oh LOOK
@videotron.ca
| CAIPS new Filing: CAIP debunks Bell Canada throttling claim
Full article @: »www.p2pnet.net/story/16485
“In our final submission to the CRTC we have debunked many of the inaccuracies put forth by Bell and clarified many of the issues that seemed to be a deliberate attempt to confuse and distract the Commission,” CAIP chairman and president Tom Copelamnd told p2pnet, adding:
“Our argument continues to be based on breaches in the Telecom Act and the regulations within the Act that Bell is required to respect.
“We hope the Commission agrees with our views and we look forward to a positive outcome.”
Below is the complete submission, minus footnotes, and once again, I apologise for leaving the footnote numbers in the body and emphasise any mistakes in formatting, inadvertent omissions, and so on, are mine. |
|
tiger9
join:2005-08-01
Ont,Canada
 ·Bell Sympatico
| Good. Let's hope the CRTC does the right thing. If this goes through, who knows what Bell would do?
I don't know about you, but I like alternative ISPs when my contract expires  |
|
LOL at Bell
@videotron.ca | reply to oh LOOK
Paragraph 77.
"Whether or not one gives Bell the benefit of the doubt regarding the reason behind its varying storylines,"
LOL RIGHT ON CAIP!!! hah!
IN your Face! |
|
justin_here
@rogers.com | reply to oh LOOK
The CAIPs new filing is a good read. But couldn't help noticing a few grammatical errors.  |
|
k6richar
join:2008-06-17
Kitchener, ON | reply to oh LOOK
i only read about the first 1/4 skimmed some more after that. Some good arguements in there, hopefully the CRTC listens to it not BS bull is serving them. |
|
oh LOOK
@videotron.ca
| reply to oh LOOK
I like what CAIP is asking for and reiterates in its filing:
=====
the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) filed an application with the Commission (the Application), pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, seeking a number of orders declaring that Bell’s throttling of GAS services breached sections 24, 25, 27, and 36 of the Telecommunications Act (The Act) and mandating Bell to cease and desist from same, as follows:
1. A final order directing Bell Canada to cease and desist from using any technologies to “shape”, “throttle” and/or “choke” its wholesale ADSL services;
2. An order that Bell comply with the terms and conditions of its wholesale ADSL tariffs;
3. A declaration that Bell has acted unlawfully and in a manner that is contrary to tariffs approved by the Commission;
4. An order that Bell not deviate from the terms and conditions of its approved wholesale ADSL tariffs without prior Commission approval of any such changes;
5. A declaration that Bell has acted unlawfully and in a manner that is contrary to the requirement that a local exchange carrier that provides service to other local exchange carriers provide advance notice of network changes, pursuant to Local Competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8 (Decision 97-8);
6. A declaration that Bell has granted to itself an undue and unreasonable preference and subjected independent ISPs to an undue and unreasonable disadvantage by shaping, throttling and choking its wholesale ADSL services in the manner described in this Application; and
7. A declaration that Bell has acted unlawfully and contrary to the prohibition against carrier interference with the content of messages carried over its telecommunications network contrary to section 36 of the Act and contrary to the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out in paragraphs 7(a) and (i) which, inter alia, seek to protect the privacy of persons. |
|
p2p_NEXT
@anonymouse.org | reply to oh LOOK
What happens next?
Does Bell reply again?
Anyone know? |
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| said by p2p_NEXT :
What happens next?
Does Bell reply again?
Anyone know?
We wait to see if the CRTC has follow-up questions.
What galls me is that the CRTC did not force Bell to remove DPI/throttle in April and then force Bell to 'apply' for permisssion to DPI/throttle via a public application to the CRTC.
We'll wind up having been DPI'd/throttled for 6+ months before the CRTC rules on this, and then Bell will ask for 6+ months to remove the throttle/DPI boxes because to do so any faster would be 'disruptive' to their operations. |
|
JFs info
@videotron.ca | reply to oh LOOK
Paragraph 180 seems to be taken from JF (»JF Mezei of Teksavvy an American hero?) and used. |
|
HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
clubs:
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| All i gotta say is GO CAIP!!!
This document has some serious bite to it, and I really see no reason for the CRTC to have any questions or doubts. They've seen what bullshit Bell provided.
