TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone in

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:27:59 EDT

root9 : Hahaha , you've been busted TK, by general public yet.

You don't know since you don't have access to Bell's network, settings, DPI tech. and internal politics.
You don't know because you don't have all the information.
You can assume all you want and you know [as with your experience] Bell's provided evidence is obviously flawed. As a matter of fact it's outright lies in many areas.
To boot it's illegal in the worst ways.

I doesn't seem like you know much about Canadian laws, do you?
--
Please engage eyeballs and retain functional brain before operating fingers.

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:28:03 EDT

anon : It's easy for these Americans to laugh while drinking their beer and reading tidbits of an article then coming up with the conclusion since Canada is an inferior country it must be all the people who live in Canada's fault.

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:23:58 EDT

anon : What shoe crazy? You been eating too many of those flapjack waffles. Out of all the millions who saw and read the document only you have the wrong opinion. Maybe you read the article up-side-down.

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:57:14 EDT

Matt :

said by TKJunkMail :

said by fatness :

said by TKJunkMail :

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

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

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

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]

IPTV is not internet video. IPTV comes from controlled headend equipment ala U-Verse. It doesn't traverse their transit backbones and the only intercarrier traffic it may generate is the actual channel traffic from the programmer/network.

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:30:18 EDT

joako :

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.

Bell is throtling the DSL connection between the user and the ISP. If Bell wanted to throttle their own user's internet connections they can certainly do that on the internet (ISP) side of things.

--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:07:00 EDT

nekkidtruth : Are you kidding me?

Regardless of whether video over the Internet is on the rise, Bell still has yet to prove the existence of congestion. 2-5% congestion on a network is so ridiculously low it's not even funny. Half of that is probably due to shoddy network maintenance.

I'd ask you to stop posting before you make yourself look like an idiot, but it's too late. Probably a few years too late.
--
Weeeeeee

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:30:28 EDT

TKJunkMail :

said by fatness :

said by TKJunkMail :

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

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

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

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]
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:51:07 EDT

fatness :

said by TKJunkMail :

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

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

If not, why keep repeating it as though it's true?
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex..

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:13:03 EDT

TKJunkMail :

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

A: Who cares what you believe.

B: Every time the accusation of industry shill is trotted out, this will be the reply:

"This mode of reasoning is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem: attacking the person presenting the argument, instead of pointing out a flaw in their actual argument. It's a fallacy because even if the criticism of the person is true, his argument may still be valid. You can only tell if the argument is valid by examining the actual argument to see if it is actually valid.

Attacking the person instead of the argument they present is intellectually lazy. It's a substitute for thinking. It's also 100% flawed reasoning: you don't arrive at the conclusion from the argument presented."

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:34:33 EDT

backness : Exactly,

If congestion were the real problem they would have 2 filling cabinets full of memo's, graphs, and other internal documents to back up these claims. One chart produced in Microsoft word reaks of BS. TK, in all your years as a network designer did you make business cases based on one chart produced by someone with a 10th grade education?

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:33:09 EDT

DataRiker :

said by TKJunkMail :

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.

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.

This is now way shape or form proves any of your argument. Your strategy of "out posting" will not dig you out of this hole. Please provide evidence of Bell Canada's congestion. All of Canada is eagerly awaiting your proof TK.

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:29:29 EDT

DataRiker :

said by TKJunkMail :

said by bbenso1 :

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.

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?

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

B: You are a fake shill, who has taken it upon himself to argue against all evidence to the contrary that Bell Canada has issues with network congestion even after its own documents tell otherwise.

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:35:09 EDT

mazhurg :

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.

What we have heard so far is not from the network engineers but from the spinsters. The numbers submitted (in the public documents) are, as you say, too vague. However, it stands for reason that if congestion was really the case, don't you think Bell would have trumped the real numbers loud and clear? That they did not, and that they are using dubious analysis (and results) to try to prove congestion indicate that there probably is not.

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:32:27 EDT

Capharnaum :

said by TKJunkMail :

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.

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.

Well the data they showed isn't what applies to third parties but I guess you'd be sold on anything... Maybe you should read the other parties submissions and understand the issue at hand before making those comments.

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:29:11 EDT

Capharnaum :

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.

First of all, the units that provide the backbone and the ISP unit are two separate entities.

