jfmezei_anon
@vaxination.ca
| CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling »www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/···5400.htm
This is the web page for the public hearings on the throttling public process. While the process is a sham aimed at supporting the telcos, it is still important to follow it.
Don't bother reading any of the responses to the interrogatories, they are devoice of any numbers. There are only a couple of tidbits here and there. | |
|
jfmezei_anon
@vaxination.ca
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling BTW, the standard response to all questions is:
Pursuant to section 39 of the Telecommunications Act, certain information in this response is being provided in confidence to the Commission. Release of this information on the public record would allow existing and potential competitors to formulate more effective business plans and marketing strategies, thereby prejudicing the Companies' competitive position and causing specific direct harm to the Companies. An abridged version is provided for the public record.
Followed by a bunch of "#" characters. | |
|
 |
funny money
@videotron.ca | Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling Yeah I read it last night. Its bogus | |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | Some responses were however pretty interesting!  | |
|
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
| I love this in the Primus response to the CRTC's full page of questions about traffic management:
"The only traffic management practice currently employed by Primus is network upgrades."
--
Erik - Caneris - Internet solutions and more. | |
|
Chuck Carlson
@bell.ca | The internet in Canada has gone to "*hell in a hand basket*". Why even without throttling we are limited by an *outdated* infrastructure and network that barely worked last in the *1990's*. | |
|
LogiDVD
@teksavvy.com | So what kind of pressure can be put on the CRTC to get some of the information released, like what happened before, when they had to release all of those BS graphs showing how few nodes were "congested", and unchanged by throttling? | |
|
| 
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling said by LogiDVD :
So what kind of pressure can be put on the CRTC to get some of the information released, like what happened before, when they had to release all of those BS graphs showing how few nodes were "congested", and unchanged by throttling?
The carriers are allowed to choose which information to keep confidential and of course the CRTC will rarely release that information. Short of bribing someone in the CRTC to leak it out there's nothing much you can do. | |
|
| |
jfmezei_anon
@vaxination.ca
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling If the CRTC does not support the various requests for infiormation release, then this is not a "public hearing" since only the CRTC will have the information needed for intelligent debate.
This process was a sham to begin with, but the CRTC needs to uphold some minimum of public debate to make it appear legitimate. | |
|
| | |
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling said by jfmezei_anon :
If the CRTC does not support the various requests for infiormation release, then this is not a "public hearing" since only the CRTC will have the information needed for intelligent debate.
This process was a sham to begin with, but the CRTC needs to uphold some minimum of public debate to make it appear legitimate.
This is the unfortunate/interesting part of this all... Public, but not!
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
| |
|
| | |
OG
@velia.net
| »www.p2pnet.net/story/18214
Abridged? That means censored, surely ! ?
In other words, it’s more important that Bell competitors don’t get to compete than it is for the public to have access to details of how Bell intends to penetrate its customers even more painfully than it has already.
“If the CRTC does not support the various requests for infiormation release, then this is not a ‘public hearing’ since only the CRTC will have the information needed for intelligent debate,” says jfmezei_anon in a third post, adding »»»
This process was a sham to begin with, but the CRTC needs to uphold some minimum of public debate to make it appear legitimate.
said by jfmezei_anon :
This process was a sham to begin with, but the CRTC needs to uphold some minimum of public debate to make it appear legitimate.
| |
|
| | | |
Bellus_1
@cia.com
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling I have to step in here and tell people that the sensitive business information in the replies cannot be given out to everyone. It contains the details of company operations that are extremely valuable to the competition. What business would want all its secrets, its competitive edge, to be made public?
The information is there for the adjudicators at the CRTC to review. They likely have in house counsel and technical experts that review the info and provide analysis. But it remains confidential because it is so critical to the business. Do IBM, Google, Apple, TD, RIM or any other public company post every intimate detail of their operation to the public? Do any of the CAIP members? Not one responsedent porvided all this for the public. Will the hereos of P2P and NetNeutrality reveal all their intimate details like traffic consumption data? | |
|
| | | | |
jfmezei_anon
@vaxination.ca
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling >It contains the details of company operations that are
>extremely valuable to the competition
Horse radish.
