Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC in TekSavvy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21459036 en Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:14:21 EDT Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:14:21 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21464686 MarkAW :
said by LucyintheSky :

Holy $hit..the CBC took out the part (i.e. censored) where Katz is taken to task about his previous liasons with Bell.

Color me surprised.
HEh! they did to. May be the CBC is now on the CRTC's side.

What was asked and put in the article this morning; "CBCNews.ca:Some critics have personally attacked you as you spent 17 years working for Rogers and 11 for Bell. How do you respond to those critics?

What they changed it to; "CBCNews.ca: There have already been some personal attacks on CRTC staffers, saying these people work for and are in league with Bell. What do you say about that?"
--
Do you ever get the feeling that the only reason we have elections is to find out if the polls were right?

The man who knows how will always have a job. The man who also knows why will always be his boss.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21464686 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:22:16 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21464446 anon : Holy $hit..the CBC took out the part (i.e. censored) where Katz is taken to task about his previous liasons with Bell.

Color me surprised.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21464446 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:42:32 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21464305 cbp : "Katz: It was mainly based on whether discrimination was going on[...] there was no discrimination here[...]"

Uhh... What? No discrimination you say?

I say there is. There is a discrimination in here.

Let us assign colors to people that use the internet.
Let's say that people using P2P, watching online streaming are assigned the color black.
Now let use assign the color white to people that just read their emails and know nothing about computers.

During peak hours, white people get to use the internet at full speed, speed that they don't necessarily need. All this time, black people are beat down into submission and are allowed only dial-up speeds. Both pay the same price for what should be the same thing.

Back to reality. Customers are discriminated not on their service status (wholesalers, resellers, Joe 6 pack) but on their usage habits (the programs/protocols that they use).

In order NOT to have discrimination, ALL users should throttled for all applications/protocols.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21464305 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:21:38 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21463096 MarkAW :
said by Stewy See Profile :

"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 :huh:
"CBCNews.ca:Some critics have personally attacked you as you spent 17 years working for Rogers and 11 for Bell. How do you respond to those critics?
»www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008···qna.html

Great question, and it points to the crux of the problem with CRTC governance. And Leonard Katz's response completely dodges the question."

If the CRTC is presumed to be representing the best interests of the Canadian public, how is it acceptable for the vice-chairman to have a combined 28 year history working for the two biggest private telecom companies? You cannot expect objective decision-making with such a high potential for direct or indirect personal benefit. All taxpayers should be deeply concerned about the structure and culture of the CRTC.
--
Do you ever get the feeling that the only reason we have elections is to find out if the polls were right?

The man who knows how will always have a job. The man who also knows why will always be his boss.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21463096 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:12:05 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21463043 chronoss2009 : better look up impede
it also means that your attempting to slow or obfusicate
it means that your putting a 250 pound football blocker in front a me with the football, i have to find a way around that takes time

there is no other way i get stopped or am frustrated to not bother or get tackled

what would you call me running at 675 miles an hour and hten hitting the blocker and after words he holds on and i get only 25Kbytes to the goal line?

YUP both fit the category bud
and just cause the trucks are blocked doe shtat mean you cant empty the contents and find a way into paris NO , it just means your not going to drive in fast are you now.

SO english lesson for the day is concluded.
elecoya = football blocker
MLPPP = the hail marry past him
Sftp = a side throw to open runner/however upspeed is impeded

The goal i really htink as Microsoft is there partner and they signed that little pact with the mpaa/riaa , is to limit canadian internet so bad that the old model gets traction again.

Do not think im going to ever buy a cdr again , or dvdr.
The levy was your last best hope for peace.

Just wait till the copyright law drops and gets enacted and millions start getting massive fines ( is this the harper plan to stay out of the red? )
Impede
Verb 1. impede - be a hindrance or obstacle to; "She is impeding the progress of our project"
"Bell is impeding the progress of my download"
2. impede - block passage through; "obstruct the path"
(this section is even worse you get prevented and STOPPED)
however smart person that gets stopped will find ways.
AND have a look at #2 the last two near bottom seems to also mean same as 1
That is blocking buddy
if you impede my path it is thereby blocked
no matter which you try and use you get pwned by the fact it IS BLOCKING.
»www.thefreedictionary.com/impede

and if they get away with an impedament today, tomorrow its full on. A wise man would say stop now and prevent the cost to taxpayers tomorrow. That kind a man gets respect formthe people of canada, he shows forward thinking. He shows direction and compassion to real people. He would do as a better politician then what we have.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21463043 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:03:28 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21463008 zinc : 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)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21463008 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:57:10 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21462886 chronoss2009 : @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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21462886 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:39:05 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21462638 alphaz18 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21462638 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:03:44 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21462509 Arbalister :
said by DKS See Profile :

said by AkFubar See Profile :

Yeah the CRTC doesn't endorse throttling but it's OK for Bell to continue doing it. Hypocrites!!!! :uhh:
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. :uhh:
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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21462509 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:44:57 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21462476 j3richo : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21462476 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:38:46 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21462098 ShadPTR :
said by CanadianIron See Profile :

said by DKS See Profile :

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. :uhh:
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. :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21462098 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:35:19 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21461932 Glen1 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21461932 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:55:35 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21461840 CanadianIron :
said by DKS See Profile :

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. :uhh:
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21461840 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:26:14 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21461615 qweloo : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21461615 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:53:02 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21461603 DKS :
said by AkFubar See Profile :

Yeah the CRTC doesn't endorse throttling but it's OK for Bell to continue doing it. Hypocrites!!!! :uhh:
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. :uhh:
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21461603 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:47:24 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21461589 AkFubar : Yeah the CRTC doesn't endorse throttling but it's OK for Bell to continue doing it. Hypocrites!!!! :uhh:
--
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21461589 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:42:02 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459394 jerseyjoe123 : 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459394 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:40:21 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459277 Guspaz : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459277 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:17:53 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459275 anon : 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."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459275 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:17:32 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459179 shikotee :
said by Stewy See Profile :

"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 :huh:
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....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459179 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:56:00 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459053 chronoss2009 : "...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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459053 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:23:49 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459044 DjEclipse :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459044 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:22:27 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459036 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 :huh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459036 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:20:46 EDT Re: We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459019 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21459019 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:16:29 EDT We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21458946 Sempronius : »www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008···qna.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21458946 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:57:28 EDT