said by DKS :

Well, the analogy to snail mail is a bad one. They claim DPI is like opening mail and deciding when it will be delivered.

Wrong.
Bad analogy. Muddy thinking.

said by mazhurg :

The real issue is about something a lot more basic:

Bell Networks was contracted, and paid to supply transfer data packet(s) from point A to point B. Nothing more. Not to look and delay, not to reroute, not to *inspect* and not to drop them en-route as per the appropriate schedules.

Now Bell can squirm and protest all it wants, but unless that schedule change then is it against regulations for it to do more.

said by DKS :

Bell also has the right to take measures to protect its network when traffic loads overwhelm it. Which is the point of the discussion. Bell says it is and it has the right and the CAIP says it isn't and it doesn't. And the lawyers win.

said by chuckless :

DKS seems to still believe in the 5% bullsh|t which even bell has abandond.

[giggles]

said by mazhurg :

Oh please . Yes they can, in a transient and effective manner while they fix the cause of the problem. The transient solution appears pretty permanent; there does not seem to be any move toward fixing the alleged load (usually by ahem... upgrading???) other than to deny sold services.

Anyway, I said my piece.

said by DKS :

I note several new remotes in my community. DSL coverage areas have been expanded out of this CO in the last year. Upgrading is happening. It's just not happening fast enough for the bandwidth hogs and thieves.

said by R0CKY :

Remotes have nothing to do with Bandwidth hogs/thieves.... It's an expansion to service more people/clients that aren't currently serviceable at all or at the advertised speed rates.

said by root9 :

Hey DKS
You have been Busted!

And now who's wearing the tin hat? hahaha rofl hahaha
You bring such good laughable satire to dslreports

Thanx for the gut wrenching laugh of the day ROFL

said by Radar73 :

There's no such thing as bandwidth hog. It's made up just like most of Bell's data on congestion is. People pay for a service offering that includes unlimited bandwidth at a fixed speed. No service is unlimited. There's a speed limit on your transfers, so even downloading at full capacity 24/7 for the entire month will only get you so many gigs. Your personal bandwidth is never tred upon by pirates or otherwise, and if you think differently, then you should take you concerns up with Bell for oversubscribing your CO/DSLAM.

As for CAIP vs Bell, Bell is the common carrier whose obligation under GAS is to transport a PPPoE packet from a residence/business to the connection point of the third party ISP at the speed alloted for under GAS. That doesn't require Bell to look any further past the PPPoE packet header to get the job done. The payload of the packet is private communications between the subscriber and the ISP. The mail analogy CAIP used is more accurate the the BS Bell tried to get away with.

said by DKS :

My CO isn't oversold and my connection isn't throttled. I have zero complaints with Bell. Your point?

said by DKS :

Your forget that Bell has the contractual ability to manage their network. You don't like the way they are managing it. Tough. The contract is between Bell and their clients. Let them and their lawyers fight it out.