said by TKJunkMail :

So what TekSavvy is fighting for is not that its customers be treated equally with Bell's customers. He wants either a network re-architecture or no throttling of anyone. Sounds very democratic, but not very practical when networks are being flooded by video traffic.

said by TKJunkMail :

And the reason the throttling is done at the local level is not to cause TekSavvy some competitive disadvantage, but because that is where the bottlenecks are.

said by bbenso1 :

Correction - that's where Bell is CLAIMING the bottlenecks are. They have yet to show any documentation proving that there is, in fact, high levels of network congestion that would require throttling.

said by TKJunkMail :

The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree.

said by TKJunkMail :

The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree.

said by bbenso1 :

You are, of course, free to disagree with anyone's opinion. However, what qualifications do you have to make an educated statement regarding network usage/congestion levels? Do you work or have any training in the network design/maintenance field?

TekSavvy and I both do. How about you?

said by TKJunkMail :

I was a system programmer; data communications programmer; network designer(I designed a 23 state network for a major railroad); telecomm/datacomm MGR; telecomm/datacomm Director before I retired. I am not unfamiliar with the concepts and tools that measure network congestion.

said by TKJunkMail :

I was a system programmer; data communications programmer; network designer(I designed a 23 state network for a major railroad); telecomm/datacomm MGR; telecomm/datacomm Director before I retired. I am not unfamiliar with the concepts and tools that measure network congestion.

said by sporkme :

And if you were doing all that at a high level, then you know that if someone came in and audited your network and all they'd show you was a powerpoint presentation with some very vague numbers in it, you'd likely tell them to please give you the raw data before you drew any conclusions or spent another dime, right?

said by TKJunkMail :

I was a system programmer; data communications programmer; network designer(I designed a 23 state network for a major railroad); telecomm/datacomm MGR; telecomm/datacomm Director before I retired. I am not unfamiliar with the concepts and tools that measure network congestion.

said by DataRiker :

A: Based on your track record here I absolutely do not believe this. No way no how.

B: You are a fake shill

said by TKJunkMail :

The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree.

said by adisor19 :

Ah yes, must be that obvious evidence that nobody else but Bell and corporate shills like you seem to notice.

Adi

said by TKJunkMail :

The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree.

said by Matt :

The congestion has actually gone UP since they implemented throttling.

said by TKJunkMail :

Has it? Who says?

said by Matt :

If you look at the numbers they submitted, their measure of "packet loss" has gone from a steady 2-3% before DPI, to a steady 8% in the months since they implemented DPI.

The numbers are there in there filing. Everyone on the internet has picked them apart and called BS. Their DPI equipment is causing MORE issues, which is to be expected due to the nature of DPI.

said by TKJunkMail :

In conclusion: the data submitted could have been more comprehensive. But I'll take the opinions of the network engineers actually running the network rather than opinions of those who are basing their analysis on only the small subset of data submitted to the CRTC.

said by TKJunkMail :

In conclusion: the data submitted could have been more comprehensive. But I'll take the opinions of the network engineers actually running the network rather than opinions of those who are basing their analysis on only the small subset of data submitted to the CRTC.

said by TKJunkMail :

Your conclusion is based on a logical fallacy(If B follows A, therefore A caused B). Because congestion followed the installation of DPI equipment you can't conclude that it caused congestion. There are other variables involved including rapidly growing bandwidth demand throughout the period(as shown in the submitted supplement( [att=1] ). Without DPI equipment, congestion could very well have been even worse.

So the data doesn't support your conclusion. It doesn't exclude it either.

Also, the data collected by Bell was too coarse to come to any guaranteed conclusions. See my post on that issue: »Low % congestion #'s could still indicate problem though

In conclusion: the data submitted could have been more comprehensive. But I'll take the opinions of the network engineers actually running the network rather than opinions of those who are basing their analysis on only the small subset of data submitted to the CRTC.

said by TKJunkMail :

The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree.

said by TKJunkMail :

The only problem with TekSavvy's filing is that the result would be that Bell couldn't even throttle its own customers.

said by TKJunkMail :

Sounds very democratic, but not very practical when networks are being flooded by video traffic.

said by fatness :

Can you point to credible evidence of this? Bell Canada cannot.

If not, why keep repeating it as though it's true?

said by TKJunkMail :

OECD info shows trends on video over internet:
»www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/57/40629067.pdf

[att=1]
[att=2]

»www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/11/39869349.pdf
[att=3]

said by TKJunkMail :

The only problem with TekSavvy's filing is that the result would be that Bell couldn't even throttle its own customers.

So what TekSavvy is fighting for is not that its customers be treated equally with Bell's customers. He wants either a network re-architecture or no throttling of anyone. Sounds very democratic, but not very practical when networks are being flooded by video traffic.

And the reason the throttling is done at the local level is not to cause TekSavvy some competitive disadvantage, but because that is where the bottlenecks are.