dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1129
share rss forum feed


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Hum...

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

mogamer

join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI
said by battleop:

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

Have you ever heard of investments? Every company does it. If you have a lot of competitors in the marketplace, then you do it to stay alive and you don't pass on all of it to your customers. When you have a captive market, you don't have to do much investing and when you do you can pass the entire cost of it plus a little more down.

Teleco/cablecos are the captive market types of business and they sure don't like competition. If Bell had to throttle customers, that means that they didn't invest enough into their business. But it turns out they were basically lieing, since they couldn't prove their points.


PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
reply to battleop
I'm in shock. A company admits they no longer need throttling because they've made investments?

Other companies could learn from this....


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to battleop
said by battleop:

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

Yes, it was a well known fact Bell didn't feel the need to invest at all until the UBB decision didn't go 100% in their favor.

Funny how that works.

The North American Incumbents are pathetic.

NefCanuck

join:2007-06-26
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:

I'm in shock. A company admits they no longer need throttling because they've made investments?

Other companies could learn from this....

The problem with this shell game (and that's all it is) is that we'll never see any proof of if Bell has actually spent a single dime dealing with "network congestion" versus spending the monies on things like ads trying to convince us that Bell is better than the other large incumbent.

NefCanuck


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
reply to battleop
said by battleop:

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

There obviously wasn't.
quote:
You'll recall that back in 2008 Bell started throttling the bandwidth delivered to wholesale customers without telling them about it. While Bell insisted the move was due to network congestion, they were never able to prove the congestion existed.
--
their dreams a tattered sail in the wind


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to NefCanuck
I would say that they are doing away with caps is some sort of proof that have spent a few dimes.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to battleop
said by battleop:

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

What part of "Bell was never able to prove to regulators Congestion made their throttling necessary" did you not understand?

Your bizarre fetishistic worship of corporations shames the names of Tom and Jerry.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

reply to battleop
No, It was the hue and cry and attention of the regulators that got them to back down.

They were throttling competitor's lines, deliberately in an anti-competitive move. Bandwidth had nothing to do with it. When that got rolled back, they realized that now they'd have to compete or face mass exodus of their customers to the unthrottled competition---- which was the whole reason they throttled them in the first place, so that they WOULDN'T lose customers.

Now they have to back off. They still got a huge win in very bad UBB rates however.

--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to battleop
They are not removing caps,just throttling


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

reply to sonicmerlin
Since you fail to understand basic English let me help you out....

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

I did not say "So there was truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers." I am suggesting that there may have been some reasons why they were throttling users and now that they have done some upgrades they do not see a reason to continue throttling.


ChucksTruck

@teksavvy.com
reply to andyb
Bell also raised the overuse fee effective January 2012 to 80 dollars maximum from 60. That also may have had something to do with getting rid of throttling.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit
reply to battleop
said by battleop:

Since you fail to understand basic English let me help you out....

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

I did not say "So there was truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers." I am suggesting that there may have been some reasons why they were throttling users and now that they have done some upgrades they do not see a reason to continue throttling.

Nope.

Look up the UBB - CRTC debacle. They were called out by consumer advocates, journalists, customers, and even the CRTC to provide evidence for over a year. It never happened.


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
reply to battleop
said by battleop:

Since you fail to understand basic English let me help you out....

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

I understood that. You threw out a 1-line unsubstantiated PR statement to defend an incumbent practice that there never was any substantiated need for.
--
their dreams a tattered sail in the wind