| | 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 | |
|
 | | Re: Regulators are limp 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. | |
|
 | | | Re: Regulators are limp 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. | |
|
| | | | Re: Regulators are limp 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. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Regulators are limp 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 ? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp 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... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp I know what I am talking about and it is simple. First and foremost you must acknowledge that the ONLY time prioritizing packets is needed is when the network can't handle the traffic to begin with. Which brings us to.......
If your "users" are using to much of your network you have 2 choices:
1.) Invest in that network to reduce any potential real world bottlenecks.
AND / OR
2.) Reduce the amount of traffic going across your network by either reducing potential bandwidth available to users or by reducing your number of subscribers by raising rates.
See the problem is they don't want to do either because it effects their bottom line. For each additional subscriber they earn even more because of the minor incremental amount of resources they use in such a fixed cost network.
So instead they want to reduce the efficiency of traffic they deem not worthy as other traffic to give the illusion that the network is better managed and running better. Which it is not, especially to all that traffic that is not being put at a priority higher than the rest.
If it is a problem with such a small % of user's as all ISP's seem to claim then the very best thing they could do is open up the full bandwidth of the node to every user. This would get a vast majority of their users on and off the network the most efficiently and then they can deal with the actual problem accounts on a case by case basis (throttle them once they hit a threshold). | |
|
| | | | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp 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 ? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp I think you need to read the fine print...your misunderstanding what you asked for when you called your ISP. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | How about don't use what you don't want to pay for? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp See, but you think you're paying for an unlimited connection that runs at X Mbps at all times. Those times are gone, especially in Canada. The old argument was "don't offer unlimited if you can't provide it" but that's not relevant any more because the ISPs aren't offering unlimited. In effect, these caps are a rate increase - Rogers will still give you unlimited bandwidth, it will just cost you a hell of a lot more than it used to.
There's got to be some middle ground somewhere between what the ISPs would like to do and what the kids out there who suck down 1 TB of data per month want. ISP networks were not designed to do the latter. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp said by travisc:See, but you think you're paying for an unlimited connection that runs at X Mbps at all times. Those times are gone, especially in Canada. The old argument was "don't offer unlimited if you can't provide it" but that's not relevant any more because the ISPs aren't offering unlimited. In effect, these caps are a rate increase - Rogers will still give you unlimited bandwidth, it will just cost you a hell of a lot more than it used to. There's got to be some middle ground somewhere between what the ISPs would like to do and what the kids out there who suck down 1 TB of data per month want. ISP networks were not designed to do the latter. Valid. I also believe in truth in advertising, anti trust laws and investigating illegal monopolies and collusion agreements between "competing" ISP's. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp Unfortunately, in Canada, the Competition Bureau is about as useless as they come. I don't think there are collusion agreements between the major ISPs here, they just understand that it's best for all of them if they provide basically the same thing to customers.
So what's the answer? The two sides would seem to be totally polarized. A company like Rogers is going to do what it needs to do to protect its bottom line and provide a return to its shareholders. The kids are going to demand the right to download as many "Linux distros" as possible without any sort of control. Will they pay the freight for cable companies to split their nodes down to 50 homes? | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| | | | Re: Regulators are limp Well, to be fair, he does run a cable Internet network. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Regulators are limp said by travisc:Well, to be fair, he does run a cable Internet network. Ah, well that explains the obvious bias. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Regulators are limp 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. | |
|
| | | | 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
| |
|
| | | | | Re: Regulators are limp 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? | |
|
| | said by mr weather: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. If we didn't have foreign ownership restrictions - or at least relaxed them - none of this would be a problem. We'd have real competition in this country instead of a duopoly where each company mimics the others' prices and services. | |
|
|
|
