Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| reply to oh LOOK
Food for thought....
Somebody at Bell should be charged if only to force the production of all corporate e-mail, memorandum, etc... to show that Bell knows that it is unlawfully accessing/reading user data inside the PPPoE envelope.
Criminal Code of Canada
Interception of Communications
Interception
184. (1) Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Saving provision
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it; [ I didn't give Bell permission to intercept and look inside my PPPoe packets - did you? ]
c) a person engaged in providing a telephone, telegraph or other communication service to the public who intercepts a private communication,
(i) if the interception is necessary for the purpose of providing the service, [ Provide a pipe, transport data, no need to look at the payload. ]
(ii) in the course of service observing or random monitoring necessary for the purpose of mechanical or service quality control checks, [ DPI/throttling is not necessary to fulfill the allowable purposes in sub-section (c). ]
or
(iii) if the interception is necessary to protect the person’s rights or property directly related to providing the service; [ DPI/throttling is not necessary to fulfill the allowable purposes in sub-section (c). ]
(e) a person, or any person acting on their behalf, in possession or control of a computer system, as defined in subsection 342.1(2), who intercepts a private communication originating from, directed to or transmitting through that computer system, if the interception is reasonably necessary for
(i) managing the quality of service of the computer system as it relates to performance factors such as the responsiveness and capacity of the system as well as the integrity and availability of the system and data, .... [ Delving into PPPoe payload is not necessary to fulfill this otherwise legal purpose. ]
184. (2) and (3) discusses the legal requirements for interception, ie. satisfying a judge with evidence before interception is made. Clearly not done by Bell.
--------------------------
430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or damages property;
(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.
Mischief in relation to data
(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or alters data;
(b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access thereto.
Punishment
(2) Every one who commits mischief that causes actual danger to life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
Punishment
(3) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a testamentary instrument or the value of which exceeds five thousand dollars
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. |
|
mr_hexen
join:2007-08-02
Brampton, ON
| reply to jfmezei
Re: Bells NEW July 11th CRTC Submission
said by jfmezei  :With regards to the deadline. It appearts the Bell drone spoke to the CRTC on the day before the original deadline. It is quite possible that the CRTC agreed. this is exactly what happened, see the note on the the CRTC's website.
As per my conversation with you earlier today, Bell Canada (or the Company) wishes to inform the Commission that it is unfortunately unable to file its answer in relation to CAIP's application on 10 July 2008 . The Company will file its answer by Friday, 11 July 2008
essentially they called them up and asked for another day, behind everyone's back. |
|
and just how
@teksavvy.com
| reply to Maynard G Krebs
Re: Food for thought....
said by Maynard G Krebs :
Somebody at Bell should be charged if only to force the production of all corporate e-mail, memorandum, etc... to show that Bell knows that it is unlawfully accessing/reading user data inside the PPPoE envelope.
I don't see that happening any time soon. One could dream though. |
|
starved brain
@videotron.ca
| haha JF is quoted on P2Pnet, »www.p2pnet.net/story/16376
“I went through Bell’s fantastic work of fiction yesterday and commented on it,” Mezei says, pointing to his post on dslreports...."
haha way 2 go JF! |
|
tertech
join:2008-04-12
Ottawa, ON | I just hope that after all of JF's excellent work debunking Bell's submission, that someone at the CRTC actually gets to read it.
Do you think they look at web sites like DSLReports and p2pnet? |
|
Alien Presence
@telus.net
| said by tertech :I just hope that after all of JF's excellent work debunking Bell's submission, that someone at the CRTC actually gets to read it. Do you think they look at web sites like DSLReports and p2pnet? I agree 100%. To me (as a networking technology lay-person), Jean-François's work appears impressive and authoritative. It seems to cut through the b.s. (cough, beaver stuff) obfuscation layer like a hot knife through butter. I found myself mentally pumping my fist in the air and shouting "oh yeah" like a demented Toronto jeweler (you have to have access Toronto area TV commercials to get that one) each time he landed a blow and knocked them back.
