|
RogersSurrender with your hands up. No more games for you . At last the government is finally taking this seriously. ISP's should not have the power to set priority to information. It should be a free and not slow down certain traffic. | |
|
| Lark3po Premium Member join:2003-08-05 Madison, AL |
Lark3po
Premium Member
2007-Apr-16 2:59 pm
Re: Rogerssaid by brianiscool:At last the government is finally taking this seriously. What in the article makes you think this? | |
|
| | SteveI know your IP address
join:2001-03-10 Tustin, CA |
Steve
2007-Apr-16 4:18 pm
Re: Rogerssaid by Lark3po:What in the article makes you think this? You mean a private citizen's opinion piece in the newspaper is not the same as government action? Since when? | |
|
| | | Lark3po Premium Member join:2003-08-05 Madison, AL |
Lark3po
Premium Member
2007-Apr-16 4:31 pm
Re: RogersThought maybe I missed something... I'm lost... | |
|
| | | | |
Capitalist
Anon
2007-Apr-16 8:33 pm
Re: RogersGovernment program, government funding, public recognition and acknowledgment. Some of the chairs have advised parliament, some have given unimpeachable expert testimony. » www.chairs.gc.ca/web/pro ··· ex_e.aspNot exactly what brianiscool had in mind but the lines do blur a little. Their writings, in Journals or elsewhere, are not generally considered the musings of a private citizen. | |
|
| | | |
to Steve
Up here in Canada we do things different. Our internet is a big truck, delivers once a week (terrible ping). Our Government does what every newspaper article suggests, even the funnies (houses now required to be made of Lasagna). And we say "eh" alot, eh? | |
|
| | |
| Kdee9 join:2005-08-26 Etobicoke, ON |
to brianiscool
Traffic shaping made me jump to Sympatico DSL which is WAY better than Robbers in my area, plus they don't do any of this nonesense (other than keep me from accessing mail servers other than their own, but I can live with that).
Perhaps consumers should vote with their dollars and maybe Robbers will get the hint to stop this s**t. | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to brianiscool
said by brianiscool:Surrender with your hands up. No more games for you . At last the government is finally taking this seriously. ISP's should not have the power to set priority to information. It should be a free and not slow down certain traffic. 1st - It isn't the gov't taking notice. It was a university professor. 2nd - ISP's have to prioritize traffic flows. It is part of running a network, especially when traffic is congested. 3rd - Network neutrality has nothing to do with prioritizing TYPES of traffic. It only deals with being against prioritizing WHOSE traffic is prioritized. Meaning that you can't help your content over another content providers traffic. Slowing all P2P traffic isn't a net neutrality issue. | |
|
| | |
Re: RogersPrioritizing any packet for any reason is against neutrality. | |
|
| | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2007-Apr-16 5:43 pm
Re: Rogerssaid by Skippy25:Prioritizing any packet for any reason is against neutrality. What about ARP packets and OSPF packets that propagate routing tables and NNTP vs telnet, etc, etc? Get serious. Read this so you won't look foolish: » www.ehsco.com/reading/19 ··· cw1.html | |
|
| | | | |
Re: RogersSorry, I forgot who I was dealing with here.
Prioritizing any USER packet for any reason is against neutrality. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: RogersNo, it makes perfect sense to prioritize traffic that can't be delayed like VOIP traffic. Especially if they have their own VOIP service. Otherwise I agree that what they are doing is carried too far. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: RogersNo traffic needs to be prioritized if your network is running as it should be. They can't control anything outside their network so prioritizing it internally makes no sense.