If the CRTC does not see this for what it is, we might as well unplug from the internet and go live in a cave. The future ahead is not gonna magically detach itself from the internet. If Bell is allowed to continue with this, others will follow, and the consequences are too scary to imagine.
--
,,!,,('-'),,!,, |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC | reply to JFs info
My 4500-vs-trillions argument got used too ^_^ |
|
ah ok C it
@videotron.ca
| must be this one:
Paragraph 91
Second, Bell claims that cell loss events are registered when an ATM port experiences
even a single discard due to congestion. This statement must be placed into context.
Bell’s network transmits trillions of data packets per day to hundreds of thousands of end
users. CAIP notes that the percentage of lost data recorded by Bell is therefore
infinitesimally small. Furthermore, Bell provides not an iota of evidence that this level of
packet loss results in “impacts to the customer experience” as it claims in its response to
the Commission’s interrogatories.64 Indeed, third party commentators suggest that such
losses would be unnoticeable to the end user. |
|
mordin
42 inches of 1080p
Premium
join:2005-05-28
Moncton, NB
| reply to Maynard G Krebs
said by Maynard G Krebs :
What galls me is that the CRTC did not force Bell to remove DPI/throttle in April and then force Bell to 'apply' for permisssion to DPI/throttle via a public application to the CRTC.
They didn't because the CRTC doesn't regulate the internet. It did mandate that Bell open access to it's networks to 3rd party resellers. These hearings are to determine if Bell's DPI/throttling hurting those 3rd party resellers by giving Bell an unfair advantage.
--
Intel P4 2.8 800 fsb, Asus P4P800 w/1GB PC3200 DDR RAM, 512 MB GeForce 7600GT, SB Audigy Gamer, DVD-Rom/CD-R Burner & LG Duel layer DVD Burner, 320 & 120 GB Internal & 2x 250 & 3x 500 GB External hard drives & Samsung 226BW 22" LCD Monitor |
|
Bellundo
@teksavvy.com | reply to ah ok C it
The only packet loss is caused by the throttle boxes themselves. |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| reply to p2p_NEXT
said by p2p_NEXT :
What happens next?
Does Bell reply again?
Anyone know?
The CRTC will render their verdict by September if things hold to their previous time-frame. In the meantime two things.............
1 - We're not quite done just yet! 
2 - If you believe in what CAIP believes in now's the time to educate the world. The old way of doing business, where ethics and profits are at odds, must cease to exist! Being fair, truthful and transparent is the only way to go going forward! Tell your friends and family so that this case be used as an example of a serious need to rewrite how things are run... We, the clients, in the end have the power and if the decision-makers and politicians, elected by these same clients, are told unanimously that corporate bullying must stop, then backdoor lobbying and spin tactics won't matter anymore. Change will come....
Rocky
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
·MTS
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to oh LOOK
214. As noted above, it has been postulated by several learned commentators that Bell’s
traffic shaping measures do not merely slow down (albeit drastically – down to 30
KB/sec rather than the upload/download speeds of 5 Gbps/800 kbps provided for under
tariff) the carriage of traffic but may also cause bits of data to be dropped. This would
mean that the actual content of a packet is being deleted, dropped, and hence, modified Oops! |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | typo... it's not a big deal as it's already been established at 5 megabit...
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
·MTS
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | said by R0CKY  :typo... it's not a big deal as it's already been established at 5 megabit... Noted a few others also, but all minor as you said. Could not resist showing that particular one.
Not quite done the quick read, but 2 things seem to jump out (for me).
1) Whatever decision comes down, this is bound upward (SCC).
2) If, and when, the recommendations are acted upon by the commission; this will also fundamentally change the landscape as it will do a lot to further restrain the 800lbs gorilla in the room.
|
|
davidbrown
join:2005-05-31
Toronto, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to oh LOOK
Regardless of weather we win or not this behavior from the likes of bell and rogers is doomed.
Its become too much of a public issue now and people unlike before are beginning to understand whats being done.
As with comcast its not worth the public backlash and the risk of government crack down.
Irony is it was in big part the web is whats educated people and thats a genie that can't be put back in by bell,rogers or any provider now. |
|
more to see
@videotron.ca
| reply to oh LOOK
Appears someone from the CBC read the P2Pnet article last night:
»www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008···aip.html
Bell has villainized P2P, CAIP says |
|
