of what an acceptable sustainable rate for a 1gbps link is to be.
The fee structure doesn't take into account actual usage, it is a fixed fee. Some services give you a 1gbps pipe, but only charge you for what you actually use (eg: measure the bursts). In such cases, your monthly bill can vary if your users change their patterns significantly.
So since the AHSSPI doesn't specify acceptable average utilisation rates, nor do the fees vary, then the term "burstable" doesn't have much of a meaning.
Also, cosnider a case where an ISP buys 4gpbs capacity, but because of the way AHSSPI is built, it requires 4 separate 1gps feeds. If you burst your second link a lot, but all others remains well below the 1gbps mark, how would it be billed if it were a variable charge ? |
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON | reply to jfmezei
Even with burstable, if you can't provide 1000 Mbps at ANY time then you have bigger problems. If they're oversubscribed, they should upgrade their f**** network! That's part of what Teksavvy pays Bell for. |
|
anonagain
@candlelight.ca
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei9
There are no descriptions of what an acceptable sustainable rate for a 1gbps link is to be.
The fee structure doesn't take into account actual usage, it is a fixed fee. Some services give you a 1gbps pipe, but only charge you for what you actually use (eg: measure the bursts). In such cases, your monthly bill can vary if your users change their patterns significantly.
So since the AHSSPI doesn't specify acceptable average utilisation rates, nor do the fees vary, then the term "burstable" doesn't have much of a meaning.
Also, consider a case where an ISP buys 4gpbs capacity, but because of the way AHSSPI is built, it requires 4 separate 1gps feeds. If you burst your second link a lot, but all others remains well below the 1gbps mark, how would it be billed if it were a variable charge ?
[/BQUOTE : You hit on the issue. There is absolutely no description about what you get when you buy a 1 gig burstable link. None. Zero. Nada. I've been on both sides of the debate long enough (about 36 years as a customer or a provider give or take) to know that when there is vague language, whoever has the most, and most expensive lawyers tends to win. Contracts with Sprint, AT&T, Bells of all colours, MCI, Worldcom, Quest, NTT, BT etc. "Burstable" is one of the best get-out vague descriptions there has ever been. It clearly means you don't get a gig full time, but it doesn't guarantee what you do get. Good contracts specify a CIR/MIR/95% percentile, plus they specify a service level agreement for getting 'stuff' fixed. Further, they define what 'stuff' actually means. And they specify who is monitoring the 'stuff', how it is monitored, and what the dispute resolution mechanism is. In other words, the tariff sucks. I really hope this doesn't torpedo the whole claim with Bell. As Bell sucks anyway. I would love to hear the exact contract language vis a vis the tariff... George |
|
anonagain
@candlelight.ca
| reply to mlerner
said by mlerner :Even with burstable, if you can't provide 1000 Mbps at ANY time then you have bigger problems. If they're oversubscribed, they should upgrade their f**** network! That's part of what Teksavvy pays Bell for. er, no, not really.
It appears Teksavvy and others in this boat pay for a burstable 1 gig connection times however many connections they pay for. Please define 'burstable' to the satisfaction of a court or the gaggle of lawyers surrounding this debate at the CRTC.
Wishing ain't gonna make it happen. This is a contract dispute, not a debate on Karma. We already know how the discussion on Karma is going to turn out...
George |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| >This is a contract dispute, not a debate on Karma
Actually, it is a debate on Karma. If we are to win this, it will be because Bell's lobbying to politicians will ne negated by our lobbying of politicians and media so they learn abouty our side of the story.
Say all politicians were to receive my document (or something similar), it would remove much credibility from Bell should it insist on continued use of "resell a white label internet service" type of arguments.
And think about it: whatever "burstable" means, ISPs are still buying a certain amount of bandwidth. If a 1gbps link really only means 500mbps, then so be it. Once you've define exacly how much bandwidth 1gbps burstable really means then Bell should be forced to provide it. |
|
anonagain
@candlelight.ca
| said by jfmezei :>This is a contract dispute, not a debate on Karma Actually, it is a debate on Karma. If we are to win this, it will be because Bell's lobbying to politicians will ne negated by our lobbying of politicians and media so they learn abouty our side of the story. Say all politicians were to receive my document (or something similar), it would remove much credibility from Bell should it insist on continued use of "resell a white label internet service" type of arguments. And think about it: whatever "burstable" means, ISPs are still buying a certain amount of bandwidth. If a 1gbps link really only means 500mbps, then so be it. Once you've define exacly how much bandwidth 1gbps burstable really means then Bell should be forced to provide it. You make some very good points. To counteract Bell spin, a certain amount of spin is going to be necessary from the Indies and their customers. Probably best to make sure that fact checking doesn't negate the gains though.
The problem with 'burstable' is that is not defined. At all. Anywhere.
It means about the same as 'up to', which as everyone in this business knows, means absolutely nothing. Could be a couple of hundred Mb base, could be five hundred base, could be whatever. Just demonstrate that you can burst to a gig a couple of times a week and you've got a heck of an argument that you are meeting your obligations... I could pull pages of documentation to show that the most optimistic standard over the last twenty years is at least five to one CIR to MIR, possibly more like ten to one.
At the very least, hopefully the tariff gets changed to something meaningful. I do have a vested interest, and it certainly doesn't rest with Bell getting away with this crap, although I do have some sympathy with the congested networks argument considering how fast traffic has grown in the last couple of years. Its very important to note that while total customer count has flattened out **in any given geography**, data transferred per customer has gone through the roof and shows no sign of slowing down. Couple that with time sensitive applications like VoIP etc and there is definitely an issue, but the real question is what kind of an issue it is and how big is it?
But of course Bell just shot themselves in the foot with the launch of the new video site. Oh, the joys of being Bell. Can you imagine how pissed one side of the business must be at the other half right now? Back in the dawn of time I worked for Bell Mobility when they were just getting going, and we weren't that fond of Ma Bell even then...
George |
|
Black Moon
join:2005-02-01
Scarborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt :Very nice explanation. Still a bit techy for the average joe to understand though. I second that. Would you be interested in suggestions how to reword some things? |
|
TakeTheFifth
join:2004-04-20
Anjou, QC
1 edit | reply to jfmezei
Nice job!
One suggestion. Instead of:«At regular intervals, Bell
picks a packet and modifies a certain portion of the data (beyond the
envelope) to introduce sequencing errors. »
Maybe use something along the lines of: At regular intervals, Bell
uses technology that disrupts the connections established by internet users, including customers of independant ISPs. As a result, an independant ISP customer may see a reduction of up to 95% of their internet transfer speed. |
|
asdfrthwthr
@teksavvy.com
| reply to jfmezei
i think its important that technical explanations are given. with every new analogy that appears, there are more and more new ways to focus on those analogies and not on the actual issues. an explanation of technical terms such as packet and sequencing errors would help, but generalising by saying things like "disrupts the connection" without describing how just adds to the murky conditions created by Bell's (false) arguments. |
|
An Onymous
@teksavvy.com
| Not so sure if Bell changes the packets at all. Let say 3Mbps is the average connections speeds. Regardless of the technology, they effectively drop the connection speed by 90% for a 3Mbps connection.
So dropping that 5% of the users give them free them up 30% x 0.90 = 27% of their overall bandwidth!? That's overkill for fixing congestions. |
|
