 El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·voip.ms
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to R0CKY
Re: R&V comments on throttling case allowed until June 22nd... Anybody care to post their responses? I'm having a heavy day a work, but would like to comment as well, or at least plagiarize a couple of yours to make a comment.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
 AngeloThe Network GuyPremium
join:2002-06-18 | i need to update mien abit...
hivolt usually submits great writings |
|
El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
| I have no beef with my writing skills but it's the weekend and I take french calls, and they all want to get their stuff over and done with today, so they don't have to deal with clients over the weekend.
We get swamped on Fridays...
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
| reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:Anybody care to post their responses? I strongly support CAIP (et al)'s request for the review & vary.
Their document is concise and describes my extreme frustrations with the original ruling.
Some points that are of particular concern to me are:
1. Why is Bell allowed to look deeper into the packets than the PPPoE (Layer 2) header, when these headers are all that are required to provide the service? (contrary to the Criminal Code)
2. From Bell's point of view, since it is a layer 2 service they are providing, what is the difference between saturating a link with HTTP (or any other protocol) versus Bittorrent traffic?
3. If they are allowing their customers to saturate a faster (i.e. 16Mbps/ADSL2+) line with HTTP traffic, how does saturating a 5Mbps (i.e. GAS-tariffed) line with BitTorrent traffic cause more congestion? (considering that they are both only layer 2 packets)
To me, the whole thing [Bell's responses, and the CRTC's interpretation of those responses] stinks.
None of these issues were addressed in the initial ruling and are, in my opinion, *the most important* questions worth answering.
Please seriously consider this request - and *actually* answer these questions for the Canadian public. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| One needs to remember that while currently, Bell is getting away with giving us only 5mbps versus whatever speeds Bell Marketing adversises this week, the CRTC may not put much weight on this because it has already ruled that Bell should provide access to equal speeds.
At the time of the decision, this was a major error in the CRTC's part, as they had not yet rendered 2008-117 (equal speeds). But internally, they may had already decided to force Bell to give equal speeds. |
|
|
|
