| Regulators are limp Canada has two bureaucracies to deal with when it come to telecommunications: Industry Canada (IC) who handles the technical aspects and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) who handles things like broadcast licences, telephone issues, Canadian Content enforcement and so on. Problem is, IC doesn't give a shit about what's going on with the incumbant ISP's and CRTC is packed with ex-industry types who are still beholden to their former employers.
The end result is a spineless, impotent regulator who cares more about appeasing the big telcos than looking out for the interests of Canadians. Robbers/Bellus gets to do pretty much what it wants and we subscribers take it up the pooper.
--
"It's all coming down!!" - Mike Holmes |
|
| It's the CRTC's fault that we're now having to pay premiums for overages on the CAP system. If we didn't bitch about the bandwidth throttling and allowed Rogers/Bell to manage the network for us then we wouldn't have a problem.
The bottom line is that the network can only handle so much traffic ...if the CRTC is telling IPS's that they have to prove that they need to throttle & publish how they are doing it if at all then we're going to get an open network that is best efforts with heavy premiums for abusing it. |
|
| said by breniii:It's the CRTC's fault that we're now having to pay premiums for overages on the CAP system. If we didn't bitch about the bandwidth throttling and allowed Rogers/Bell to manage the network for us then we wouldn't have a problem. The bottom line is that the network can only handle so much traffic ...if the CRTC is telling IPS's that they have to prove that they need to throttle & publish how they are doing it if at all then we're going to get an open network that is best efforts with heavy premiums for abusing it. Bullshit. That is not "managing" the network but preventing people to use what they bought under false advertising, paid for and tried to use in good faith. |
|
| reply to breniii
said by breniii:0 The bottom line is that the network can only handle so much traffic ... Do have any data to support your theories? You are so brainwashed it's laughable. |
|
|
|
| Well, to be fair, he does run a cable Internet network. |
|
| reply to WernerSchutz
No, they tried to make sure that the services that have people actively using (a person is sitting in front of the pc waiting for a web page to come up) get priority over something like a torrent that you tell it to download and come back a day later and it's done. |
|
| reply to sonicmerlin
This is hard to prove without the exact place you want me to talk about and without access to Rogers DB that shows the take rate on that node...however in general cable companies around the world try to build 500 homes to a Fiber node ...that node will probably have 1 to 8 downstreams and up to 4 upstreams....that means 304Mbit/s downstream and 108 Mbit/s upstream per node best case...(that is DOCSIS 3)..
that should support my theory that the network can only handle so much traffic?
Ref: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS
|
|
| reply to breniii
said by breniii:No, they tried to make sure that the services that have people actively using (a person is sitting in front of the pc waiting for a web page to come up) get priority over something like a torrent that you tell it to download and come back a day later and it's done. Sure. Did they employ "management" using Sandvine as Comcast did ? |
|
| I have no idea what Rogers did or who's equipment they used to tell you the truth...I know from being at industry events that the goal of most cable operators was to make sure people in front of screens got results...and people who had less time sensitive content would get a back seat. |
|
| reply to breniii
Well if that's the case, cable companies need to split these nodes multiple times and not recoup any of the cost of doing so, correct? |
|
| reply to breniii
You do realize that congestion on any network is the result of an inadequate network and not too much traffic right? If their network can't handle the traffic placed on it because the equipment they have is not adequate enough then they need to lower their speeds to something they can handle.
Not a single packet needs to be or should be placed above another for the sake of "management". Managing packets like that creates overhead just as routing it does, so do the right and correct thing and just route it.
Nice try at the "save the network" attempt though. |
|
| If your after CBR (that's what your talking about, constant bit rate) you can call up Rogers Business Solutions and ask for a Fiber connection with whatever bandwidth you'd like and they will charge you for that...likely thousands of dollars for a 100Mbit connection...if you want a cheap solution that works then you go best effort.
The Rogers network, like all major networks built for the past hundred years is a best efforts network (telephone network included)...they over subscribe the network to make it cost effective...they know that not every one of the subscribers is going to use the network 100% of the time...but for those users who choose to abuse it then we need to do something about it so it's fair to everyone... |
|
| reply to Skippy25
So only a typical non-DOCSIS 3 node, which has 38 Mbps of downstream bandwidth and say 350 serviced houses, each home should get about 100kbps speed so they can all use it non-stop and no traffic management or capping would be needed.
Or, Rogers can pay many millions, if not billions to split the nodes down to serve many fewer houses, and pass the costs along to the customer. |
|
| said by travisc:So only a typical non-DOCSIS 3 node, which has 38 Mbps of downstream bandwidth and say 350 serviced houses, each home should get about 100kbps speed so they can all use it non-stop and no traffic management or capping would be needed. Or, Rogers can pay many millions, if not billions to split the nodes down to serve many fewer houses, and pass the costs along to the customer. Don't sell shit you cannot deliver, how about that ? |
|
| I think you need to read the fine print...your misunderstanding what you asked for when you called your ISP. |
|
| reply to WernerSchutz
How about don't use what you don't want to pay for? |
|
| reply to breniii
said by breniii:I think you need to read the fine print...your misunderstanding what you asked for when you called your ISP. Yes, the fine print in .4 typeface, the masterful legalese piece of work of deceptive advertising ? Sure. The issue is that also the government should read it and enforce the laws against it. |
|
| reply to travisc
said by travisc:How about don't use what you don't want to pay for? That is absolutely correct. I am using what I have already paid for. The "management" was not part of that purchase, unless it is ok to pay with counterfeit money, which are cheaper to produce than real money and save the environment, also. |
|
| reply to travisc
said by travisc:Well, to be fair, he does run a cable Internet network. Ah, well that explains the obvious bias. |
|
| So on the one hand, we accuse him of being biased, on the other hand we accuse him of not having any valid information. Glad to see that we're in for a reasonable discussion of the issues. |
|
