Liam12360
@bell.ca
| reply to R0CKY
Re: The Bell Disclosure!
Oh, and you guys know that Google and Skype got pissed at bell for throttling, right?
If you haven't herd...
»www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008···rtc.html
I mean, when Google gets angry... |
|
liam12360
@bell.ca | reply to wait n see
I totally agree with you Wait n see! 100% |
|
koreyb
join:2005-01-08
Etobicoke, ON
 ·Primus Talkbroadband
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Liam12360
said by Liam12360 :OMG! Look at that, Just a note, they started the throttling on Nov-07 and the traffic before the throttle was LESS! I am most-def switching to TekSavvy when this crap is fixed for good.  I could believe that, at least on uplinks cause November was exactly the time when my voip started acting up! |
|
Liam12360
@bell.ca
| reply to R0CKY
OMG! Look at that, Just a note, they started the throttling on Nov-07 and the traffic before the throttle was LESS!
I am most-def switching to TekSavvy when this crap is fixed for good. |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | reply to wait n see
Agreed! |
|
wait n see
@videotron.ca
| reply to R0CKY
I wish there was a way the people could get involved and show their support for and with you, aside from writting to the CRTC as you mentioned.
This fight isn't just about business models, it a fight to be saved from such future changes Bell will likely impose down the road. This is only their first step... |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| reply to bgw
You can rest on knowing we're considering all angles at the end of the day, but we need this one to make sure it makes the battle flow more easily. What Bell did is for sure wrong but as with all bullies, we need to make sure we have all our ducks in a row to force them to play nice in the future.
This is about guaranteeing fair play from all those who've been granted monopoly rights in the past. Monopolies were given to ensure all geographies were served the same way, but what seems to have been forgotten by some of these same monopolies is their space was given to them with conditions, not earned... If they're going to abuse what was handed to them, then either they should have their rights to this space removed or have a much tighter leash put on! In either case, we the people gave them this monopoly, so we the people, should be treated with more respect.... plain and simple!
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
bgw
join:2008-06-28
North York, ON | reply to TGuy
TGuy: Brilliant article. Gets right down to the core of the issues.
Bell doesn't have a leg to stand on. I hope Rocky sees this one and leverages it to our advantage. |
|
naaaah
@videotron.ca
| reply to chronoss2008
said by chronoss2008  :and that teachers union buyout a BCE is going to get a crap more debt... They want Bell for 53 BILLION Dollars, do you honestly think another Million will make a difference? |
|
chronoss2008
Premium
join:2008-03-29
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to R0CKY
Somehow i think that civil action in quebec is looking real easy to win about now.....
More information that comes like that the more easier it will be to win and guaranteed if they do your going to see loads a other provinces that have class action ability roll out the i want some , and that teachers union buyout a BCE is going to get a crap more debt... |
|
Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
| reply to TGuy
Just proves what kind of crappy incompetent company Bell truly is. And if the CRTC doesn't take a stand against Bell, it's a joke of a regulator. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | reply to TGuy
Deadly |
|
only if
@videotron.ca | reply to R0CKY
If CAIP wins this CRTC case, I pray CAIP/Teksavvy sues afterwards on behalf of all their customers. |
|
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18 | reply to nice find
awesome link should be included =p in the crtc letter  |
|
nice find
@videotron.ca | reply to TGuy
EXCELLENT find TGuy, I will pass this along to other news links. |
|
TGuy
Premium
join:2002-11-27
Canada
| reply to R0CKY
Just found an interesting article on arstechnica about bell.
»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···ved.html |
|
CitiLaptop
@teksavvy.com
| reply to R0CKY
Perhaps we need to do the following:
a) Contact Marketing, etc. @ Cisco to tell them of our displeasure of abusing a regulatory body's public participation process with FUD.
b) Recommend something other than Linksys equipment for running Tomato. Tons of other boards should be able to work with it. The underlying tech is made by Broadcom, so the loss would purely be Cisco's. |
|
Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Note that hitting a congested link doesn't mean that the packet will be dropped or delayed. It just means that some percentage of packets arriving there will be. It depends on how congested the link is, and that data is not provided. Note: I've never worked at an ISP. Please check my work. First, a link is deemed congested when it checks congested approximatly 0.30% of the time. That's a bit less than 5 minutes of "congestion" per day. Also, a link is deemed congested when it hits a % of fullness which is lower than 100% (from 60% to 90% capacity). Thus, even if a link shows "congestion", it may not be at full capacity and may still be able to provide full speed to everyone.
Now, the % in the graphics are the percentage of a given link (dslam or bas or backbone) that hit the criteria above (ie: they hit 60% to 90% of their capacity during 5 minutes of a day). However, it's not a "chance" to hit a congested link, as the congested DSLAMS may not be congested at the same time or on the regions BAS. Also, the chance of hitting a congested link at any level can only happen when there is congestion, which can happen as little as less than 5 minutes a day (to be represented in the chart).
All that is kinda moot though since many of the levels in the chart don't even apply to independant ISPs.
Anyway, unless Bell provides better numbers (like times when congestions happened, % of capacity used, etc), the numbers provided do not prove congestion at all. |
|
oh LOOK
@videotron.ca
| reply to R0CKY
I'm not sure if this url was shown here, so here goes:
»www.zeropaid.com/news/9592/Bell+···Cases%21
It's interesting to note that Bell chose one of the most populated areas in Canada to try and prove that they are congested. what's more interesting is how Bell tries to sell these statistics as proof that they need to throttle everyone who uses their networks: |
|
IgniteNotLogged
@co.uk | reply to funchords
Not quite, you need to take each number and multiply it by the % figure of uncongested network for the next step then divide it by 100. The congestion figure will be multiplicative not additive.
Ta. |
|
