 
ykronic
Premium
join:2006-01-31
Canada
| Seriously? I think it ranges from mildly amusing to great when canadian issues make from page on the site. But does anyone really think the government cares? It almost makes me wish they'd bring Chretien out of retirement so he could break out the tasers and bear mace | |
|  | 
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Seriously? I would think that it's about time that the government should sit up and take notice, as it has become a very big issue. Canadians in general have a very bad reputation in the eyes of other countries of being a passive populous when it comes to political matters. I'm sure this will raise some eyebrows. Whatever stance the gov't does take, is neither here-nor-there, but for people affected not to take a stance at the rally, or in other ways, would be totally sad and hypocritical to not even try to make a difference. | |
| | | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: Seriously? said by Candoo3  :Canadians in general have a very bad reputation in the eyes of other countries of being a passive populous when it comes to political matters. Having observed my Canadian relatives first-hand, I would have to agree with that statement. It is usually "what is the government going to do to us now?" rather than "who do we petition/protest to stop this nonsense".
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | | 
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
St Catharines, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| Re: Seriously? said by n2jtx :Having observed my Canadian relatives first-hand, I would have to agree with that statement. It is usually "what is the government going to do to us now?" rather than "who do we petition/protest to stop this nonsense". I could go on and on about the difference between the Canadian and American political system and that while cultural differences may make an American think we don't care, it is in fact the total opposite. Not only that, but there are huge differences in how our governments serve the people. We have campaign financing limits, lobbyists are significantly restricted, we have better representation (1 MP per 80,000 or so people, instead of 1 Congressman per 800,000 people), we don't have a 98% incumbency rate like the US, we have more than two political parties, etc. The "appearance" of us not caring is only that - one only needs to look at the 1993 Federal Election to see what Canadians do to a government they are not pleased with, but had the posters known about such events they would have never made such a stupid comment about Canadians not caring. 
One thing that pretty much sums up how politically active Canadians are is what happens each afternoon on our cable news networks. News stops at 2:15PM each day (10:15 on Friday) to show Question Period in the House of Commons, and this is in addition to our dedicated C-SPANesque political channel we have called CPAC. Could you imagine CNN or Faux News in the states stopping coverage of the bimbo of the week who got drunk and crashed to show live coverage of the House of Representatives, and those events usually being part of the top national news for the day? Hell, don't even get me started on our political humour. We had Canadian equivalents of Jon Stewart, Stephan Colbert and Bill Maher back when they were in diapers. We invented political satire! Think about that long and hard before you go making uneducated comments about Canadians not giving a shit about what goes on in our government.
--
I swear that I will faithfully and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. | |
| 
sherman10594
join:2000-10-15
Thornwood, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
| How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? I thought the term "Network Neutrality" referred to the treatment of traffic used by a customer outside of their ISP's network. For example, a Verizon FIOS customer downloads a movie from Amazon. Verizon's respect of "Network Neutrality" would be to not degrade or otherwise impede the flow of that traffic (outside of their normal network practices). Am I incorrect?
The Bell Nexxia (Bell Canada's wholesale division) situation appears to be much different. In this situation, the independent ISP is leasing a direct connection to the customer (think buying a cell phone without service). Nexxia is now shaping the traffic that flows from the customer to their own ISP (before it even reaches the internet).
I believe that Bell Nexxia is doing something much worse than violating any "Network Neutrality" principle. They are deliberately crippling their competitor's ability to provide a certain level of service. Is this not an unfair trade practice (punishable by law)?
- Sherman | |
| | 
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? said by sherman10594 :I believe that Bell Nexxia is doing something much worse than violating any "Network Neutrality" principle. They are deliberately crippling their competitor's ability to provide a certain level of service. Is this not an unfair trade practice (punishable by law)? - Sherman This could very well fall under competition laws but this particular type of case has never been challenged, at least in Canada. The CRTC (Canadian version of the FCC) is still deciding whether a stop order can be issued and then it will deliberate whether it is legal. | |
| | 
Johnnycanuk
@bell.ca
| But the ISPs are using the same network infrastructure. If they were simply leasing the local loop, I would agree with you. Until the day the reseller ISPs invest in their own network and have to manage the load, I have to say I don't mind having my P2P throttled at peak times of day. Quite frankly, it doesn't bother me that the song I am downloading takes a few minutes. I just queue a few up and go play a game.