Besides were do we draw the line? Game company A pays ISP XYZ to prioritize their traffic. VOIP company A pays ISP XYZ to prioritize their traffic. Game company B pays IPS XYZ to prioritize their traffic. And so on and so on and so on. At what point does this not become a freaking mess with every ISP wanting every service provider of some sort paying to have their packets prioritized? | |
|
1 recommendation |
Good points...but then how do you suggest Rogers improves their network? The reason Rogers started traffic shaping is because the upstream traffic saturates their network and the only way to fix it is increase capacity which is very costly. It's very easy to say that Rogers shouldn't be traffic shaping but it's very hard to keep a consistent level of service when internet usage is very high and bit torrent does not help any. | |
|
| FronkmanAn Apple a day keeps the doctor away Premium Member join:2003-06-23 Saint Louis, MO |
Fronkman
Premium Member
2007-Apr-16 3:07 pm
Re: Good points...traffic shaping is fine. there are definitely applications (VOIP, streaming, etc) that need low latency to work correctly.
it is hard to figure out what kind of encrypted traffic to shape. my company sends a lot of large documents back and forth over encrypted connections (trade secret stuff). is it fair that our throughput gets slowed down because some p2p people encrypt their stuff?
the main thrust of this argument though is who gets slowed down? if my business traffic is slowed over their network because i am not using THEIR software and choose to use another company's, that is going too far... | |
|
| | insomx Premium Member join:2003-01-26 Canada |
insomx
Premium Member
2007-Apr-16 3:11 pm
Re: Good points...Traffic shaping IS NOT OK. Why should one company tell me what I can or cannot do on the internet at the speed they say they are giving.
If Rogers can't keep up with user's needs without shaping, they NEED to UPGRADE..simple as that. | |
|
| | | Dan48Trailer Park Supervisor Premium Member join:2002-12-17 Eh?
1 recommendation |
Dan48
Premium Member
2007-Apr-16 3:14 pm
Re: Good points...What if the upgrade ends up costing you and you see a 20 or 30 dollar increase? | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Good points...Simple, if competition would be available in your region, you switch. But first you call Robbers and tell them WHY you're switching. If a lot of people do this, TRUST ME, Robbers will change their way quite fast.
Adi | |
|
| | | dynodb Premium Member join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
to insomx
said by insomx:If Rogers can't keep up with user's needs without shaping, they NEED to UPGRADE..simple as that. That doesn't work. As it stands a very small percentage of users are responsible for a large proportion of bandwidth- increasing available bandwidth just results in more being used. I don't know the details of their shaping, but if it's the case that it only kicks in when there's congestion, it only makes sense that you're going to give priority to VOIP, business traffic or even web traffic over someone downloading a 2.5 gig movie and uploading constantly. What you're paying for is not guaranteed throughput, but a best effort QoS over shared bandwidth. That is why a 1.5M/1M DSL connection costs $36/month and a 1.5M/1.5M T1 costs over ten times that. During heavy utilization, someone has to get throttled, and P2P traffic is probably the best place to start. | |
|
| | | | en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2007-Apr-16 3:44 pm
Re: Good points...T1's also come with a TOS/SLA agreement (i.e. 99.999% uptime), and you can get better than 1.5Mbps over a T1 (data compression schemes between end units). | |
|
| | | | | dynodb Premium Member join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
dynodb
Premium Member
2007-Apr-16 3:50 pm
Re: Good points...said by en102:T1's also come with a TOS/SLA agreement (i.e. 99.999% uptime), and you can get better than 1.5Mbps over a T1 (data compression schemes between end units). Except you also have to account for layer 2 & 3 overhead; it's rare for a T1 customer to get much better than 1.5M even with compression. | |
|
| | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to dynodb
said by dynodb:said by insomx:If Rogers can't keep up with user's needs without shaping, they NEED to UPGRADE..simple as that. That doesn't work. As it stands a very small percentage of users are responsible for a large proportion of bandwidth- increasing available bandwidth just results in more being used. I don't know the details of their shaping, but if it's the case that it only kicks in when there's congestion, it only makes sense that you're going to give priority to VOIP, business traffic or even web traffic over someone downloading a 2.5 gig movie and uploading constantly. What you're paying for is not guaranteed throughput, but a best effort QoS over shared bandwidth. That is why a 1.5M/1M DSL connection costs $36/month and a 1.5M/1.5M T1 costs over ten times that. During heavy utilization, someone has to get throttled, and P2P traffic is probably the best place to start. You are wasting your breath trying to explain reality to people who don't understand unlimited service costs unlimited dollars. | |
|
| | | | | en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2007-Apr-16 5:02 pm
Re: Good points...I agree... it also shouldn't be marketed as unlimited as well. I understand the role and use of caps, however, throttling unnecessarily does not please me. If I run Skype, Rogers shouldn't care If I run VPN/SSL tunnels to my office for remote work, Rogers shouldn't care. If I streamed video, Rogers shouldn't care.
