LogiDVD
@teksavvy.com | reply to jfmezei_anon
Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling
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
| 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
| 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
| 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
|  reply to jfmezei_anon
»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
| 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
| >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
| 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
| >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. |
|
