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 chuckless :

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

[giggles]

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 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 DKS :

That's my point. Capacity IS being expanded. Sorry, Rocky. You lose on that one.

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.

said by Radar73 :

I'm glad you have no complaints. I was just pointing out how your complaint about bandwidth hogs stealing your bandwidth doesn't make much sense (and sort of is a complaint).

We will find out in September if Bell's form of network management of GAS is part of their contractual abilty. I'm pretty sure I didn't read anything about purposeful degredation of regulated speeds of GAS as part of the Tarriff, but we shall see what the CRTC thinks.

said by DKS :

How so? Individually, it doesn't affect me. But in the bigger picture? yes.

said by DKS :

Who says it is "purposeful" (other than CAIP)? It's a form of network management, nothing more.

said by jfmezei :

DPI is not a network management solution, it is a service management solution which defines what types of uses of internet are to be allowed and what parts are not allowed. This is not an "engineering" decision, it is a management decision.

If congestion were a problem, Bell Canada would have delayed Sympatico 40% speed increases from 5 to 7mbps until the backbone was able to support it. That would have been an engineering solution to manage the network. The ADSL speed is the only variable that Bell can control under GAS tariffs. ISPs control how much AHSSPI capacity they purchase to support the type of uses their customers make at the speeds Bell as decided to supply on the ADSL loops.

Management at the application level is not network management, it is service management.

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 DKS :

Like mail, users pay for a certain level of service. Some pay more and some pay less.

said by En Enfer :

In your review, you wrote "Excellent value for money." as you're paying 47$ per MONTH. 47 BUCKS!!! I suspect you're expecting a lane of highway reserved to you for that price and you already expressed your anger at crazy bad bad pirates who dare stepping on your precious lane, even if your computer is shut off, and you will do anything to protect the 47$ per month you're paying for. But you're wrong! The internet is a SHARED highway. Pay 30$, pay 47$, pay even 500$ for a T1, the result remains the same: The internet is SHARED.

said by DKS :

I did not say it wasn't shared. But the internet is privately owned.

said by DKS :

I have the fastest profile available in my area.

said by DKS :

I am not throttled.

said by DKS :

I have unlimited download ability.

said by DKS :

I have 1000 minutes per month of long distance.

said by DKS :

That is excellent value for the money I pay, thank you. Combined with other bundling benefits (discounts on other services) as well as many years of being a Bell customer, it pays off.

said by DKS :

Your mileage may vary, of course. But you have no right to pass judgement on my consumer decisions, just as I do not pass judgement on yours.

said by En Enfer :

Nobody gets benefits because they're a long time customer. You get benefits ONLY if you choose a bundle, if you call retention, or accept a winback offer.

You already did in another thread. You try everytime to tell everyone in any forum that Bell OWNS the internet and all wholesale ISPs must shut up and abide by the rules, and their customers must stop filesharing because you judge it's illegal activities, all of them. Even if you don't mention names, I feel concerned anyways.

Sans rancunes.

said by DKS :

Wrong. I have received a number of benefits over the years, as a long time customer.They include discounts, extremely favourable treatment of my account and so on.

said by DKS :

Most recently it was a credit of $100 for text messages.

said by DKS :

And how have you determined that the 'internet" is owned by Bell"? I have said that the internet is privately owned inso far as its physical existence is privately owned. There are publicly owned parts, yes, but to the largest extent it is privately owned.

said by En Enfer :

sbrook , I'm waiting patiently for an answer to my last question, feel free to lock it after if it's your intention.

said by sbrook :

I know what you were looking for, InMontreal, but DKS is under no obligation to provide that answer.

The point I was trying to make was that it doesn't matter if anyone owns the internet ... what matters is who owns the networks that provide us with access and the rules and conditions they apply to that access.

said by En Enfer :

*ahem*, I meant, I'm waiting for an answer from DKS to backup his theory of "the internet is privately owned" with names and it's coverage area if possible. I wasn't honestly expecting an answer from you (but your answer is still good)... Sorry for the confusion.

said by DKS :

And last time I checked, Bell Canada owned the physical plant that allows me connection to other networks.