I would imagine that CAIP is using these magnificent rebuttal points to help formulate their own response, and also that JF can file one more submission.
If, thanks in part to JF's learned distillation of the issues, good ultimately triumphs over beaver and CAIP does prevail, I think that JF would be due a reward of some sort (perhaps gratis beaver-free Internet for life?). |
|
The Flash
You don't win friends with salad
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Toronto, ON
1 edit | reply to oh LOOK
Re: Bells NEW July 11th CRTC Submission
JF for MVM, that's what I say.
»Site FAQ »The BBR MVM Tag |
|
Vomio
join:2008-04-01
 ·odynet
| said by The Flash :JF for MVM, that's what I say. I have to agree, worthy contributions to the forum and the the cause in general.
I tip my tin foil lined, solar powered, propeller beanie in his direction.
Vomio |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Thanks for the Kudos folks.
Interested parties have no more opportunities to send letters to the CRTC on this matter. All we can do is talk to the media and politicians to help prevent the CRTC from siding with Bell.
Rocky has received a copy of my parsing of Bell's 86 page fiction/fantasy (and additional comments not posted here). Whether they use any of it or not, it is up to them.
What is interesting is that the Bell submission did not get added to the CRTC web site on monday at noon. Wouldn't it be funny if the CAIP submission were to become public before the Bell submission makes it to the CRTC site ? |
|
Alien Presence
@telus.net
| said by jfmezei :Thanks for the Kudos folks. What is interesting is that the Bell submission did not get added to the CRTC web site on monday at noon. Wouldn't it be funny if the CAIP submission were to become public before the Bell submission makes it to the CRTC site ? Perhaps the delayed submission was a ploy to imply that they delay all data equally, or maybe they torrented it on their own network...
Anyway, the timer for the deadline on CAIP's response should not have started until Bell's submission was posted on the CRTC site and was thereby officially 'available' to CAIP plus a 24-hour extension, n'est ce pas?  |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| reply to oh LOOK
From jf's posts ...
quote:
##
First, slowing the delivery of content does not amount to "controlling" it.
##
Deciding whether a packet should be transmitted to destination or discartded based on what application it is associated with is defrinitely controlling it.
ANALOGY: Bell is dictating what subjects one can discuss on a telephone conversation. Implementing it requires Bell listen to phone conversations to ensure we only speak of subjects Bell has approved.
Let me fix this Analogy ...
ANALOGY: Bell is dictating what languages one can use in a telephone conversation. Implementing it requires Bell listen to phone conversations to ensure we only speak English or French.
Reasoning ... you can discuss what you like, but you just can't do it in P2P. You can transfer movies using the raw language, but you can't do it using the P2P language.
-----
quote:
Rogers has proxy servers used to insert content in HTTP transactions, and those servers would be aware of TCP connections since they need to fake connectivity so that the inserted packets can appear to be "native" to the data stream.
As I understand it this is done with the Cisco pCube service engines. Note that CISCO actually calls them "Service Engines" and not "Network Management Engines"! |
|
ultracat
join:2008-01-30
Toronto, ON
·TELUS
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to The Flash
Seems only a moderator can nominate him, not any of us regular users. So, who's a moderator? C'mon, someone who's a moderator ought to be reading these incredibly important threads. JF deserves it without a doubt. This throttling issue is of historic importance for Canadian broadband policy and here's JF, the little guy, arguably pumping out more and better analysis than just about anyone on here (with no offense to the many other excellent contributors here). |
|
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24 | reply to oh LOOK
Bell's submission finally made it to the CRTC site:
»www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/···5153.htm |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
1 edit | A DIFFERENCES utility on VMS sees no differences between the version posted by P2Pnet and the one posted on the CRTC. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to oh LOOK
Article in the Montreal Gazette:
»www.canada.com/montrealgazette/n···90ec85d6
Fairly neutral in tone. But more on our side than Bell's side.
##
Though it can be hard to distill the facts from the back-and-forth claims, Surtees is more inclined to side with the small Internet providers. He calls P2P throttling a "knee-jerk response" that tries to "deflect the blame, as opposed to doing intellectual, sophisticated network management."
