Topic 'Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision' in forum 'Rogers' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23242595 en Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:12:15 EDT Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:12:15 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23333223 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23333223 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:07:54 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23333053
You'll note please Chronoss that I'm pulling your leg. While it's one thing to sue the CRTC, it's a nonsense to sue any political party. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23333053 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:33:32 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23332543 said by mlerner:

Since there's no actual law on this, it's all up to interpretation and the CRTC can pick and choose whatever case they want. It's more of a voluntary framework.
actually if there is no law on a subject anyone can interpret the law as they see fit AND until it gets to a LEGAL framework like a judge or ..if its the area of the CRTC for a ruling or case based on legalities. AND if you don't like the CRTC start suing them and the conservative party .....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23332543 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:32:21 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23330675 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23330675 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:36:43 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23330271
I laughed, and said they were wrong.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23330271 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:20:34 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23291409 said by ModdTaco:

I can't even find that in the terms and conditions. They hid it well.
As said earlier in this thread, they have 30 days from the decision to have it in place.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23291409 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:34:38 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23290425 said by bt:

said by Croaker:

Are you sure about this? They don't need to add ITMP to service terms and conditions?
Apparently they only need to reference the online disclosures in the service terms and conditions.

From the CRTC ruling:

...disclose to their retail customers, clearly and prominently on their websites, information related to their technical ITMPs.(12) The ISP must also reference its online disclosures in relevant marketing materials, customer contracts, and terms of service.

(12) Such information, or links to it, should be provided on web pages that describe the actual retail Internet service offerings; for example, where speeds are described, there should be links to information describing how ITMPs may impact these services.
I can't even find that in the terms and conditions. They hid it well.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23290425 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:57:13 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23290124 said by Croaker:

Are you sure about this? They don't need to add ITMP to service terms and conditions?
Apparently they only need to reference the online disclosures in the service terms and conditions.

From the CRTC ruling:

...disclose to their retail customers, clearly and prominently on their websites, information related to their technical ITMPs.(12) The ISP must also reference its online disclosures in relevant marketing materials, customer contracts, and terms of service.

(12) Such information, or links to it, should be provided on web pages that describe the actual retail Internet service offerings; for example, where speeds are described, there should be links to information describing how ITMPs may impact these services.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23290124 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:04:41 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23289284 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23289284 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:49:16 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23288581 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23288581 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:58:52 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23284797 said by bt:

They are required to publish information on what is already in place within 30 days of the decision. I don't believe they are required to send notification to users when they do - they just have to put it somewhere "clear" on their website.

Expect it to go up at 11:59pm, Nov 22 at the earliest.
Oh ok. So does that mean we all start fling complaints on the 23rd?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23284797 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:50:23 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23284755
Simply posting on a website whose content is already difficult to find is enough?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23284755 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:40:56 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23284733 said by static416:

So when, if ever, are we expecting the ISPs to react to this? When am I going to get a letter explaining why my bittorrent upload is throttled to zero 24/7?
They are required to publish information on what is already in place within 30 days of the decision. I don't believe they are required to send notification to users when they do - they just have to put it somewhere "clear" on their website.

Expect it to go up at 11:59pm, Nov 22 at the earliest.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23284733 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:35:22 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23284459 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23284459 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:47:27 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23283915 said by mlerner:

Since there's no actual law on this, it's all up to interpretation and the CRTC can pick and choose whatever case they want. It's more of a voluntary framework.
So when, if ever, are we expecting the ISPs to react to this? When am I going to get a letter explaining why my bittorrent upload is throttled to zero 24/7?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23283915 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:04:11 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23247806 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23247806 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:19:39 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23247771 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23247771 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:13:58 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23247728 said by sbrook:

Blanket throttling is no longer acceptable ... there's nothing special in regard to encrypted traffic.
However, throttling all encrypted traffic may not be considered to be targeted enough to pass the new rules if it's only a portion of the encrypted traffic that's shown to be an issue.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23247728 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:06:22 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23245189 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23245189 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:39:25 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23244178 --
Jake: "Four fried chickens, and a coke" Elwood: "And some dry white toast, pleas]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23244178 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:11:59 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23243296 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23243296 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:26:31 EDT Re: Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23243191 said by braggd:

So, since they are prohibited from throttling time sentitive traffic, would that mean that Rogers would effectively be prevented from blanked throttling of encrypted data?
That's certainly my hope.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23243191 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:11:43 EDT Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23242595 Geist Weighs In On NN Decision - Toronto Star Column over in the TekSavvy board.

If I understand how the Rogers throttling works this has significant implications for them. My understanding from what I have read here is once Rogers triggers throttling, not really sure what the triggers are aside from P2P, it will then throttle all traffic on your line.

Based on what I have read on other users experiences, this includes all traffic, regardless of protocol, port, speed, etc. Specifically, VoIP, streaming, etc are all throttled if throttling is on. Thus, it would seem as though the Rogers throttle would fall afoul of the prohibition against throttling of time sensitive data.

However, the details on the Rogers throttle seem much thinner than the Bell throttle. But, also based on this current decision, Rogers would be required to make specific statements on throttling practices. This would allow rogers user to better manage how they use the service to mitigate the impact of the throttle.

Finally, what is less clear is how this decision would impact Rogers choice to throttle all encrypted traffic. Since, by definition, Rogers would not be able to determine the type of use that the encrypted traffic is being used for. Thus, they would not be able to differentiate between say, an SSH terminal session, or an encrypted VoIP connection from an encrypted P2P link, or SSH tunnel, etc.

So, since they are prohibited from throttling time sentitive traffic, would that mean that Rogers would effectively be prevented from blanked throttling of encrypted data?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Rogers-Throttling-and-new-CRTS-Decision-23242595 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:23:06 EDT