 milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:1
2 edits | CRTC Hearing - Day 6 - (Not Quite) The Last Day Be advised that the Union des Consommateurs might give their presentation to the CRTC in the French language. As a consequence, two versions of the last day's recordings will be made available if possible: one untranslated (i.e. "floor"), and one entirely in the English language.
Torrents of days 2 to 5 are available at the following links.
July 7: »www.mininova.org/tor/2746566
July 8: »www.mininova.org/tor/2747418
July 9: »www.mininova.org/tor/2749466
July 10: »www.mininova.org/tor/2751676
Direct downloadable versions are available at the following links.
»c1f1.podcast.ustream.ca/CRTCHear···0707.mp3
»c1f1.podcast.ustream.ca/CRTCHear···0708.mp3
»c1f1.podcast.ustream.ca/CRTCHear···0709.mp3
»c1f1.podcast.ustream.ca/CRTCHear···0710.mp3
Do note these are UNOFFICIAL recordings of the CRTC hearings. The only official information source for the hearings can be found in the form of transcripts at the CRTC's Web site.
A recording of day 1 (July 6) is currently not available. As an alternative, you may read the day's transcript, available at »www.p2pnet.net/story/24579 . |
|
milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:1 | Re: CRTC Hearing - Day 6 - The Last Day Now that the housekeeping is done, what are the chances the Union des Consommateurs will cover all the critical points of traffic management that we don't have any trouble discussing on this very forum, but which too many intervenors at the CRTC were incapable of explaining in a clear and concise way during the previous week? |
|
jvaux
join:2004-04-22
Quebec, QC | reply to milnoc
One thing that was mentioned during the presentation by the IFTA, but I don't think has been put enough emphasis on:
A lot of the talk has centered around filtering based on application and how that might cause an unfair market advantage for certain businesses. The thing is, it might not create an unfair advantage for the company doing the filtering, but still causes issues.
It seems the big providers are saying "Well, we do it to everyone, so it must be fair". But, imagine the situation where a bunch of independent Canadian artists open an online store based on P2P, and another opens one based on another technology. Obviously, the store using P2P is going to be injured by the filtering if it's done to a large portion of Canadians (their customers.) Not because the online store is being filtered, but because a large portion of Canadians are. The store can't change providers and solve the problem -- hence the "There's duopoly, so there's choice" argument it moot. As well, the Canadians being filtered probably don't even know they're being filtered (even if the ISP told them, they wouldn't make the connection that downloading from Company A is slower than B due to the ISP - They're jsut goign to assume that Company A sucks.) nor would anyone change ISPs just to be able to shop at another store online.
An Internet provider can't possibly see all the ramifications of what filtering content on a large portion of Canadians will have. Which is why they shouldn't have the option of filtering by application at all. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | said by jvaux:It seems the big providers are saying "Well, we do it to everyone, so it must be fair". .
Try applying that perspective as as a guy with several wives, arguing in favour of Polygamy.  |
|
| reply to jvaux
said by jvaux:One thing that was mentioned during the presentation by the IFTA, but I don't think has been put enough emphasis on: A lot of the talk has centered around filtering based on application and how that might cause an unfair market advantage for certain businesses. The thing is, it might not create an unfair advantage for the company doing the filtering, but still causes issues. It seems the big providers are saying "Well, we do it to everyone, so it must be fair". But, imagine the situation where a bunch of independent Canadian artists open an online store based on P2P, and another opens one based on another technology. Obviously, the store using P2P is going to be injured by the filtering if it's done to a large portion of Canadians (their customers.) Not because the online store is being filtered, but because a large portion of Canadians are. The store can't change providers and solve the problem -- hence the "There's duopoly, so there's choice" argument it moot. As well, the Canadians being filtered probably don't even know they're being filtered (even if the ISP told them, they wouldn't make the connection that downloading from Company A is slower than B due to the ISP - They're jsut goign to assume that Company A sucks.) nor would anyone change ISPs just to be able to shop at another store online. An Internet provider can't possibly see all the ramifications of what filtering content on a large portion of Canadians will have. Which is why they shouldn't have the option of filtering by application at all. This is an excellent point.....JF, something for the final submission? |
|
| reply to milnoc
One important point that MUST be driven home on Monday:
»www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpInt_Perf.page
quote:
Consistently fast service that's never shared
Congestion CANNOT exist on a service that is "never shared". Since both claims are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE by definition, Bell MUST BE GUILTY of either lying in its CRTC filings about congestion or false advertising. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6
3 edits | said by InvalidError:One important point that MUST be driven home on Monday: » www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpInt_Perf.page quote:
Consistently fast service that's never shared
Congestion CANNOT exist on a service that is "never shared". Since both claims are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE by definition, Bell MUST BE GUILTY of either lying in its CRTC filings about congestion or false advertising. .
