 elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
to sbrook
Re: Rogers answerable to CRTC over ITMP againsaid by sbrook:Another "we don't want to get involved" pair of letters, unless you are willing to file according to a formal process.
And then a letter to Rogers effectively saying write to Canadian Gamers with enough info to get them off our back.
Pure signs of absolute wimpish behaviour on the part of the CRTC.
Yep the CRTC is effectively washing their hands of this, and even if you do work with CIPPIC to make it formal , they'll point to the letter that says "We already asked Rogers to fix it", and they'll walk away again. Good luck dealing with Christian Paradis, he has no pull cabinet. Tony Clement was smart enough to defuse it, by punting it back to the CRTC (wrt to UBB) |
|
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2011-Aug-26 5:34 pm
We're still going after them on the WoW front, but we're hopeful we might get something done on the other front as well..
I'm optimistic (sometimes too much so).
Oh well.. We'll just keep filing complaints til the CRTC actually does something. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
said by resa1983:We're still going after them on the WoW front, but we're hopeful we might get something done on the other front as well..
I'm optimistic (sometimes too much so).
Oh well.. We'll just keep filing complaints til the CRTC actually does something.
But the "fixed" it, they simply whitelist the game and it's protocol.. problem solved |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2011-Aug-26 6:26 pm
Yeah, but the way Rogers 'fixed' wow, is assinine.
They did an IP address whitelist, which will absolutely useless if Blizzard moves their datacenters yet again. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
1 edit |
said by resa1983:Yeah, but the way Rogers 'fixed' wow, is assinine.
They did an IP address whitelist, which will absolutely useless if Blizzard moves their datacenters yet again.
No kidding, that said, I'll tell you right now, Rogers will simply state that you can call into tech support, the CSR Drone will open a ticket (after wasting 2hrs troubleshooting) and we'll update the IP straightaway. Edit: Now that I think about it's not necessarily assinine. We don't know how the DPI machines work, they're probably not capable of DNS lookups, their sole function is to stomp on whatever the customer (in this case Rogers) wants to stomp on. Packets flow through, and if the destination IP is in the whitelist, it flows through unhindered. |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
| |
to elwoodblues
Re: Rogers answerable to CRTC over ITMP againsaid by elwoodblues:No kidding, that said, I'll tell you right now, Rogers will simply state that you can call into tech support, the CSR Drone will open a ticket (after wasting 2hrs troubleshooting) and we'll update the IP straightaway.
Edit: Now that I think about it's not necessarily assinine. We don't know how the DPI machines work, they're probably not capable of DNS lookups, their sole function is to stomp on whatever the customer (in this case Rogers) wants to stomp on.
Packets flow through, and if the destination IP is in the whitelist, it flows through unhindered.
A IP whitelist is a kludge, not a solution. I shouldn't have to CALL MY ISP JUST TO ACCESS A SPECIFIC IP ADDRESS. This isn't the UAE, it's Canada. We should be able to visit whatever IP's we'd like. What are they going to do when I complain I can't download movies from VODO using bittorrent? Are they going to whitelist every single IP address in the swarm for that file? This is a hugely anti-consumer practice, and should not be permitted. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's likely violating the charter of rights. It's censorship. It might be corporate censorship of speech most find unimportant, but it's still censorship and shouldn't be tolerated. |
|
| |
bt
Member
2011-Aug-30 10:50 am
said by static416:What are they going to do when I complain I can't download movies from VODO using bittorrent? Are they going to whitelist every single IP address in the swarm for that file?
They'll do nothing of the sort. As long as they aren't completely blocking you, that would be completely (and unfortunately) allowable under current regulations as it isn't time sensitive and would be throttled based on transfer protocol. |
|
| |
said by bt:They'll do nothing of the sort. As long as they aren't completely blocking you, that would be completely (and unfortunately) allowable under current regulations as it isn't time sensitive and would be throttled based on transfer protocol.
Of course they won't do anything. That's my point. I think you can make a substantive argument that throttling is as detrimental as blocking when it comes to files this large, and the throttling is so severe that attempting transfer is effectively pointless. Furthermore, I believe (might be wrong though) that the CRTC ITMP ruling stated that technological traffic management like throttling should only be used as a temporary last resort to address congestion issues. At this point it's been several years and I don't see any sign that this throttling is temporary, or a last resort. I think it's inevitable that at some point Rogers and Bell are going to be forced to stop this practice entirely. But it's going to take alot of pressure from consumers to make that happen. There are huge legitimate benefits to protocols like bittorrent, and we shouldn't be prevented from using a new technology just because Rogers doesn't like it. |
|
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2011-Aug-30 12:09 pm
That was one issue Jason addressed in his complaint: That the CRTC said it should be only be used to address congestion issues, and yet Rogers throttles 24/7.