Internet service providers use off the shelf technology using published standards. There is really nothing proprietary about it. Nobody is asking the telcos to divulge how much they paid for the hardware, or how much they are paying for internet transit.
>They likely have in house counsel and technical experts that
>review the info and provide analysis.
The CAIP vs Bell fiasco has proven that the CRTC does not, and even if it does, it has total disregard for their opinion because in the end, they use pre-packaged argumentsprovided by the telcos to make their legal precedent-setting judgements.
At the very least, by making the process public, we, the citizens, can hold the government acountable to the total disregard the CRTC has for facts.
Traffic consumption per user is not something which is really private. And if the telcos want to have permission to screw customers, they need to at least divulge those numbers. In fact, in this process, they will be asked to divulge even more.
The ISPs must not be allowed to keep on increasing modem speeds (aka: marketed speeds) without matching backbone capacity increases. The throttling is being done because they failed to upgrade their backbone, and we, the people, need to know that there are rules that prevent fraudulent advertising of speeds the ISPs are unable to provide.
If the ISPs were not ready to drop trousers, they should not have started to thorttle customers. | |
|
| | | | | |
Bellus_1
@cia.com
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling Well, certainly the achievable sync rate on ADSL is no secret, but the capacity of backbones links/DWDM/Fiber (installed and potential), their utilization rates, trends, per subscriber usage and such are. If all this information were so public and of trivial business value, there would be no incentive to invest any effort in keeping it secret and we'd read all about it in the trade rags. Instead, people pay telecom analyst firms to provide them reports on technology, trends and emerging standards. The fact that coke has water, caffeine, caramel colour, and other ingredients is no secret, but the exact mix is. And nobody has bothered to ask where the CAIP members are in disclosing all their business information.
I'd also like to point out that what is OK according to the regulation may not be what you, me or the P2P consuming public likes, but those are two different standards. Rational analysis by actual experts and emotionally tinged armchair experts (which I'm sorry to say includes many contribs at P2Pnet) produce different results based on different standards and methods. I personally am distressed that wholesale cable ISP's will soon be throttled but I understand that according to the "letter of the law" what is happening is ok despite how bitter the taste to consumers. In addition, if the CRTC's decision didn't jive with the regulation, there are avenues of appeal. But given the facts in evidence, but there is no case to be made under the current regs since the treatment of wholesale and retail customers is the same, nor does DPI violate the telecomm act with respect to altering or intercepting communications.
Lastly, nobody here is buying dedicated access. Yes, with dsl the last mile is a dedicated copper loop, but beyond that the infrastructure is shared and oversubscribed, like every consumer broadband product is. | |
|
| | | | | | |
jfmezei_anon
@vaxination.ca
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling >Lastly, nobody here is buying dedicated access. Yes, with dsl
>the last mile is a dedicated copper loop, but beyond that the
>infrastructure is shared and oversubscribed, like every
>consumer broadband product is.
Says a Bell supporter who apparently has forgotten all the Bell Canada adnertising shouting loufdly that bell lines are NOT shared and that you can download all the videos and musci you can without impacting your neighbours.
This is all about FRAUD. You can't advertise speeds you can't deliver.
If this nation is to establish acceptable levels of oversubscriptions and acceptable levels of thorttling, then we need to know what current levels of oversubscription are and then set minimum standards.
