dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Bell Backs Away From Throttling
Due to 'The Massive Investments We've Made'
by Karl Bode 09:12AM Tuesday Dec 20 2011
You'll recall that back in 2008 Bell started throttling the bandwidth delivered to wholesale customers without telling them about it. While Bell insisted the move was due to network congestion, they were never able to prove the congestion existed. Competitors accused Bell of throttling to make sure competitors couldn't offer un-throttled services that competed with Bell's own, throttled Sympatico service. With Bell able to convince Canadian regulators on some degree of usage-based billing, back in October Bell informed wholesalers they'd be backing off throttling practices.

Now, according to filings with the CRTC, Bell says they're backing off of throttling for their own residential subscribers, claiming that the shift is thanks to their "massive investment" in infrastructure. From a letter to regulators:
quote:
"The primary driver in this is the massive investments we’ve made. This is not to say that [peer-to-peer swapping of large files] no longer has an impact on network congestion. Nevertheless … in light of the extensive investments made in additional network capacity, and given economic ITMPs [Internet Traffic Management Practices] in the marketplace, the companies will withdraw the shaping of P2P traffic on the companies’ networks, with regards to both retail and wholesale traffic."
Since Bell was never able to prove to regulators Congestion made their throttling necessary, it's a little hard to suddenly claim less suggestion was the trigger for removing it. More accurately, as the Financial Post notes, Bell's decision to back off throttling was made because they were able to convince regulators of new cap and overage pricing models more favorable to their bottom line, including last month's regulatory ruling that will substantially raise rates on competitors. As Michael Geist notes, Bell's actions may also have been shaped by the possibility the throttling practices they'd been using violated Canada's new network neutrality rules.

view:
topics flat nest 

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Hum...

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.
mogamer

join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI

Re: Hum...

said by battleop:

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

Have you ever heard of investments? Every company does it. If you have a lot of competitors in the marketplace, then you do it to stay alive and you don't pass on all of it to your customers. When you have a captive market, you don't have to do much investing and when you do you can pass the entire cost of it plus a little more down.

Teleco/cablecos are the captive market types of business and they sure don't like competition. If Bell had to throttle customers, that means that they didn't invest enough into their business. But it turns out they were basically lieing, since they couldn't prove their points.

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
I'm in shock. A company admits they no longer need throttling because they've made investments?

Other companies could learn from this....
NefCanuck

join:2007-06-26
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·voip.ms

Re: Hum...

said by PapaMidnight:

I'm in shock. A company admits they no longer need throttling because they've made investments?

Other companies could learn from this....

The problem with this shell game (and that's all it is) is that we'll never see any proof of if Bell has actually spent a single dime dealing with "network congestion" versus spending the monies on things like ads trying to convince us that Bell is better than the other large incumbent.

NefCanuck

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: Hum...

I would say that they are doing away with caps is some sort of proof that have spent a few dimes.

andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1

Re: Hum...

They are not removing caps,just throttling

ChucksTruck

@teksavvy.com

Re: Hum...

Bell also raised the overuse fee effective January 2012 to 80 dollars maximum from 60. That also may have had something to do with getting rid of throttling.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
said by battleop:

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

Yes, it was a well known fact Bell didn't feel the need to invest at all until the UBB decision didn't go 100% in their favor.

Funny how that works.

The North American Incumbents are pathetic.

fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
said by battleop:

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

There obviously wasn't.
quote:
You'll recall that back in 2008 Bell started throttling the bandwidth delivered to wholesale customers without telling them about it. While Bell insisted the move was due to network congestion, they were never able to prove the congestion existed.
--
their dreams a tattered sail in the wind
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
said by battleop:

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

What part of "Bell was never able to prove to regulators Congestion made their throttling necessary" did you not understand?

Your bizarre fetishistic worship of corporations shames the names of Tom and Jerry.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

Re: Hum...

Since you fail to understand basic English let me help you out....

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

I did not say "So there was truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers." I am suggesting that there may have been some reasons why they were throttling users and now that they have done some upgrades they do not see a reason to continue throttling.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

Re: Hum...

said by battleop:

Since you fail to understand basic English let me help you out....

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

I did not say "So there was truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers." I am suggesting that there may have been some reasons why they were throttling users and now that they have done some upgrades they do not see a reason to continue throttling.

Nope.

Look up the UBB - CRTC debacle. They were called out by consumer advocates, journalists, customers, and even the CRTC to provide evidence for over a year. It never happened.

fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
said by battleop:

Since you fail to understand basic English let me help you out....

So maybe there was some truth to why they thought they needed to throttle customers.

I understood that. You threw out a 1-line unsubstantiated PR statement to defend an incumbent practice that there never was any substantiated need for.
--
their dreams a tattered sail in the wind

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

No, It was the hue and cry and attention of the regulators that got them to back down.

They were throttling competitor's lines, deliberately in an anti-competitive move. Bandwidth had nothing to do with it. When that got rolled back, they realized that now they'd have to compete or face mass exodus of their customers to the unthrottled competition---- which was the whole reason they throttled them in the first place, so that they WOULDN'T lose customers.

