Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to cipher77
Re: Cancelled Sympatico - Interesting Retention Script It's nice that the person was "pleasant" but then when they are being paid to read the following off to you
"-Offered to drop my current rate closer to the TSI rate (a bit too late methinks)
-Tried to tell me that ALL ISP's, including TSI, throttle their customers. Then later, asked me if I knew that TSI went through Bell for internet so I'd still experience service throttling (interesting about face)
-Told me that ISP's had been mandated by the CRTC to throttle their clients because other low-bandwidth users were complaining about service issues (the CRTC!?!)
-Asked me if I knew about the new possible legislation that would charge people $5000 for downloading content (very sly!)
-Told me that Bell is also better because they offer 24/7 technical support and when there are service interruptions they are almost immediately fixed (great, thank god TSI uses Bell lines then!)"
And the entire message is a damned lie, does it matter if they smiled while they lied to you?
Dropping the rate, hmm so they charge the same, but offer lousy service, how is that adequate?
Throttling, hmm most of us can show you how you can be UNthrottled even on a throttled service. So no, you don't need to be throttled in most cases.
I don't recall Rocky being told to throttle anyone on HIS service, but that's for Rocky to clarify.
I also don't know any of those complainers (well I haven't seen any personally).
Not sure what legislation that person was referring to.
I doubt the person you were talking about has a clue what they are talking about. But Bell largely doesn't know what they are doing, so why would a phone jockey be better informed eh.
24/7 tech support, HAH, I dumped Bell almost entirely over their worthless support. When you have a problem and it's saturday night, you better understand how to speak the language of India, because you won't be talking to someone in Canada. Likely won't be speaking to a person in Canada regardless of when you call. I never did.
Bell offers lousy service, that costs more than superior service. They offer lousy tech service that can't speak coherent English. And besides, wouldn't you rather support a company that prefers to hire Canadians?
Bell Canada would be the wrong choice if they sold what Teksavvy sells at half the price Teksavvy sells for.
Hey, StillSuckered, you realize I have to point out your account name is accurate eh? There's more to the service, than just the price on the bill eh.
I'm hoping Bell loses the class action suit.
I could use the cash for a nice new HDTV. |
|
| Right on man!
--
Cheers! |
|
| reply to Sukunai
My guess is that once the CRTC issues its decision on throttling and/or implementation of caps, Bell will disable the MLPPP workaround by enabling 1 feature at any of these points in the network:
DSLAM
BRAS/ERX/E320
DPI device
What is this feature? Enforcement of 1 PPPoE session per DSLAM port/VPI&VCI/SC-VLAN. It's a feature available in all the hardware noted above and many other providers globally use it because they control bandwidth not with sync rate but at the DSLAM/BRAS/DPI device processor on a per-port (and therefore VPI/VCI or SC-VLAN. |
|
| said by MLPPP_not4ever :
What is this feature? Enforcement of 1 PPPoE session per DSLAM port/VPI&VCI/SC-VLAN. The MLPPP workaround works even on a single pppoe connection. I use it, I have one DSL line, one modem, one pppoe connection. My modem actually establishes the connection. I have created a pppoe connection icon in Vista, and told it to allow MLPPP ... but I never tell it to connect. Haven't been throttled since I set it up - and I've reversed it to test and found that the throttle is as healthy as ever. |
|
| As I said, this is a future thing to allow better per-subscriber allocation because when the control of the speed moves to the BRAS having a per-circuit or vlan throughput from the current sync profile method. And therefore many carriers are now either doing this or plan to do it.
I have also heard than in RFP's for several North American ILECS the ability to limit PPPoE sessions per port or VCI/VPI is required.
outer-vlan on a per-subscriber link (VDSL2/ADSL2+ + G.Bond or FTTP) and inner VLAN config
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
xMbps ISP pipe w/1PPPoE concurrent session limit
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
xMbps IPTV pipe using DHCP option 82, IP's restricted to amount of STB's on account. VLAN'd.
------------------------------
Flexible Multicast broadcast sub-pipe, interleaved
------------------------------
Flexible Unicast burst/control/VoD sub-pipe, fastpath
------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
SIP/IMS Voice stream pipe, High QoS, VLAN'd, private IP space
--------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
You wouldn't buy 100's of DPI devices to let them be "defeated" by flashing a $40 router. And this is a simple flick of the switch solution. |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
·TekSavvy DSL
1 edit | said by MLPPP_not4ever :
You wouldn't buy 100's of DPI devices to let them be "defeated" by flashing a $40 router. And this is a simple flick of the switch solution.
Unfortunately, at the current state the DPI devices can't defeat MLPPP and no software updates on the horizon. They can limit to one login but that doesn't mean much since we can still defeat throttling.
EDIT: I should mention, MLPPP can be done on a single link. |
|
|
|