A telco which does not meet such standard should not be allowed to throttle. | |
|
LogiDVD
@teksavvy.com
| At least here: »crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8646···5400.htm
The CRTC has a deadline of Jan 19 to request public disclosure (presumably of redacted facts?), so can I assume that TSI/CAIP/whomever is on top of this, or should I send in my own submission as well? | |
|
|
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling said by asoces  :Came across this PDF at Michael Geist's blog (» www.michaelgeist.ca/) Basically, the big ISPs admit they have no idea how much of their traffic is P2P, yet they ARE positive that P2P is causing traffic congestion on their networks. Really. That's interesting. » www.christopher-parsons.com/Publ···b%29.pdf The other interesting part is video streaming sites like youtube are overtaking p2p traffic. Bell's own submissions in the throttling case project that it will hold the majority of traffic usage by 2011! | |
|
| | 
WeRAnonymous
Professional Troll
join:2008-12-10
Ottawa, ON
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling said by mlerner :video streaming sites like youtube are overtaking p2p traffic. Bell's own submissions in the throttling case project that it will hold the majority of traffic usage by 2011! Oh well...there goes the set top box streaming video services (netflix) that are just trying to get off the ground. I imagine when Bell throttles the streaming media traffic (don't say they won't try), it'll kill those businesses, providing that they don't use different packet headers. Expect to see another date with the CRTC when that comes, but don't worry, the CRTC will make things BellER. | |
|
oh LOOK
@videotron.ca
| The Quebec Union des consommateurs filed an application with the CRTC for some of the confidential information to be disclosed to the public record.
PIAC is also seeking release of some of the information that Bell and Rogers filed confidentially.
The Commission is scheduled to rule on these applications next week.
=====================
Sorry, no link (yet). | |
|
|
oh LOOK
@videotron.ca
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling In addition to The Quebec Union des consommateurs and PIAC's request to release information, These parties have also filed requests for disclosure:
the Campaign for Democratic Media (filed by CIPPIC),
the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, and
CAIP (the Canadian Association of Internet Providers). | |
|
| |
oh LOOK
@videotron.ca | Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling All the new filings are now online (CAIP included). | |
|
| | |
jfmezei_anon
@vaxination.ca
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling I received today a responce from my "Freedom of Information" request to the CRTC.
I was given printouts of powerpoint presentations which apparently are the documents presented to the council by the analysts.
You know all the pejorative qualifiers associated with "Powerpoint presentations" ? Well, they apply to this.
Of course, the slides coveraing whether bell was breaking the telecom act were blanked out.
More importatly, there is NO mention of any subissions by anyone other than CAIP or BELL. So everyone else who spent time making submissions: you wasted your time.
CAIP should **NOT** have made a submission and forced a different process by having multiple independant submissions. (Especially since CAIP handed the decision over to Bell for an easy wil with its last submission).
BTW, The CRTC is truly convinced that Bell simply *delays* packets. Even though my submission was the only one to discuss how the throttling was done (Bell drops over 20% of packets), the CRTC paparently got the "delays packets" from some undisclosed source since Bell didn't mention how it thorttled in any of its submissions. AKA: Bell had a productive golf game with some CRTC folks where Bell was able to brainwahs them into thinking this.
Why is it important ? Accepting the false premise that Bell just delays packets makes it easy for the CRTC to avoid the obvious problems of throttling and rule in favour of throttling since it sees it as a benign action. | |
|
| | | |
Peerier
@teksavvy.com
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling JF: nice uncovering there.
Any idea who the analyst(s) were?
Isn't it possible to appeal the CRTC's redactions on whether Bell was breaking the telecom act to the Office of the Information Commissioner to get them to force the release of the info?
Also, perhaps another FOI request on the selection process/criteria/payments for the analysts (or were they internal?) | |
|
| | | | |
Sunny squirrel
@vaxination.ca
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling No idea who the analysts were. But it is clear that the process considered only the CAIP and Bell submissions. And the powerpoint "points" are not technical in nature.
No discussion of protocol. No indication whatsoevere that they understand the internet or difference between PPPoE, IP, TCP etc.
From what I have been told, they typically for non-important dossiers just make a powerpoint presentation and provide verbal explanations to the council. There is no available record of verbal discussion. (I would assume that there would be a secretary taking minutes of the meeting, but this is not released under access to info act.)
Should there be a change of government, the new minister in charge of the CRTC has full access to all that stuff and could decide to make it public with some restrictions. | |
|
| | | |
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON | Leak it to the press JF. We need to expose Bell and the CRTC for what they really are. | |
|
| | | | |
An0nym0us
| Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling Nothing to 'leak,' just give it to them | |
|
|
|
|
|