If I ran spam servers, Bitorrent/Kazaa, etc. Then they have the right (no servers on the network?) to cancel service, etc. | |
|
| | | | | |
to FFH5
No, we all understand that unlimited service costs unlimited dollars. But they are selling unlimited services, so it's not our problem if it costs them unlimited dollars. If they want to show a profit, then they should sell a limited service which allows them to have the margins they want. But their marketing campaigns don't allow that, so the few can use the majority of the bandwidth, at relatively no costs. I am one of those few.
But, if they charged me 'by the byte', I would drop them so fast they wouldn't know what hit them. As long as there is true competition, there will never be a 'by the byte' service, because by the byte is NOT competitive. | |
|
| | | | | | en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2007-Apr-16 5:17 pm
Re: Good points...They can charge me by the byte... just make sure they set the rate to be..
$24.95 for 1,000 GB/month
Currently, with a 3Mbps connection, I _could_ download a little better than 1000 GB/month. | |
|
| | | | | yabos join:2003-02-16 London, ON |
to FFH5
Rogers has a 100GB cap, not unlimited, yet they also throttle certain things so you can't even use the 100GB without just using http or ftp to download everything. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Good points...WOW,that's even worse ! Thank goodness that Videotron doesn't do the same or i'd switch to DSL in a split second. I seriously don't get ppl who stay with a provider like Robbers when it offers such crap service. There is absolutely no excuse, unless you don't have anything else available..
Adi | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: Good points...said by adisor19:WOW,that's even worse ! Thank goodness that Videotron doesn't do the same or i'd switch to DSL in a split second. I seriously don't get ppl who stay with a provider like Robbers when it offers such crap service. There is absolutely no excuse, unless you don't have anything else available.. Adi In fact, the sad truth is most people don't have a choice in most of Ontario. In fact, I'm the only one in this area that can just barely get DSL and I stay on it because it's a hell of a lot more reliable than cable, everyone else is on Rogers. | |
|
| | | | | | | pfak Premium Member join:2002-12-29 Vancouver, BC |
to adisor19
No, Videotron just gives out personal information to the CRIA. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | insomx |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by dynodb:said by insomx:If Rogers can't keep up with user's needs without shaping, they NEED to UPGRADE..simple as that. That doesn't work. As it stands a very small percentage of users are responsible for a large proportion of bandwidth- increasing available bandwidth just results in more being used. I don't know the details of their shaping, but if it's the case that it only kicks in when there's congestion, it only makes sense that you're going to give priority to VOIP, business traffic or even web traffic over someone downloading a 2.5 gig movie and uploading constantly. What you're paying for is not guaranteed throughput, but a best effort QoS over shared bandwidth. That is why a 1.5M/1M DSL connection costs $36/month and a 1.5M/1.5M T1 costs over ten times that. During heavy utilization, someone has to get throttled, and P2P traffic is probably the best place to start. You are wasting your breath trying to explain reality to people who don't understand unlimited service costs unlimited dollars. Not the case, Rogers advertises 100GB cap. On the other hand, what about Aliant? Unlimited, unthrottled and they don't care about personal servers. I know cable tech is different from DSL, but their prices should reflect it. Aliant 5mpbs, unlimited, un-throtled is 35 a month, Rogers is 52 for a 100GB service. Rogers just needs to prioritize, they haven't been, I can seem them going bankrupt soon. | |
|
| | | | | |
to FFH5
TCH, unlimited service means UNLIMITED. If Teddy can't provide what they claim, then don't call it unlimited. Right now, i would call it CRIPPLED.
