said by Linklist: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. said by Matt3:
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.