 
AR
Premium,ExMod 2001-04
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Suuure.... The CRTC will take the data provided by Bell and tell the ISPs that poor Bell deserves reprieve.
If there was truly public interest at heart, they should have put an immediate stop to the traffic shaping initiative and then demanded this data. Now, it's just posturing to establish Bell's case. | |
|
jsmaster
join:2008-03-16
Montreal, QC
·Videotron
·Cogeco Cable
| If only 5% generate 60% of the total traffic... ''Bell Canada states that 5% of users were generating 60% of total traffic and 60% of that traffic was P2P traffic and Bell concludes that 95% of Bell subscribers were being negatively impacted. Provide full rationale and evidence in support of Bell Canada 's view that 95% of its customers were being negatively affected.''
Bell Says that your internet line is dedicated and not shared. So how 5% users could generate 60% of the traffic?????
If a line is dedicated, so the bandwith for this 5% should represent 5% of the total traffic no ?
So in their advertising they tell lies to customers.
Even more when they say " always fast, never shared"
I don't work with Bell anymore and I'm happy about this. I will not be forced to tell lies to customers.
I was with bell for the internet and I'm about to make a formal complaint for lie in advertising. My internet was always down and OO god. ButI'll stay on topic. | |
|
 | reelbigfish
join:2002-06-06
Boston, MA | Re: If only 5% generate 60% of the total traffic... It is dedicated up to the DSLAM at which point it is aggregated and from then on out the bandwidth is shared. It is the nature of the internet, somewhere you have to share bandwidth. With cable it is at the node, DSL at the DSLAM. | |
|
| | 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: If only 5% generate 60% of the total traffic... But my understanding is there is more total throughput available to the DSLAM than equivalent channel capacity to a node, meaning that it's harder for a few users to hammer an entire DSLAM while a few users can saturate cable upstream channels. | |
|
| | | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: If only 5% generate 60% of the total traffic... Even if the DSLAM isn't congested (and this can also happen), the ISP trunks and trunks between it and the DSLAM can be.
Yeah, yeah- I know. 'Just add more bandwidth' is always the standard reply here, but doing so is neither easy or cheap. | |
|
| | | | HoserMcMoose
join:2003-07-26
Kitchener, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: If only 5% generate 60% of the total traffic... said by dynodb  :Yeah, yeah- I know. 'Just add more bandwidth' is always the standard reply here, but doing so is neither easy or cheap. If they don't want to add the capacity then they should SELL that capacity.
If I were to buy a dozen eggs from you and paid full price for them, I would be pretty ticked off if you gave me only 8 eggs because you didn't have enough chickens to fill demand.
Bell is selling bandwidth to their wholesale ISPs at a fixed rate with NO provision in the contract to arbitrarily limit that bandwidth, but they are doing just that. They are in blatant violation of their contract and if the CAIP fails with their CRTC appeal they can probably win against Bell is contract court.
Unfortunately the latter would likely take 3+ years to go through  | |
|
| |
| |
jsmaster
join:2008-03-16
Montreal, QC
·Videotron
·Cogeco Cable
| Re: If only 5% generate 60% of the total traffic... said by KrK :said by jsmaster :Bell Says that your internet line is dedicated and not shared. So how 5% users could generate 60% of the traffic????? I have one better for you: Bell is throttling THIRD party ISP's WHO PAY BELL FOR THE BANDWIDTH. So even if 5% generates 60% of the traffic... BELL IS BEING PAID FOR IT.... so if they did have a problem (they don't) they should simply build more capacity because they are making money off of all of it! Imagine if someone walked into your store and wanted to buy 60% of your merchandise. Would you be like "NO.... we need to keep it in case some other people come in and want to buy it... Sale denied!" OR... Would you order more merchandise to cover the purchase? 'Nuff said methinks. Lol if a customer comes to my store to buy 60% of my stuff right away, I hink I'll give him a little extra lol.
But youre right about it | |
|
| | 
mordin
42 inches of 1080p
Premium
join:2005-05-28
Moncton, NB
| said by KrK :Imagine if someone walked into your store and wanted to buy 60% of your merchandise. Would you be like "NO.... we need to keep it in case some other people come in and want to buy it... Sale denied!" Your scenario doesn't fit since a store is trying to 'sell' it's merchandise. In other words, they don't care who buys it as long as it's sold. By the way stores sometimes do put limits on sales - ever see the line 'limit X per customer'? Bell is selling a service and if some people are causing problems for others to use the service then something needs to be done. It's not as easy as flipping a switch and magically there's loads of bandwidth. In a lot of cases the network can't handle the bandwidth and needs to up upgraded.
Again these upgrades can't be done over night.