Adi | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to BACONATOR26
Wait for TCH to "correct" meI would suggest that Rogers, like any ongoing business concern, prioritize expenditures.
Lay 2000 km of fiber backbone where it's needed, don't buy a stadium.
Lay 50,000 200 foot runs of fiber to 50,000 homes, don't subsidize your cellular business with broadband income.
Work towards actually providing the capacity you advertise by increasing node buildout, don't move your IPTV R&D numbers into the expense column of your broadband unit.
Like father, like son. Last time it took the CRTC (a few years...) to stop these particular robber barons from financing their Cellular aspirations with cable profits. | |
|
| | •••••• |
| Stumbles join:2002-12-17 Port Saint Lucie, FL |
to BACONATOR26
Re: Good points...Ah, I see. Let me build a crappy, underbuilt network. Then entice customers with "unlimited" this and that, charge them X amount of dollars..... then short change them because I underbuilt my network.
Or in lieu of that, use the excuse of "it's costly to increase capacity" as a ruse when what I'm really trying to do is milk my existing infrastructure for every last cent.
Ya, that makes sense and fully justifiable. | |
|
en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2007-Apr-16 3:42 pm
throttling data is bad business.Slowing down a VPN is just plain wrong!
While I'm not an advocate for consumption of p2p networks, I really think that if I had throttling on my vpn, voip or other traffic network, I'd find myself a new carrier. | |
|
a1_Andy Premium Member join:2005-12-29 Oshawa, ON |
a1_Andy
Premium Member
2007-Apr-16 4:25 pm
Who needs Rogers any way?Who needs Rogers internet any way? Geeze, People who don't know will be happy with what they get from them. Those who do know will go somewhere else. Maybe Rogers should be hit with a class action law suite, that way they can use some of those million dollar profits to build capacity and not just have there executives and share holders pocket the cash. Don't even think of bringing that net neutrality thing up here Mike we already have a system of checks and balances, If someone don't like what get they can go somewhere else. who's paying you to make up this crap? (I have a good idea)Your a law professor not a IT professional. | |
|
|
They don't have a good excuseRogers argument that people are using too much upstream just doesn't hold water. If the average user is using too much upstream, then they can either allocate more bandwidth for it, or they can LOWER THE TIER. I mean, if they only provide 128KB upstream, but 10mb downstream, I can't see how they could possibly saturate the node UPSTREAM wise.
The fact of the matter is that network neutrality solves this problem by simply stating the ISP CANNOT shape traffic. PERIOD. If I PAY for 1mb upstream, I can USE 1mb upstream. If I and many other users are costing them too much money, then they can either raise rates, or lower service speeds. Of course, that will drive customers away, so that would be a bad thing. Instead, they continue to try and blame their problems on 'bandwidth hogs', who aren't really hogs at all, as they are people who are using the service they pay for.
Provide what you sell. Price it accordingly, otherwise, don't sell what you can't provide. | |
|
| •••• |
JBear join:2005-02-24 canada |
JBear
Member
2007-Apr-16 4:54 pm
what can they do?Seriously,
People are saying to invest in more backbone. Well that 1% of users who abuse the lines already will just increase their activities.
I don't know why they just don't say: "Hey, we're cappin' ur butts so we can have ALL our features/systems workin' optimally." Then there would be a lot less need for shaping and throttling. | |
|
| •••• |
|
Simple and obviousAs stated previously by persons above, but well worth repeating:
Rogers has a (pretty stringent) 100GB/mo Cap.
If they enforced this they would have no need for shaping, as the parents of the bittorrent junkies would clamp down pretty quickly after that first bill.