Unfortunately, unless the CRTC can impose penalties on ISPs which isn't possible right now), I don't see things changing too much on the ISP side of things, but we can make things easier on customers.
Jason's working with CIPPIC now to rewrite the complaint to conform to policy change requests, I'm adding my 2 cents in, a few others will contribute, and then its going to the CRTC.
Essentially, we'll be requesting to change 2009-657 to make things easier on the customer reporting issues, and so they can't just sweep issues under the rug like Rogers attempted to do with this issue for months on end. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
to static416
said by static416:said by bt:They'll do nothing of the sort. As long as they aren't completely blocking you, that would be completely (and unfortunately) allowable under current regulations as it isn't time sensitive and would be throttled based on transfer protocol.
Of course they won't do anything. That's my point. I think you can make a substantive argument that throttling is as detrimental as blocking when it comes to files this large, and the throttling is so severe that attempting transfer is effectively pointless. Furthermore, I believe (might be wrong though) that the CRTC ITMP ruling stated that technological traffic management like throttling should only be used as a temporary last resort to address congestion issues. At this point it's been several years and I don't see any sign that this throttling is temporary, or a last resort. I think it's inevitable that at some point Rogers and Bell are going to be forced to stop this practice entirely. But it's going to take alot of pressure from consumers to make that happen. There are huge legitimate benefits to protocols like bittorrent, and we shouldn't be prevented from using a new technology just because Rogers doesn't like it. We've addressed this already, the issue is the Robellus network can't handle the traffic, so instead of spending money to UPGRADE the network(they're spending their money on Wireless the real cash cow),the start imposing caps, throttling etc, anything to put an upgrade out into the future. The day of reckoning will come, all these new LTE rollouts will eventually hook into the Robbers Backbone which still can't handle the traffic. So while "Rogers_Chris" touts the "UP TO" 150mb you'll be lucky to see 5 or 10, as it stands now 3G is almost unusable at times for me and I have to switch to wireless. |
|
| |
I think the networks can handle the traffic just fine.
The problem is when rogers/bell says it cant, and needs to cap (cash grab), and throttle (make internet experience bad for many, and improve no one) so that they pay less in bps. |
|
| |
to elwoodblues
As I just learned first hand recently.. even Rogers business fibre connections pass through the cable hub facilities so yes they can handle the traffic. Though their transit mix sucks. |
|
| |
to resa1983
said by resa1983:Yeah, but the way Rogers 'fixed' wow, is assinine.
They did an IP address whitelist, which will absolutely useless if Blizzard moves their datacenters yet again.
Whitelisting WoW servers was implemented as a temporary solution only. The permanent change is a software change by Cisco to our ITMP technology so the game is properly classified. This takes time which is why we implement whitelisting in the interim. Once the software changes are made they go through a Quality Assurance testing process by both Rogers and Cisco. After that, Rogers deploys the software changes on a trial basis before deploying across the entire network. The transition from a whitelisting solution to a software update is seamless to the customer. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2011-Sep-2 3:19 pm
said by Rogers_Chris:said by resa1983:Yeah, but the way Rogers 'fixed' wow, is assinine.
They did an IP address whitelist, which will absolutely useless if Blizzard moves their datacenters yet again.
Whitelisting WoW servers was implemented as a temporary solution only. The permanent change is a software change by Cisco to our ITMP technology so the game is properly classified. This takes time which is why we implement whitelisting in the interim. Once the software changes are made they go through a Quality Assurance testing process by both Rogers and Cisco. After that, Rogers deploys the software changes on a trial basis before deploying across the entire network. The transition from a whitelisting solution to a software update is seamless to the customer. That I can understand.. What I don't understand is telling the CRTC that you 'fixed' the problem, when the patch hadn't been applied to all systems yet. That smells bad to me. Then of course when I complained that it hadn't been fixed (as the patch hadn't been applied), your counsel had the audacity to blame my system and network as the cause. I'm just getting tired of belittled by Rogers employees being jackasses. |
|
| |
to Rogers_Chris
So, after telling me that it was all my fault, this comes forward. Yes, you specifically, Rogers_Chris, told me that it must be my network and couldn't POSSIBLY be your own.