Second, Bell was throttling their customers only before spreading it out to independants, so they obviously can just throttle their own customers. And back when they weren't forcing themselves onto competitors, nobody was complaining about throttling. Complaints about throttling only arose because Bell decided everyone had to be throttled to cut off their customers losses to the "unthrottled" competition.

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:47:56 EDT

Matt :

And I think that is where you and I differ on opinion. I think that Bell knows they have congestion, knows what it will cost to fix that congestion, but they also wants to eliminate their CAIP competitors, while reducing congestion for their forthcoming video service.

From a business perspective, DPI gear solves a LOT of problems for Bell and is cheaper than performing the required upgrades across their service area. However, if they admitted why they really rolled it out, they'd be admitting to breaking Canadian telecommunication laws.

I think in this case there are too many "coincidences" pointing to ulterior motives for there not to be any and Bell's attitude of "We say it, so that's how it is." doesn't help their cause.

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:20:41 EDT

TKJunkMail :

080623_CAIP ···R(2).zip 352,538 bytes

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:46:22 EDT

Matt :

said by TKJunkMail :

said by Matt :

The congestion has actually gone UP since they implemented throttling.

Has it? Who says?

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.

»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···ent.html

Quote:

But the congestion rates weren't high before throttling began. One year ago, in May 2007, the aggregation link was congested 1.8 percent of the time, the BAS was congested 0.4 percent of the time, and the backbone experienced congestion 3 percent of the time.

Data source: Bell Canada

At the DSLAM, though, congestion hovered around 4 percent last year. From October 2007 to May 2008, when Bell was rolling out its traffic-shaping gear, congestion at the DSLAM picked up dramatically, and Bell set three new congestion records (going from 7.8 percent to 8 percent to 8.2 percent).

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:48:33 EDT

anon : "TK Junk Mail"
I'm not doubting your knowledge in the field, but if you claim that you have checked the stats and can prove congestion. Please spill, I'm all ears. err..Eyes

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:14:52 EDT

TKJunkMail :

said by Matt :

The congestion has actually gone UP since they implemented throttling.

Has it? Who says?

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:12:52 EDT

TKJunkMail :

said by sporkme :

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.

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?

They were giving data to lawyers at the CRTC - and not engineers. I'll bet the techs got the backup data - but that doesn't make the news.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:00:49 EDT

sporkme :

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:55:40 EDT

Matt :

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.

The congestion has actually gone UP since they implemented throttling. Did your wife switch your reading glasses with the rose colored ones again? :D

Additionally, they could throttle at step 4, but it's pretty obvious they are throttling at step 3 to eliminate a competitive threat. Can't have those pesky unlimited customer eating into Bell impending TV service now can we?

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:36:10 EDT

TKJunkMail :

said by adisor19 :

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

Adi

Every time the accusation of industry shill is trotted out, this will be the reply:

"This mode of reasoning is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem: attacking the person presenting the argument, instead of pointing out a flaw in their actual argument. It's a fallacy because even if the criticism of the person is true, his argument may still be valid. You can only tell if the argument is valid by examining the actual argument to see if it is actually valid.

Attacking the person instead of the argument they present is intellectually lazy. It's a substitute for thinking. It's also 100% flawed reasoning: you don't arrive at the conclusion from the argument presented."
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:36:02 EDT

bbenso1 :

Okay, so given your background, at what level does congestion become 'significant'?

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:34:36 EDT

adisor19 :

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.

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

Adi

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:10:56 EDT

TKJunkMail :

said by bbenso1 :

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.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:05:48 EDT

bbenso1 :

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:02:40 EDT

elios :

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.

then may be i dont know but they should ether A. upgrade there network
or b. not sell so much to 3rd partys?

oh wait that would mean spending money or not making as much

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:02:29 EDT

travisc : You're about the only one that seems to disagree... But that's your role on DSLR, isn't it?

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:49:33 EDT

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.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:37:08 EDT

bbenso1 :

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.

Actually, from what I've seen TekSavvy simply wants the ability to offer non-throttled service to his customers, as per the original agreement he had with Bell. I'm guessing he doesn't really care how that happens, so long as it does. Whatever Bell needs to do to provide that service is not his problem. If they want to throttle their own customers they are welcome to do that, but they will have to figure how to do so without impacting their wholesale customers. That's Bells problem to figure out.

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.

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.

TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:24:05 EDT

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.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?