I would love to know what percentage of the people complaining about this are actually using P2P for legitimate reasons. I am sure they will all respond that they are not just downloading movies and music and games, but NEED the bandwidth to share their scientific findings at 2am and everyone wants to watch the latest CBC uber-hit, the Next Great Prime Minister. Yeah, those are real mainstream applications. (/sarcasm) | |
| | | 
tertech
join:2008-04-12
Ottawa, ON
| Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? said by Johnnycanuk :
I would love to know what percentage of the people complaining about this are actually using P2P for legitimate reasons.
If it were only P2P that would be a different story. In their surgical sledgehammer approach, they are apparently throttling all encrypted traffic - like the VPN connection I use to work from home. They deny doing that and expect everyone experiencing such problems to report it on a case by case basis. | |
| | | 
Taylortbb
Premium
join:2007-02-18
Waterloo, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Actually I'm not going to tell I'm using BitTorrent exclusively for Linux ISOs. I download movies and music, I admit it. I also use BitTorrent fairly often for "legit" purposes (Linux ISOs mainly), it probably represents about 30% of my use of BT. I say "legit" in quotes because in Canada sharing copyrighted material privately is legal, as it should be.
The problem here is that Bell is throttling TekSavvy. It's one thing for Bell to throttle their own customers, it's another thing entirely to throttle people who use wholesalers. I chose TekSavvy specifically because it isn't throttled. Market forces work, if there is demand for unthrottled internet it will be profitable for someone to offer it. The problem is Bell/Rogers are a duopoly and it's gone to their head. They have forgotten that competition exists and rather than compete fairly they wish to strong-arm their competitors out of business.
TekSavvy also isn't simply a "white label" service. TekSavvy has their own routers and their own connection to the internet. TekSavvy fully understands the expense of providing unthrottled connections, they can look at their before and after bandwidth graphs to see the difference in traffic. Bell's congestion claim is BS, the bandwidth is paid for by TekSavvy. Even if there is congestion, that's why TekSavvy pays Bell over 500k a month, so they can provide the service TekSavvy pays for.
--
Taylor Byrnes
www.taylorbyrnes.org | |
| | | |
Johnncanuk
@bell.ca
| Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? If TekSavvy has their own infrastructure, they would not be throttled. That being said, I agree that Bell needs to be more upfront about how, when and why they are throttling.
As for the whole Bell vs. Net Neutrality, please remember that Bell is not the only one doing this... I think you have it right by saying there are probably too few players, but nobody is willing to invest heavily enough to be competitive without using another providers assets.
I also think TekSavvy is playing this one a little too hard. Rocky is playing the victim card to it's most. I can't blame him, but them if I don't, I have to give Bell a pass too... | |
| | | | |
tertech
join:2008-04-12
Ottawa, ON
edit:
May 10th, @09:48AM
| Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? said by Johnncanuk :
nobody is willing to invest heavily enough to be competitive without using another providers assets.
Whose assets? I kinda recall the Canadian taxpayer funding those assets and entrusting them to Bell to maintain. In exchange for their services, Bell had a legislated monopoly for years. Now suddenly the infrastructure is theirs? | |
| | | | | |
Johnnycanuk
@bell.ca
| Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? Definitely agree for the copper loop. The internet infrastructure, such as DSLAM, Core routing equipment, etc. was not. It was built on Bell Nexxia's dime and the return on investment flows through Sympatico. The argument could be made that wireline dollars funded that, but you could also argue that it was built after the CRTC opened up the market to competition. | |
| | | | | | |
tertech
join:2008-04-12
Ottawa, ON
| Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? said by Johnnycanuk :
It was built on Bell Nexxia's dime and the return on investment flows through Sympatico.
R.O.I. also flows through the $20/mo/customer that the 3rd party ISPs pay Bell for the leasing of those DSLAMS, core routing equipment, etc. I'm just guessing here, but I could imagine that more revenue is generated through just providing that leased pipe than would be generated by a Sympatico customer, given the additional overhead of Internet access and individual billing accounts. | |
| | | | | | | 
Sean
The Great Divide
join:2004-01-23
Richmond Hil
·Bell Sympatico
| said by Johnnycanuk :
Definitely agree for the copper loop. The internet infrastructure, such as DSLAM, Core routing equipment, etc. was not. It was built on Bell Nexxia's dime and the return on investment flows through Sympatico. The argument could be made that wireline dollars funded that, but you could also argue that it was built after the CRTC opened up the market to competition.
