JFs info
@videotron.ca | reply to oh LOOK
Re: CAIPS new Filing: CAIP debunks Bell Canada throttling claim
Paragraph 180 seems to be taken from JF (»JF Mezei of Teksavvy an American hero?) and used. |
|
HiVolt
30
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. |
|
Bellundo
@teksavvy.com | The only packet loss is caused by the throttle boxes themselves. |
|
