said by shepd :

The excuses (whether valid or not) I see here suggesting that ISPs in general can't support P2P, and that customers don't mind, remind me of the excuses from American car makers that their customers don't want "fuel efficiency" or "stylish" or "reliable" cars, that really, customers just want "muscle" and "big". Except, of course, the opposite. This time, customers want "muscle" and "big" out of their internet.

If customers are saying they want to do P2P, and that's the majority of traffic you're all seeing, you're being told what you need to figure out: Either figure out how you can support P2P or, well, companies like Bell that don't care will join AMC. Someday.

said by GNca George :

So that brings us back to how do you make Bell play nice, while allowing them to achieve a reasonable return on their investment in a world with dramatically different traffic patterns to those existing even a couple of years ago? Ouch.

said by Abattoir :

Third, break up Bell. They are in obvious conflict positions, and are abusing their control over the network to benefit their other business units.

said by andyb :

5 years is a long time in technology and I don't need a refresher as this is near 2009 and I was with bell before DSL as you were and just recently left for a company that cares.I think you need to stop suckin up for bell.

said by Anon_Cow :

Perhaps not in DKS years. As he keeps reminding us, he's a grumpy, yet wise, old man (I'm sure at least 3 of the 4 are correct) who was apparently the New World's designated greeter to the Leif Ericson landing party

said by pnjunction :

And when we started actually using that 5 Mbps we got slapped with a throttle, which is his point: That Bell upgraded the last mile (first 5-7 Mbps ADSL, now ADSL2 remotes) so that they could advertise fast speeds but neglected invest in the rest of the network to carry our data.

How else can you explain that we can get 5-16 Mbps sync rates, but 'need' to be limited to 30 kB/s to relieve congestion?

said by DKS :

Very few outside of urban cores can get those speeds, remotes included.

said by snuggles :

just sent to the CRTC and CBC:
=====================================
quote: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC
Bull!

take a God Damned stand for once... YOU WORK FOR US THE CANADIAN PEOPLE!!!
DO NOT MESS WITH US!

etc. etc. etc.

said by pnjunction :

You talking about 16 Mbps or 5? Many, if not most, DSL customers are getting 5 Mbps. Forget about 16 Mbps for now, wholesalers can only offer up to 5, and yet their customers still need to be throttled.

The average speedtest for TSI customers here is currently 3378/570, not far off the ideal of about 4300/680 for 5056/800 kbps sync. My parents live 9km out of a small city of 50k and they have a great line because there is a remote somewhere nearby.

I'm not saying that Bell shouldn't be investing in remotes and ADSL2, just that it's obvious that they have slacked on upgrading the backbones of the network (if their dubious claims of congestion are even true) since they can't even support 5 mbps service (which is rapidly becoming ancient by today's standards) without capping and throttling.

said by fiestaware :

[Reactions like that are pure detriment. If you care at all about net neutrality you will never write anything like that again.

Unfortunate outcomes are not best responded to with Crass lyrics. Geez.

said by BonkersInc :

I see a lot of good issues raised in this thread and I feel compelled to add my 2 cents.

With all the throttling and caps that are becoming reality, I'd like to point out that even with a 1 mbit link you can trash a 60 gig cap in a week.

Is Bell's network really so poor that they are oversubscribing 5 (or even 10 or 16) times their network's capacity?

For someone like me, I am currently sitting at about 150 gigs transferred this month. Bell's website says 60 gigs + $2.5/gig, which raises my potential bill to $225 on top of my regular bill. And this is using on average only 20% of the potential speed I'm paying for.

And now, assuming Citi doesn't go under, we (the customers, whether Bell's customer or not), are going to be on the hook for billions of dollars of debt one way or another that will never go into any sort of improvements... I have a pretty good idea where my $225 overage fees will be going.

What are the chances that Bell will update their cap limits to allow for new bandwidth hungry applications that are sure to replace/compliment p2p in the future?

Can Teksavvy and other GAS customers demand that the money they pay out to Bell is accounted for so that we can actually see our $s being put back into the network that we are paying to maintain and upgrade?

said by pnjunction :

And when we started actually using that 5 Mbps we got slapped with a throttle, which is his point: That Bell upgraded the last mile (first 5-7 Mbps ADSL, now ADSL2 remotes) so that they could advertise fast speeds but neglected invest in the rest of the network to carry our data.

How else can you explain that we can get 5-16 Mbps sync rates, but 'need' to be limited to 30 kB/s to relieve congestion?