False Ads ? - NO, not Bell ! [/sarcasm]
But quite right, they cannot both be true.
That advertising Hook was originally stated during the days of the 'Download Rigor-Mortis' TV ads, when Bell was poking fun at Rogers' neighbourhood distribution topology. |
|
|
|
| said by Davesnothere:That advertising Hook was originally stated during the days of the 'Download Rigor-Mortis' TV ads, when Bell was poking fun at Rogers' neighbourhood distribution topology. All cable internet, not just Rogers', share the same 'wire' between households though.
In any case, Bell's advertisement claim of "never shared" falls apart at the DSLAMs where dozens, hundreds or even thousands of circuits get aggregated into DS3/OCxxx/GbE/10GbE links so it never was more than a half-truth to begin with. |
|
| reply to milnoc
said by milnoc:Torrents of days 2 to 5 are available at the following links. I think your P2P-links are great. Thanks for sharing.
Also, Cogeco users are just waking up to the fact of the throttle & payload inspection by their ISP.
You should make them aware of the material available for them to see, read and listen to.
»Cogeco's throttle and DPI-Discussed
I think some are in a state of denial heh, and some are having their eyes opened finally.
+1 Milnoc
save the final days for me some place for when I get back from vacation in case there is a take-down order
I'll miss Quebecor and the Consumers Union presentations.
(also hook up the videotron forum if anything comes to light since they are oblivious to much of this).
ty. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:In any case, Bell's advertisement claim of "never shared" falls apart at the DSLAMs where dozens, hundreds or even thousands of circuits get aggregated into DS3/OCxxx/GbE/10GbE links so it never was more than a half-truth to begin with. All true, but Bell milked the term well.... |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6
2 edits | reply to Adios
Who Throttles & How said by Adios :
Cogeco users are just waking up to the fact of the throttle & payload inspection by their ISP.
.
It now looks as though nearly everyone is on the ol' DPI & Throttling band(width)wagon, though some (i.e. Telus) told the CRTC that they are currently not, but seem to wish to reserve the right to take a 'Rain Check' on it.
It would appear to be a case of methodology, though.
Cogeco was never clear on just how they apply these to their customers' data, but admitted that they do.
Primus (we thought Allstream briefly, but it's Primus) said that they do too, and gave a rather clear and sensible sounding explanation of How and When (only on demand, not by the clock) they do throttle, and provided that it's the truth, fair enough.
Allstream, who serves mostly the Biz sector Internet, I believe said that they do not currently throttle, and see no need to, as they said they also have built a sufficiently robust network.
If Cogeco customers cannot tell that they are being throttled, then the implementation could be deemed sufficiently transparent.
EDIT : Apparently Cogeco customers DID notice, and HAD complained - I must have missed that point - I'll review....
The problem in Bell's case is that it is NOT transparent, and Bell seems prepared to continue to stonewall us all about our requests that they modify (more like the Primus model) or stop the practice ! |
|
| reply to milnoc
Re: CRTC Hearing - Day 6 - The Last Day said by milnoc:Now that the housekeeping is done, what are the chances the Union des Consommateurs will cover all the critical points of traffic management that we don't have any trouble discussing on this very forum, but which too many intervenors at the CRTC were incapable of explaining in a clear and concise way during the previous week? Seriously?
The CRTC keeps asking where the money will come from.
I have to wonder if this is a loaded question from them.
Maybe them Begging someone to finally show some money the users are paying?
There was a topic I think you made about money.
-UBB
-loop fee's
-the +20$/month wholesale charge
-System access fee's
- +other
and also the gem JF covered which I tried to put into words here:
»Re: Cogeco's throttle and DPI-Discussed
+ more that the customer pays for maintenance, double dipping in B/W, upgrade fee's, line maintenance and so on.
These monies are being taken.
The only investment is their own in wholesale-locked-out remotes. Monopoly.
People on wholesale did pay these fee's. But now the maintenance, upgrades and B/W is being denied (yet double-dipping continue's).
This is a form of abuse, to which the CRTC said there was none and they are not willing to accept that there is any abuse occurring.