## |
|
mr_hexen
join:2007-08-02
Brampton, ON
3 edits | reply to oh LOOK
#
ES19. Bell's DPI traffic shaping activity does not "control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications" for two key reasons. First, slowing the delivery of content does not amount to "controlling" it. Second, Bell is not involved in any way with the editorial control of content being transmitted through P2P file sharing applications nor is it creating or preventing access to such content. The shaping technique is content and content provider agnostic. Bell cannot influence the meaning or purpose of the telecommunications because Bell has no knowledge of the content itself.
#
Control: To exercise influence over, to suggest or dictate the behavior of. »en.wiktionary.org/wiki/control
Influence: The power to affect, control or manipulate something or someone; the ability to change the development of fluctuating things such as conduct, thoughts or decisions; the status of being able to dictate the actions or behaviors of an object or person; moral or political power over a person or group; ascendancy. »en.wiktionary.org/wiki/influence
Behavior (US Spelling):
1. The way an animal or human behaves or acts.
2. The way a device or system operates.
they are excercising influence over the behaviour of P2P. |
|
Cyborg994
join:2005-04-18
Montreal, QC | reply to oh LOOK
Too bad we can't build a response in a "wiki" way, that would be really nice and complete I think. |
|
mr_hexen
join:2007-08-02
Brampton, ON | why couldn't we? |
|
oh LOOK
@videotron.ca
| reply to Cyborg994
said by Cyborg994 :Too bad we can't build a response in a "wiki" way, that would be really nice and complete I think. Actually thats a VERY good idea.
Whose willing to take it on? |
|
Bellus_x
@cia.com
| reply to oh LOOK
Ok, so a few things need to be questioned:
-People say the the amount of simultaneous sessions has no impact on BW use and/or on load to Bell equipment. YES, IT DOES! In the same way those download acccelerators do, BT and other P2P open more and more connections until their downstream pipe is saturated (ie. not limited by what 1 server can provide), provided there are enough peers. This increases the utilization of every element in the path, DSLAM, uplink, aggregation, BAS/ERX, etc.
-"We have no dealings with Bell!/Not a bell client" Well, I guess in a direct way, no, you are not a Bell client. But indirectly, the ISP you buy from, acting on your behalf, acquires a GAS link for you. Someone has contracted to Bell and in that Tariff there are terms and conditions which TSI/ISP accepts and you are therefore subject to.
-"They can't look inside my packets!!/What about my privacy?" Bell says that for its retail clients, is collects the userID info... this makes sense. They currently use Arbor Ellacoya e30's (over 100 of them now in use), which also collect usage information for use in billing sympatico clients. Other provider's clients are not associated with their PPPoE login (I'm guessing here), but rather with a random identifier that knows where you are connecting from (CO/POP) and perhaps for statistical purposes, to which AGAS destination.
What is fair and what seems fair/just/ideal/right isn't necessarily what the CRTC can act on. Here, the question is does Bell treat GAS clients differently than it's own in terms of the throttling. The answer is no. Does the GAS tariff have specific allowances or guarantees of bandwidth? No. Have they broken the laws regarding intercepts and data/computer trespass? Likely not... Bell doesn't act now, think later. It consults inside and outside counsel. Its next generation product won't have an AGAS equivalent... so even if they can offer 30/10 sync speeds with FTTN, they'll only offer whatever portion of that is available for internet for use by GAS/PPPoE service, and even that will be on a best effort basis because of the priority that realtime (IPTV, HSA with QoS and IPVPN) services over GAS/PPPoE which is a best effort service with no guarantees on packet loss or latency in the tariff. (For clarity, I mean that if the max internet pipe on a triple-play Bell client is 7Mbps of the 30Mbps to the house, that is the most GAS will offer. Even that 7Mbps is going to vary, because of the priority IPTV has over internet, just like Telus internet slows down when all the STB's are active.)
Lastly, on the matter of releasing the data that has been obscured: unlike the previous congestion data, detailed information on network deployments and upgrades cannot be made public for competitive reasons. |
|