For users who are happy with the 100GB cap, but want occasional fullspeed bursts of BT (for linux distros etc), it is nothing less than an absolute disgrace that a $55/mo service is incapable of providing this. Doubly so as it is advertised without mention of any such behaviour. To add insult to injury by crippling my secure shells by dropping enough packets to disconnect every 10 minutes or so is unbelievable.
For those saying "Just Switch", the vast majority of customers have zero alternatives - it is the only choice if the copper in your area is insufficient for DSL (which even includes much of downtown Toronto). | |
|
| DigitalXeronThere is a lack of sanity join:2003-12-17 Hamilton, ON |
Re: Simple and obviousThere's lack of competition with Cablecos which results in Rogers (and many other major Cablecos) saying "We set you to this and there's nothing you can do about it but use DSL"
When it comes to Canada, because in Canada There's no other solid line technologies other than Copper. and our current 3 copper line techs available to residential users (T1 doesn't count) are Coaxial, Dialup and DSL, the last 2 being in a horrid state.
I bet even if the USA improves their technology (Verizon FiOS) it will stop at the border and go NO further. Why? because Major Cablecos and Telcos decide what communications equipment goes in the ground. They don't want more competition. they want less.
It's a sad fact: Net Neutrality is only a dream. it will NEVER be a true reality | |
|
|
Question?Hello All,
In my current location our ISP has recently started this "throttling" crap (TMnet aka StreamyX). I'm just curious about the definitions and their clarity.
Throttling - Limiting a connections ability to down/upload based on OSI Layer, Protocol, Packet signature, etc.
Shaping - Individual with 100Gb package has their connection "shaped" (ie speed turned down) whence they've met the 100Gb for that given month. Once the new cycle begins their back to top speed, free to download etc; until limitation is met again and so on.
NetNeutrality - The ability for all ISP's to pass traffic without influencing end points. Don't have a good example of this (I'm sure one of you INET sifu's can enlighten me). Basically I think of IE7. When you first install it; it will attempt to point you to "Live Search" for INET searches. Well I don't use "Live Search" and have no interest in that (I'm a diehard googler). The point is IE7 attempts to "direct" the end user there.
Thanks in advance all. "Increase the Peace!" | |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2007-Apr-17 5:37 pm
Network neutrality for all.If I want to spam, say your mother wears combat boots or use the interweb in anyway I demand the right to do so. Even if a so called owner now censors the heck out of my posts.
Will a certain group that shall remain nameless agree? | |
|
| |
Rogers has dreams of being a content provider.During the current bout of throttling I don't think I could use 20GB of my 100GB cap(Extreme package)if I left my computer on for 30 days straight. I pay 52$ a month for internet, that is pretty "Extreme" something. I now get unlimited DSL for about 36$ a month. Rogers is slowly moving towards controlling the content on its network. It just bought the A-Channel group of TV stations last week. The Internet Rogers forsees looks more like Pay TV than anything we envision.
I voted with my bucks and left this week. @Rogers is the new @AOL if you ask me. Anyone left on Rogers is the equivalent of an AOL user. | |
|
| | |
Re: Rogers has dreams of being a content provider.I agree with Nemo888 and some other opinions on here were good. Some people are still missing the point. Rogers advertises but doesn't mention THROTTLING anywhere! Would they even admit it if you ask them on the phone?!? I'm leaving Rogers but having trouble with my DSL connection (and I'm blaming Bell even though the dsl provider isn't Bell). Canadians are stupid. Canadians are ignorant, stupid sheep. Did anyone read the article about mobile communications recently in which Rwanda mobility communications was better than the one in Canada. » www.thomaspurves.com/200 ··· -access/Rogers and Bell are in bed with the Canadian government and have been for years. With Bell owning the lines and Rogers pushing out any competitors (they bought Sprint a while ago), they are practically an oligopoly which is heading toward monopoly. Why do people tolerate this stuff? It's awful. | |
|
|
|