Now they have to back off. They still got a huge win in very bad UBB rates however.

--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable

1 recommendation

simple

Um, "massive investments" happen ALL THE TIME in the telco/ISP business. It's part of, um, you know, business. I'm glad our friendly neighbors to the north have one less thing to worry about, it's at least a step in the right direction. I still feel sorry for those with absurdly low caps though (including some here in the U.S.)
LINCSAT
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Markham, ON

Re: simple

Smoke & Mirrors

MarkAW
Barry White
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Canada
kudos:16
said by amungus:

Um, "massive investments" happen ALL THE TIME in the telco/ISP business. It's part of, um, you know, business. I'm glad our friendly neighbors to the north have one less thing to worry about, it's at least a step in the right direction. I still feel sorry for those with absurdly low caps though (including some here in the U.S.)

Can anyone say MLSE (Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment).
--
Those who do not archive the past are condemned to retype it.(H59)
Every day I am forced to add another name to the list of people who can kiss my ass.(H59 Clan)
I have enemies? Good. That means I've stood up for something, sometime in my life.

AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

Congestion... Bah!

Even if congestion was true, Bhell's decision to throttle rather than upscale their networks is bizarre. How can you possibly suggest to offer state of the art networks when you throttle the Hell out of downloads. Their kooky idea didn't work and it cost them many customers in the end.

The regulator needs to keep it's thumb on Bhell. They can't be trusted.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled??

blueeyesm

join:2003-09-05
Waterloo, ON

Re: Congestion... Bah!

Said thumb is made of ex-Bell (and Rogers) execs.
fixitman0

join:2005-10-27
Rockford, IL

Are the caps gone?

Does this mean that the 150GB (DSL) and 250GB (U-Verse)monthly caps for home users is now gone? Do I no longer have to worry about going over my limit when watching Netfix?

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

Re: Are the caps gone?

said by fixitman0:

Does this mean that the 150GB (DSL) and 250GB (U-Verse)monthly caps for home users is now gone? Do I no longer have to worry about going over my limit when watching Netfix?

no. theres still legacy video revenues to protect. don't cut that cord yet!
--
Oh YES! let me drop everything i'm doing regardless of who it affects to deal with your petty little problem!
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06
No need to get carried away

andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
Nothing to do with US ISP's

pnjunction
Teksavvy Extreme
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1

Bell has saved us!!

From the evil P2P users and throttling with their loving investments in their network!!!




Thank you Bell!!!

Mr Chulacha

@bell.ca

MLPPP

pffttt... no diff for me... I'm still going to keep my MLPPP service with Teksavvy.

dsoegiarto

join:2010-04-16
Ottawa, ON

BS

Bull-shit.

The primary driver is because they kept losing direct consumers as people kept switching to cable or indie ISPs.
smokemonster
Premium
join:2011-02-10

Re: BS

Absolutely. That and the fact they are STILL trying to cram a reliable Internet signal onto 19th century technology - telephone copper pairs. I love seeing these massive telecom companies crying foul on our usage patterns, while simultaneously claiming to have the best, most reliable networks. Then they QQ about having to carry data from Netflix and other streaming services...
Gardener
Premium
join:2006-10-19
Burnaby, BC
Reviews:
·TELUS

Re: BS

said by smokemonster:

Absolutely. That and the fact they are STILL trying to cram a reliable Internet signal onto 19th century technology - telephone copper pairs.

Um - twisted pair does work, y'know; gigabit around the home, and 25 Mbit down the phone line. But perhaps that is not fast enough for you.
Jack17

join:2008-08-25
Sherbrooke, QC

Investment...

"claiming that the shift is thanks to their "massive investment" in infrastructure"

So let me translate that to : we invest a few thousand box here and there put some ducktape to fix the box now we are good to go...

ChucksTruck

@teksavvy.com

Bell has lost so many subscribers to cable internet that...

They don't want to lose all of them. Yet at the present moment more than 99 percent of all dsl subscribers whether it be the ones with Bell Sympatico or all the ones with the third party isp's all are still being throttling. Only a select few on fibe aren't being throttled and a few sparse cities with no population in the middle of nowhere.

Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2

Re: Bell has lost so many subscribers to cable internet that...

Better to lose many low paying Cx's, than the one's that shell out big $$$. It decreases all that congestion, ya know. And, still provides the same revenue.
PRIUS

join:2009-09-17
Toronto, ON

Little to late to soon. . .

This is a good move on Bell's part. However, the damage is already done. Bell lost scores of customers since implementing throttling. And those customers will never return. And with Bell raising rates January 1st, 2012, Bell stands to loose more customers. When is enough ever enough where Bell is concerned.

Mr_Fix_It
Premium
join:2009-03-01
Barrie, ON
kudos:1

class action suit

I guess since they started throttling without consent or knowledge and directly & intentionally interfered with a consumers internet connection than would it not seem logical that Bell needs to pay consumers back for all the time they have wasted without or permission ?

After all time is money.