Are you fuckin stupid?
Where did the "return on the dime" come from? Nothing would have happened without consumer tax dollars. They would not have the network to run their DSLAMs on without the network.
You can't seperate it. THEY MADE MONEY BECAUSE WE LET THEM. Just because they reinvest those profits, does not mean those profits were not the result of tax payer money. | |
| | | | | boltz
join:2000-12-06
Guelph, ON | Are you saying that teksavvy should be installing their own copper into the home.
How can you even think that that is feasible. | |
| | | | | |
Johnnycanuk
@bell.ca | Re: How is this a "Network Neutrality" debate/protest? Not the copper, but the equipment at the other end of the copper loop in the CO. DSLAMs, Core routing equipment, etc.
I would agree that saying they have to build out to every home would be WAY too extreme... | |
| | | | |
Taylortbb
Premium
join:2007-02-18
Waterloo, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by Johnncanuk :
If TekSavvy has their own infrastructure, they would not be throttled. That being said, I agree that Bell needs to be more upfront about how, when and why they are throttling. You don't understand how this works. TekSavvy does have their own infrastructure. They don't own their own DSLAMs, but they do own infrastructure. TekSavvy pays Bell for a connection from TekSavvy's infrastructure to the user's house.
Building that TekSavvy network and getting traffic from it to the internet requires they invest in infrastructure. So although it is true they don't own all the infrastructure, they own enough they can truly understand how much bandwidth BitTorrent uses. They pay their tier ones to the 95th percentile for all the internet traffic their subscribers generate.
That covers the internet connection, but what about the TekSavvy network to customer connection that they subcontract to Bell? Well in that case the rates are set at cost + 15% profit. If Bell doesn't have enough bandwidth they should light more fibre to that CO (I assure you they have extra). Bandwidth is effectively an infinite resource; not to be confused with a free resource. There is no practical limit on how much you can have, as long as you're willing to pay. There isn't a global shortage of networking equipment. Bell's argument there isn't enough bandwidth is therefore total BS.
It's really quite simple, TekSavvy pays Bell for 5Mb/s, Bell should deliver what was paid for. The only way there can be congestion is if Bell sold bandwidth that wasn't there. I understand overselling and I don't have a problem with it, as long as they keep track of peak demand and keep capacity ahead of it. It's like ordering and paying for a large fries at a restaurant, then being given a small because a "large would cost too much to provide". If it's been paid for it should be provided, plain and simple.
--
Taylor Byrnes
www.taylorbyrnes.org | |
| jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·ViaTalk
| ermm.... It's clear that Karl is feeling frisky today (quite enjoyed the earlier metered bandwidth diatribe), but this isn't news anywhere other than DSLReports, and probably won't be on May 27th either. It's likely that the entire group of protesters can be escorted away in one minivan.
Psst... Rocky is using you, but doesn't realize that the professional ranters who frequent DSLR don't get out much for protesting. | |
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: ermm.... said by jester121 :It's clear that Karl is feeling frisky today (quite enjoyed the earlier metered bandwidth diatribe), but this isn't news anywhere other than DSLReports, and probably won't be on May 27th either. It's likely that the entire group of protesters can be escorted away in one minivan. Psst... Rocky is using you, but doesn't realize that the professional ranters who frequent DSLR don't get out much for protesting. I think you are right. The # of protesters(other than TekSavvy employees) will probably be counted on 2 hands.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | silvercat
join:2007-11-07 | Re: ermm.... I think you are right. The # of protesters(other than TekSavvy employees) will probably be counted on 2 hands.
We'll see... | |
| | | | 
GKC
join:2008-03-07
Toronto, ON
edit:
May 9th, @04:21PM
| Net Neutrality means no discrimination! Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet without restrictions.
Net Neutrality prevents Internet Service Providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its sources, ownership or destination.
The principles of Net Neutrality are important to ensure the Internet provides a real opportunity for all Canadians to speak with their own voices. The loss of Net Neutrality would end all opportunity for freedom of expression.
The time is now to end throttling, traffic-shaping, including bandwidth caps and overage fees! Net Neutrality is about equal access to the Internet.