You cannot understand how absolutely livid I am right now. |
|
| |
to Rogers_Chris
said by Rogers_Chris:Whitelisting WoW servers was implemented as a temporary solution only. The permanent change is a software change by Cisco to our ITMP technology so the game is properly classified. This takes time which is why we implement whitelisting in the interim. Once the software changes are made they go through a Quality Assurance testing process by both Rogers and Cisco. After that, Rogers deploys the software changes on a trial basis before deploying across the entire network. The transition from a whitelisting solution to a software update is seamless to the customer.
What about all the other games/software that is being affected? Are they being "whitelisted" as well? Is not, "whitelisting" specific IPs/Companys the basis of this whole NetNeutrality thing? I have problems with watching JustinTV/TwitchTV streams while P2P is running. I often have problems with Skype while P2P is running. Are any of these also being addressed? I'm so fed up with this company and it's damn shenanigans. |
|
| |
to Absnerdity
said by Absnerdity :So, after telling me that it was all my fault, this comes forward. Yes, you specifically, Rogers_Chris, told me that it must be my network and couldn't POSSIBLY be your own.
You cannot understand how absolutely livid I am right now.
Why are you livid Absnerdity? All I've shared above has to do with whitelisting as a solution. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2011-Sep-2 4:20 pm
said by Rogers_Chris:said by Absnerdity :So, after telling me that it was all my fault, this comes forward. Yes, you specifically, Rogers_Chris, told me that it must be my network and couldn't POSSIBLY be your own.
You cannot understand how absolutely livid I am right now.
Why are you livid Absnerdity? All I've shared above has to do with whitelisting as a solution. Because the day that Rogers stated the problem was 'fixed' to the CRTC, you told him his system/network was the problem, despite the fix not being applied everywhere. |
|
| |
said by resa1983:said by Rogers_Chris:said by Absnerdity :So, after telling me that it was all my fault, this comes forward. Yes, you specifically, Rogers_Chris, told me that it must be my network and couldn't POSSIBLY be your own.
You cannot understand how absolutely livid I am right now.
Why are you livid Absnerdity? All I've shared above has to do with whitelisting as a solution. Because the day that Rogers stated the problem was 'fixed' to the CRTC, you told him his system/network was the problem, despite the fix not being applied everywhere. Where exactly did we say the 'fix' was not applied everywhere? I think there's been a misunderstanding. We are whitelisting WoW traffic until the permanent solution has been implemented. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2011-Sep-2 4:29 pm
said by Rogers_Chris:Where exactly did we say the 'fix' was not applied everywhere? I think there's been a misunderstanding.
We are whitelisting WoW traffic until the permanent solution has been implemented.
Rogers filed on May 31st, 2011 that the issue was fixed. Meanwhile, the 'fix' wasn't applied to all systems on that date, as Absnerdity was still experiencing issues with WoW + P2P, and continued to experience issues until the fix was applied to the DPI boxes for his area around July 13th, 2011. |
|
| |
You're making assumptions here, resa1983. I'm just glad it's no longer an issue for Absnerdity.
We took the time to look into your comment about whitelisting. I hope it helps. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2011-Sep-2 4:53 pm
said by Rogers_Chris:You're making assumptions here, resa1983. I'm just glad it's no longer an issue for Absnerdity.
We took the time to look into your comment about whitelisting. I hope it helps.
I don't think I am when there's been no changes to his system or network, and it was all before the issues which cropped up from Rogers increasing speeds to users - neighbourhood nodes at capacity (1 in Scarborough at minimum), and your peering partner to the US being at capacity. VPN still allowed him to run wow from May 31st, to July 13th, while running without it would have disconnections. I don't blame you, as I doubt you were kept fully in the loop.. But its still ticks us off when you blame our systems for the problem, yet without us making any changes, the issue magically fixes itself. Thats what I'm thinking right now. You can't be bothered to give us the benefit of the doubt, when we've been right all along in this process. You're still all treating us like idiots. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
NM |
|
| |
to Rogers_Chris
said by Rogers_Chris:Where exactly did we say the 'fix' was not applied everywhere? I think there's been a misunderstanding.
We are whitelisting WoW traffic until the permanent solution has been implemented.
Why is anything blacklisted? That isnt net neutral Chris. Nothing was broken or congested before Rogers turned on this ridiculous update. Then WoW and other games broke, and you think that is OK to make a white list? This is just gross! This is far from an acceptable solution. TPIA works just fine without your DPI. Just turn it off and stop losing customers. It would end this whole CRTC debacle as well. All protocols should be treated equally :P |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
Don;t waste your energy typing Rogers_chris is here to promote promote promote, Rogers is the best thing since sliced bread RAH RAH. |
|