Bell is doing it, Rogers, Cogeco and of course TSI and all wholesalers will be part of the double-dipping even if they don't want to be, in order to fill Bell's coffers.
Their eyes need to be opened on this little thing.
The CRTC keeps asking (almost every day), Do you expect the shareholders to pay this?
Everyone to date more or less stuttered at this question when Konrad asks it.
I think they should boldly answer this question when it gets asked again next week. No stuttering.
There is double dipping going on here, as JF's presentation fully shows.
I think they need to spend at least 2-minutes of their 15-minutes on this part to show consumers are already paying and re-paying.
as for the rest... dunno. |
|
| reply to Davesnothere
Re: Who Throttles & How said by Davesnothere:If Cogeco customers cannot tell that they are being throttled, then the implementation could be deemed sufficiently transparent. No. It wasn't deemed transparent.
The CRTC came down on them yesterday for this.
Cogeco had to say that they will now inform their customer some time by the end of the year.
CRTC said they look forward to a complaint against Cogeco.
CRTC seems to have not liked what they heard and saw from Cogeco.
Also, Cogeco has repeatedly denied there is any throttling, or just ignored the questions and blamed people computers (like Bell did).
When the CRTC heard they (cogeco) look into "payload" and the throttle was 24/7 (reasoning they said, "because we can")
CRTC "seemed" to be a little put off with this.
But hard to tell... |
|
Reviews:
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| reply to milnoc
Re: CRTC Hearing - Day 6 - The Last Day »www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Ba···s#Canada
This is backed by data; which isnt arguable. If the ISP isnt on the list. They simply havent made the list yet(not enough of their customers run the program) or are not throttling bittorrent currently.
My personal opinion is... DPI under oversight for privacy concerns should be allowed to use. It should be limited to the lower 4 layers of the OSI model. It must be neutral to applications with 1 exception. VOIP. Voip needs quality of service due to 911 calls and other similar reasons. If similar arguments can be made for other applications... then so be it. Otherwise neutrality is necessary.
The underlying DPI technology on the otherhand should be still in place for ddos-malware purposes but also for a TURNITALLOFF management.
Moreover DPI being used in situations of blocking content by customer request should also be allowed. |
|
milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:1 | reply to Adios
said by Adios :save the final days for me some place for when I get back from vacation in case there is a take-down order Actually, at least one person at the CRTC is aware of what I'm doing, namely because I asked them if they had a spare recording of last Monday's hearing that I could post on-line!  |
|
| said by milnoc:Actually, at least one person at the CRTC is aware of what I'm doing, namely because I asked them if they had a spare recording of last Monday's hearing that I could post on-line! I asked the CRTC 3 days ago if they will allow public comments after the hearings.
I got no reply.
Anyone know? |
|
| Not sure if they allow comments outside of the presenters at the hearing, but CRTC did mention that additional comment will be accepted until July 24 or 26. I only follow the live blog, so I might have missed the details. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | Followup Submissions ? Last night, Rocky expressed his intent to submit something on the 24th, I think (after someone here asked whether he would be). |
|
 mazhurgPremium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
·MTS
| reply to InvalidError
Re: CRTC Hearing - Day 6 - The Last Day said by InvalidError:One important point that MUST be driven home on Monday: » www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpInt_Perf.page quote:
Consistently fast service that's never shared
Congestion CANNOT exist on a service that is "never shared". Since both claims are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE by definition, Bell MUST BE GUILTY of either lying in its CRTC filings about congestion or false advertising. Not false, misleading;
Full text:
Consistently fast service that's never shared1. Notice the one... One looks up for it further down the page is linked to »www.bell.ca/shopping/popups/pers···formance
"1Applies to the access between the customer's modem and switching equipment from Bell. Speeds may vary with your technical configuration, Internet traffic, server or other factors."
Which simply indicate that the user is on a unique wire to the CO. Grossly misleading, but true.
--
"Vision without funds....
is a hallucination" |
|
| said by mazhurg:Which simply indicate that the user is on a unique wire to the CO. Grossly misleading, but true. We need EU-style advertisement and consumer protection laws to stop companies from making barely-legal or misleading claims.
On the plus side, Quebec's revised consumer act proposes to explicitly BAN penalties beyond interests for "non-performance" by the customer which could spell the end of termination fees. This will make walking out of contracts people got tricked into by misleading advertising much easier and cheaper. |
|