. | |
| | | | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| Re: Net Neutrality means no discrimination! said by GKC :Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet without restrictions. Net Neutrality prevents Internet Service Providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its sources, ownership or destination. The principles of Net Neutrality are important to ensure the Internet provides a real opportunity for all Canadians to speak with their own voices. The loss of Net Neutrality would end all opportunity for freedom of expression. The time is now to end throttling, traffic-shaping, including bandwidth caps and overage fees! Net Neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. Net neutrality has nothing to do with bandwidth caps or overage fees, and by co-opting the phrase to suit your agenda you're damaging the cause of people who really have reason to be concerned. | |
| | | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by GKC :The time is now to end throttling, traffic-shaping, including bandwidth caps and overage fees! Net Neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. Wait. Net Neutrality creates bandwidth?
Awesome! Sign me up! | |
| | | 
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| "don't count your chickens before they hatch" I bring your attention to the number of special elections here in the USA where one in particular, a strong Republican district since the 70's last week elected a Democrat. My point? People everywhere are fed up and the backlash has begun. | |
| | | 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Corona, NY
edit:
May 9th, @06:38PM
| TK Junk Mail:
Reasons for your claim?
Seriously, what is your purpose for posting here, other than being a corporate banner and a big waste of oxygen? | |
| | | pstewart
Premium
join:2005-10-12
Peterborough, ON | Hope you have a couple hundred toes to go with those 2 hands.... | |
| | |
Sean
The Great Divide
join:2004-01-23
Richmond Hil
·Bell Sympatico
moderated:
May 10th, @08:35PM
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by jester121 :It's clear that Karl is feeling frisky today (quite enjoyed the earlier metered bandwidth diatribe), but this isn't news anywhere other than DSLReports, and probably won't be on May 27th either. It's likely that the entire group of protesters can be escorted away in one minivan. Psst... Rocky is using you, but doesn't realize that the professional ranters who frequent DSLR don't get out much for protesting. I think you are right. The # of protesters(other than TekSavvy employees) will probably be counted on 2 hands. Didnt look at the site, did you?
There will be politicians at the protest speaking, as well as current Members of Parliament.
Still wanna try and put them into a minivan? | |
| | 
adampak20
Premium
join:2007-07-19
Sarnia, ON | You seem to doubt the hatred that most canadians have for ma bell, I think this will have quite the turnout. | |
| | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: ermm.... People don't go to protests just because they happen to hate a utility company, and political nuts who DO go to protests aren't turding around protesting utility companies.
We shall see who is right. | |
| | | | xplornetsuck
join:2007-02-22
BC
·TELUS
 ·Xplornet
edit:
May 9th, @04:36PM
| Canadians censor the net Canadians plan to protest on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, assuming they aren't detained, tasered,
I suppose Subby does not know that the RCMP are in trouble for pretending to be peacefull protestors, who(undercover police) will then act in a method to cause the uniformed police to then attack the innocent protesters. Tasers are considered a Torture weapon by the United Nations.
But being a Damn Canadian. I find it getting harder to watch videos on the internet, due to Canadian TV Networks telling the United States networks to block all access to their site from Canada or to do redirects to an unaffiliated Canadian site. Also known as Censorship..
Some quick examples for you pacifist Canadians.
»crtc-sucks.blogspot.com/ | |
| |
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
St Catharines, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| Re: Canadians censor the net said by xplornetsuck :I suppose Subby does not know that the RCMP are in trouble for pretending to be peacefull protestors, who(undercover police) will then act in a method to cause the uniformed police to then attack the innocent protesters. Tasers are considered a Torture weapon by the United Nations. Try getting your facts straight before making stupid comments. That was the SQ, not the RCMP. You do know who the SQ are, right?
said by xplornetsuck :But being a Damn Canadian. I find it getting harder to watch videos on the internet, due to Canadian TV Networks telling the United States networks to block all access to their site from Canada or to do redirects to an unaffiliated Canadian site. Also known as Censorship.. That's due to licensing, and the same thing happens to people in Europe and Australia. In fact, Americans can't watch Corner Gas and all that stuff on the CTV website - not that I can understand why anyone would want to, what a horrible horrible show. 
--
I swear that I will faithfully and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. | |
|
ParellelSpider
@nexusds.com
| Start Filing complaints Start filing complaints with the better business bureau (assuming bell hasn't been kicked out from under their umbrella). If a lot of complaints are lodged against bell they MUST take their time and answer each and every one. This would
a)Piss them off
b)Cost them money
c)Draw the attention of the BBB (and right now we need all the attention we can get)
So go and file a complaint right now and harass the bell rep that has to call you to respond. | |
| | | |
|
|
Canadian Network Neutrality Protest May 27