Sempronius
join:2008-09-18
Toronto, ON
| We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC
»www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008···qna.html |
|
SureOk
| Funny part from the article:
The process was transparant.
Except the part where private submissions were made by Bell, and will never be made public. |
|
Stewy
Premium
join:2007-12-12
Kitchener, ON
| reply to Sempronius
"the CRTC's vice-chairman said Thursday after the federal watchdog ruled Bell Canada was not breaking laws by slowing down certain uses of the internet."
more proof that the CRTC is in Bell's pocket  |
|
DjEclipse
join:2007-11-20
Niagara Falls, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Sempronius
quote:
We'll look at what we think needs to be done in Canada, but Bell was not blocking at all. All they were doing was managing traffic on their network without impacting or influencing the content at all. Big difference.
Throtteling torrents and opening a bell store for Dl's is certainly impacting and influencing content. |
|
chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23
·TekSavvy Solutions..
3 edits | reply to Sempronius
"...but they arent blocking"
hrm definition of block does not say stopped completely it does however mean that there is an impairment of an action.
Perhaps these idiots need lessons in language
13. The act of obstructing.
14. Something that obstructs; an obstacle.
This definitely obstructs my speed of internet.
just so they get it right.
1. to obstruct or impede by introducing an obstacle: lorry drivers had blocked the routes to Paris
2. to IMPEDE, RETARD, or prevent (an action or procedure)
So bell by his own words is doing what COMCAST DOES ONLY TO A LESSOR EXTENT, they have errored and an appeal base don this should be filed. And an argument could be said that a 100% impariment is not much differant then a 95% one at peek usage times.
referances to the defination of the work BLOCK
»www.thefreedictionary.com/block |
|
shikotee
join:2007-01-11
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Stewy
said by Stewy  :"the CRTC's vice-chairman said Thursday after the federal watchdog ruled Bell Canada was not breaking laws by slowing down certain uses of the internet." more proof that the CRTC is in Bell's pocket Not at all. This is proof that the current laws need to be amended so that they are more favorable towards consumers, and not big business!
Have you looked at the CRTC chairman's bio?
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/about/vfinckenstein.htm
No doubt, he has a strong background with regards to how current laws deal with these matters. Sadly, in all fairness, if it was their job to interpret the law, then they likely made the right decision.
No doubt, Bell had spent lots of $$ researching and making sure that what they were doing would stand up, from a legal perspective.
For me, what bothers me the most is why it took so long for this decision to be reached.... |
|
Sal6489649
@utoronto.ca
| Better still.
Read Lennie Katz (Who made the comment above):
"Prior to assuming those responsibilities, he spent 17 years within the Rogers Group of Companies, where he held various positions in the regulatory, intercarrier services and business development fields of wireless and cable services. This experience led to the position of President, Rogers Business Solutions, which he occupied until 2001. From 1974 to 1985, he acted in increasingly senior capacities at Bell Canada, including as Assistant Director of Policy Development and Regulatory Affairs." |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Sempronius
Comcast was blocking in that they fraudulently spoofed traffic forcing disconnects. They actively blocked BitTorrent uploads. Bell just slowed it down.
Whatever you think about Bell's practices, they're tame compared to the crap Comcast was pulling. |
|
jerseyjoe123
join:2008-04-28
Picton, ON
| reply to Sempronius
So while the publicly released data indicated that congestion didn't exist, the private data indicated that it did? Totally transparent?? Yeah, right.
Now I understand why the CRTC didn't make the decision at the end of October as promised, but waited until over two weeks later to announce this travesty. Doesn't it normally take about 14 days for a cheque to clear the bank? |
|
AkFubar
Expubident
join:2005-02-28
Toronto Can.
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Sempronius
Yeah the CRTC doesn't endorse throttling but it's OK for Bell to continue doing it. Hypocrites!!!! 
--
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai |
|
DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
clubs:
·Bell Sympatico
| said by AkFubar :Yeah the CRTC doesn't endorse throttling but it's OK for Bell to continue doing it. Hypocrites!!!! No, go back and read. In this case Bell wasn't anti-competitive. But there is a larger issue at hand, so the CRTC will engage their process.
Sometimes people just can't read.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
qweloo
join:2007-10-04
h3p 2c4
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Sempronius
What a bunch of bullshit. They should give degrees for lying that much and keeping a straight face.
I guess he doesnt mind having his digital communications inspected, slowed, disassembled and reassembled as long as it is not "blocked" ....
I guess if his email and voicemail inbox overflow with people calling/writing to give a piece of their mind, as long as it is not "blocked", it is fine.
Lets see if he changes his mind if that happens. |
|
CanadianIron
join:2006-10-08
Beverly Hills, CA
2 edits | reply to DKS
said by DKS :No, go back and read. In this case Bell wasn't anti-competitive. But there is a larger issue at hand, so the CRTC will engage their process. Sometimes people just can't read. Good point.
Because of the way the case was presented it allowed the decision that was rendered.
Had the larger issue at hand been raised from the start things would be further ahead at this time, rather than waiting another 9-12 months for something to happen.
Net Neutrality is something that is obviously supported by the vast majority of people. |
|
Glen1
These Are The Good Ol' Days.
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-24
GTA Canada
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Sempronius
The issue of throttling has not even been discussed yet by the CRTC. The decision that came down yesterday was about Bell discriminating against the wholesalers and they clearly were not in violation of discrimination. That is what I am hearing...the CRTC is now asking for public submissions about the "throttling" issue. Deadline is in February for those submissions. Take the emotion out of it as the anon poster said earlier and make your voice heard.