--
Intel P4 2.8 800 fsb, Asus P4P800 w/1GB PC3200 DDR RAM, 512 MB GeForce 7600GT, SB Audigy Gamer, DVD-Rom/CD-R Burner & LG Duel layer DVD Burner, 320 & 120 GB Internal & 2x 250 & 3x 500 GB External hard drives & Samsung 226BW 22" LCD Monitor | |
|
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: If only 5% generate 60% of the total traffic... said by mordin :Your scenario doesn't fit since a store is trying to 'sell' it's merchandise. It should fit because Bell should be trying to sell Bandwidth to the third parties. If they aren't, well, "They're doing it wrong" as the saying goes....By the way stores sometimes do put limits on sales - ever see the line 'limit X per customer'? Completely different reason.... That's because they are using the item in question as a "loss leader" IE often selling it at cost or below as an advertising point to bring people into the store. They slap the limit on to stop a rival or competitor from coming in any buying up all the items for below cost, causing them to lose money and then have no stock for the other customers who get angry. ALSO there's another main reason. Often in retail the manufacturer will rebate back to the store a certain amount of cash for units sold during a sale. The manufacturer or supplier will place the limit per person requirement on the rebate offer to prevent again one of their other customers from coming in and buying it all up cheaper from that store then they would have had to pay to get it from the distributor.
This type of thing is VERY common on cigarettes, Beer, Soda, etc
Bell is selling a service Maybe they are selling a service to their end users... but to the third parties and commercial users they are selling a commodity pure and simple and charge by usage, not fixed rate via connection like as in the end user. So that argument is dismissed.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | |
mordin
42 inches of 1080p
Premium
join:2005-05-28
Moncton, NB
| Re: If only 5% generate 60% of the total traffic... said by KrK :It should fit because Bell should be trying to sell Bandwidth to the third parties. If they aren't, well, "They're doing it wrong" as the saying goes.... No because once a store sells an item that item it is gone & no longer available to anyone else. With Bell, while you use your connection others can use their connection.
Froggy, caps and congestion are 2 different things. Think of caps as how much you can get while congestion is related to how fast you can get it.
--
Intel P4 2.8 800 fsb, Asus P4P800 w/1GB PC3200 DDR RAM, 512 MB GeForce 7600GT, SB Audigy Gamer, DVD-Rom/CD-R Burner & LG Duel layer DVD Burner, 320 & 120 GB Internal & 2x 250 & 3x 500 GB External hard drives & Samsung 226BW 22" LCD Monitor | |
|
Bellundo
@teksavvy.com | Mississagua Mississagua or how ever you spell that wretched city will be the demise of all the subscribers. Now why does everyone in southern Ontario have to suffer all because of one city? | |
|
| 
Thane_Bitter
join:2005-01-20
London, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: Mississagua said by Bellundo :
Mississagua or how ever you spell that wretched city will be the demise of all the subscribers. Now why does everyone in southern Ontario have to suffer all because of one city?
How is this Mississauga fault?
--
...A bitter ray of sunshine | |
|
| | HoserMcMoose
join:2003-07-26
Kitchener, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Mississagua How is this Mississauga fault? It's ALWAYS Mississauga's fault! 
Actually it's more likely to be Barrie or Milton's fault, or some other fast-growing city. Bell will take that one extreme example where they might actually HAVE bandwidth problems (due to population growth) and try to paint it as a province-wide problem caused by P2P traffic.
I *REALLY* hope there are some people on the CRTC board who aren't clueless and who can see through Bell's lies. | |
|
Matt
Quitting Caffeine - Argh
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC |  Math?
Talk about fuzzy math. | |
|
|
jsmaster
join:2008-03-16
Montreal, QC
·Videotron
·Cogeco Cable
| Re: Math? said by Matt :So, 5% of their users can load their DSL infrastructure enough, only using around a quarter of the total available bandwidth, to impact 95% of the entire Bell Canada user base? Talk about fuzzy math. Look at my post, you will see more than a math messurement lol | |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| Another version: "Hi. We're Bell Canada and we are petitioning for relief from the core services of our business. Ostensibly, we are in the business of delivering bandwidth. That said, our new business model identifies that the greatest profits can be made from not delivering bandwidth, IE: getting users to pay for bandwidth and then taking any steps we can to see that those users do not use that bandwidth. We developed this model after studying the collected works and histories of various Ponzi schemes and Al Capone. Our models show that if we follow this new plan for 5 years, we will be able to increase profits by an enormous degree and by the end of those 5 years, turn off our network.
We have a follow-on business plan that involves 2 tomato cans and a piece of string as our next-gen network design that promises even more dramatic rises in profitibility. Sadly, we cannot release details of this plan at this time, as we are involved in patent processes." | |
|
davidbrown
join:2005-05-31
Toronto, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| Which actually means nothing. Yeah they have been asked but there is nothing from preventing them from pulling the numbers out of their collective ass.
They are going to spin the numbers for the crtc just like they do for everyone else and there is no way for the crtc to prove that they are fake.
There is no big brother watching these guys to make sure they don't pull this shit so they do it routinely. | |
|
| globus999
join:2008-05-15
| Re: Which actually means nothing. said by davidbrown :Yeah they have been asked but there is nothing from preventing them from pulling the numbers out of their collective ass. They are going to spin the numbers for the crtc just like they do for everyone else and there is no way for the crtc to prove that they are fake. There is no big brother watching these guys to make sure they don't pull this shit so they do it routinely. BINGO! At least somebody doing a proper "reversing" of CRTC's attitude.
Let me go one further. I think is it all for publich show. Bell was asked to provide "evidence" which they will "provide". CAIP has NOT been asked to provide rebuttal proof... What a shame....
Then, the CRTC takes Bell cooked numbers at face value and PRESTO! democracy in action! your tax dollars at work! Bell is right and you are screwed!!!
I think we are all being SET-UP!!! | |
|
|
DanNCF
@teksavvy.com | Well lets use there math on a HD DVD Movie download... 2Gig as per our Lemming friend Jason Laszlo and friends at Bell LOL.
They sure know their stuff hehehe | |
|
Froggy
@bell.ca | What congestion? There was no congestion before there were monthly caps. Now with some of the lowest monthly caps in the world bell claims there's congestion??!! Unbelievable the stories you hear from bell. | |
|
tyip
join:2003-11-26
North York, ON
| What's preventing Bell from purposely creating congestion?!
CRTC should also ask Bell to prove that they have reinvested a significant amount (50%+) of revenue from the wholesale ISPs ($21/subscriber + cost of Gig-E links) into building the network, excluding remotes and other equipments that are not available to the wholesalers. | |
|
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| Re: What's preventing Bell from purposely creating congestion?! said by tyip :If there is any congestion in the near future, it's because Bell is not putting enough resource into upgrading their network. CRTC should also ask Bell to prove that they have reinvested a significant amount (50%+) of revenue from the wholesale ISPs ($21/subscriber + cost of Gig-E links) into building the network, excluding remotes and other equipments that are not available to the wholesalers. I wonder what the incremental cost of pulling additional dark fiber is between the local CO and the NAP is. Sure it will be the raw cost of the extra fiber, but how much more because they are pulling say 4 fibers instead of one?
Bell should also be made to break out the alleged 'overloading' by CO and NAP. This will allow the CRTC and CAIP to understand where the pressure points Bell thinks is has are located.
Bell should also be required to provide a detailed equipment list on the Gig-E links and anything else that sucks bandwidth that they've installed on those links so that any bandwidth issues arising from obsolete equipment or Bell 'leeching' can be identified and dealt with. | |
|
|
| 
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON | Re: Why isn't this a class action breach of contract suit? Going through the CRTC is the cheap route in Canada before bringing out the lawyers, and taking it through the court system up here which could take awhile. | |
|
| davidbrown
join:2005-05-31
Toronto, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| said by qworster :It seems to me that if someone contracts with someone else to provide a service and then unilaterally changes the terms of said contract after the fact that they should be sued in court. How is this any different? The ISPs contracted with Bell Canada for a certain data quality and Bell unilaterally and willfully changed that contract by degrading said quality of service. It's as if I paid for high test gas and then found out they were giving me regular when my car started pinging and/or the valves burned. Seems to me that I'd even be eligible for actual and/or compensatory damages too. Since so many ISPs are involved, this should be considered class action...at least in the USA it would be. Doesn't Canada have Specific Performance in their Contract Laws? Basicly no.
Thanks to the little part of the contract that states they can make changes any time they want and you have to deal with it.
You can take them to court bu thanks to them having lots of money and power you stand little chance of winning and it would take years and loads of money to do so. | |
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by qworster :It seems to me that if someone contracts with someone else to provide a service and then unilaterally changes the terms of said contract after the fact that they should be sued in court. How is this any different? You're absolutely correct, but remember, once you bust out the lawyers, from then on everything is really expensive.... and the outcome uncertain. Well the outcome for everyone but the lawyers in the case... they'll be making their billable hours....
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
Ironic
@teksavvy.com
| If Bell has no broadband, why this? BELL VIDEO STORE ONLINE? Hi all:
Has anyone not recognized the the duplicitous BS of Bell?
They claim they have no broadband left and must throttle P2P and other high-bandwidth uses of the Net. Yet, they just launched their own ONLINE, ON-DEMAND, MOVIE DOWNLOAD service: »www.bellvideostore.ca/
Now, I know the Competition Bureau has dismissed complaints before regarding the throttling of 3rd parties - but this is just glaring.
Complain again to the Competition Bureau. This time, they are CLEARLY anti-competitive, they are CLEARLY giving themselves and uncompetitive advantage over other ISPs and they are CLEARLY prefering their own content over others (which is more CRTC jurisdiction).
Will they throttle their own downloads? Seems like that would be fair. But somehow I doubt it. | |
|
|
|
|
Bell Canada Must Prove Congestion Claims
·