--
My Canada includes Quebec. |
|
ShadPTR
join:2008-01-23
Markham, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to CanadianIron
said by CanadianIron :said by DKS :No, go back and read. In this case Bell wasn't anti-competitive. But there is a larger issue at hand, so the CRTC will engage their process. Sometimes people just can't read. Net Neutrality is something that is obviously supported by the vast majority of people. Perhaps supported by the vast majority of the technologically aware people.  |
|
j3richo
join:2007-12-08
Gatineau, QC
·Acanac
 ·Videotron
| reply to Sempronius
nobody was arguing that Bell was unfairly targeting wholesalers over their own clients with the throttling, the issue was does Bell have the RIGHT to interfere with wholesale traffic. The CRTC seems to have completely ignored this and just said "well as long as they do it to their own customers too then it's ok". Also it's bullshit for the guy to say that their decision is "absolutely not" an endorsement of the idea that Bell's network is congested, if you read the decision, they clearly states that they believe Bell had proved that the network is congested. |
|
Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to DKS
said by DKS :said by AkFubar :Yeah the CRTC doesn't endorse throttling but it's OK for Bell to continue doing it. Hypocrites!!!! No, go back and read. In this case Bell wasn't anti-competitive. But there is a larger issue at hand, so the CRTC will engage their process. Sometimes people just can't read. Yeah, and apparently those people are on the CRTC. Bell wasn't anti competitive? It even says in their last annual report that a) they need to upgrade the net, b) that's expensive, c) they might not be able to recoup the cost by raising prices, d) the alternative is to throttle, e) if they throttle, they'll lose customers...and finally f) competitors that aren't throttled will gain customers.
So, 2 weeks after that report, they throttle everyone.
What is that if not anti-competitive? We want to start offering an inferior product, and if we do, everyone will leave, so lets make certain no one else can offer better... |
|
alphaz18
join:2005-02-26
CANADA
1 edit | umm, what if some bot nets did a ddos to bell video store just enough to throttle the service down to about 30k? i dont think thats illegal you're not preventing or disrupting their service.
You're just managing their service because its causing congestion on the internet. |
|
chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23
·TekSavvy Solutions..
3 edits | reply to Sempronius
@guspaz
you need to reread the definition of block as a verb
it has "retard, impede , prevent" ( an action....)
1. to obstruct or impede by introducing an obstacle: lorry drivers had blocked the routes to Paris
2. to IMPEDE, RETARD, or prevent (an action or procedure)
that means that BELL by the CRTC guy's own admission is blocking certain aspects of our internet.
And like i said these people and you on a saturday all wake up and the whole country downloads just fine unthrottled, so dont tell me its required, needed or anything. Just one greedy buch a govt jerks making canada pay more and more.
Are we even on the 5 megabit list
NO
why cause you average a 10hr slowdown across the land and 60GB caps into it (60 GB = less then 1 megabit with unlimited capacity btw and when was 1 megabit available)
BTW i have been invited to singapore to work look where it sits for speed on that list. Singtel has issues like all isps, but at least speed is not one of them.
In conclusion, this does mean that bell is blocking our traffic, by retarding speeds and impeding traffic.
Plain and simple by his own words, this needs to get around more then any other issue. If enough people go YOU ARE BLOCKING TRAFFIC, then they will have to act in our favour.
It's his rules he has set for the bar of what would have the throttles stop, not yours not mine.
STOP BLOCKING MY NET SPEEDS
--------------
at alphaz18 by the CRTC you would be allowed if you owned the network in question, but you are correct the crtc said that there definition of block would fit that description
--------------
also at guspaz they used an exploit that with a linux patch you could fix google sandvine fix an it related to iptables lad
TAME? they have a 250GB cap, almost 99% of users would be totally ok with somehting like that. Tis hard to justify what your up to beyond that point, other then copyright infringement LOL.
I know many sandvined peeps that used the fix and disregarded the cap/throttle.
60GB in the digital age is sick, its not worthy and me just playing a flash online game will eat that up easy.
how about world a warcraft users,
how about any game users.
how about hosting companies
how about ebay sellers
how about anyone doing business on the net.
this impedes my ability , retards my ability to make economic contributions and generally stiffles innovation.
go figure comcast may cap, but there cap = 4 times higher then bell and a ton of you would not care if it were 250GB
and fios at 20/5 ? wow i wish i had upload that fast.
Could get all my work done in minutes rather then having to wait an hour. |
|
zinc
Premium
join:2004-02-17
Woodbridge, ON
clubs:
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Rogers Hi-Speed
2 edits | reply to Sempronius
I'll play the unpopular position here.
The CRTC is obviously using 1. to obstruct or impede by introducing an obstacle: lorry drivers had blocked the routes to Paris as the definition.
By slowing (not blocking) P2P file transfers, they have not prevented you from getting the content and hence aren't "blocking" (by definition 1). In the full CRTC decision, they note that Bell is only supposed to be slowing P2P file transfers, and nothing else.
If they decide to "slow" say - VOIP or Skype to the point where it's unusable, i.e. you can't get the content anymore, then I have a feeling the CRTC would step in more readily as then it would be blocked by definition 1.
If the throttle was at dial-up speeds or 24/7, then I have a feeling that the CRTC may have made a different decision as well. As it stands, nothing is stopping you from getting full speeds outside of the throttle hours, which well exceed the throttled hours.
Yes, I do think Bell has no right to be throttling wholesaler traffic, nor do they have justification for doing so, but since CRTC is using such a narrow definition of "block" they are ruling correctly with their definition - at least they're consistent. I can't agree that the CRTC is using the correct definition of "block" in this case those...
(edit - can't spell) |
|
